Appendix — United States v. Adams
Supreme Court brief1966
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Octroser Term, 1965
No. 55
UNITED STATES, PETITIONER,
vs.
BERT N. ADAMS, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS
INDEX
Original Print
Record from the United States Court of Claims
OD 6 is ooo ssiree sos cas a 1
Defendant’s answer to petition..................... i 4
Memorandum of pretrial conference, signed by Com-
missioner Donald E. Lane, dated June 8, 1961..... p 6
Stipulation te be submitted to the Commissioner Don-
ald E. Lane at the pre-trial hearing, June 8, 1961. . v 9
Master Index to the Transcript of testimony of July
EE Ms FO Csi Geta a oC wn oH. aa 12
Transcript of testimony, July 10,1961.......... Jats 1 20
NOOR IY Re pie et 1 20
Colloquy between court and counsel............ 2 20
Statement on behalf of plaintiffs by Mr. Reilly. . 16 29
Testimony of Bert N. Adams
—direct (by Mr. Huettner) .. 30 38
er re ee 38 43
Colloquy between court and counsel......... co ee 88
Transeript of testimony, July 11, 1961............ 117 91
Offers in evidence............................ 119 91
Testimony of Bert N. Adams
—cross (by Mr. Arseneau)... 121 93
—redirect (by Mr. Huettner) 136 102
Testimony of Mrs. Emma Adams
—direct (by Mr. Reilly).....
INDEX
Record from the United States Court of Claims—Con-
Transcript of testimony, July 11, 1961—Continued
Testimony of Charles L. Mantell
—direct (by Mr. Reilly).....
oe EL a i Dar ee
Testimony of Charles L. Mantel]
—direct (by Mr. Reilly).....
ee Bh NN Gs ish eee ee,
Testimony of Charles L. Mantell
—direct (by Mr. Reilly).....
Transcript of testimony, July 12, 1961.............
Testimony of Charles L. Mantell (resumed)
—direct (by Mr. Reilly).....
I A i ge ricn ss ew cece nc ceess
Testimony of Charles L. Mantell
—direct (by Mr. Reilly).....
Offers in evidence..................
Testimony of Charles L. Mantell
—direct (by Mr. Reilly)... .
Cee a ORR ee ee rc:
Testimony of Charles L. Mantell
—direct (by Mr. Reilly).....
Offer in evidence.....................
Testimony of Charles L. Mantell
—direct (by Mr. Reilly) ..
Transcript of testimony, July 13, 1961............
Testimony of Charles L. Mantell (resumed)
—direct (by Mr. Reilly)...
Offer in evidence...................
Testimony of Charles L. Mantell
—direct (by Mr. Reilly)...
Offers in evidence.....................
Testimony of Charles L. Mantell
—cross (by Mr. Arseneau)...
Cer Us rN
Testimony of Charles L. Mantell
—cross (by Mr. Arseneau)...
—yredirect (by Mr. Reilly)...
Testimony of Howard Raymond Knapp
—direct (by Mr. Arseneau). .
Transcript of testimony, July 14,1961.............
Testimony of Howard Raymond Knapp
—cross (by Mr. Reilly)......
CUO GUE I is eck oo ks ine oes peep:
Testimony of Howard Raymond Knapp
—redirect (by Mr. Arseneau)
Testimony of Joseph C. White
—direct (by Mr. Arseneau). .
Offers in evidence..............
Original
108
121
132
160
161
168
168
169
170
197
INDEX lii
Record from the United States Court of Claims—Con-
tinued
Transcript of testimony, July 14, 1961—Continued
Original Print
Testimony of Joseph C. White '
—cross (by Mr. Reilly)...... 636
382
Ciler OUMINR So ag oo ee ek wee 641 385
Testimony of Joseph C. White
—redirect (by Mr. Arseneau) 642 385
Testimony of Charles L. Mantell (rebuttal)
—direct (by Mr. Arseneau) . 645 388
—cross (by Mr. Arseneau)... 647 389
Reporter’s certificate (omitted in printing)......... 648
Trial Exhibits:
No. 2—U. 8S. Patent No. 2,636,060 to Adolph
Fischbach, et al. dated April 21, 1953, “Primary
Battery and Method of Making the Same”
COMMON os so oe ks eh ae 649 390
No. 6—U. S. Patent No. Re. 23,863 to Melvin F.
Chubb reissued October 5, 1954, “Cuprous Chlo-
ride Electrodes” (excerpts)................ 650 392
No. 16—U. S. Patent No. 2,322,210 to Bert N.
Adams, dated June 22, 1943, “Battery”... 652 394
No. 12—Certain evidentiary material pursuant to
the voluntary discovery stipulation which was
filed February 17, 196i (excerpts)........... 654 397
Page 2—Paragraph, dated April 24, 1957 re
examination of Mr. Adams’ battery by Dr.
A. Fischbach, Nicholas Wilburn and H. J.
WN ec oe eid 0S 654 397
Page 3—Memorandum from J. D. O’Connell,
Signal Corps, dated January 14, 1942, sub-
ject: “Neutro Cell Storage Battery”...... 655 397
Page 5—Memorandum from Oscar C. Maier,
Lieut. Colonel, Signal Corps, dated Jan-
COSY Fig Pe ce os wos es Ds 656 398
Page 6—Letter from Clarence R. Kingston,
Signal Corps to Bert Nemo Adams, dated
Weaweniay By Be ik Sih veh he's os 657 399
Pages 7, 8 & 9—Letters from J. C. Green to
Mr. John J. Sandhaas, dated February 7,
1942, April 8, 1942 and April 18, 1942... 658 399
Pages 11 and 12—Memorandum from J. W.
McBurney, Bureau of Standards to Col.
Lent, dated December 16, 1942, subject:
“Storage Battery #38610, John J. Sand-
Are te ae oe ue ea eae a 661 401
Page 13—Letter from J. C. Green to Mr.
John J. Sandhaas, dated March 24, 1943 663 403
IV INDEX
Record from the United States Court of Claims—Con-
tinued
Trial Exhibits—Continued
No. 12—Certain evidentiary material pursuant to
the voluntary discovery stipulation which was
filed February 17, 1961 (excerpts)—Continued
Page 16—Letter from J. C. Green to Mr.
Burt N. Adams, dated September 2, 1943
Pages 17 and 18—Memorandum entitled,
“Magnesium— Cuprous Chloride Cell”,
dated November 26, 1943...............
No. 13(a)—Information Bulletin No. 1, Revised—
March 1941, The National Inventors Council
CU also chee 3s WRNES Uehara es 45
No. 13(b)—Information Bulletin No. 2 (Revised
1942), National Inventors Council entitled,
“How Inventors Can Aid The War Effort”
GUE Spo Cas wid pdb ex koe bat vo cartes
Further Stipulation executed on June 30, 1961 by
John A. Reilly and on July 6, 1961 by William H.
Orrick, Jr. and Paul F. Arseneau gare eee t vy oe
No. 15—Page 1—Letter from John J. Sandhaas
to Charles F. Kettering, dated January 7, 1942
Pages 2 & 3—Two page document entitied,
“Characteristics of Neutro Cell”. .......
Page 4~-Graph entitled, “Potentia! graph of
a 500 Mills cell of 3 Troy ounces weight
taken with solenoid vane type meter of 0-5
volt range (Corrected for meter resistance)
Page 5—Graph entitled, “Capacity graph of
a 500 milliampere cell of 3 Troy ounces
weight taken with solenoid vane type meter
of 0-400 Mills with added resistance in
OBOE Ss Ba his ok ech ee oe
Page 12—Letter from Bert Adams to Capt.
C. Kingston, U. S. Signal Corps, dated
Mareh 26, 1042...................0....
Page 13—Letter from John J. Sandhaas to
Department of Commerce, dated March %3,
ye eee Ges ta au ae
Pages 15 & 16—-Two page document entitied,
“Applications of the Adams Neutro Cell”
Pages 17 & 18—Two page document entitled,
“The Adams Neutro Cell”..............
Page 19—Letter from John J. Sandhaas to
Department of Commerce, dated June 4,
Beis a Cv ep ke dee Mies Zeeks Coes
No. 16—Page 7—Memorandum re expenses for
trip to Squires Labs at Ft. Monmouth (ex-
667
671
691
419
420
425
INDEX Vv
Record from the United States Court of Claims—Con-
tinued Original Print
Farther Stipulation executed on July 5, 1961 by John
A. Reilly, William H. Orrick, Jr., and Paul F.
FEES RIED iy Seen ER ENT Be caer 695 428
Trial Exhibit No. 17—Page 1, Letter from John
J. Sandhaas to Captain Shumaker, Research
and Development, Navy Dept., dated January
D, FOci as GAT ie cain exces See hcae Toe. 697 430
Page 2—Letter from John J. Sandhaas to
Bureav of Ordnance, Navy Dept., dated
Sanmeny GD, WO: i kia Ade. 698 431
Page 3—Letter from Bert Adams to Director,
Signal Corps Labs. dated February 9, 1942 699 431
Pages 5 & 6—Letters from Clarence R.
Kingston, Captain Signal Corps to Bert
Adams, dated March 9, 1942 and March-
Pe ae RS ee a 700 = 432
Page 7—Letter from J. D. O’Connell, Lieui.
Colonel, Signal Corps to Waud & Doherty,
dated June 4, 1942..................... 702 434
Page 9—Memorandum—“To Whom It May
Concern” by V. F. Payne, Signal Corps
Ground Signal Service, dated August 10,
WN SAM ec taees teak cot eRe es 703 434
Page 10—Letter from J. C. Green to Mr.
Burt N. Adams, dated September 2, 1943 704 435
Commissioner’s Exhibits:
No. 1—Military Specification-Batteries, Water
Activated; and Batteries, Wet, Primary. MIL-
B-17482B(Suips), 10 December 1958 (ex-
eB ME ei BS Gis 5 3 is 705 = 435
No. 2(a)—Article from Proceedings Tenth An-
nual Battery Research and Development Con-
ference, “Water-Activated Batteries” by Mr.
E. M. Morse, The Eagle-Picher Company (ex-
| RRR RF MLL Ros Ok 5 ibaa Sage UM Pa ye 706 437
No. 2(b)—Article from Proceedings Eleventh
Annual Battery Research and Development
Conference, 22-23 May 1957, “Weter Activated
Batteries” by E. M. Morse, Eagle-Picher Com-
men. GOOGRIUED «ce fn oso Schein eehewdn ses 710 441
No. 2(e)—Article from Proceedings 12th Annuai
Battery Research and Development Conference,
21-22 May 1958, “Water Activated Batteries”
by Mr. Edward Broglio, The Eagle-Picher Com-
po eae be Pe i pe 715 444
vi INDEX
Record from the United States Court of Claims—Con-
tinued
Plaintiffs’ Exhibits: Original Print
No. 16—Pages 701 through 704 inclusive from the
August 1950 issue of Electrical Engineering,
containing article entitled “Special Purpose
Batteries”, by Adolph Fischbach (excerpts)... 719 448
No, 17—Sheet entitled “Instruction Sheet for
Testing Adams Neutro Cell, U.S.A. Patent No.
2,322,210—1943”, signed Bert Adams, July 13,
WO aR... PSs ech Greece ees 721 452
No. 18—Burgess Battery Company brochure (ex-
PIE Pee OPE re es oe ee 722 454
No. 19—Five-page document headed Ray-O-Vac
Engineering Bulletin on “Characteristics of
The Magnesium Cuprous Chloride Battery” (ex-
WI Frac be se cep ee ee oink Kerk e eRe. 0 4 - 724 459
No. 37—Pages 202C, 203C and 204C from the
Journal of the Electrochemical Society, August,
1952 containing articles entitled “Silver Chlo-
ride-Magnesium Reserve Battery” by Ivan C.
Blake and “The Cuprous Chloride-Magnesium
Reserve Battery” by L. E. Pucher............ 725 460
No. 39—Paper entitled “Characteristics of The
Silver Chloride-Magnesium Water Activated
Battery” by J. B. Mullen and P. L. Howard,
pages 529-545 inclusive............... 728 467
No. 40—U. S. Patent No. 2,817,697 to M. ‘F.
Chubb, dated December 24, 1957, “Cuprous
Chloride Magnesium Battery” (excerpts) . & 744 490
No. 41—U. S. Patent No. 2,745,893 to M. F.
Chubb et al, dated May 15, 1956, “Cuprous
Chloride Magnesium Cell With Cellophane
Membrane” (excerpts)...................... 746 494
No. 42—Article entitled, “Primary Batteries” by
George Wood Vinal (excerpts)............. 747 497
No. 43—Page 129 from Aviation Week for July
11, 1960 entitled “Missile Engineering” ..... 752 503
Defendant’s Exhibits:
No. 1—Elementary Treatise—Electrie Batteries,
From the French of Alfred Niaudet, 1880,
Translated by L. M. Fishback, Cover sheet,
Page ix, Pages 200-209, Chapter VII., “Chlo-
WOM MI 2 5 og es lad Carvicee 6 en ores 753 505 .
No. 2—U. S. Patent No. 282,634 to P. S. Hayes,
Patented August 7, 1883, “Chloride-Of-Silver
|” gaara aetna es ets as 7, eis 766 515
INDEX vill
Record from the United States Court of Claims—Con-
tinued
Defendant’s Exhibits—Continued Original Print
No. 3—Galvanie Batteries, Their Theory, Con-
struction and Use by 8S. R. Bottone, 1902, Cover
Ghat, Page TOS. oe SS ns 769 519
No. 4—Primary Batteries by Henry S. Carhart,
1891, Cover Sheet, Pages 62-65.............. 776 525
No. 5—U. S. Patent No. 405,196 to J. A. Barrett,
patented June 11, 1889, “Galvanic Battery’. 781 531
No. 6—U. S. Patent No. 457,116 by J. R. Hard,
Patented August 4, 1891, “Galvanic Battery” 784 534
No. 7—U. S. Patent No. 454,598 to Philip Hatha- .
way, Patented June 23, 1891, “Galvanie Bat-
ss eS Ter Tr a aM ie TABS hs ie Se aes ee 790 539
No. 8—U. S. Patent No. 184,932 by Charles Louis .
Van Tenac, Patented November 28, 1876, “Im-
provement in Dry Electric Piles’........... 795 543
No. 9—U. 8S. Patent No. 434,593 to William M.
Fink, Patented August 19, 1890, “Galvanic Bat-
OFF 5s RG Be rb a RI 8 COs CRE TT aK 799 546
No. 10—U. S. Patent No. 512,055 by James J.
Pearson, Patented January 2, 1894, “Cartridge-
ee NN gs oe ea EG NS 2 803 549
No. 11—Practical Primary Cells by A. Mortimer
Codd, 1929, Cover sheet, Pages 1-3, 43-44, 78-
Oh, Say Bees oe a ig oo 806 553
No. 12—U. S. Patent No. 1,696,873 by Robert T.
Wood, Patented December 25, 1928, “Mag-
nesium Primary Cell”..................... 818 565
No. 13—U. S. Patent No. 1,920,151 by 8. Ruben,
Patented July 25, 1933, “Potential Producing
Shick ee eR Aa eee 821 568
No. 14—U. S. Patent No. 2,078,143 by Lucien
Jules Jumau, Patented April 20, 1937, “Re-
generative Electric Cell”.................... 825 572
No. 15—Manual of Chemistry by W. Simon, 1905,
Cover sheet, and page 216................. 827 575
No. 16—Essentials of General Chemistry by B.
Smith Hopkins and John C. Bailar, Jr., 1946,
Cover sheet, fly leaf, pages 371-372 and rear
Fk. ORES OL ORS egy, Sees ee a 830 580
No. 17—British Patent Specification No. 301, 923
by Guido Ferrabino, “Voltaic Cell”.......... 835 587
No. 18—Specification forming part of Letters
Patent No. 552,211 by Gustav W. Thurnauer
and Milton M. Kohn, dated December 31, 1895,
“Depolarizer for Primary Batteries and Method
of Wie Gel ae 837 589
Vili INDEX
Reeord from the United States Court of Claims—Con-
tinued
Defendant’s Exhibits—Continued Original = Print
No. 19—A.D. 1880, 25th October. British No.
4341—Letters Patent to Gregoire Skrivanoff, of
Paris, in the Republie of France, Gentleman,
for an Invention of “An Improved Electrical
Apparatus for Operating Bells, Signals, and
Telegraphs”
No. 20—British No. 49—Complete Specification,
“Improvements in Galvanic Batteries for Pro-
ducing Constant Currents”, Date of Applica-
tion, lst Jan., 1891—Accepted, 21st November,
1891 :
No. 21—Pages 104-116 from the Journal of
Chemical Society, Vol. 53 (1888) containing
article entitled “VI. The Constitution of the
Copper-Zine, Copper-Tin Alloys” by A. P.
Laurie
No. 22—U. 8. Patent No. 269,454 to C. D. Park-
hurst, Patented December 19, 1882, “Galvanic
Battery”
No. 23—U. 8S. Patent No. 653,770 to Albrecht
Heil, Patented July 17, 1900, “Galvanic Bat-
7
tery’
No, 24-—U..S.. Patent No. 1,522,121 to J. K.M.
Harrison, Patented January 6, 1925, “Power
Plaintiffs’ requested findings of fact and conclusions
of law (excerpts)
Defendant’s Brief (excerpt)
Defendant’s objections to plaintiffs’ requested findings
of fact and conclusions of law (excerpts)
Opinion and findings of fact of Commissioner, Donald
E. Lane, filed January 28, 1963
Annex to Plaintiffs’ reply brief being a verbatim copy
of the Commissioner’s opinion and findings of fact
with citations to the record, filed August 12, 1963. .
Opinion, Per Curiam, decided April .7, 1964
Motion to alter or amend the opinion and judgment
of the Court of April 17, 1964, or for a rehearing
Opinion on plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend the
opinion and judgment of the Court or for a rehear-
ing, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file supplemental
petition, and defendant’s motion for an order com-
pelling clarification of plaintiffs’ inconsistent repre-
sentations, decided October 16, 1964
Order extending time to file petition for writ of certiorari
Order allowing certiorari
[fol. a]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS
Docket No. 163-60
Bert N. Apams, Emma Apams, Grorce Hauuinesy (Inpiviv-
UALLY AND 4S Executor OF THE E'staTeE or OuaF Hatiinesy,
DeceaseD), JANE MagskEL, Inis Perry, Lewis M. Sonort,
Mary Exten Hauiinesy Semmers, anp Heten Lovise
Sutcuirre (INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXEcuTRIX OF THE EstaTE
or Exnest M. Sutcuirre, Deckasep), Plaintiffs,
Vv.
Tue Unirep Srates or America, Defendant.
Pretition—Filed May 2, 1960
To the Honorable the Chief Judge and Associate Judges
of the Court of Claims of the United States:
Plaintiffs respectfully state :
1. This isa suit-to recover plaintiff’s reasonable and
entire compensation from defendant for the unauthorized
and infringing use or manufacture by or for defendant,
{fol. b] and for the unauthorized and infringing use within
the United States in furtherance of the purposes of the Mu-
tual Security Acts of 1951 and 1954, of an invention for a
Battery described in and covered by United States Letters
Patent No. 2,322,210 owned by plaintiffs now, or in the
past, and further to recover damages for defendant’s
breach of implied and/or express contracts existing be-
tween defendant and said plaintiffs relating to compensa-
tion of plaintiffs for use or manufacture by or for defend-
ant of said invention or batteries disclosed to said defend-
ant by plaintiff Bert N. Adams.
[fol. ec] 4. United States Letters Patent No. 2,322,210 for
‘*Battery’’, were duly issued on June 22, 1943 to plaintiff
Bert N. Adams, the inventor (hereinafter sometimes re-
ferred to as ‘‘plaintiff Adams’’), on an application filed
December 18, 1941. All claims of the patent, numbers 1-11
2
inclusive, are in suit here and defendant is charged with
infringing all of them.
[fol. d] 11. Upon information and belief, within six years
next prior to March 7, 1957 and continuing to the date of
filing this petition, batteries embodying the invention and in-
fringing the claims of Letters Patent No. 2,322,210 were
used or manufactured by or for defendant, and were used
within the United States* without authorization or license
of plaintiffs and without lawful right to use or manufacture
the same, by:
U. S. Signal Corps: Laboratories,
Fort Monmouth, N. J.
Ray-O-Vac Battery Company,
Burgess Battery Company,
National Carbon Company,
Eagle-Picher Company,
and possibly by others now unknown to plaintiffs.
12. In or about December 1941, plaintiff Adams went to
the Navy Department, and di.closed to defendant full and
complete information about, and consented that defendant
use and manufacture his battery and invention with the
understanding that he would be compensated for such use
and manufacture. On information and belief plaintiff
Adams met with a Captain R. S. Shumaker of the Navy,
among others.
[fol. e] 13. In or about January 1942, plaintiff Adams dis-
closed to defendant, through its National Inventor’s Coun-
cil, information concerning his battery and invention, in re-
liance upon the contractual promise, express and/or im-
plied, of the Council, as an agency of defendant that de-
fendant would hold the information in confidence and/or
make no use of the battery and invention without compen-
sating plaintiff Adams therefor.
* “Used within the United States’’ includes use in fur-
therance of the purposes of the Mutual Security Acts of
1951 and 1954.
3
14. In or about January 1942, a second meeting was
held at the Navy Department between plaintiff Adams and
representatives of defendant. At said second meeting,
plaintiff Adams was advised to take sample batteries to
the Signal Corps Laboratories, Fort Monmouth, New
Jersey, and plaintiff Adams was again led to believe by
defendant that he would be compensated for his disclosure
and for use made of his invention and battery by or for
defendant.
15. On each of several dates, namely on or about Feb-
ruary 9, 1942, March 13, 1942, January 11, 1943, January
20, 1943, July 10, 1943, August 10, 1943, June 22, 1948, and
possibly others, plaintiff Adams delivered one or more
batteries to the Signal Corps Laboratories of defendant at
Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, in response to an official re-
quest from representatives of defendant.
16. On information and belief, plaintiff Adams con-
ferred with one or more of the following persons on his
several trips to the Signal Corps Laboratories, Fort Mon-
mouth, New Jersey: Dr. V. F. Payne, Mr. S. R. Daniels, |
Mr. Ellis, Dr. Adolph Fischbach, Captain Clarence R.
Kingston and various other representatives of the Govern-
ment. At the conferences held with the above-named rep-
resentatives, plaintiff Adams made full and complete dis-
closures of his invention and battery and consented that
defendant use his invention and patent and battery. Plain-
[fol. f] tiff Adams was led to believe that he would be
compensated for his disclosure and for use made by or for
defendant of his invention, patent and battery.
20. A written claim for compensation for disclosure of
information, and for use of said invention and said patent
was presented to defendant through the Department of
Defense on March 7, 1957. Defendant now takes the posi-
tion, through its Department of Defense, that plaintiffs’
[fol. g] claims have been finally denied by defendant and
therefore that plaintiffs’ remaining recourse is to seek relief
in the Courts.
4
{fol. h] Wherefcre, plaintiffs pray for judgment against
defendant for such sums as may be found, after completion
of proofs herein and an accounting, to be the damages for
breach of contract and the reasonable and entire compen-
sation due plaintiffs for all unauthorized or unlicensed or
unlawful use or manufacture by or for defendant and use
within the United States of the said patented invention
and battery, including interest as part of such entire and
reasonable compensation, and for such other and further
relief as this Court may find to be just and proper in the
premises.
/s/ John A. Reilly, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Office
and Post Office Address, 165 Broadway, New York
6, N. Y.
Of Counsel: Kenyon & Kenyon, James H. Callahan,
New York, N. Y.
(fol. i] [File endorsement omitted]
In tHE Unitep States Court or Ciarms
No. 163-60
[Title omitted]
Derenpant’s Answer To Petrrion—filed November 18, 1960
Now comes the defendant, by its Assistant Attorney
General, and answers the petition filed on May 2, 1960
as follows:
(1) Defendant denies each and every allegation in para-
graph 1 of the petition except that defendant admits is-
suance of United States Letters Patent No. 2,322,210.
[fol. j] (4) As to paragraph 4, defendant admits only
that United States Letters Patent No. 3,322,210 entitled
[fol. k] ‘‘Battery’’ issued with 11 claims to Bert N. Adams
on an application filed December 18, 1941. Defendant
5
specifically denies infringement of said Letters Patent
2,322,210.
Defendant further denies that Bert N. Adams is an
‘‘inventor’’, or that said patent was ‘‘daly issued’’ with
respect to any subject matter disclosed or claimed in said
patent, insofar as the legal requirements for invention de-
fined by the patent statute or applicable decisions are con-
cerned.
* * + * * * *
[fol. 1] (11) Defendant denies each and every allegation
in paragraph 11 of the petition, leaving plaintiffs to make
strict proof thereof.
(12) Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief, and therefore denies each and
[fol. m] every allegation in paragraph 12 of the petition.
(13) Defendant denies each and every allegation in
paragraph 13 of the petition, except that defendant admits
on information and belief that a letter relating to plaintiff
Adams’ alleged invention was transmitted to the National
Inventors Council in January of 1942.
(14) Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief, and therefore denies each and
every allegation in paragraph 14 of the petition.
(15) Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief, and therefore denies each and
every allegation in paragraph 15 of the petition, except that
defendant admits on information and belief the existence
of a letter from Bert N. Adams dated March 25, 1942, to
Fort Monmouth which mentions the submission of samples,
and defendant further admits on information and belief the
existence of test records maintained by personnel at Fort
Monmouth which determined that units constructed in ac-
cordance with the teachings of United States Letters
Patent No. 2,322,210 were inoperative and completely un-
suitable for their intended purpose.
(16) Defendant is without knowledge or information suf-
ficient to form a belief and therefore denies each and every
allegation in paragraph 16 of the petition, except that
defendant admits on information and belief the recollection
6
by a Mr. A. P. Daniels of a conversation held with Bert N.
Adams sometime in 1942.
[fol. n] (20) Defendant admits, on information and be-
lief, that a claim for compensation solely on behalf of
plaintiff Bert N. Adams was made on March 7, 1957. De-
fendant denies that any communication from The Depart-
ment of Defense comprises a final denial of ‘‘plaintiffs’ ’’
claims, in that no administrative claim on behalf of any
plaintiff other than said Bert N. Adams was ever presented.
Further answering, defendant denies each and every
other remaining allegation in paragraph 20.
[fol. o] Wherefore, defendant prays that the petition
herein be dismissed with costs assessed against plaintiffs.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ George Cochran Doub,
__..Assistant—Attorney. ‘General. /s/_Paul _F. Ar.
seneau, Attorney, Department of Justice.
[fol. p] I~ tHe Unitep States Court or Cams
No. 163-60
[Title omitted]
MEMORANDUM OF PRETRIAL ConrERENCE—June 8, 1961
The parties met, pursuant to notice, in the Commis-
sioner’s office, United States Court of Claims, Washington,
D. C., June 8, 1961.
Present: Donald E. Lane, Commissioner, John A. Reilly,
KEsq., for plaintiffs, Paul F. Arseneau, Esq., for defendant,
Also present: Robert Randall, Esq., T. Hayward Brown,
Esq., H. M. Saragovitz, Esq., and Major F. K. Richwine.
1. Counsel for the parties furnished to the Commissioner
a stipulation signed by counsel June 8, 1961, and com-
prising five pages. This stipulation was approved by the
7
[fol. q] Commissioner and will be filed in the record in
this case when all of the exhibits mentioned therein have
been supplied by counsel.
2. Counsel for plaintiffs stated that it is the position
of plaintiffs that silver chloride is an equivalent of cuprous
chloride plus carbon when used in batteries having a mag-
nesium electrode.
3. Defendant’s counsel stated that defendant will im-
mediately seek and deliver when available to plaintiffs’
counsel drawings or sketches suowing the types of re-
serve type, water-activated primary batteries containing
a magnesium anode and a cathode comprising cuprous
chloride; or cuprous chloride and silver chloride, procured
by and delivered to the defendant within the 6-year period
next preceding the filing of the petition herein. Each
sketch will show the composition of the anode (if different
than ordinary commercial magnesium sheet), the com-
position of the cathode, the composition of the separator,
if any; the composition of the electrolyte, if any, and the
composition of any other components or material present
upon activation, that takes part, or may take part, in the
action of the cell. Each sketch will be accompanied by a
[fol. r] full disclosure of the manufacturing process for
making the cathode shown in the sketch, including details
of any use of temperatures or pressures above room tem-
perature or atmospheric pressure, or employment of
liquids, solvents, binders, plastics, thermoplastics or other
additives which may or may not appear in the completed
cathode, or employment of special manufacturing tech-
niques such as rollin, hot ioiling, milling, and calendering,
compressing and the like. Defendant’s counsel will pro-
duce and file with the Commissioner one sample of a water-
activated battery having a magnesium anode and a silver
chloride cathode, such as procured by the defendant during
the 6-year period next preceding the filing of the petition.
4. Counsel for defendant agreed that defendant will
notify plaintiffs on or before June 22, 1961, which of the
now cited prior art items may be eliminated from con-
sideration by plaintiffs, and also agreed to notify plaintiffs
on or before said date the names of defendant’s fact wit-
nesses, as far as then known.
5. Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that both Mr. and Mrs. Bert
8
[fol. s] N. Adams will be available at the trial and that
plaintiffs expect to call only one expert witness, and will
advise defendant of the names of the fact witnesses on
or before June 22, 1961.
6. The parties stipulated that the following documents
be offered and received in evidence without objection as
trial exhibit 13:
(1) Information Bulletin No. 1 of the National In-
ventors Council dated 1941;
(2) Information Bulletin No. 2 of the National In-
ventors Council dated 1942, and that such exhibit comprises
accurate copies of genuine originals and may be used
at the trial with the full force and effect of certified copies,
and that such bulletins were available to plaintiff Bert N.
Adams as of the dates thereof, and as to Information Bul-
letin No. 2, that it was received by said Adams on or about
February 7, 1942, as an enclosure to a letter dated February
7, 1942, from Green to Sandhaas previously produced by
defendant.
7. Commissioner, in response to defendant’s request,
extended defendant’s time to oppose plaintiffs’ motion
under Rule 26, filed June 2, 1961, to expire on June 16, 1961.
{fol. t] 8. The Commissioner directed that defendant
respond to plaintiffs’ request for admissions, filed with
the Commissioner June 5, 1961, on or before June 22, 1961.
9. Military specification MIL-B-17482B (SHIPS) dated
10 December 1958, comprising 15 printed pages, was marked
Commissioner’s exhibit 1 herein, was received in evidence
without objection, and is filed herewith. Defendant agreed
to determine whether or not defendant has procured bat-
teries made in accordance with said specification during
the 6-year period next preceding the filing of the petition.
10. A photostatic copy of the proceedings of the Tenth,
Eleventh and Twelfth Annual Battery Research and De-
velopment Conferences, comprising 18 pages, was marked
Commissioner’s exhibit 2, was received in evidence without
objection, and is filed herewith. :
/s/ Donald E. Lane, Onmuniosioners
[fol.u] [File endorsement omitted. ]
ti at ht
[fol. v]} {File endorsement omitted]
In toe Unirep States Court or Cuaims
No. 163-60
[Title omitted]
STIPULATION To BE SUBMITTED TO THE HonoraBLe .COMMIS-
SIONER Donatp E. Lane at THE Pre-TriaL Heartnc—
Dated June 8, 1961 and Filed June 14, 1961.
Jurisdiction
1. The parties stipulated that this Court has jurisdic-
tion over all the parties hereto, and over the issues raised
by the petition and answer heretofore filed herein.
Separation of Issues
agreed _that-upon_proof_of-the-manu
ture by or for, or the use by or for, the United States, of
one or more articles alleged in the petition, or otherwise
alleged on the record, to infringe the patent in suit, the
issues of validity and infringement of the patent by the
United States, will be first determined upon full proofs,
findings of fact, and argument of counsel. The parties
further agreed that the accounting issue including evi-
dence as to the number of articles procured and/or the
value of the patented inventions, or the extent of the lia-
bility, if any, of the United States, and the amount of
[fol. w] reasonable and entire compensation, if any, due
to plaintiffs on account thereof, will be deferred until after
the entry of the order of the Court of Claims on the issues
of validity and/or infringement.
Admissions
3. Defendant admitted that articles made as described
in the documents offered and received in evidence without
objection as Trial Exhibit 1, filed herewith, were procured
by and delivered to the defendant within the six-year period
next preceding the filing of the petition.
4. Soft copies of U.S. Letters Patent Nos. 2,636,060 to
fae
10
Fischbach et al., 2,640,090 to Pucher et al., 2,640,091 to
Pucher et al., 2,667,527 to Pucher and Reissue 23,883 to
Chubb were respectively offered and received in evidence
without objection as Trial Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and are
filed herewith.
5. Defendant admitted that the articles identified as
Trial Exhibits 7, 8 and 9 offered and received in evidence
without objection and filed herewith were procured by and
delivered to the defendant within the six-year period next
preceding the filing of the petition.
6. Defendant admitted that U.S. Letters Patent No.
2,322,210 was granted by the Commissioner of Patents to
Bert N. Adams on June 22, 1943.
Stipulated Testimony
7. The parties stipulated that the record evidences de-
livery by Bert N. Adams of battery cells made by him to the
{fol. x] U.S. peas “ee een at Fort Monmouth,
N,.J.,-as-follows:—— steht
Date No. of Cells Delivered
January 26, 1942 1 cell
February 9, 1942 2 cells
March 26, 1942 10 cells
June 22, 1948 . 1 cell
Waiver of Certification
8. The parties agreed that uncertified copies of United
States and foreign letters patent and publications may be
offered in evidence by either party with full force and effect
of certified copies, and that said uncertified copies may be
considered as having been filed, granted or published on
the dates and at the places appearing upon them, and the
names of the author and publisher appearing on such
publications shall be accepted as correct, subject to cor-
rection by the production of originals or certified copies.
The parties further agreed that uncertified copies of draw-
ings, correspondence, and other documentary evidence,
agreed to by counsel, may be offered in evidence by either
party with the full force and effect of certified copies, sub-
ject to correction if error be shown to appear.
11
Dates of Invention Asserted by Plaintiffs:
9. Defendant has requested that plaintiffs make of
[fol. y] record for the purposes of this case the dates of
invention upon which plaintiffs will rely. Plaintiffs state
that they will rely on a date no earlier than September,
1939 for conceptioa and on a dete no earlier than March,
1940 for reduction to practice of the invention claimed in
the — in suit.
Exhibits Received
10. A soft copy of U. S. Letters Patent No. 2,322,210
was offered and received in evidence without objection as
Trial Exhibit 10, and is filed herewith.
11. A certified copy of the file wrapper of U. S. Patent
No. 2,322,210 was offered and received in evidence with-
out objection as Trial Exhibit 11, and is filed herewith.
12. The parties stipulated that each of the documents
offered and received in evidence without objection as
Trial Exhibit 12, filed herewith, which are the documents
1961 pursuant to the Stipulation filed herein on February
17, 1961 is an accurate copy of a genuine original and if
the document is a letter, it is further stipulated that such
was written by or for the person, department or organiza-
tion whose name or identification appears thereon as the
author thereof, and was sent to and received by the per-
son, department, or organization indicated thereon as the
addressee thereof, on or about the date appearing on the
[fol. z] document; and that the ‘‘ William Shorr’’ whose
name appears in certain of these documents was employed
by the defendant at Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey, on the
dates indicated on the documents on which his signature ap-
pears.
/s/ John A. Reilly, Attorney for Plaintiffs, 165
Broadway, New York 6, New York.
Dated: June 8, 1961
/s/ William H. Orrick, Jr., Assistant Attorney
General.
Dated June 8, 1961
/s/ Paul F. Arseneau, Attorney, Dept. of Justice.
Dated June 8, 1961
‘12
{fol. aa] In THe Unrrep States Court or CLarms
No. 163-60
Bert N. Apams, et al
vs.
Tue Unrrep States
Washington, D. C.,
Monday, July 10, 1961,
thru Friday, July 14, 1961.
Master InpEx
Witnesses: Direct Cross Redirect. Recross
Bert N. Adams.......... 31 121 137
Emma Adams........... 138 a 423
Charles L. Mantell....... 145 402 457
Howard Raymond Knapp. 461 507 oe
Joseph C. White......... 572 636 642
Charles L. Mantell (Re-
GIN a Tas ieee ss cus 645 647
Exuisits
Trial For Id In Evi
14 = Stipulation of July 6, 1961 with enclo-
, sures together with Patent Office cer-
tification and instruments of writing as
received May 26, 1961............... 3 3
18 ‘Burgess battery..................... 4 ee
19 Letter accompanying Burgess battery
dated July 7,.1961................5.. 4
20 ~=— Letter dated June 22, 1961 from Depart-
ment of Justice to Commissioner Lane.. ... 11
Commissioner’s:
3 Certified copy from the General Ac-
counting Office of Contract NOBs 20600
between USA and Thomas A. Edison,
Inc., Primary Battery Division........ ... 120
ee a ee
13
ExHIsIts
Commissioner’s: ;
[fol. bb]
Trial For Id In Evi
4 Folder entitled ‘‘Defendant’s Answer
and Response to Paragraphs 12 and 15
of the Stipulation Filed on February 17,
WE vine gs creado Chia eee BS” 120
Plaintiff’s:
1 Two sheets of invoice headed ‘Date
Shipped 2-2-40 From Midland, Michi-
gan, in re Dow Metal M Sheets CP
Of tL. ... 2 ee 38 39
2 Two page document the first of which
shows a curve and the second of which
states ‘Summary of Test of Original
Cell August 29, 1940”. 45 183
3 One-page document headed “nN, Y,
March 13-14, 1941 Capacity Test of
Se eins étiechs sh Riiwele ohn ss 48
4 Physical exhibit, being glass jar, dated
November 21, 1941, with magnesium
anode and cathode of cuprous chloride,
blended with carbon................. me 52
5 Physical exhibit, being a tubular object
about four inches long............... 53
6 Physical exhibit, being a cylindrical
object with two wires attached........ 53 56
7 Physical exhibit, being made of glass
with a label on it dated 1943.. 53 56
8 Physical exhibit, being a rectangular
Es Netsiceihih Lenin matin diditiatd bitenes 54 56
9 Physical exhibit, being plasticcylinder.. 55 56
i4
ExuHIBITs
Plaintiff’s:
Trial For Id In Evi
10 Five’ page document consisting of a
letter of March 4, 1941 from Bert
Adams to National Battery Company
together with four other sheets consist-
ing respectively of sheets entitled ‘“‘Neu-
tro Cecil Characteristics,’ ‘‘Graph,”’
[fol. ce]
“The Possibilities of the Neutro Cell”
and notes appearing in handwriting on
back of page 4
Five-page document, the first page of
which is entitled ‘Possibilities of the
Neutro Cell.” the second and third pages
~ entitled ‘“Neutro Cell Characteristics,”’
fourth page entitled “Formula for Com-
puting Capacity by Weight and Surface
Exposed,” and the fifth sheet showing
“Capacity—Linear Potential—Small
Document consisting of four pages the
first page of which is a letter dated
April 3, 1941 to Thomas A. Edison, Inc.,
together with letter dated April 17,
1941 from Thomas A. Edison, to Bert
Adams, plus two graphs
Telephone Message from Dodge Hotel
dated January 22, 1942
Document entitled ‘Adams Neutro
Cell,” consisting of one page, and signed
_ by Bert Adams, heretofore marked for
identification
One-page document showing graph and
showing test of high-temperature cell
for U. S. Signal Corps, dated May 16,
Plaintiff’s :
Trial
Pages 701 through 704 inclusive from
the August 1950 issue of Electrical
Engineering, containing article entitied
“Special Purpose Batteries,’ by Adolph
- Fischbach
Sheet entitled Instruction Sheet for
Testing Adams Neutro Cell, dated July
Burgess Battery Company brochure. . .
Five-page document headed ‘‘Ray-O-
Vac Engineering Bulletin,” on charac-
teristics of the magnesium cuprous chlo-
ride battery
[fol. dd]
20
21
Life jacket together with battery
Jar of cuprous chloride
22-25 Four sheets of paper to which was
attached copper screens, showing re-
spectively weight of 2.7 grams, 3.85
grams, 3.7 grams and 2.9 grams, marked
respectively
26-29 Sheets headed “CuCL Pasted Type,
with weight of paste 3.1 grams, 2.9
grams, 3.0 grams and 3.4 grams,” re-
spectively
Sheet headed ‘‘CuCL Pasted Type with
screen attached, showing weight of paste
3.8 grams”
Sheet headed ‘‘CuCL Pasted Type, with
Screen attached, showing weight of
paste Di meee o.oo. 6 KE SEH EIS ES
Sheet headed ““CuCL Pasted Type, with
screen attached, showing weight of paste
3.4 grams”
Sheet headed ‘““‘CuCl Pasted Type with
screen attached, showing weight of paste
For Id In Evi
16
EXHIBITS
Plaintiff’s:
Trial For Id In Evi
34 See Comm.
35 The notes referred to heretofore by the
witness which were being used in the
preparation of the chart on the black-
RS Cy a Ue eaetine ie ie ee ees 285
36-1 Chart drawn by the witness with three
36-2 headings, ‘‘Adams, Fischbach, Chubb,
Pucher patents and Ray-O-Vac’’...... ei 294
37 Pages 202C 203C and 204C from the
Journal of the Electrochemical Society,
Asmat VOOR ais 8 ER. Bie oe 302
38 One-page chart headed Cell No. 10.... ... 343
39 Photostat consisting of pages 528
through 545 from paper entitled ‘“‘Char-
acteristics of the Silver Chloride-Mag-
nesium Water Activated Battery,” by
J. B. Mullen and P. L. Howard. ..... ee 380
40 Patent No. 2,817,697 to M. F. Chubb
dated December 24, 1957............. bites 401
[fol. ee]
41 Patent No. 2,745,983, to M. F. Chubb,
dated May 15, 1956................. ad 401
42 Pages 1, 2 and 3 together with cover
page and preface page of an article en-
titled ‘Primary Batteries,” by George
Wee WI ora ees sil ee es. pat: ae
43 Page 129 and 130 from Aviation Week
for July 11, 1960, entitled —
p= ae ae a ee ee Le 642
Defendant’s:
1 Elementary Treatise on Batteries, Niau-
det (1880), Cover sheet, Page ix, pages
900-200 oss — 633
2 U.S. Patent No. 282,634 to Hayes
CRE & FPG ca eee aia aidan sete 633
Exuisits
Defendant’s: :
Trial
3 Galvanic Batteries, Bottone, (1902)
Cover sheet, Pages 172-177...........
4 Primary Batteries, Carhart (1891)
Cover sheet, pages 62-65.............
5 U.S. Patent No. 405,196—Barrett
COONS ix ck dekh eae ws KS
6 US. Patent No. 457,116—Hard (1891).
7 U.S. Patent No. 454,598—Hathaway
(RBOR). | sot. iciendeeahiedposiel sus
8 U.S. Patent No. 184,932—Vantenac...
9 U.S. Patent No. 434,593—Fink (1890). .
10 U.S. Patent No. 512,055—Pearson
(IRDRD. . as <5 tks 6s endian As
11 Practical Primary Cells, Codd (1929)
Cover Sheet, Page 1-3, 43, 44, 78, 79,
OO GS Fie om. UT 6 aioe Gadcie dd
12 U.S. Patent No. 1,696,873—Wood
CWS ocoha ks chns sebiaeidadwhates 4
13 U.S. Patent No. 1,920,151—Ruben
IS sea ok 5d ho kn My Ce a oe
[fol. ff]
14 U.S. Patent No. 2,078,1483—Jamau
Ce so sii ec acne nisiltcn then ibaieacieta dons /
15 Manual of Chemistry, Simon (1905)
Cover Sheet, Page 216...............
16 Essentials of General Chemistry, Hop-
kins & Bailar (1946) Cover Sheet, Pages
371, 372; fly leaf, rear cover..........
17 _— British Patent No. 301,923—Ferrabino
CRs kyr kt bance SR cae tele es
i8 U.S. Patent No. 552,211—Thurnauer
CRO cok vance ch vatieves deteates
19 British Patent No. 4341 (1880—Series)
iva... oo
20 British Patent No. 49 (1891) Wensky . . .
17
For Id In Evi
191
S 8-2. 8 S82 88 2 8
2:8 8-2 8 8
18
EXHIBITS
Defendant’s:
Trial For Id In Evi
21 Journ. Ch. Socy., Vol. 53 (1888) pp
104-116 Constitution of Copper-Zinc,—
Copper-Tin Alloys, —Laurie......... 635
22 U.S. Patent No. 269,454—Parkhurst
CO i es ee eee 635
23 + U.S. Patent No. 653,770—Heil (1900). . 635
24 + +.U.S. Patent No. 1,522,121—Harrison
CRD i SES EEG os e's 635
30 Signal Corps Invention Record and Log
NGS i sree ere eee 466 486
31 Burgess 259/AM battery described on
page 3 of Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30.. 469 487
31-A Sample No. 1 dese~ibed on page 3 of
Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30........... 469 487
31-B Sample No. 2 described on page 3 of
Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30........... 469 487
31-C Sample No. 3 described on page 3 of
Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30........... 469 487
[fol. gg]
31-D Sample No. 4 described on page 3 of
Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30........... 469 487
31-E Sample No. 9 described on page 4 of
Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30........... 471 487
31-F Sample No. 10 described on page 4 of
Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30........... 471 487
32 Eagle-Picher 259/AM battery de-
scribed on page 6 of Defendant’s Ex-
SG SG ERS Da ser ee eR =p 487
32-A Sample No. 14 described on page 6 of
Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30........... pra 487
32-B Sample No. 15 described on page 6 of
Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30........... if 487
32-C Sample No. 16 described on page 6 of
Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30........... ey, 488
32-D Sample No. 17 described on page 6 of
Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30.. oe 488
19
ExHIBITs
Defendant’s:
Trial For Id In Evi
33. Ray-O-Vac 292/AM Battery, described
on page 6 of Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30. ... 488
33-A Sample No. 18 described on page 6 of
Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30........... cn 488
33-B Sample No. 21 described on page 10 of
Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30............ eH" 488
33-C Sample No. 22 described on page 10 a
Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30........... oa 488
34 Ray-O-Vac 253/U Battery, described on
page 11 of Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30. ... 488
34-A Sample No. 23, described on page 11 of
Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30........... ks 488
34-B Sample No. 24 described on page 11 of
Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30.. gee ent 488
[fol. hh]
35 Sample No. 12, described on page 1, 2
and 5 of Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30... ... 488 —
36-A Sample No. 19 described on page 8 of
Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30.. es 489
36-B Sample No. 20 described on page 8 of
Defendant’s Exhibit No. 30........... Hi 489
37 Cover page and the second page and
pages 219 and 220 of book by: George
Wood Vinal entitled “Storage Batteries’
RN i ks aime Se ch insea cae 501 563
40 Excerpts from Hackh’s Chemical Dis-
tionary heretofore marked and received
as Defendant’s Exhibit No. 2 was re-
en SS RAL SRR es eA Laos saat eres: is 573
In tHe Unitep States Court or Ciamms
Bert N. Apams, et. al., Plaintiffs,
vs.
Tue Unitep States, Defendant.
No. 163-60
Washington, D. C.,
10:00 o’elock a.m.
Transcript of Testimony for plaintiffs—July 10, 1961
The parties met, pursuant to notice of the Commissioner,
at the time above stated, in Trial Court Room No. 1, United
States Court of Claims.
PRESENT:
Hon. Donald E. Lane, Commissioner.
Kenyon & Kenyon, By: John A Reilly, Esq., and Richard
A. Huettner, Esq., Counsel for Plaintiffs.
T. Hayward Brown, Esq., and Paul F. Arseneau, Esq.,
Counsel for Defendant.
Also Present:
Bernard Wohlfert, Esq.
Mr. Kenneth K. Johnston, reporter, was thereupon sworn
by the Commissioner to well and truly take down and tran-
[fol. 2] seribe the questions propounded to and the answers
given by the witnesses, and to do all other things required
of him by the Commissioner.
Pursuant to the order of reference by the Honorable,
The United States Court of Claims, in the above-entitled
cause, testimony on behalf of the Plaintiffs was taken, as
follows:
CoLLoquy Betwren Court anp CounsEL
Commissioner Lane: We have this morning the case of
Bert N. Adams, et al., against the United States. I note a
number of exhibits here. I might say that I have Commis-
sioner’s Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2 and I have Trial exhibits
21
which have been marked from 1 through 17, and I believe
the Plaintiff has Exhibits Nos. 7, 8 and 9.
Mr. Reilly: That is correct, Your Honor.
Commissioner Lane: I suggest that you turn all of them
over to the reporter.
I also have in front of me a certified copy of the Patent
Office of Instruments of Writing, filed May 26, 1961, and I
do not have any identification number on it. Does anyone
know what number this is?
Mr. Reilly: I think Mr. Arseneau filed a stipulation cover-
ing that.
Mr. Arseneau: The stipulation refers to it as Trial
Exhibit No. 14, and perhaps my letter of transmittal does
also. I believe the original stipulation shows it as Trial
Exhibit No. 14.
[fol. 3] Mr. Reilly: I have it here. Your Honor, the stipu-
lation covers the exhibits, and those are the documents all
the way through from the start to the very end.
Commissioner Lane: I have both the stipulation and the
certified copy, and they will be marked Trial Exhibit No. 14.
(Stipulation of July 6, 1961 with enclosures together with
Patent Office certification and instruments of writing as re-
ceived May 26, 1961 were marked Trial Exhibit No. 14.)
Commissioner Lane: There is one other item I have be-
fore me: I have received from the Defendant a Burgess
battery and a request that it be marked as a Commissioner
exhibit, and I wonder if Plaintiff has seen this?
Mr. Reilly: I have not seen it, Your Honor, and I would
appreciate the opportunity.
Commissioner Lane: This was on my desk this morning,
and you might take it and look at it.
Mr. Reilly: May I ask, is this the battery referred to, Mr.
Arseneau?
Mr. Arseneau: Yes, sir, and it was filed in accordance with
the pretrial memorandum which requested the Defendant
to produce a silver chloride battery.
Mr. Reilly: We might have it identified, I think, Your
Honor. May we have it identified as the next trial exhibit
number, which will be No. 18?
Commissioner Lane: Very well, the Burgess battery will
22
[fol. 4] be marked as Trial Exhibit No. 18 for identifica-
tion.
(Burgess battery marked Trial Exhibit No. 18 for identi-
fication. )
Mr. Reilly: May we also identify the letter as Trial Ex-
hibit No. 18, or maybe we better make it No. 19, and that
will be the letter of July 7th which accompanied this battery.
(Letter accompanying Burgess battery dated July 7, 1961
was marked Trial Exhibit No. 19 for identification. )
Commissioner Lane: It is not necessary for the parties to
make an opening statement before we start the testimony.
I might state that I have read the stipulation and I have
read the patent in suit. I have not read all the exhibits,
however. If either of the parties desire to make an opening
statement, they should feel free to do so at this time.
I understand we have in this trial the issues of infringe-
ment and validity of the Adams patent in suit.
If Plaintiffs’ attorney desires to make an opening state-
ment, I will hear it now.
Mr. Reilly: May I state for the record that there was filed
Trial Exhibit No. 15. Do you have a copy of that, that being
a group of documents, and also with Trial Exhibit No. 15,
Trial Exhibit No. 16 was filed as part of the same stipula-
tion?
[fol. 5] Commissioner Lane: Yes, I have Trial Exhibits
Nos. 15 and 16 and the stipulation which accompanied them.
They are in the folder.
Mr. Reillv: Thank you. .
We also had filed Trial Exhibit No. 17, which is also a
folder of documents.
Mr. Arseneau: I think what took place is this, Your
Honor:
The, original copies of these were filed, and the carbon in
some cases was forwarded on July 7th, and I think some
of the carbons might not have accompanied them.
- Mr. Reilly: May I inquire what is coming in in addition?
Is there something else coming in under the stipulation?
I understand there was a copy of the letter sent to the
Commissioner with respect to Trial Exhibit No. 18.
23
Mr. Arseneau: Yes, sir, there is. I intended te bring the
copies, if they arrive this morning, not only the file in the
matter but also to provide you with copies but they are
definitely not here now but I expect them to be here within
an hour or so.
Mr. Reilly: Do you mind telling me what this will bet
Mr. Arseneau: Not in the least. I would be glad to clear
up the record to that extent.
First of all, we sent a statement, showing a few more
patents to be relied upon with respect to the state of the
[fol. 6] art.
Mr. Reilly: This is the first time they have been men-
tioned?
Mr. Arseneau: That is true.
Mr. Reilly: What else is coming in?
Mr. Arseneau: The last paragraph of the document re-
ferred to the fact that we would want to hand in a copy
thereof on July 10th, prior to the trial session.
I assure you that all these matters will be placed in your
hands before the end of this morning.
The other carbon copy which we propose to hand in is
inerely a copy of a certified contract, and it can be made a
Commissioner’s exhibit, if you wish.
Mr. Reilly: What is that?
Mr. Arseneau: I will explain it.
In the voluntary discovery stipulation filed February 16,
1961 there were certain paragraphs which obligated De-
fendant to inquire of the contractors to furnish copies of
tests reports and the like. There are also certain test re-
ports which have come to our attention in a looseleaf or
hound book arrangement, and they will be filed with the
Court and copies will be given to you.
Mr. Reilly: Actually what are they?
Mr. Arseneau: Actually thev are test reports on batteries
which were constructed by Thomas A. Edison in New
{fol. 7] Jersey, and they have come to us recently. We
have discovered that an Italian distress torch was found,
and we ourselves don’t have it now, and the write-up on the
distress torch was from the B=:tish and it shows the drop-
ping of it in sea water.
When the Naval Research and Development Laboratory
got the letter dated December 16, 1943, it had the Edison
24
Company in New Jersey to make one hundred for experi-
mental purposes. The samples of these batteries which were
constructed by Thomas Edison, at least three or four of
them, were sent to the Naval Research and Development
Laboratory.
We expect to be able to place the material in your hands
within an hour.
The contract to which I refer is NObs 20600, which is a
contract which the Government entered into with Thomas
Edison for the construction of these batteries.
Mr. Reilly: In 1943?
Mr. Arseneau: I would say it would go through 1944 or
1945.
The other material, if you will recall, obligated Defendant
to forward letters to each of the contractors, asking for
details on resins, binders, and so forth.
We have had a series of responses from some of the con-
tractors, and we have made up copies of these documents,
and I will introduce the letters.
[fol. 8] It might also be mentioned that some of the ma-
terial mentioned in the memorandum overlaps material
which we were to produce under the voluntary discovery
stipulation.
Do you recall that?
Mr. Reilly: I recall that.
Mr. Arseneau: That was under Paragraph 3, and we ex-
pect to place in your hands copies of these letters, which are
not specifically precluded by the stipulation or the terms
of the pretrial memorandum.
Mr. Reilly: You are referring to Paragraph 3?
Mr. Arseneau: Are you referring to the pretrial memo-
randum?
Mr. Reilly: Yes, sir.
Mr. Arseneau: As referred to in Paragraph 3 of the pre-
trial memorandum.
Mr. Reilly: Drawings and sketches?
Mr. Arseneau: Yes, sir, and there is also a paragraph
which suggests binders, resins, plastics and the like.
As I have pointed out, this does overlap, to some extent,
what was shown in the voluntary discovery stipulation.
That is the group of material which we intend to place in
your hands.
25
Mr. Reilly: I suppose we must be grateful for favors, as
late as they may be. I do not want to appear to be ungrate-
ful, but this is rather late. As far as these matters are con-
cerned, I will look at them but I think that they are clearly
[fol. 9] inadmissible because of the lateness of filing
under the statute.
Commissioner Lane: The statute only refers to giving
notice of the art relied on for anticipation and not the state
of the art.
Mr. Arseneau: I will introduce Mr. Bernard Wohlfert of
the Department of Justice, and I think his interpretation of
Title 35 is in order.
Mr. Wohlfert: In so far as claims are concerned, we are
obliged to give notice of anticipatory art, but in so far as
state of the art is concerned, Title 35 does not require any
thirty-day minimum notice.
Mr. Reilly: First I would like to know if this gentleman is
an attorney?
Mr. Wohlfert: I am.
Mr. Reilly: Did you enter your appearance as an attorney
in the case?
Mr. Wohlfert: I am with Mr. Arseneau.
Mr. Reilly: Are you admitted to practice before the Court
of Claims?
Mr. Wohlfert: I am.
Mr. Reilly: We have a stipulation, as you will recall, of
February 14, 1961, which provided for Defendant’s attorney
to provide Plaintiffs notice of prior art at least thirty days
prior to trial.
{fol. 10] The matter referred to by Mr. Wohlfert has been
modified by the stipulation between us. Therefore I will
object to this as clearly inadmissible.
I would like to clear up one matter in the case.
As you may recall, at the pretrial there was a letter out-
standing which noticed some 70-odd references and in the
pretrial order Your Honor gave Defendant’s counsel a time
limit in which to notify Plaintiffs’ counsel of the newly cited
prior art with reference to what was relied upon, and that
was to be done by June 22.
I have received a letter from Defendant’s counsel in
which he stated that he was withdrawing for purposes of
anticipation a list of patents and references. I would like
26
to have that situation clarified, and I will ask, did that
letter intend to be an answer to Paragraph 4, Your Honor,
and may these items be eliminated from our case by Plain-
tiffs, and I assume by the Court for any purpose whatsp-
ever?
Mr. Arseneau: Do you mind my asking you a question?
I will answer by saying that the art is set forth in the
letter as omissions and deletions, and they are really omis-
sions for any purpose, and having been excluded, we do not
intend to apply them as prior art or state of the art refer-
ences.
Mr. Reilly: In other words, Mr. Arseneau, the question |
asked, so far as the art issue is concerned, then you have
[fol. 11] no intention of introducing them?
Mr. Arseneau: If you are referring to the patents set
forth in that letter, characterized as omissions, I have no
intention of introducing them.
Mr. Reilly: That is clear enough.
Commissioner Lane: Do you want that list included in
the record? I have a copy of that letter, but I don’t know
whether it is necessary or not.
Mr. Reilly: Yes, I would like to have it included in the
record, Your Honor, and I thank you for the suggestion.
May it be identified and offered as Trial Exhibit No. 20?
Commissioner Lane: It will be received.
(Letter dated June 22, 1961 from Department of Justice
to Commissioner Lane was received in evidence as Trial
Exhibit No. 20.)
Mr. Reilly: Your Honor, Mr. Arseneau has mentioned
that he is planning to give us some time today further infor-
mation concerning the construction of batteries made by
contractors for the Defendant. He has stated that he wrote
a letter to obtain that information.
I would like to have entered into the record whatever
replies he receives, and ask that he offer them along with the
letter requesting the same?
We are about to start the trial, and, as you know, up to
this point the only information that we have had concerning
[fol. 12] the alleged infringement are three physical bat-
teries, which we have not been at liberty to take apart or
27
examine, and a series of letters which has gone in as Trial
Exhibit No. 1,
These letters, Your Honor, are helpful to us, but they con-
stitute only a small amount of information on which to try
to predicate a finding of infringement.
However, the letters are changed, material crossed off,
and much material is deleted.
I do not doubt that the Defendant’s counsel has done
that for the reason that much of the information contained
therein is privileged, but I would like to ask that this Court
order Mr. Arseneau and Mr. Wohlfert to deliver into Your
Honor’s hands the complete originals of the letters com-
prising Trial Exhibit No. 1, as well as the letters which were
written to obtain this information in reply, so that \our
Honor may examine it all and ascertain whether or not
Plaintiff’s counsel: should be fairly advised of additional
information which might be contained therein.
T assume there will be no objection to delivering them to
Your Honor’s hands?
Mr. Arseneau: The only objection I would raise is this,
namely, that the letters are admittedly blanked, and the
blanking was done in accordance with the terms of the
stipulation, and there is a revealing of such information
[fol. 13] as we desired, and it was agreed that Defendant
would provide blank portions, or blocked-out portions of
certain material Defendant will consider turning those let-
ters over to inspection only by order of the Court.
Mr. Reilly: I should think, if I understand Mr. Arseneau’s
position, he is saying that everything which is blanked out
has been properly blanked out, and Your Honor would see
that and recognize the difficulty, and I should think Mr.
Arseneau would want to turn them over to you.
Now I would request that you require him to do that.
Commissioner Lane: Any further comments, Mr. Arse-
neau?
Mr. Arseneau: No, I have already commented on the sub-
ject of these letters, Your Honor. I would, if I may, back-
track a little bit on the matter of turning over the blank
letters included in the discovery material.
Mr. Reilly said some time prior to that that he wanted
placed in the record items received from the contractors,
and their comments, and also our request letters, and T
28
object very strenuously to making our letters a matter of
record.
The pretrial memorandum said that the Defendant would
look into and deliver, when available, to Plaintiffs’ counsel
drawings, sketches and so forth.
In some cases these were prolix and in some cases highly
confidential, and some of this we are not prepared to turn
over to Plaintiffs’ counsel. However, we will turn over to
[fol. 14] Plaintiffs’ counsel anything that came back in the
way of sketches, drawings or blueprints which came back
and which we feel we can turn over, but there are blank
spaces because some of this material they did not want to
disclose. We have no objection to turning those over but I
do not see any reason to turn over the letters that the Gov-
ernment sent to the contractors asking for additional infor-
mation.
Jommissioner Lane: I do not think we need the request
until we see the replies of the contractors, and then we can
determine whether or not the request needs to be exhibited.
With respect to Plaintiffs’ request that the Court examine
the complete originals of Trial Exhibit No. 1, the cor-
respondence, to examine whether or not Trial Exhibit No. 1
includes everything contained in the stipulation, I am in-
clined to grant the request on the part of the Plaintiffs to
have Defendant produce those.
Mr. Arseneau: Do I understand that the letters are to be
turned over solely relating to the blanked letters?
Commissioner Lane: As I understand it, the request goes
only to the correspondence contained in Trial Exhibit
No. 1.
Mr. Reilly: That is correct, Your Honor.
Mr. Arseneau: My understanding of Trial Exhibit No. 1
is that it does contain the blanked letters of the contractors,
given in response to the stipulation of February 17th.
Mr. Reilly: That is correct.
[fol. 15] Mr. Arseneau: Thank you very much.
Mr. Reilly: Do you have the originals here now?
Mr. Arseneau: No, but I will see that they get into His
Honc~’s hands.
Mr. Reilly: Can you give me any time as to how long it
will take?
29
Mr. Arseneau: I do not see any reason why we could not
turn them over by tomorrow morning.
Mr. Reilly: How about after the luncheon recess? Your
office is within a mile from here, is it not?
Mr. Arseneau: I have no objection to that.
Mr. Reilly: Now, Your Honor, may I introduce Richard
A. Heuttner, who is associated with my firm, and may I
introduce him to Mr. Wohlfert and to Mr. Arseneau?
I would like to move his appearance for the purpose of
this case, so that he may be free to examine witnesses and
so forth.
Commissioner Lane: Mr. Heuttner may appear for such
purpose.
Mr. Heuttner: Thank you, Your Honor.
Mr. Reilly: We have one other small matter with respect
to Trial Exhibit No. 12, which Your Honor has up there,
and we are going to use that in some of our testimony, and
I think it might be helpful if we marked the pages in it,
Mr. Arseneau, and so that they will agree with the pages of
{fol. 16] the copy which has already been marked, and if
you do not mind, and if you will agree to it, Mr. Arseneau, I
would like to have the copy of Trial Exhibit No. 12 marked
during the luncheon recess to correspond to the page num-
hers. Is that agreeable?
Commissioner Lane: If Defendant has a copy of Trial
Exhibit No. 12, it may be marked.
STATEMENT ON BrHALr or Puarntirrs By Mr. Reriy
Mr. Reilly: Now, Your Honor has indicated that openings
can be dispensed with, and I agree with you that most of the
time an opening is useless. However, I would like to make
a short statement to clear up the possibility of confusion as
to what our case consists of.
As Your Honor has said, this is a patent suit. It is also a
breach of contract suit, Your Honor.
I would like to cover briefly what our testimony will be
about, so that the Court maybe advised of the substance of
it as the case progresses.
Before the outbreak of World War IT, as everyone knows,
the Government of the United States issued an invitation
through the National Inventors Council, and through vari-
ous other agencies, for inventors and people with ideas that
30
might be of help at that time to come forward and submit
ideas or invention to the Government.
This is in the nature of a unilateral contract with a con-
dition subsequent.
{fol. 17] Many inventors and people with ideas, whether
patented or not patented, did come forward and make dis-
closures to the Government. In this particular case, when a
disclosure is made; there is acceptance of the offer, and the
contract is then completed. No legal obligation arises at
that time whatsoever, and does not arise unless and until the
condition subsequent is fulfilled, and that condition sub-
sequent is the use by the Government of any submitted dis-
closure.
If the Government uses such a disclosure, the condition
subsequent is fulfilled, and then the only remaining question
is, what is fair payment?
We shall prove that Mr. Adams made a full and fair
disclosure to the National Inventors Council, to the Navy
and to the Army Signal Corps of the details of his battery
system, and how it worked, and what its characteristics
were, and all the unusual uses to which it could be put as a
novel source of power.
We shall show that the Government subsequently used
the disclosure and made use of these batteries, and has done
so in the type of use as Mr. Adams pointed out to them.
Now the claim should have been negotiated, but since it
was not, this suit was filed and carries with it a claim for
breach of contract, in connection with this contract which I
have just outlined.
I would like to point out at this point, for purposes of
[fol. 18] clarity, that this claim, this obligation on the part
of the Government, is not barred by the statute of limita-
tions for several reasons.
First of all, in the voluminous correspondence with Mr.
Adams, most of which is stipulated in the record, you will
find the details of Mr. Adams’ disclosures set forth with
some particularity.
You will also find continuing requests from the Army,
particularly the Army Signal Corps and the Naval Research
and Development Laboratory for Mr. Adams to return and
supply them with additional batteries and more batteries
and more batteries, and there is a letter where they re-
31
quested him to bid on batteries which. he was to supply, and
this went on for quite a bit of time.
At some point they wrote him several letters, one from
the National Inventors Council and one from the Chief of
the Army Signal Corps, I believe, or the Chief Officer, in
which they advised him that he would be informed by the
National Inventors Council of the results of the appraisal
of his disclosure,
The letter from: the Chief of the Signal Corps informed
him that he would be informed of the results of the low
temperature tests and normal temperature tests on the vari-
ous batteries that he had submitted.
Mr. Adams, until the date that this suit was filed some
|fol. 19] fifteen years later, never in the meantime was
advised of the results of one test or appraisal.
Secondly, the cause of action did not accrue until the
violation became known. It is not easy to obtain informa-
tion on what the Army or the Defendant is doing with such
batteries. Now the point is that I am standing here before
you this morning and I am still hoping to get some detailed
description of what the alleged infringing batteries
amounted to, and this is many years later.
Third, the cause of action did not accrue until the Plain-
tiffs knew that the Army was using the disclosure and made
a demand, and it had to be rejected before one could sue.
So that is the reason why there is a breach of contract
here.
I would briefly like to outline the elements of the patent
side of the case, if I may.
As I said at the pretrial conference, this is going to be
an unusual patent case, not because we say it is a pioneer
invention but because I think we are going to prove it.
Secondly, to determine whether a pioneer invention exists
or not, you have to know what is old in the art. I would
like to say that the art shows that the physical form of the
battery, the specific battery disclosed in the Adams patent,
is old in the art, the round battery, the use of cylindrical
[fol. 20] electrodes, the central electrode being a solid cyl-
inder, and the arrangement of those parts is old in the art.
These batteries, an inspection shows, taking Exhibit No.
7, Your Honor, for example, that they are flat plate type bat-
32
teries, and Exhibit No. 7 is probably put together in the
same way as Exhibit No. 8, which may be a little more open.
There you have a flat plate or electrode of magnesium,
and another iat plate or electrode, presumably of cuprous
chloride, separated by a piece of water-absorbent paper or
cardboard.
It is very interesting to look at the historical viewpoint
for a moment. I have here a copy of a book entitled “Primary
Batteries,” by George Wood Vinal, published in 1951, and
referring to pages 2 and 3 of this document, and it tells
about Volta and a report he made in 1800, as to how he made
his first battery by having flat plates of silver and zinc, and
between them he placed discs of pasteboard well soaked in
water.
Your Honor, here is a sketch by Mr. Volta, the famous
Volta who invented the battery, and you see on page 2 there
his original hand-written sketch, and then on page 3 is the
drawing more clearly defined.
Each one of these little cells is a piece of zine and a piece
of silver, between which a piece of paper is placed which is
soaked in water.
[fol. 21] Then Volta did not use water again because it did
not operate effectively, and he went ahead and used elec-
trolytes. As he says:
“Between adjacent pairs of dissimilar metals he
placed dises of pasteboard (‘carton’), animal’s hide, or
other porous material well soaked in water or ‘some
other fluid which may be a bettcr condutor than simple
water, as salt water, lye, ete.’”
From then on up until 1940, the art used only electrolytes,
and by electrolytes I mean better conductors than simple
water, such as salts, acids, alkalies, and so forth.
That has been the history of batteries for about 120 or
more years.
The other constituents in the art which are old are the
methods of making electrodes. It was old by 1860 or 1880,
to take a powder such as silver chloride and melt it around
a piece of coiled wire and make an electrode of it.
It was also old about the same time to make a water paste
of the same substance, or equivalent substances, and spread
them on metal or grid material to make electrodes.
33
It was also old to make electrodes by pasting the reactive
material onto a grid, making a paste by adding resins or
binders and solvents to the mix to melt the mix and then to
solidify it in order to increase the strength of the electrode.
[fol. 22] These were old in the art for some time and later
on when plastics, as we now term them, came into existence,
they were used to unify the material for electrodes, and they
were all known before Adams.
What else was old? We have covered the construction of
the batteries, the size and shape of the plates and the way
in which electrodes are made.
What else is old? Silver chloride is old and was well
known in the art as a material for making electrodes. Cu-
prous chloride is old in the art and was well known as a
material for making electrodes. Carbon has been used for
better than 100 years as a material for making electrodes.
Magnesium was first discovered, I believe, or made in
pure form somewhere about 1856. It really became com-
mercially available in Germany in about 1900, and it became
commercially available in large quantities in this country
during World War I, and ever since discovered it has been
recommended as a material for electrodes in batteries.
Water is old, and, as I pointed out, it represented Volta’s
initial battery experiment. |
What is left? Only the battery system, the system con-
sisting of the magnesium anode, a cuprous chloride cathode,
with the use of any kind of water, including distilled water,
which, as Your Honor knows, is not only a non-conductor
but is in fact an insulator.
{fol. 23] That is one system. The second system covered
by Adams is the magnesium anode, the cuprous chloride
cathode, plus carbon and water, any kind of water.
The third system covered by Adams is brought in by the
doctrine of equivalents, and is not specifically disclosed in
the patent. It is the system of silver chloride, magnesium
and water.
As we said in our pretrail conference, Your Honor, our
position is that silver chloride is the equivalent of cuprous
chloride and carbon in this battery system.
Your Honor will find that the number of Defendant’s ref-
erences is now down below 50, and we do not have more
than 1,000 pages. Nowhere in those references will you find
34
any of the three systems which | have just described, which
date before Adams.
I want to point out briefly the impact of this, Your Honor.
Everything used in the patent in suit by the inventor Adams
was old in the art by 1880 at the latest.
Adams made his invention some time around 1939. Sixty
years went by, with these materials sitting in the laboratory,
and with a great amount of scientific research being done in
the field of batteries. The making of the electrodes was dis-
covered in the previous century. Why did 60 years go by
before somebody put these three simple components to-
gether to produce a battery which we will prove has char-
acteristics which are different than any prior art battery?
(fol. 24] The answer is because the art was pointed away
from any understanding of this battery system, and the
more art the Defendant introduces, the clearer that will
become. é
This meets the positive test of Judge Learned Hand,
Your Honor, as to what constitutes a pioneer invention. It
is the converse of the thought that you find expressed in
Section 103 of the Patent Act of 1952. The objective test is
if you can find that there existed in the art, that is, all the
materials were available which were used by the inventor
in making his system, and that a need existed, a long felt
want existed during this period for the invention he pro-
duced. Then he is the inventor, and if the period of time has
been long enough, and if the invention has those appropriate
characteristics, he pioneered.
Your Honor, when Mr. Adams went to the Army to talk
to them about the battery he had, and when you look at the
correspondence you will see that they were laughing at him,
and justifiably so. I do not want anyone to get the impres-
sion that I am pointing a finger of derision at anyone in the
Army battery field.
The reason they laughed at him was because the story he
was telling was unbelievable in terms of the batteries that
they were familiar with.
As you look at it today, you can see that quite clearly.
(fol. 25] For example, Mr. Adams supplied battery per-
formance curves and the tops of the curves are level, and
they are flat, and they look like they were drawn with a
straight edge ruler, and even Doctor Vinal, who is one of
ae 4
35
the most respected authorities in the field of batteries, eriti-
cized Adams and said: “This man does not know how to
draw a curve, he uses a rule. What battery has a flat curve
not only for amperage but for voltage?”
The interesting thing is that when you look at the articles
published in 1946 through 1955 by the people who supplied
Defendant with their batteries, you will see that the tops of
all of their curves look like that.
What other characteristics did this battery have which
added to all the other characteristics sounded unbelievable?
The first thing which was wrong with it, in the opinion of
the experts at that time, was that it had an exothermic re-
action. Every prior art battery, when it began to boil over
and heat up, was going wrong. No one appreciated that
when Adams said that his batteries worked at —50° Centi-
grade that it was this exothermic reaction, which they
thought was a disadvantage, which permitted a water-acti-
vated battery to operate at —50° Centigrade. When they
said that the water wor'd freeze, if it was not heated up by
some means, and Adams said: “My battery will go to
—50° Centigrade because there is this boiling. They said
“ridiculous.”
The battery had these features which we will detail, and
[fol. 26] taking the total of them you will find no other bat-
tery in existence as of that time which had all of them.
Indeed, Your Honor, there is none today, even though a new
industry, I might say, has been founded to manufacture this
type of battery, there have been no important discoveries of
new systems embodying Adams’ principles.
I would like to point out that the men who laughed at Mr.
Adams in 1948 are filing claims in 1950, and up to date, on
the same type of system. The scoffers have now caught up
with him.
Why has not the Adams system been improved on? Why
has not someone discovered a different type of battery,
using the same scientific principle?
The answer, Your Honor, is fully recognized by the im-
portant researchers in the field today ; that today there is no
scientific theory which explains the electrochemical reaction
which takes place in what they themselves term the complex
system of the magnesium-cuprous chloride-water battery.
Neither the chemical reactions nor the electrical reactions,
36
nor the ionic reactions are understood. The reaction prod-
ucts are not clearly identified and the reaction products are
formed by the inter-action of these substances in a way that
is still mysterious.
So that from the art today you will find that every
[fol. 27] invention being made today is admitted to be on
an empirical basis. That much is known, and you accept it
and you don’t cry to reason back to theory.
Of course, Your Honor, it is obvious that if there is no
theory available today to explain the process of the Adams
battery, then there was no theory in 1940 which would fore-
east its operability and point out anything in the direction
of making it.
Your Honor, I would like to say as to the patent in suit,
that you will be told that every claim of the patent in sait
contains the word “fused” and that “fused” has reference to
the making of the cuprous chloride into a cathode, and that
the one means of “fusing” which you will be told about is
that it means only a heat process, melting by heat process,
as detailed in the single illustrated embodiment shown in
the Adams patent.
You will also be told that Adams voluntarily limited his
patent to “fused” and therefore he cannot now move one jot
or tittle from it.
Adams shows one form of battery as an illustrative em-
bodiment, and he uses heat to make the electrode. He melts
euprous chloride by heat, and he calls it “heat.” He tells
you why he uses the heat. He does it so that he can pour the
material into a mold. He also uses the word “fused” and
the use of that word in his description makes it perfectly
[fol. 28] clear that Adams’ meaning of the word “fused” is
broader than his meaning of the word “heat,” and
that “fused” is a generic expression meaning “unified” or
“blended and unified.”
As I have already said, all of the methods of making elec-
trodes which the Defendant’s contractors apparently used
are known and old in the art, 60 years before Adams.
Adams’ specific method was old too. This is not a method
patent and it is not a mechanical patent. It is a product
patent and it is an electrochemical patent, and the processes
used by the contractors all take the material such as cuprous
chloride and they unify it and melt it by heat, or they melt
37
it with water, or if they do not melt it with water, they melt
it with organic solvents, and then add a resin to bind it back
together and gain some of the strength characteristics which
it lost when melting it with water alone. The process is one
of unification.
I would like to refer briefly to the doctrine of chemical
equivalents. The doctrine of chemical equivalents cuts two
ways, Your Honor, as the Supreme Court has pointed out in
Graver v. Linde. Every patent is entitled to be subjected to
the doctrine of equivalents because the doctrine of equiva-
lents is not only used to protect claims but it is used to
anticipate a patent. If you find a patentee discloses com-
pound X but compound Y is old in the art, and Y and X are
equivalents, then the patent on compound X may be in-
validated because of the doctrine of equivalents. So the
[fol. 29] doctrine of equivalents is a two-way sword.
We say that the Adams patent mentions only cuprous
chloride specifically. Defendant has cited volumes of silver
chloride references. Why? Because he is depending on the
doctrine of equivaients, and he is saving that silver chloride
works like cuprous chloride in this system, and if silver
chloride is old, this system falls because they are equiva-
lents and that if silver chloride water-activated batteries
were invented before Adams, Defendant should win.
But having taken that position, that silver chloride antici-
pates, the oldest maxim in the patent book is that that which
anticipates if earlier, infringes if later.
Defendant cannot say: “We have cited silver chloride
against these batteries but you cannot use that to show it
infringes.”
He must eat the cake or leave it.
We feel that the doctrine of equivalents should be applied
here uniformly across the board. We say that this patent is
entitled to a reasonable range of mechanical equivalents
inasmuch as it is a chemical patent and it has nothing to do
with any physical structure or physical methods of making
the substance, and that the method used by the Army con-
tractors to produce their electrodes acts in exactly the same
way, to produce exactly the same results as that used by
[fol. 30] Adams on his electrodes.
We also say that silver chloride is an equivalent ~_ as
Your Honor knows, silver chloride was used in hatte: ies as
38
well as magnesium, cuprous chloride and water before
Adams used them. The doctrine of mechanical equivalents,
and the doctrine of chemical equivalents should be applied
uniformly to the patent, either with respect to anticipation
or to determine the scope of the claims as to which there
may be infringement, and let the chips fall where they may.
Thank you very much, Your Honor.
Commissioner Lane: Does Defendant have any opening
statement?
Mr. Arseneau: Only that I prefer to rely on the testi-
mony of my witnesses.
Commissioner Lane: Very well. We might have a ten-
minute recess before starting the testimony.
(Short recess. )
Commissioner Lane: You may proceed.
Mr. Reilly: The Plaintiff will call Mr. Adams to the stand.
Wuerevpon Bert N. Apams, a witness produced on behalf
of the Plaintiffs, being first duly sworn by said Commis-
sioner, was examined and testified as follows:
[fol. 31] Direct examination.
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. Will you please state your name and address?
A. Bert N. Adams, No. 6 East Street, Hicksville, New
York.
Q. Are you one of the Plaintiffs in this suit, Mr. Adams?
A. Yes.
Q. Where were you born and in what year?
A. At New Rochelle in the year 1900, October 4th.
Q). Where did you first receive your education, Mr.
Adams?
A. New Rochelle, New York, Philadelphia and Erie,
Pennsylvania.
Q. Did vou graduate from high school, Mr. Adams?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was this?
A. In Erie, Pennsylvania, in 1915.
39
Q. After you graduated from high school, what did you
do?
A. I went to General Electric as an apprentice for ap-
proximately one year.
Q. What kind of an apprentice?
A. Machine shop.
{fol. 32] Q. What did you do after you were an apprentice
for General Electric?
A. The war broke out and I tried to enlist in the Navy
but I was rejected so I enlisted in the Merchant Marine,
where there were no physical requirements.
Q. How long did you remain in the Merchant Marine
during the war?
A. We went into war and I stayed until 1920.
Q. What did you do after 1920?
A. I went back to Italy, where we were. They brought
the troops to Italy and I went to the Milan Didactic Insti-
tute, and enrolled,
Q. Where was the Milan Didactic Institute?
A. In Milan.
Q. Italy?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. After spending four vears at the Didactic Institute,
what did you do then, Mr. Adams?
A. I eame back home and worked for the United States
Salvage Company, a marine salvage company in Floride.
Q. How long did you work the the United States Salvage
Company?
A. After the.year of the crash.
Q. Then what vou do?
{fol. 33] A. Then ¥ went to Briggs Shipyard and worked
on rebuilding the diesels on some of the destroyers and
other ships.
Q. During the depression years and the vear of the crash,
did you have other jobs?
A. Yes, I took any job which came along, automobile re-
pair and radio and painting.
Q. Then did you get any other position, Mr. Adams?
A. I did, in the spring of 1939 at the World’s Fair.
0. For whom did vou work?
A. I worked for Breda Steel Company.
40
Q. When did you start working for the Breda Steel Com.
pany?
_A. In the spring of 1939.
Q. How long did you work for them?
A. I worked for them until 1941, until the closing of the
Fair, when they packed up the exhibit.
Q. What Fair are you referring to?
. The World’s Fair.
. Where was it held?
. What?
. Where was it held?
. It was held in Flushing Meadows.
. In New York?
. In New York.
[fol. 34] Q. When did you first become interested in_the
general field of batteries?
_A. In the summer of 1939.
Q. What did you first do when you became interested in
batteries?
A. I studied the theories, various theories of it, and
started to experiment with various metals, such as iron and
copper and zine.
Q. What kind of metals did you experiment with, and for
what purpose?
_A. I was trying to find a Lt tery which had a linear
potential and could be activatea with water, and I experi-
mented with these various metals, including aluminum,
magnesium and cuprous chloride, and silver chloride, and
in fact I even tried gold chloride.
Q. For what purpose did you experiment with these
metals?
A. For the purpose of trying to find a battery which was
a better battery than we had, with a primary cell.
Q. Why did you want to activate batteries with water?
A. The reason is water is not corrosive, and it would
affect with less resistance any anode or cathede that I had.
Q. Were you generally familiar with the electrical proper-
ties of water?
[fol. 35] A. Yes.
Q. What did you know about the general electrical prop-
erties of water?
41
A. Water has a very high resistance, normal faucet
water, 200,000 ohms per centimeter.
Q. Would you say water would be a good or bad electro-
lvte?
A. A good electrolyte.
Q. What materials did you experiment with for your
electrodes in the battery?
A. With various materials, including aluminum, zinc, and
finally with magnesium for the anode, and copper, steel and
other metals for the cathode, and cuprous chloride and
euprie chloride.
Q. What material did you finally settle upon for your
anode?
A. Magnesium for the anode.
Q. Why did you settle on this?
A. Because magnesium has a high electromotive force.
Q. What kind of a reaction did you find between water,
which you had decided upon, and the magnesium, as the
reaction between those two?
A. Between water and magnesium?
[fol. 36] Q. Yes.
A. That magnesium is slightly soluble in water.
Q. What materials did you settle upon finally for your
cathode?
A. The euprous chloride.
Q. When you combined the magnesium anode in a unit
which had a euprous chloride cathode and the electrolyte as
water, what did you find?
A. It showed a voltage.
Q. And when you had a voltage, what did that indicate
to you?
A. It indicated that I had a battery.
Q. Did you try other materials besides cuprous chloride
for vour cathode?
. Yes, I did. I tried euprie « chloride.
Did that work?
. No. I tried steel and I tried copper.
Did that work?
. No.
. Did you try any other metals?
. I tried other metals. The only thing which did work
was silver chloride and gold chloride.
>O bP Sei >
42
Q. You tried those? |
A. Yes, sir, I tried those.
[fol. 37] Q. Why did you select cuprous chloride in pref-
erence to silver or gold chloride?
A. Because it is cheaper and has the same effect.
‘. Mr. Adams, when did you come up with the first opera-
tive battery which had these three materials that we have
previously mentioned, namely, a magnesium anode, @ cu-
prous chloride cathode, and activated by water?
A. In the summer of 1939.
Q. How do you remember that it was in the summer of
19391
A. The war had broken out then.
Q. Which war?
A. The Second World War between Germany and France.
At that time we were not in it.
Q. Did you continue experimenting later on or after this
with your battery?
A. I did.
Q. Mr. Adams, I will hand you two documents, one being
a duplicate of the other, which I would like to have marked
for identification.
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huettner: Your Honor, do we continue with the Trial
Exhibit numbers or start with regular numbers?
Commissioner Lane: I think we better mark them as
[fol. 38] Plaintiffs exhibits.
(Two sheets of invoice headed “Date Shipped 2-2-40
From Midland, Michigan, in re Dow Metal M Sheets CP
.040” and .020” was marked for identification as Plaintiffs’
Exhibit No. 1.)
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. I show you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1 for identification
and ask you if you received the invoices that you have be-
fore you?
A. I did.
Q. When did you receive these invoices?
A. February 2, 1940.
Q. On or about that date?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did you receive this invoice?
A. With several sheets of magnesium.
Q. From whom did you receive it?
A. From Dow Chemical Company.
Orrers 1n EvIpENCE
Mr. Huettner: Your Honor, I ask that this exhibit be in-
troduced into evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1.
Commissioner Lane: Any objection, Mr. Arseneau?
Mr. Arseneau: No objection.
Commissioner Lane: It is received in evidence as Plain-
tiffs’ Exhibit No. 1.
{fol. 39] (The document heretofore marked for identifi-
cation Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1 was received in evidence.)
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. Mr Adams, referring to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1, what
was this an invoice for?
A. For sheets of magnesium.
Q. Why did you want magnesium on or about February
1940?
A Because I had used all the magnesium and I had to
buy some more in 1940 to make batteries.
Q. Did you make subsequent purchases of magnesium?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Adams, did you find the batteries that you made
back in the late summer of 1939 completely satisfactory?
. No, I did not.
What did you find that was unsatisfactory?
. The current was low.
Did you experiment to try to improve this condition?
IT did.
. What did you do?
. Well, through an accident I found a catalyst carbon.
. How did this accident occur?
. I was smoking a cigarette and I put the cuprous
chloride in a crucible, and the ashes fell in. In those days,
{fol. 40] not having any place where I could throw the mix
away, I just cooked it or blended it and made a battery with
the cathode, with the cuprous chloride, and found that that
>O PO rOPop
44
had current, large current. I tested it and it had large eur-
rent.
Q. When did this incident occur, Mr. Adams? Do you
recall?
A. This incident occurred around the end of 1939.
Q. Do you recall where you were living at the time when
this incident occurred?
A. With Shulens.
Q. Do you recall when you moved to the home of the
Shulens or to the house owned by the Shulens?
A. That was roughly in the summer of 1939, and to
December 1, 1939. That is to the best of my recollection. I
may be wrong on the year. Dates are difficult.
Q. Mr. Adams, you say that you dropped some cigarette
ash into a crucible in which you were cooking some cuprous
chloride?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you use the cuprous chloride which you were
cooking, into which the ash fell, to make an electrode?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you use this electrode in one of your batteries?
A. Yes.
[fol. 41] Q. Did you make an operable battery with this
contaminated electrode?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you test this battery?
A. Yes.
Q. What were the results of the test?
A. I had a good battery. I had a battery which lit the
bulb.
Q. Did you notice any other results obtained from this
battery?
A. The linear potential.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. The potential was flat. In other words, you have
a curve that goes like so (indicating), and then it comes
down at the bottom. We call it a flat curve.
Q. What is linear potential?
A. Linear potential is a potential that remains straight
under load.
Q. Mr. Adams, after you made this battery with the
contaminated electrode containing carbon, what did you do
next?
45
A. I started thinking what had happened, and the only
reason I could give was that the carbon must be a good
thing in it, and I went out and bought charcoal, and I got
[fol. 42] pieces of hard coal—we used both—and I got
metallurgical coal, and I tried powdered graphite and I
found out regardless of the type—and also sugar, and I put
in sugar, which is a hydro-carbon, and I found out that the
carbon is the catalyst that gave me the current.
Q. Did you make electrodes out of all these various
kinds of carbons?
. Yes, sir, I did.
. Did you put them into batteries?
Yes.
. Did you test them?
Yes.
What were the results?
. The results were that all came out the same.
Were they good or bad?
. They were good batteries.
. Mr. Adams, I give you two pieces of paper. The
first piece contains some handwritten notes, with some
figures and a graph, and the second page is typewritten,
containing a handwritten notation showing the date August
29, 1940. Do you recognize these papers?
A. I do.
Q. Is the handwriting and are the figures and the graphs
on the first page in your handwriting?
[fol. 43] A. It is.
Q. Is the handwriting that shows the date August 29,
1940, on the second page, in your handwriting?
A. It is.
Q. Was the second page typewritten by you?
A. Yes.
Q. I note on the first page, Mr. Adams, that there are
some dates, August 26—and I am referring to the upper
right-hand corner—and below that August 27, and then in
the middle of the graph it shows August 28th. What year
do those August dates refer to?
A. 1940.
Q. Why do you say that, Mr. Adams? .
A. Because I recall it, and the second page was typed at
that time, and it states so.
rOrOrPOopop
©
46
Q. In other words, Mr. Adams, did you type the two
pages and then sign it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. With the date, after you had typed it?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huettner: I would like to offer into evidence as
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 2 the graph and the typewritten
page which the witness referred to.
Mr. Arseneau: Your Honor, I would like to object to this as
[fol. 44] being self-serving and not proved. The graph sheet
has no year but only the month, and the sheet which has
the year, or supplies the year, is partially typewritten and
partially handwritten.
Mr. Huettner: Your Honor, I think the witness testified
to the fact that the August 26, 27 and 28 dates which appear
on the first page are 1940, and that sheet 2 is only a sum-
mary, which you will see very clearly, Your Honor, where
the time and date of water added to the battery was 8:15
p-m., August 26, 1940, which was for the first time, Your
Honor, indicated on sheet 1, and that the time of stopping
current drain was at 9:30 a.m., August 29, 1940, which is
where the graph comes to the end at the bottom. The
witness, who wrote the first page, testified that he wrote
the second page on August 29th, which summarizes the
graph on the first page. I do not think there is any ques-
tion about that here.
Commissioner Lane: Mr. Arseneau, if you like, you may
reserve further objection until you have had an opportunity
to cross-examine Mr. Adams.
Mr. Arseneau: Thank you, Your Honor.
Commissioner Lane: It will be marked Plaintiffs’ Ex-
hibit No. 2 for identification at this time, and I will rule
on its admissibility after cross-examination.
[{fol. 45] (Two-page document the first of which shows
a curve and the second of which states “Summary of
Test of Original Cell August 29, 1940,” marked for identi-
fication as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 2.)
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. Mr. Adams, what is shown on page 1 of Plaintiffs’
Exhibit No. 2, which is the document containing the graph?
A. A curve which shows the potential, the various loads.
47
The top one is the potential of the battery open circuit,
and the other is the potential of the center with the two-
volt load, and that shows the characteristic of the bulb
which I used as lead.
Q. What kind of a battery does this graph represent?
A. A battery made of magnesium anode and a cuprous
chloride cathode, blended with carbon and a water electro-
lyte.
Q. When did you add the water electrolyte to this
battery?
A. At the time of activation. It was at 8:15 p.m. on
August 26, 1940.
Q. Did you continue to make readings during August
26, 19402
A. Yes, as stated on this curve.
Q. What are you pointing to there, Mr. Adams?
[fol. 46] A. At the time, on August 26th and on August
27th and on August 28th.
Q. Do we go into August 29th? Did this continue on
into August 29th?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you refer to page 2 of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No.
2 for identification?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did this battery operate, Mr. Adams?
A. Roughly 34 hours.
Q. In view of the objection of Mr. Arseneau, would you
repeat what page 2 is with reference to page 1?
A. Page 2 is a summary of page 1.
Q. Mr. Adams, I would like to refer you again to this
exhibit, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 2 for “identification. Was
this one of your earlier batteries?
A. Yes, sir.
. You said this battery contained a cuprous chloride
cathode which had carbon in it?
A. Right.
Q. Was that one of the first of such batteries?
A. Yes, sir. _
Q. Earlier you said that this addition of carbon which
you accidentally made when smoking a cigarette took place
[fol. 47] in the year 1939?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I would like to have you refresh your recollection, in
48
view .of this document which is before you, and I ask you
whether it was in |e year 1939 or 1940 that the accident
happened?
A. It was either late—when I said the first time, it was
either late 1939 or in 1940. It is difficult for me to pinpoint
the exact time within those dates.
Q. Mr. Adams, did you continue experimenting with
your battery after August 29, 1940?
A. I did.
Q. Did you experiment with regard to chemicals or any-
thing of that kind to increase the speed of activatica of
the battery?
A. I did.
Q. What did you do in this respect?
A. I added magnesium chloride.
Q. And did you test the batteries in which you had added
the magnesium chloride?
A Yes.
Ys What were the results?
A. I gained a slight bit in the activation time.
Q. Did you do any experiments with regard to contami-
[fol. 48] nation of the electrodes?
A. Yes.
Q..What were the results of your experiments?
A. I added magnesium sulphate in that case and kept
the electrodes cleaner.
Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a document entitled “N.Y.
March 13-14 1941.” Do you vecognize this document?
A. Yes, I typed it.
Q. You typed this document?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you type the information and draw the graph
contained thereon?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you do it on or about the date March 13-14, 1941?
A. Yes.
Mr. Huettner: I offer this document into evidence as
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 3.
Commissioner Lane: Any objection, Mr. Arseneau?
Mr. Arseneau: No, sir.
Commissioner Lane: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 3 is received.
49
(One-page document headed “N.Y. March 13-14 1941
Capacity Test of Neutro Cell” was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 3.)
[fol. 49] By Mr. Huettner:
Q. I direct you attention, Mr. Adams, to the bottom of
this document. Does this document show the addition that
you just mentioned of magnesium sulphate and magnesium
chloride?
A. Yes.
Q. Did this cell operate properly?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it a good cell?
_ A. Yes.
Q. I note on the top, Mr. Adams, that vou say “Neutro
Cell.” What is a “Neutro Cell”?
A. It is the name I gave to this particular cell made of
magnesium, cuprous chloride, carbon and water.
Q. In other words, that is the name you gave to identify
vour cell?
A. To identify the cell which had a practically neutral
electrolyte.
Q. Whenever we see the word “Neutro” anywhere in th»
documents, you are referring to a cell which has a mag-
nesium anode, a cuprous chloride cathode and activated by
water?
A. That is correct.
Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a physical object which looks
like a glass jar, having a black-rimmed seal at the top, with
[fol. 50] two pieces of metal protruding out of the top. The
glass contains a faded brown label which is dated at the
bottom either May or November—it is undistinguishable—
21, 1941. Do you recognize this cell?
. Yes, sir, it is one of my early cells.
What is the anode made of?
. Magnesium.
What is the cathode made of?
. Cuprous chloride, blended with carbon.
. What was the electrolyte used in this cell?
. Water.
. Is it a used cell and has it been spent?
. This has been spent.
>O>POProOror
50
Q. Is this cell similar to the cells which we have been dis-
cussing up to this time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you make this cell, Mr. Adams?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you make it on or about the date on this label?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huettner: I offer this cell in evidence as Plaintiffs’
Exhibit No. 4.
Mr. Arseneau: Excuse me. Did you refer to the label?
Mr. Huettner: On the very bottom line is the date which
[fol. 51] I gave as November 21, 1941.
Mr. Wohlfert: If Your Honor please, I think at this point
it might be well to make a general objection to the nature of
the questions asked by counsel for the Plaintiffs. I note that
almost every question has been answered by yes or no, in
view of the leading nature of the questions. I think the wit-
ness should identify these exhibits and tell us what they are
and not have counsel prompt him with leading questions.
Mr. Reilly: May I interject? I would like to have proper
procedure followed by Defendant’s counsel. You will ob-
serve that on our side one counsel has conducted the exami-
nation, and I have not interjected up to this point. I think
we better make up our minds who is going to object, and
either one or the other do it, and not both.
Commissioner Lane: Will you bear in mind the objection
of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Wohlfert?
Mr. Wohlfert: Yes, Your Honor.
Commissioner Lane: Proceed.
Mr. Huettner: My last request was that this battery he
introduced into evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 4.
Mr. Arseneau: I object, Your Honor.
Commissioner Lane: It will be marked and received.
[fol. 52] (Physical exhibit, being glass jar, dated Novem-
ber 21, 1941, with magnesium anode and cathode of cuprous
chloride, blended with carbon, was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 4.)
51
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. Mr. Adams, did you make other shapes of your neutro
cell?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Adams, I place before you five objects, starting
from left to right, and would you identify those objects?
A. These are cells that I made in the following rotation,
yes, sir. (Indicating)
Mr. Huettner: The witness has placed the cells in a cer-
tain order.
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. When you say “in the following rotation,” would you
please explain that?
A. This was made, I am sure, after this date. (Indi-
cating)
Mr. Huettner: When the witness is saying “this,” he is
pointing to a tubular object about four inches long, and I
would like to have this marked for identification so that we
will know what we are talking about. It will be Plaintiffs’
Exhibit No. 5 for identification.
[fol. 53] (Physical exhibit, being a tubular object about
four inches long, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs’
ixhibit No. 5.)
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. Proceed, Mr. Adams.
A. This was made on the request of the Signal Corps,
which wanted a Type D, which denotes the size of the bat-
tery. (Indicating)
Mr. Huettner: The witness just picked up another cylin-
drical object which has two wires attached to it, and I would
like to have that marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 6 for
identification.
(Physical exhibit, being a cylindrical object with two
wires attached was marked for identification as Plaintiffs’
Exhibit No. 6.)
52
The Witness: This one with a high-amperage battery
gave 1.2 amperes at 1.5 volts. (Indicating)
Mr. Huettner: The witness has just pick up a glass object
which has a label on it, and I would like to have this marked
for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 7.
(Physical exhibit, being made of glass with a label on it
dated 1943 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Ex-
hibit No. 7.)
[fol. 54] By Mr. Huettner:
Q. Does the label on that battery have a date?
A. It has 1943 for this particular battery, but they were
made before this date.
Q. The next object, Mr. Adams?
A. The next one is for extremely high amperage, with
the thought of missiles in mind. This was flat. There are
three cells in series, capable of delivering 14 amperes in a
time of four minutes at 1.1 volts (indicating).
Mr. Huettner: The witness was just talking about a rec-
tangular-shaped article which I would like to have marked
as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 8 for identification.
(Physical exhibit, being a rectangular object, was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 8.)
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. Proceed.
A. The next one is an improved design of a venting sys-
tem for use in aircraft, and it has a novel type valve.
Q. The Plaintiff is now discussing a plastic cvlinder
article, which I would like to have marked Plaintiffs’ Ex-
hibit No. 9 for identification.
Is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
[fol. 55] (Physical exliibit, being plastic cylinder, was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 9.)
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. Who made the cells in front of you, Mr. Adams?
A. I made all these cells.
Q. Approximately when did you make the cells marked
Plaintiffs’ Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5, the ones on your right?
A. They were made early in 1942.
Q. When did you make cells marked Plaintiffs’ Exhibit
No. 6, which is the next one?
A. They were made at approximately the same time.
Q. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 7?
A. These were also made at that time for experimenta-
tion on high amperage.
. And Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 8?
A. These were made probably in the early part of 1943.
. And Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 9?
. These were made just about the same time.
. Did you deliver any one of these cells to the Army?
. This type, the first and second.
. You are talking about Plaintiffs’ Exhibits Nos. 5 and
. Plaintiffs’ Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6 and 8 and 9 were
. 56] delivered to Fort Monmouth.
Mr. Huettner: I would like to introduce into evidence
physical Exhibits Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
Mr. Arseneau: I have no objection, Your Honor.
Commissioner Lane: The will be received in evidence, and
they will be marked during the recess.
(The physical exhibits heretofor marked for identification
as Plaintiffs’ Exhibits Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 were received in
evidence. )
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. Mr. Adams, after you started making samples of your
neutro cell, what did you do with it?
A. What do you mean, what did I do with it?
Q. Did you try to capitalize on the cell?
A. Yes, I tried to interest the Government in it.
Q. Did vou try to interest anybody else, any private con-
cerns?
54
A. And private concerns, Edison and Nationa] Carbon
and National Battery Company.
Q. National Battery Company?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huettner: I have just handed thé witness four pages,
or actually five pages of material, and I would like to have
them marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 10.
[fol. 57] Page 1 is a document having a date March 4, 1941.
Page 2 is a document entitled “Neutro Cell Characteristics.”
Page 3 is a graph, the top of which is cut off at the corner,
and page 4 is entitled “The Possibilities of the Neutro Cell,”
and page 5 consists of some handwritten notes which appear
on the back of page 4, which the witness has. The witness
has the originals.
(Five-page document consisting of a letter of March 4,
1941 from Bert Adams to National Battery Company to-
gether with four other sheets consisting respectively of
sheets entitled “Neutro Cell Characteristics” “Graph” “The
Possibilities of the Neutro Cell” and notes appearing in
handwriting on back of page 4, were collectively marked for
identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 10.)
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. Mr. Adams, do you recognize the first page of Plain-
tiffs Exhibit No. 10?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it?
A. It is a letter I wrote to the National Battery Com-
panv with reference to seeing if they had any interest in our
kind of battery.
The other papers are the enclosures that I sent with this
letter. so that they would have information as to the char-
[fol. 58] acteristics and the possibilities of it.
Q. Who made the second page of this document?
A. I did I typed it.
Q. Who made the graph on page 3?
A. I did.
(). Who typed page 4 entitled “The Possibilities of the
Neutro Cell”?
A. I did.
55
Q. Who made the handwritten notes on the back of page
5?
A. That is my handwriting.
Mr. Huettner: Your Honor, I would like to introduce the
five pages marked Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 10 into evidence
as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 10.
Mr. Arseneau: I have no objection, Your Honor, but the
last sheet here shows some notes. Do you intend to refer to
page 6?
Mr. Huettner: I think it appears on the back.
Commissioner Lane: Off the record, Mr. Reporter, please.
(Discussion off the record.)
Commissioner Lane: Back on the record.
Mr. Arseneau: All right.
Commissioner Lane: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 10 will be
received in evidence.
{fol. 59] (The documents heretofore marked for identifi-
cation as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 10, were received in evi-
dence. )
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. What was the outcome of your letter, Mr. Adams, of
March 4, 1941?
A. There was no interest shown.
Q. Did you get a response to this letter?
A. No.
Q. What did you do?
A. On this particular thing? There was no interest. Then
T received a letter from the National Batte~y to go to Cleve-
land to their test labs, and I went there und Doctor French
tested it. First he thought it was crazy, and then he put it
on the test bench and checked it, and it was all right, and then
I came back to New York with the battery. I did not leave it
nor did I leave any information there.
Q. Did you bring any information with you?
A.I brought some information but no information which
was vital.
Mr. Huettner: I am handing the witness five pages which
T would like to have marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 11
for identification.
56
Commissioner Lane: It may be so marked.
[fol. 60] (Five-page document, the first page of which is
entitled “Possibilities of the Neutro Celi,” the second and
third pages entitled “Neutro Cell Characteristics,” fourth
page entitled “Formula for Computing Capacity by Weight
and Surface Exposed,” and the fifth sheet showing “Capac-
ity—Linear Potential—Small Weight,” marked for identi-
fication as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 11.)
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. Do you recognize these pages, Mr. Adams?
A. Yes, I do. I typed them.
Q. What is the notation on page 4 of this document?
A. (Reading) “This formula copied by F. H. French at
Cleveland laboratories exide National Carbon Company on
Aug. 22—1941 morning.”
Q. Whose writing is that?
A. That is my writing.
Q. What does this indicate to you?
A. It indicates that he had taken down, copied from this
page, this information which is above it.
Q. The data on that page, does it disclose the chemical
compositions of your neutro cell?
A. It does not.
Q. What does it not disclose?
A. It does not disclose the cuprous chloride or the carbon.
[fol. 61] Q. How did you identify it on page 4?
A. “Element X.”
Q. When you went to see Mr. French, did you have these
pages with vou?
A. Yes.
Q. You said you had something else?
A. Yes, I had characteristics of the linear potential and
what possible use I thought at the time could be made of the
cell, and a sort of specification.
Q. What was the cell like which you had with you?
A. It was a cell something similar to this (indicating).
Mr. Huettner: The witness is pointing to Plaintiffs’ Ex-
hibit No. 4.
57
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. Who typed all the pages in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 11
for identification?
A. These were all typed by me.
Q. Do you recall when they were typed?
A. In 1941.
Mr. Huettner: I offer into evidence the five pages which
have been identified as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 11 for identi-
fication.
Mr. Arseneau: No objection, Your Honor.
Commissioner Lane: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 11 will be
(fol. 62] received.
(The document heretofore marked for identification
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. im was received in evidence. )
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. Did you interest anybody else in your battery, Mr.
Adains?
A. Yes, the Government.
Q. Anybody besides the Government?
A. A friend of mine, John Sandhaas, tried to find interest
through the Government. I believe he wrote to Washington.
Q. Mr. Adams, I show you a document containing five
pages which is already in evidence as Trial Exhibit No. 15,
pages 1 to 5.
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huettner: I would like first to introduce one more
document.
Commissioner Lane: Proceed.
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. Mr. Adams, I show you a document consisting of four
pages which I would like to have marked as Plaintiffs’ Ex-
hibit No. 12 for identification. Do you recognize ages docu-
ments?
A. Yes.
fol. 63] (Document consisting of four pages, the -first
page of which is a letter dated April 3, 1941 to Thomas A.
Edison, Inc., together with letter dated April 17, 1941 from
58
Thomas A. Edison to Bert Adams, plus two graphs, were
collectively marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit
No. 12.)
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. What are these documents?
A. The first one is a letter I wrote to Thomas A. Edison,
addressed to Mr. Stamper, in reference to a test cell which
I left on March 20, 1941, to see whether they had tested it,
or what happened to it.
Q. Did you write the letter on the first page of this
document?
A. I wrote the letter.
Q. On what date?
A. On April 3, 1941.
Q. What is page 2 of this document, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit
No. 12 for identification?
A. Page 2 is a letter from Mr. Patterson, Chief Engineer
of Thomas A. Edison, stating that they had failed to return
the graphs of voltage and current characteristic curves
which I had left with him when I left the battery, or when I
took my battery back which they did not test.
Q. Did you receive the letter on page 2 of Plaintiffs’
[fol. 64] Exhibit No. 12 for identification?
A. Sir?
Q. Did you receive this letter?
A. Yes, I did, and this is it.
Q. What are pages 3 and 4 of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 12
for identification ?
A. No. 3 is the original curve I gave Edison, and so is
No. 4, of similar proportion.
Q. Did you make the curves shown on pages 3 and 4 of
this exhibit?
A. Yes.
Q. Are these the curves referred to in Mr. Patterson’s
letter?
A. Yes.
Mr. Huettner: I offer into evidence the four pages which
the witness has identified as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 12.
Commissioner Lane: Any objection?
Mr. Arseneau: No objection.
59
Commission Lane: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 12 is received
in evidence.
(The document heretofore marked for identification
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 12 was received in evidence.)
[fol. 65) By Mr. Huettner:
Q. On your visit to the Edison Company on March 20,
1941, you indicated on page 1 making such a trip, and what
did you bring with you, Mr. Adams?
A. One battery.
Q. Anything else?
A. Those curves and the specifications.
Q. Did you leave the battery with them?
A. I did.
Q. Did you ever disclose to them the chemical composi-
tion of your battery?
A. No, they did not ask for it and I did not disclose it.
Q. What did they do with this battery at Edison?
A. From the oral information received, they just talked
it over and decided that they would not go into that type of
battery, and that they were not interested in it at the time.
Q. I now hand you the exhibit which we have had marked,
which is Trial Exhibit No. 15, pages 1 to 5, and this letter
is stipulated to be a letter from Mr. Sandhaas to Mr.
Charles F. Kettering, Chairman of the National Inventors
Council, dated January 7, 1942. Why did Mr. Sandhaas
write this letter?
([fol. 66] A. To interest the Government in tho battery.
Q. Where there any enclosures with this letter?
A. Yes, I had given Mr. Sandhaas the specifications and
the possibilities and the curves which he later had typed.
Q. Are those shown on pages 2 and 3 of this exhibit?
A. Right, they are copies of the originals which I gave to
Sandhaas.
Q. You gave to Mr. Sandhaas the data contained on pages
2 and 3?
A. Right, and also the curves.
Q. And also the curves?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he re’ ved this data?
A. Yes, sir.
60
Q. Did you check this data before it was sent in?
A. Some of it was checked and some of it was not checked.
It was too late.
Q. The particular data shown on pages 2 and 3, you
mean?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I show you a copy of a letter which is admitted in
evidence as Trial Exhibit No. 17, page 1. Do you recognize
this letter, Mr. Adams?
[fol. 67] A. Yes, I do. This is a copy that Sandhaas gave
me after he wrote to Captain Shumaker of the Research and
Development Division, Navy Department, Washington,
D.C.
Q. Why did Mr. Sandhaas write this letter?
A. To interest the Government in this patent.
Q. Were there any enclosures with this letter?
A. Yes. .
Q. I direct your attention to the paragraph numbered 2,
and will you read it?
A. The usual characteristics and curves were very similar
to the ones of previous characteristics and curves of Sand-
haas, and they were sent.
Q. Are you talking about the previous exhibit, Trial Ex-
hibit No. 15, pages 2 to 5, the enclosures?
A. Yes, sir, those were sent with it.
Q. I show you a copy of Trial Exhibit No. 15, pages 6
through 11.
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huettner: Your Honor, this is a retyped copy from
the original. It was almost illegible but it is stipulated to
be Trial Exhibit No. 15 and has been admitted as retyped.
Commissioner Lane: All right.
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. What is this letter, Mr. Adams?
[fol. 68] <A. It is a letter written by John Sandhaas to the
Research & Development Division, Office of the Signal Offi-
cer, War Department, Washington, D. C.
Q. Where there any enclosures with this letter?
A. Yes, there were.
61
Q. Are those enclosures shown on the third, fourth, fifth
and sixth and seventh pages of Trial Exhibit No. 15?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Adams, did you get any response from the letter
which you sent to the Navy, and I refer to Trial Exhibit No.
17, page 8, and particularly to the reference (a)?
A. Yes, the response was that the Bureau wanted more
information, and possibly in the form of a patent applica-
tion, if the patent had been applied for. In other words,
they requested more information on it, and the letter was
sent by direction of Admiral Blandy.
Q. I hand you a copy of Trial Exhibit No. 17, page 2, and
ask you if you recognize this letter?
A. Yes, sir, this is a letter that I used when I came to
Washington at the Bureau of Ordnance.
. When was this letter prepared by you?
. January 20, 1942.
. Why?
. To introduce me to Captain Shumaker, Bureau of
[fol. 69] Ordnance.
Q. Why did you want to see Captain Shumaker?
A. To speak in the interest of this particular type of bat-
tery, the neutro cell.
Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a copy of Trial Exhibit No. 16,
page 1. Do you recognize this document?
A. I do.
Q. What is it, Mr. Adams?
A. It is part of the pages of a book that I kept, with all
the expenses incurred.
Q. How did you keep the entries on this book, Mr.
Adams?
A. Chronologieally.
Q. As they happened?
A. Yes, sir, as they happened.
Q. I refer you to the entry dated January 21, 1942, and
would you read that entry?
A. (Reading) “Jan. 21—1942 Trip to Washington from
1-21-42 to 1-24-42 (Navy).”
Q. What does that indicate to you, Mr. Adams?
A. This indicates that I came to Washington during that
period, and that is the particular trip for which this letter
was written.
62
Q. You are now talking about Trial Exhibit No. 17,
[fol. 70] page 2?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I now hand you a small piece of paper which appears
to be taken out of a spiral notebook, being Trial Exhibit No.
16, page 2. Do you recognize this piece of paper?
A. Yes.
Q. What does that indicate to you?
A. It indicates to me the people I contacted here.
Q. Whom did you contact?
A. Mr. Irlond at the War Department Research & Devel-
opment, and I remember the Bureau was across the street
from the Bureau of Ordnance, and I was referred by Cap-
tain McConoughty to Captain Adams in the Signal Corps at
Fort Monmouth for test, and at the Signal Corps, further
down on the same page, is the name of Mr. Daniels and
Captain Adams, who were the first two people I saw, and
then Doctor Payne.
Q. The last people you mentioned, where did you see
them?
. At Fort Monmouth.
. Instead of in Washington?
. Yes, sir.
. Not in Washington?
No.
I hand you a document, Mr. Adams, entitled “Tele-
71] phone message.” Do you recognize this document?
I do.
What does it relate to?
It relates to a telephone ca!| from Mr. MeMurray.
Where was he?
. At the Dodge Hotel here in Washington.
What is the date of this memorandum?
. The date is January 22, 1942.
Did you receive this message?
_ /
Did you make the call requested on it?
. Yes.
Mr. Huettner: I introduce the Telephone Message from
the Dodge Hotel, dated January 22, 1942, as Plaintiffs’ Ex-
hibit No. 13.
Mr. Arseneau: No objection.
=
“h
>POPOPrOoPopro>lopopop
|
63
Commissioner Lane: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 13 is received.
(Telephone Message from Dodge Hotel dated January 22,
1942 was received in evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 13.)
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. Now, Mr. Adams, when you were here in Washington
during the period January 21, 1942 to January 24, 1942, you
fol. 72] stated that you met with a Mr. Irland and who
else?
A. Captain Shumaker.
Q. Anybody else?
A. I don’t recall the other names.
Q. What did you bring with you when you came to Wash-
ington on this trip?
A. One battery and a set of curves and a set of char-
acteristics.
Q. Similar to the ones that were furnished to the Navy?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In other words, more copies?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you disclose to the Government personnel
that you talked to while in Washington?
A. I disclosed the entire chemical reaction. I told them
everything I knew at the time. I told them the battery could
be made of silver and gold chloride.
Q. Where did you disclose this?
A. At the Navy, Bureau of Ordnance, at the conference.
Q. How many people were in that conference?
A. Roughly one dozen, I would say.
Q. To you knowledge, whom did they represent?
A. They represented the Government, the Navy. They
were Navy specialized personnel, such as chemists ‘and
(fol. 73] electronizs people, and the submarine people were
there, too.
Q. Did you disclose this to them?
A. Yes, sir, it was necessary, and I disclosed the entire
thing so that they could use it in case they needed it for
armaments.
Q. What was the outcome of your visit here in Washing-
ton in January 1942?
A. I was directed to go to Fort Monmouth, and they
64
would communicate at the time to tell them that I was com-
ing there with this battery.
Commissioner Lane: Our recess for lunch is due at any
time when you come to a good stopping point. Are you
jumping from Washington to Fort Monmouth now?
Mr. Huettner: I think this would be a good stopping
point.
Commissioner Lane. It is 12:35. Do you want to come
back at 2:00 o’clock? Is that long enough?
Mr. Huettner: Very good.
Commissioner Lane: We will recess now until 2 :00 o’clock.
(Whereupon, at 12:35 o’clock p.m., a recess was taken
until 2:00 o’clock p.m.)
[fol.74] ArrerNoon Session (2:00 o’clock p.m.)
Commissioner Lane: Before we start, I have received
from Defendant’s counsel, in a letter dated today, a certified
copy of the contract which was referred to this morning,
NObs 20600, with the request that it be received as a Com-
missioner’s exhibit. Do the Plaintiffs have any objection to
that?
Mr. Reilly: We would like to have an opportunity to look
at the exhibit, if we may, and could I answer tomorrow as to
both of the documents?
Commissioner Lane: Yes, sir. Do you have copies of the
contract and of Defendant’s Answer?
Mr. Reilly: I have probably got some copies, such as they
are, and we can try to decipher them today.
Commissioner Lane: Very well.
Mr. Reilly: I might say by looking at this, that sometimes
the photostats turn out better.
Commissioner Lane: You may proceed.
65
Wuerevupon Bert N. Apams, the witness on the stand at
the taking of the recess, resumed the stand and testified fur-
ther on behalf of the Plaintiffs, as follows:
fol. 75] Direct examination (resumed)
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. Mr. Adams, when you were in Washington from Janu-
ary 21, 1942 to January 24, 1942, did you visit any other
Government agencies than the Bureau of Ordnance?
A. The Naval Research and the Bureau of Ships.
Q. What did you do when you visited the Bureau of Naval
Research and the Bureau of Ships?
A. We discussed the chemical composition of the cells
and their possible use to the military.
Q. What cells are you referring to?
A. To the cuprous chloride and magnesium cells.
Q. Is the one before you similar to the one you were
demonstrating with the Government, and are you referring
to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 4?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the outcome of your visit to Washington?
A. I was directed to Fort Monmouth.
Q. Mr. Adams, I show you Trial Exhibit No. 16, page 1,
to which you referred earlier, and ask you if there is any
entry there which would be helpful with respect to this
matter?
A. Yes, on January 21, 1942, it states:
“Trip to Washington from 1-21-42 to 1-24-42 (Navy).”
[fol. 76] Q. What does that indicate to you?
A. It indicates taking a trip to Washington.
Q. To where?
A. To Washington, to the Navy.
Q. Would you read the next entry?
A. The next entry reads:
“January 26—1942 Trip to Ft. Monmouth for Army
tests. Left 1 cell.”
Q. What does that indicate to you, Mr. Adams?
A. That I went to Fort Monmouth from Washington.
66
Q. Mr. Adams, I show you Trial Exhibit No. 16, page 3.
Do you recognize this document?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it, Mr. Adams?
A. It is a page from a notebook that I had at the time, the
name of the director and the places where I went at Fort
Monmouth, and who I talked to.
Q. With whom did you talk at Fort Monmouth?
A. Mr. Ellis and Mr. Daniels.
Q. Anybody else?
A. Doctor Payne.
Q. Did you bring anything with you to Fort Monmouth
on this trip?
A. One cell.
[fol. 77] Q. Did you bring anything else?
A. A set of curves and the characteristics of the cell, and
possible uses.
Q. I show you Trial Exhibit No. 15, pages 1 to 5, which
we have already identified, the letter of Sandhaas to Mr.
Kettering, which had enclosures. What is that?
A. It is similar to the others.
Q. It is similiar to the others?
A. In fact they were copies.
Q. Is there a cell before you, Mr. Adams, which you took
to Fort Monmouth?
A. I didn’t take it.
Q. Is there a cell before you which is similar to the one
you took to Fort Monmouth?
A. Exactly like it.
Q. You just picked up Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 41
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you brought that to Fort Monmouth, what did
they do with it there, Mr. Adams?
A. They were just credulous, and then they tested it, and
they asked me how it was made, and I informed them. When
they saw how it was made——
Q. Just what did you tell them?
A. I told them cuprous chloride fused or molded or
[fol. 78] blended, and they could be made out of silver chlo-
ride or gold chloride, and that it had a linear potential, and
I explained that I activated it by plain water, and that the
anode was magnesium.
67
Q. Did the representatives at Fort Monmouth do any-
thing to the battery?
A. Yes, they tested it.
Q. Were you present at these tests?
A. At the initial test, yes.
Q. Will you explain what kind of testing they did?
A. They put water in it. They had some distilled water
and at first I remember they thought faucet water might
contain impurities which might hurt it, and I said, all right,
to use the other water. In fact they put in distilled water
and they handled it and they had a system where they would
press a button and get the voltage reading and the amper-
age, and they tested it.
Q. What were the results of these tests?
A. It showed a linear potential.
Q. Did the voltage meter show anything?
A. Yes, it showed a potential at the voltage I recom-
mended, but I forget what it was now.
Q. Did you see anyone else on this first trip to Fort Mon-
mouth, other than Doctor Payne, Mr. Daniels and Mr. Ellis?
{fol. 79] A. Yes, I saw Captain Adams, Captain Kingston.
Q. Did you see any other people, on any of your official
trips to Fort Monmouth?
A. Yes, on later trips I met Kestler and Bedrosian.
Q. Anybody else?
A. Yes, there were others, Mandell, and I have a hazy
idea of others. Those hurriedly are all the names.
Q. Did you ever meet a Mr. Glassner?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Doctor Fischbach?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a letter entitled Trial Exhibit
No, 12, page 1. Do you recognize this letter, or what it is?
A. It is a copy of the letter written by Captain Clarence
Kingston as to the neutro cells, the two cells to be delivered
for future tests at their laboratory at Fort Monmouth and
that they were to be sent prepaid, without cost to the
Government.
Q. I hand you a copy of Trial Exhibit No. 16, page 4. Did
you deliver the cells requested by Captain Kingston?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. When did you deliver these cells?
68
{fol. 80) A. February 2, 1942.
Q. Is there an entry noted there?
A. February 9, 1942. Pardon me, yes, there is an entry
“Deliver 2 cells to Lab No. 2.” It says “Trip to Fort Mon-
mouth to deliver 2 cells to Lab No. 2.”
Q. To whom did vou deliver the cells at Fort Monmouth?
A. When I went u.ere, I always delivered them to Doctor
Payne or Mr. Daniels, who were together at the time. They
always came in twos. They would come in the lobby to escort
me in, unless it was at the Eaton Place, where they had a
special secret lab, and then you were escorted by girls as a
security measure.
Q. Did Doctor Payne or Mr. Ellis tell you why they
wanted these two additional cells?
A. For test.
Q. Did they say anything about the test they made on the
first cell which you had delivered to them?
A. No.
Q. Did they say anything about your first cell?
A. The only thing was that they found that it heated, or
overheated, and I explained to, them at the time that it
would be advantageous for cold temperatures.
Q. Why would it be advantageous for cold temperatures?
A. Because it would not freeze, and some did heat and
[fol. 81] some did not heat, and when they overheated, they
were overloaded for the area or the drain for which they
were made, and I told them that for Arctic use they could be
overloaded to the extent necessary to keep them from freez-
ing up.
Q. Is the heating of a battery an advantage or a dis-
advantage?
A, In that case it was an advantage.
Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a copy of T'rial Exhibit No. 17,
page 3. Do you reco,ynize this letter?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it, Mr. Adams?
A. It is a letter that I wrote following the request of Mr.
Ellis and Mr. Daniels, and I wrote to them that I was send-
ing them two positive cathodes, one spent and the other as
it came from the mold.
Q. In other words, one was used and one was not used?
A. Yes, sir.
69
Q: Why would a person want a spent cathode?
A. ‘There might be two reasons; one was spectroscopic
analysis in general conditions, and the other might be to
determine the state of it afterwards in order to determine
quantities of electricity or proportions.
Q. Did you send these two electrodes to Fort Monmouth?
A. I did.
{fol. 82] Q. Did you ever hear anything about them after
that?
A. No.
Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a letter which is Trial Exhibit
No. 17, page 5; do you recognize this letter?
A. Yes,
Q. What is it, Mr. Adams?
A. It is a copy of a letter request, a request by Captain
Kingston for 20 flashlight size cells for testing at —40 F.,
and they wanted a quotation for a price f.o.b. Fort Mon-
mouth, cash discount, time of delivery after receipt of
formal order and priority required to obtain material by the
(Government services.
Q. What was your reaction when you received this letter,
Mr. Adams?
A. I could not make 20 cells, and I so informed them. I
did not have the time or anything else, I told them, to make
20 cells, and I could not deliver 20 cells. It was impossible
to make 20 items or to make 25 and have a certain group of
tests.
Q. Mr. Adams, I refer you to Trial Exhibit No. 16, page 4,
which we referred to earlier, which is a sheet from your
ledger book, and ask you what was your next contact with
Fort Monmouth?
A. On March 26th.
[fol. 83] Q. Was there one before that?
A. There was one trip to Fort Monmouth before that.
(). On what date?
A. On March 13th.
Q. What did you do when vou went to Fort Monmouth on
this date? Do you recall?
A. I told them I could not deliver the 20 cells.
Q. To whom did you tell that?
A. To Payne, Daniels, Kingston, and the whole group
there.:
70
Q. I show you a copy of a letter, Mr. Adams, which is
Trial Exhibit No. 17, page 6. What is the date of this letter?
A. March 13, 1942.
Q. Do you recognize the letter?
A. Yes.
Q. What does it relate to?
A. This is a letter written by Captain Kingston, and
handed to me at that time, in order to repeat the order of
ten and to legalize the order for ten for free, that I could
deliver.
Q. What did you tell Captain Kingston?
A. That I could deliver the samples for free.
Q. For free?
A. Yes, sir. That was the conversation, to get that many
{fol. 84] of the whole.
. And you could not make 20 and charge them for them?
. No.
. Which Captain Kingston was requesting?
. That is correct.
Q. Did you make any batteries in reply to Captain Kings-
ton’s letter of March 13, 1942?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. I again refer you to Trial Exhibit No. 16, page 4, which
is the log book or ledger book, and ask you when you next
went to Fort Monmouth?
A. March 26th.
Q. And that was what year?
A. 1942.
Q. What does the entry state?
A. (Reading) “Trip to Ft. Monmouth Delivery of 10
cells.”
Q. What kind of cells were these which you delivered to
Fort Monmouth on March 26th?
A. Like No. 6.
Q. They are like Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 6?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What kind of cell is that?
A. That is a neutro cell.
[fol. 85] Q. Does it always have that designation?
A. The neutro cell, that is the magnesium anode with
eunrous chloride and carbon, and activated bv water.
Q. Is that a D ceil, according to Army designation!
" aeeeaamates
A. This is a D cell, according to commercial designation,
and the Army has a different specification. They do not use a
“D” cell.
Q. What people did you see at Fort Monmouth upon your
visit there on March 26, 1942?
A. I saw the group which I mentioned before, Doctor
Payne, Daniels, Ellis, Kingston, Adams, Kestler and Fisch-
bach.
Q. What did you discuss with these men?
A. We discussed the cell in general, and how it was made,
and the theory of it.
Q. Did you ask them how their tests were coming along?
A. I did.
Q. What did they say?
A. They never gave me an answer. They were testing.
Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a copy of Trial Exhibit No. 15,
page 12, being a letter dated March 25, 1942. Do you recog-
nize this letter?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you write this letter?
A. I wrote the longhand copy of this letter and Sandhaas
[fol. 86] wrote it on his typewriter. This was his type-
writer.
Q. But you wrote the letter?
A. I wrote the letter.
Q. What does this letter relate to, Mr. Adams?
A. The specification of batteries that I had sent on to
Fort Monmouth.
Q. To what kind of battery does this relate? Is there one
before you there?
A. Yes, this one here (indicating).
Q. That is the specification for P) .intiffs’ Exhibit No. 6?
A. Yes, sir. In fact, it will prove out from what is here.
Q. What kind of potential do you have for this battery?
A. 1.6 volts and 1.4 volts, with 250 milliamperes continu-
ous drain.
May I say here that the heat has been specified in this
particular characteristic, stating that:
71
“Maximum safe drain in milliamperes : 300 (will heat
ahove 300 mill’s. drain).”
72
I recall now that they did want to know at what point it
would heat for that specific portion, and it was given here,
which is given in other specifications.
Q. Was that within their request?
[fol: 87] A. Yes, siz, it was within their request.
Q. Mr. Adams, I show you copy of Trial Exhibit No. 12,
page 2. Do you recognize this letter dated February 7, 1942?
A. Yes, sir, this is a copy of a letter that was received by
Mr. Sandhaas, and it refers to a request by the Engineering
Staff of the National Inventors Council, who made a pre-
liminary examination of the materials submitted, which
were our curves and characteristics, but that they lacked
necessary details for evaluation, and they are asking for
more details.
Q. Do you know who Mr. Green is?
A. Yes, he is Assistant Chief Engineer of the National
Inventors Council.
‘Q.. Mr. Adams, I show you a copy of Trial Exhibit No.
13B; do you recognize this booklet?
A. Yes,
Q. What is it? |
--A.-It-is how to proceed when you have an invention with
the National Inventors Council, and how to work and pro-
duce it.
Q. Did you receive a copy of this booklet?
A. Yes, sir, Mr. Sandhaas did.
Q. Mr. Sandhaas did, and he gave it to you?
._ A. Yes, sir.
[fol. 88] Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a copy of Trial Ex-
hibit No. 15, pages 13 through 18, which is a letter from Mr.
Sandhaas to the National Inventors Council, dated March
28, 1942. Do you recognize this letter?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have anything to do with its preparation?
A. Yes, I prepared the original of Sheet 1, Sheet 2, Sheet
4, Sheet 5 and Sheet 6, and Sandhaas had them retyped on
his typewriter.
.Q. Is there an inaccuracy on the second page?
A. Yes, there is.
Q. Where does that show up, Mr. Adams?
A. Where it says “Positive Plate.” First of all, it was
73
not a plate, and it is a positive cathode or positive electrode.
Then further it says “Cuprous carbonate,” which it is not.
Q. When you sent this to Mr. Sandhaas, what did you say
it was?
A. Cuprous chloride, blended with carbon.
Q. Do you know why this mistake was made?
A. It is a mistake meade probably—well, it was. a pro-
fessor in one of our colleges that he knew, and he thought
it was a cuprous carbonate. I do not want to mention the
man’s name,
[fol. 89] Q. Was this letter of Sandhaas, dated March 28,
1942, with the five sheets of enclosure, sent to the National
Council?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I hand you a copy of a letter dated April 8, 1942,
addressed to Mr. Sandhaas from J. C. Green. Do 70 recog-
nize this letter?
A. Yes, it is a copy of the original that Mr. Sandhaas
gave me, and I copied it and kept it in my files.
Q. What goes that letter advise you?
A. It states that the National Inventors Council have
received this infermation that Sandhaas mailed to them,
and that they wiil advise us of their findings in a few weeks,
and signed by the Chief Engineer J. C. Green.
Q. This letter is Trial Exhibit No. 12, page 8. What does
the last sentence of the first paragraph state in relation to
Mr. Green’s letter dated April 8, 1942?
A. (Reading) “Please accept our thanks for the coopera-
tion shown in making this information available.”
Q. The last seatence in the first paragraph states what?
A. (Reading) “You will be advised of their Sndhags
within a few weeks.”
[fol. 90) Q. I hand you a copy of a retyped letter, dated
April 18, 1942, addressed to Mr. John J. Sandhaas from
J.C. Green. Do you recognize this letter, Mr. Adams?
A. Yes, this is a copy that I made from the original, which
he gave me at the time, and I used it to copy, ana g-ve him
back the original.
Q. Who is “he”?
A. Mr. Sandhaas gave me those originals.
Q. What does this letter advise you?
A, It says that they have given the information that we
74
have mailed to them to the proper authorities, and as soon
as their decision becomes available, they will then inform us,
Q. Will you read the last sentence of the first paragraph
of this letter?
A. (Reading) “This office will advise you as to their de-
cision as soon as complete information becomes available.”
Q. This letter which we have just been referring to is
Trial Exhibit No. 12, page 9.
Mr. Adams, were you ever advised by the National In-
ventors Council as to any results on tests?
A. No, nothing.
Q. Ever?
A. Never.
[fol. 91] Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a letter which is Trial
Exhibit No. 17, page 7, which is dated June 4, 1942, from
Mr. J. D. O’Connell, Lieutenant Colonel, Signal Corps, di-
rected to the attention of Mr. Sandhaas. Do you recognize
this letter?
A. Yes.
Q. What does this letter relate to, Mr. Adams?
A. That he was advised, Colonel O’Connell was advised
from the Chief that the tests were still proceeding, being
conducted, and that they would require considerable time
for conclusion, and that no results are available at this time,
and that we will be informed as soon as they are available.
That is the contents of the letter.
Q. Will you read the last sentence of the second para-
graph?
A. (Reading) “You will be informed of the results of the
Laboratory’s tests, promptly upon their conclusion, both as
to low temperature and normal temperature applications of
the Neutro Cell.”
Q. Mr. Adams, did the Department of the Army ever
advise you of the results of any tests that they ever made on
anv of your cells?
A. No, with the exception of the heat.
Q. Was that a formal report, Mr. Adams?
[fol. 92] A. No, only oral.
Q. Did the Army advise you about the operation of your
cells at any time?
A. No.
Q. Did they ever say that any of your cells did not work!
75
A. No.
Q. During this period, Mr. Adams, did you continue ex-
perimenting with your neutro cell?
A. I did.
Q. I hand you a document dated New York, May 27, 1942.
Is that your signature at the bottom of this document?
. It is.
. Did you type this document?
. I did.
Who made the drawings?
. I did.
On or about what date?
. This was made May 27, 1942.
What does this document relate to, Mr. Adams?
. It shows a cell, or three cells in parallel, in one single
3
rORPOPOPO SOD
Is this right?
. Pardon me, no, these were in series. I see it now.
. 93] They were in series, in one single case, flat cells.
. Is there a cell before you which has the appearance of
cells which would be covered by this document?
A. Yes, sir. (Indicating)
Q. You have indicated Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 8?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huettner: I offer in evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit
No. 14 the document entitled “Adams Neutro Cell,” dated
May 27, 1942, and signed by Bert Adams.
Mr. Arseneau: No objection.
Commissioner Lane: It will be received.
(Document entitled “Adams Nettro Cell,” consisting of
one page, and signed by Bert Adams, heretofore marked for
identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 14 was received in
evidence. )
| ee |
=,
=)
—
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. Mr. Adams, did you give the information contained
in this document to the Government?
A. Yes.
Q. Specifically, to the Army?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Adams, I show you a document dated May 16, 1943,
76
which is signed “Bert Adams.” Do you recognize this docu-
ment?
[fol. 94] A. Yes.
Q. Is that your signature, Mr. Adams?
A. Yes.
Q. Who prepared the document?
A. I did.
Q. On what date?
A. On May 16, 1943.
Q. Why did you prepare this document, Mr. Adams?
A. To show the different potentials and the amount of
current between zero time and the time of the volt or point
of the maximum drain position for the United States Signal
Corps. These were high-temperature cells which I tested
before sending the rest of the group to the Signal Corps.
Q. These tests were made for and at the request of the
Signal Corps?
A. Yes.
Mr. Huettner: I request that this document be admitted in
evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 15.
Mr. Arseneau: No objection.
Commissioner Lane: Received.
(One-page document showing graph and showing test of
high-temperature cell for U. S. Signal Corps, dated May 16,
1943 was received in evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 15.)
[fol. 95] By Mr. Huettner:
Q. Mr. Adams, did you convey the information contained
in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 15 to the personnel at Fort Mon-
mouth?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Adams, I show you a copy of Trial Exhibit No. 16,
page 5, and I refer you to the first entry and I ask you if
there is in this document any information that yov ‘iad
further contact with Fort Monmouth?
A. Yes, January 11, trip to Fort Monmouth, and I weut at
the request of the U. S. Signal Corps.
Q. Whom did you see at Fort Monmouth on January 11,
1943?
A. Daniels, Payne, Kingston, Kestler, Fischbach and
Ellis.
77
Q. Did you bring anything with you when you went to
Fort Monmouth on this date?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you bring with you?
A. Some batteries, but how many I don’t recall.
Q. How do you know you brought some batteries with
vou?
’ A. Because I never went without them. I wouldn’t take
the trip otherwise because I had to take off from work to gu
[fol. 96] over there, and I was not paid when I didn’t work,
and so I wouldn’t go unless there was a real good reason for
going, bringing something, which I could not deliver any
other way.
Q. So every time you went to Fort Monmouth, you did
that?
A. Yes, sir, plus money out of my own pocket.
Q. What kind of batteries were they, Mr. Adams?
A. Like this (indicating).
Mr. Huettner: The witness just lifted up Plaintiffs’ Ex-
hibit No. 5.
The Witness: I brought a few of these square ones.
(Indicating)
Mr. Huettner: Indicating Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 8.
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. When you were at Fort Monmouth on January 11,
1943, did you inquire about the tests that the Government
had been conducting on your batteries for almost a year?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did vou find out?
A. They told me that they were getting heat, and some of
them would blow up or evaporate from the sudden heat, and
I explained what it was all about, and they were overloaded,
and further they said the tests were not conclusive, and they
would not give me any answers.
[fol. 97] Q. Did you observe any tests when you went to
Fort Monmouth on these various occasions?
A. Sometimes I did, yes. They were on the test board.
Q. Did vou ever observe the batteries overheated?
A. No, that I did not.
Q. During these trips to Fort Monmouth, Mr. Adams,
78
did anybody tell you that your battery had a constant poten-
tial?
A. Yes, they conferred with me about that.
Q. Who told you?
A. Both Payne and Daniels.
Mr. Arseneau: I object. I want to make the same objec-
tion I made this morning. I think the questions should be
couched in a way that would be less leading.
Mr. Huettner: I will try and do better.
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a copy of Trial Exhibit No.
16, page 6. Is there any indication that you had further
contact with Fort Monmouth?
A. Yes, on January 20th, “trip to Fort Monmouth
U.S.S.C.” That is the United States Signal Corps.
Q. Is there any further identification on this document!
A. Further down, on May 10th it says: “Trip to Fort
Monmouth.”
[fol. 98] On August 4th, delivery of ten cells.
Mr. Huettner: Your Honor, I neglected to point out that
“May,” is hard to read because a hole was punched right
over it, but I think it is “July 10.”
Will Mr. Arseneau go along with the fact that it looks
like that?
Mr. Arseneau: All right.
The Witness: May I say something here?
Mr. Huettner: Surely.
The Witness: Here where this has July 10th, a trip to
Monmouth, as I recall I did not remember on August 4th the
trip to Fort Monmouth, but the ten cells were another trip
to Fort Monmouth. It is underneath. I trusted my memory
and now it comes back to me. I did not want to write again
“Fort Monmouth.”
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. You made two trips?
A. Yes.
Q. One on July 10th?
A. Yes.
Q. And one on August 4th?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a document, Trial Exhibit No.
12, page 5, which is a letter dated March 24, 1943. Do you
{fol. 99] recognize this letter?
A. Yes, it is a copy of a letter from Mr. J. C. Green to
Sandhaas in relation to finding out what happened to the
cell and what interest the Government was taking in it, and
would appreciate some information on the present status of
the battery.
Q. Do you mean Mr. Green?
A. He asked for this information but didn’t receive any,
and they were unable to obtain any private expression of
interest from the Government agency that the battery was
submitted to.
Q. Mr. Adams, I hand you a copy of Trial Exhibit No. 15,
page 19, being a letter from Mr. Sandhaas to Mr. Green of
the National Inventors Council, dated June 4, 1943. Why
did Mr. Sandhaas write this letter?
A. He wrote it in order to see if he could obtain priority
for magnesium sheet to make other cells during the war.
Q. Why did you have to go through this routine?
A. Because you could not obtain magnesium without
priority, from the War Production Board.
Q. Was it a difficult metal to get?
A. It was impossible without a priority.
Q. To whom would they give priority?
[fol. 100] A. To those who were experimenting in the in-
terest of the war exclusively.
Q. I show you copy of a letter, which is Trial Exhibit No.
12, page 8, a letter from Mr. Green to Mr. Sandhaas, in re-
sponse to his letter of June 4, 1943.
A. It is a letter from Mr. Green to Sandhaas, asking him
to fill out the forms, and he would then take up the matter
with the War Production Board, to see if they were agree-
able to the release of magnesium.
Q. Did you pursue this, Mr. Adams?
A. I did.
Q. Did you obtain magnesium?
A. I did.
Q. I show you a copy of Trial Exhibit No. 17, pages 10
80
through 15. Are those the documents which led up to pro-
curement of magnesium during the war?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. I direct your attention to the last page of this docu-
ment, and request that you read it.
A. (Reading) “The magnesium sheets requested will be
used in preparing additional samples for the Signal Corps
Laboratories at fort Monmouth, Red Bank, N. J., and for
further development of the battery termed ‘Neutro Cell’
covered by United States Patent No. 2,322,210 issued June
[fol. 101] 22, 1943,” by the Department of Commerce.
It has their stamp on it.
Q. Mr. Adams, I show you a document entitled “Instruc-
tion Sheet for Testing Adams Neutro Cell,” and typed on
the bottom is “Bert Adams July 13, 1943.”
Do you recognize this document?
. Yes, I typed it.
You typed this document yourself?
Yes.
When did you type this document?
. July 13, 1943.
What does this document relate to, Mr. Adams?
. It is an instruction sheet for the use of that particular
cell which I was using.
Q. Why did yor type this sheet?
A. To give it to the Signal Corps. I did not have much
faith in their checking, having checked with the girl, and I
felt if I gave them an instruction sheet, they would probably
make a better test there.
Q. Did you deliver this sheet to anybody there?
A. Doctor Payne, who was always there every time I
went there, and Mr. Daniels.
Q. Where?
[fol. 102] A. Fort Monmouth.
Q. When?
A. At that time.
Q. Mr. Adams, is there a battery in front of you which
this instruction sheet relates to?
A. Yes.
Q. Which battery?
A. Some were this type (indicating), and some were this
type here (indicating).
Lopepe>
$1
Mr. Huettner: The witness is pointing to Plaintiffs’ Ex-
hibit No. 4 and Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 5.
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. What is the difference between these two types, Mr.
Adams?
A. The amount of material is the same but there is more
water here.
Q. You are pointing now to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 51
A. Yes. So if they did put a load on it, it would keep
cooler and it would not have the objection of being heated,
and that was the purpose of doing it this way.
Q. Where did you make these batteries, Mr. Adams?
A. In my home.
Q. Where?
A. In my cellar and in a workshop or lab.
[{fol. 103] Q. Referring again to Trial Exhibit No. 16,
page 6, which is the sheet from your ledger book where it
has on the top 1943. You say that you mad» © trip to Fort
Monmouth on July 10th and August 4, 194°"
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you bring anything with you on yur trip to Fort
Monmouth on August 4, 19437
A. Ten cells for test.
Q. What kind of cells were those which you brought with
you?
A. Some of these (indicating), and some of these (indi-
eating), both of them.
Mr. Huettner: The Plaintiff has just pointed to Plaintiffs’
Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6.
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. When you delivered the cells on August 4, 1943 for
testing, did you inquire about the previous cells which you
left?
A. I did.
Q. What response did you get?
A. Nothing. They had not come to any conclusion and
most of the time involved was spent between three or four
individuals, talking about the possibility of preparing for
an answer.
82
[fol. 104] Q. Mr. Adams, I show you a document dated
August 10, 1943, signed by V. F. Payne, Technical Adviser.
Do you recognize this document?
A. Yes, I do.
Mr. Huettner: This is Trial Exhibit No. 17, page 9, Your
Honor.
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. What does this document indicate to you, Mr. Adams?
A. That on August 10, 1943, it is an excuse, written by
the War Department, so that I wouldn’t be AWOL from
Sperry, since I went over to the Signal Corps, and this
was to prove that I was there, and I was not just running
around.
Q. Did you ask Doctor Payne to write this?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you discuss anything with Doctor Payne on Au-
gust 10, 1943?
A. Yes, I discussed the same thing, more observations
and proportions, weights, amperages and ratios and the
area of batteries, weights and possible chemical reactions.
Q. How about testing?
A. On the testing, that would always go off on a tangent
and they would give me something vague about it, and that
I would know in due time.
Q. What?
[fol. 105] A. That I would know in due time.
Q. But you never did?
A. I never did.
Q. Mr. Adams, did you continue experimenting with your
hattery during World War II?
A. I did.
Q. What kind of experimental work did you direct your
attention to during this period?
A. I used separaters. This has a separator (indicating),
and this has a plastic separator (indicating).
Mr. Huettner: The witness is talking about Plaintiffs’
Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9.
The Witness: And I found out the ratio or the distinction
between cathodes, and I made this vent valve (indicating).
83
Mr. Huettner: Plaintiff is now pointing to a little knob
on the top of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 9.
The Witness: For aircraft, and I made some changes in
case the aircraft fell in the water.
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. What do you mean by changes?
A. After I saw what they had, if a man falls in the water
and he has a dry cell, the thing you pull down goes in a
raft, and he got a better one by using this type of cell.
(Indicating)
(fol. 106] Mr. Huettner: The witness is still talking about
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 9.
By Mr. Huettner:
Q. Did you bring these improvements to the attention of
the Government?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I hand you a copy of Trial Exhibit No. 16, page 7.
Does this exhibit indicate any further personal contact with
the Government at Fort Monmouth?
A. Yes.
Q. When?
A. You can hardly see it but trip to Fort Monmouth.
Q. Did you talk to anybody down there?
A. I talked to Doctor Payne, Mr. Daniels and Doctor
Fischbach and Mr. Ellis. |
Q. Did you leave anything there when you were down
there?
A. Yes, I left this type of cell (indicating).
Mr. Huettner: The witness is pointing to Plai
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.