Appendix — Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ee I GS a tea bbc ss sdceaee c's

inion and Mandate United States Court of Ap-

peals for the Fourth Circuit, November 6, 1968

_ Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Circuit Filed November 22, 1968 ......

Opinion of the District Court, 8S. D. W. Va., July

neces Sie hdeheyy Kies Kekeakndeeede

e Ta Ne ee a wid cig

: Final Decree of the District Court, S. D. W. Va.,

© March 23, 1967 «02.2. eeeseeeeereeeeeeees

_ Excerpts From Trial Transcript .................

= From Deposition of Leslie B. Crowley

Claims 16 and 18 as Originally Filed in Neville

Ne Sek ka eEN ENTE Een we es oo

< .

EXCERPTS FROM TRIAL TRANSCRIPT

Wiryess ror PLAINTIFF

Francis C. Witkoski:

: TE IN Se SES a ee a

WITNESSES FOR DEFENDANT

"Alexander Quayle:

Direct

ee eee eer eee

la

Relevant Docket Entries

Opinion and mandate of the Fourth Circuit Court of

Appeals, Appeal No. 12,020, November 6, 1968, 404 F. 2d

450 (la).

Order of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, filed

November 22, 1968 (14a).

Opinion of the District Court, S. D. W. Va., July 20,

1967, on motion for new trial, not reported (15a).

Opinion of the District Court, 8. D. W. Va., March 23,

1967, on motion for new trial, not reported (16a).

Final Decree of the District Court, S. D. W. Va., en-

tered May 29, 1967 (28a).

Petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for

Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Fourth Circuit, granted March 24, 1969.

Opinion and Mandate United States Court of Appeals for

the Fourth Circuit, November 6, 1968

Haynswortn, Chief Judge:

The patent owner has appealed from a judgment hold-

ing the patent invalid for obviousness. Since we conclude

that the patent represents a broader advance than the

narrow step which occupied the attention of the District

Court, we reverse.

The plaintiff, Pavement Salvage Company, Inc., is the

owner of Neville Patent No. 3,055,280 covering ‘‘ Means

for Treating Bituminous Pavement.’’ It brought this ac-

tion against Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc., a highway con-

Za

Opinion and Mandate United States Court of Appeals

tractor, who used, in an allegedly infringing manner, a

radiant energy generator manufactured and sold by

Aervil Products Company, Inc. Aeroil conducted the de-

fense and is the real defendant.

The patent claims in combination the essential parts of

a bituminous concrete paving machine together with a pre

scribed kind of radiant energy generator. The combina-

tion produces a fused bond between a course being laid

and an adjacent course previously laid and grown cold. It

has met with commercial success and~is said to have ac-

ceptably answered a problem of long standing.

Bituminous concrete, the familiar black or dark material

used for surfacing highways, parking areas, airport run-

ways and taxi-ways, is ordinarily laid in strips by a mobile

machine. The material, preheated in a plant to more than

250°, is transported to the site and delivered into the

hopper of the paving machine. The paver contains means

to spread the material laterally and to smooth, tamp and

shape it while the machine is in forward motion. It thus

produces a continuous strip of bituminous concrete up to

twelve feet in width. It is possible to have several pavers

working in tandem so that each strip is laid before the ad-

jacent strip has cooled, but that is frequently impossible.

The need to maintain traffic and limitations upon the

availability of equipment and of an adequate supply of the

hot material frequently necessitate the laying of one strip

at a time. In that event, the hot material of the second

strip will not bind with the cold material of the first strip,

leaving what has long been known as a ‘‘cold joint.’’

Where there is a cold joint, water and dirt will infil-

trate. After some freezing and thawing, there will be

3a

Opinion and Mandate United States Court of A ppeals

raveling at the joint and early disintegration of the pave-

ment.

The same problem, in a different context, was presented

im the early days of the use of bituminous paving mate-

ris’s. When patching was necessary, the absence of bond-

ag between the new, hot material and the old, cold mate-

ial created the same openings for the seepage of water

and dirt with their deleterious effect. Not suprisingly, at-

tempts were made to obtain bonding by preheating the old

material. The use of open flames, however, would car-

bonize the old material, accentuating, rather than al-

leviating, the difficulty. As early as 1905, Morcom Patent

No. 799,014 taught the use of a radiant heat burner, with

a solid bottom plate, and with side curtains which could

be lowered to prevent the flow of cold air between the

burner and the bituminous surface. There followed a

number of other patents on heaters and associated equip-

ment for heating the old material during patching or sur-

face smoothing operations.’ British Patent No. 756,911

(1956) actualy taught the use of a radiant heater to

soften the edge of a previously laid strip of bituminous

concrete before placing an adjacent course.

The difficulty with these earlier patented devices was

that they would not work in commercial operation. Open

flame devices which carbonized the material were detri-

mental, while the radiant heaters were ineffective because

they produced insufficient penetrative heat to secure bond-

ing of the old material with the new. The consequence

was that the industry turned to other methods in its at-

tempt to deal with the problem of cold joints.

1 Switzer Patent No. 1,136,294 (1915); Flynn Patent No. 2,053,709

(1936); Wells Patent No. 2,254,463 (1941); Fizzell Patent No.

2,705,906 (1955).

4a

Opinion and Mandate United States Court of Appeals

When Neville, the patentee, came on the scene, the prev-

alent and preferred practice was far removed from the

old idea of heat treatment. Before the second, adjacent

course was laid, the edge of the first course was cut back

for several inches, with pneumatic hammers or other de

vices, to produce a clean vertical surface, which was then

painted with hot asphalt. This was expensive, of course,

and there were other disadvantages. The cutting dis-

turbed and weakened the structure of the first course, and

the final surface was left with a built-in joint. It was not

a solution of the cold-joint problem, but the best, known

method of minimizing its adverse consequences.

The patentee, in seeking a solution, turned away from

current concepts and harked back to the discarded notion

of preheating the old material. His patent prescribes the

use of a radiant energy generator, having as its base a

plate of plastic or metal with many small perforations

in it, so that it resmbles a grid or gauze. The generator

is so designed that combustion occurs in the perforations

or adjacent to the perforated base plate. It produces

highly penetrative radiant energy, with concentrated wave

lengths of approximately three microns. Its use in con-

junction with a bituminous paver results in complete bond-

ing between the first course, grown cold, and an adjacent

second course. The fusion is complete, and cores disclose

no joint into which deleterious substances might seep or

be worked. The combination was novel, and it has an ob-

vious utility of practical and economic importance.

Neville was not the inventor of the generator. His is

not unlike that disclosed in Schwank Patent No. 2,775,294

(1956). His contribution was the elimination of the cold

joint in bituminous concrete paving, and his claims en-

5a

Opinion and Mandate United States Court of Appeals

compass no other uses of such generators. The question,

then, is whether the solution ‘‘would have been obvious at

the time the invention was made to a person having or-

dinary skill in the art * * **? within the meaning of 35

U. 8. C. A. $103, as interpreted in Graham v. John Deere

Co., 383 U. S. 1. More specifically, the question is whether,

in light of the availability of more efficient radiant energy

generators, the answér obviously lay in the theretofore

unworkable and discarded art of heat treatment. Our in-

quiry will be facilitated by resort to those ‘‘secondary con-

siderations’? which the Supreme Court recognized in

Graham v. John Deere Co. as ‘‘indicia of obviousness or

nonobviousness.”’

The appropriateness of the use of such considerations

arises out of the necessity of framing the question of ob-

viousness in terms of available knowledge at the time of

the claimed invention and the desirability of avoiding sub-

jective appraisals with high coloration from the patent’s

disclosure. As the Supreme Court said in Diamond Rub-

ber Co. v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co., 220 U. 8. 428,

435:

‘Knowledge after the event is always easy, and

problems once solved present no difficulties, indeed,

may be represented as never having had any, and

expert witnesses may be brought forward to show

that the new thing which seemed to have eluded

the search of the world was always ready at hand

and easy to be seen by a merely skillful attention.”

Similarly, in S. H. Kress and Co. v. Aghnides, 4 Cir., 246

F. 2d 718, 723, we said:

‘‘Obviousness does not mean that one skilled in the

art can perceive the solution after it has been found

ba

Opinion and Mandate United States Court of Appeals

and pointed »ut by someone else; the test of obvious-

ness is as of an earlier time, when the search is on.”

The usefulness of such considerations in providing ob-

jective indicia to guide decisions is well recognized.? The

difficulty in obtaining reliable judgments without them was

stated by Judge Learned Hand in Reiner v. I. Leon Co., 2

Cir., 285 F. 2d 501, 503-504:

“‘The test laid down is indeed misty enough. It

directs us to surmise what was the range of in-

genuity of a person ‘having ordinary skill’ in an

‘art’ with which we are totally unfamiliar; and we

do not see how such a standard can be applied at all

except by recourse to the earlier work in the art, and

to the general history of the means available at the

time. To judge on our own that this or that new

assemblage of old factors was, or was not, ‘obvious’

is to substitute our ignorance for the acquaintance

with the subject of those who were familiar with it.”’

With such criteria, however, reliable guideposts can be

erected. As we said in Allen v. Standard Crankshaft and

Hydraulic Co., 4 Cir., 323 F. 2d 29, 34:

2 See Skee-Trainer, Inc. v. Garelick Mfg. Co., 8 Cir., 361 F. 2d

895; Jones Knitting Corp. v. Morgan, 3 Cir., 361 F 2d 451; Bentley

v. Sunset House Distributing Corp., 9 Cir., 359 F. 2d 140; Schnell

vy. Allbright-Nell Co., 7 Cir., 348 F. 2d 444; M. B. Skinner Co. v.

Continental Industries, Inc., 10 Cir., 346 F. 2d 170; Allen v. Stand-

ard Crankshaft and Hydraulic Co., 4 Cir., 323 F. 2d 29; Lorenz v

F. W. Woolworth Co., 2 Cir., 305 F. 2d 102, and dissenting opinion

on 106; Honolulu Oil Corp. v. Shelby Poultry Co., 4 Cir., 293 F. 2d

127; Reiner v. I. Leon Co., 2 Cir., 285 F. 2d 501; Safety Car Heating

and Lighting Co. v. Genera] Electric Co., 2 Cir., 155 F. 2d 937; Blum-

craft of Pittsburgh v. United States, Ct. Cl. 372 F. 2d 1014; Applica-

tion of Polson, C.C.P.A., 368 F. 2d 267.

ma...

Opinion and Mandate United States Court of Appeals

‘‘In approaching the question of obviousness, how-

ever, judges should mistrust their subjective notions

if there are objective indicia to guide their judg-

ments. ‘Though the answer after the event may

appear simple, the Court should not convert its

simplicity into obviousness in the face of hard proof

of recognized need for the answer, of long, unsuc-

cessful search for the answer by people of skill in

the art, of recognition by the industry that the

claimed invention was the answer, and of its prompt

adoption with attendant commercial success. Even a

substantial combination of some of such criteria

ought to outweigh a judge’s subjective conviction

that if one as skilled as he had really looked for the

answer, he immediately could have put his finger

upon it.’’

With that introduction, we turn to those secondary con-

siderations as disclosed in this record.

Clearly, there had been a long felt need for a solution of

the cold joint problem. Morcom sought it in 1905, and, in

his patent, he recites earlier attempts to find it. The clut-

tered field attests the continuity of the search, and the

testimony of the experts demonstrates the gravity of the

problem and recognition of continuing need for a more

satisfactory solution than cutting back the edge of the

first course.

If it be said that the solution was dependent upon the

development of generators of the Schwank type, the an-

swer did not come with their appearance. Schwank applied

for his patent eight years before Neville’s application, and

the Schwank patent issued more than two years earlier.

8a

Opinion and Mandate United States Court of Appeals

That the bituminous paving industry was not expecting

a solution through the development of new generators is

dramatically illustrated by the incredulity with which it

received Neville’s concept.

Neville approached the Director of Research of the Penn.

sylvania Department of Highways, and explained to him

the equipment he had and what it would do. The Director

testified that Neville was an imposing, impressive man,

but that he simply did not believe him.

Neville sought to interest the engineer in charge of the

maintenance and construction of Air Force bases, but that

official testified that he did not believe Neville’s equipment

would work. Crowley, the Air Force engineer, remained

unconvinced until he received a report of a demonstration

Neville finally arranged in California. An official of Cali-

fornia’s Department of Public Works informed Crowley

of the success of the demonstration, adding that, if he had

not seen it himself, he could not have believed it. Only

after that was the Air Force willing to experiment with

Neville’s equipment.

The fact that experts in the field received Neville’s dis-

closure with such skepticism and disbelief strongly indi-

cates that, at the time, a person of ordinary skill in the

field would not have sought the answer in the disproven

method of heat treatment.

After demonstrations verified Neville’s claims, they have

met with substantial commercial succese. The Air Force

and some states prescribe the use of such equipment; other

states use it. Patents have been obtained in the United

Kingdom, Canada and Mexico. Foreign and domestic con-

cerns have obtained licenses, and others have purchased

9a

Opinion and Mandate United States Court of Appeals

the complete equipment from Pavement Salvage without

attempting to circumvent the patent. Only Aeroil sought to

operate independently and to contest the patent’s validity.

In doing s0, it sold its equipment widely, domestically and

abroad.

In promoting the sales of its own products, Aeroil paid

high tribute to the new concept. In its catalogues it de-

elared that with the new equipment a ‘‘truly homogenous

joint is obtained,’’ ‘‘a perfect bond.’’ In one of its bulletins

it went further when it proclaimed, ‘‘This remarkable new

development is a dramatic breakthrough * * *. INFRA-

RED heat is not new, but the application is revolutionary

*** >? Words extolling its own products in sales promo-

tional material should be discounted, perhaps, but the

‘“‘dramatic breakthrough’’ was. Neville’s; the ‘‘revolution-

ary’’ application of the energy was his, not Aeroil’s. Such

statements, of course, are quite inconsistent with Aeroil’s

present position that what Neville did would have been

obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.

As we have indicated, it is not contended that Neville’s

claims are anticipated by any prior art patent. It is con-

tended that three or more of them, together, disclose all

that Neville claimed, and that because he cannot separately

claim the generator or the basic paving machine, he can-

not claim the combination. The defense is simply obvious-

ness. The prior art, however, is predominantly a long

history of failure to solve the problem by heat treatment.

At a time when the industry was concenirating on a quite

different, though expensive, partial corrective, there was

nothing in the junk pile of prior art heat treatment patents

to make it obvious to anyone that they supplied the ulti-

mate solution. That this is so is forcefully demonstrated

by the duration of the fruitless search, by the skepticism

10a

Opimion and Mandate United States Court of Appeals

and incredulity with which experts in the field received

Neville’s disclosure, by its commercial success after dem-

onstrations dissipated the disbelief of the experts, by the

conduct of competitors in accepting licenses and pur-

chasing equipment and the bold tribute of the alleged

infringer in hailing it as the very antithesis of the obvious.

The District Court was not unimpressed with all of this,

but it viewed the question as if it were known that the

answer lay in heat treatment and that a generator of the

type described by Neville would do the job. Had it been

known that the result could be achieved by a generator and

a paving machine handled separately but cooperatively,

combining the two in one machine for the sake of con-

venience would have been an obvious step, but that was

not known. Neville supplied the whole of the answer which

had completely eluded the industry. His contribution can-

not be judged without reference to its salient feature, dis-

closure of the fact that the solution lay in the use of a

specified kind of infra-red generator in combination with

the basic paving machine.

We reverse the judgment holding the patent invalid and

remand for further proceedings on the infringement and

other issues.

Reversed and remanded.

Craven, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

The court concedes, as I read the opinion, that what

makes the thing work is better radiant heat generators of

the Schwank type. It is not even contended that Pavement

Salvage can monopolize such improvements. Nor is it

demonstrated to my satisfaction that the combination on

one chassis of the paving machine and heat generator is

lla

Opinion and Mandate United States Court of Appeals

necessary to produce the desired result. Yet, the combi-

nation is held patentable, though for all we know the same

desired result may be achieved by two machines juxtaposed

and separately propelled.

I adopt what was said by Judge Field in his unpublished

opinion below:

‘‘[P]laintiff has combined four elements which

were known in the prior art. Three of the elements,

the screed, leveler and spreader, when constructed

on one chassis would not be a patentable invention.

However, plaintiff added to this combination the ele-

ment of a radiant burner. The burner, by itself, is

also not patentable. Therefore, the question here is

whether the addition of the burner to the paving

machine which contains the other three elements has

overcome the obviousness of the total combination.

‘¢ . . Plaintiff’s patent is a combination patent.

The question of radiant heat was old in the art. The

pivotal question would be more logically appear to

be, assuming that the radiant heat would work effec-

tively, was it obvious that a more successful machine

would evolve if all of the elements were constructed

on one chassis? It is my opinion that such a com-

Gf bination was reasonably obvious to one possessing

€ ordinary skill in the art.

“In A & P Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corporation,

340 U. S. 147 (1950) the Court made the following

statements :

‘It is agreed that the key to patentability of a

mechanical device that brings old factors into co-

operation is presence or lack of invention.

12a

Opinion and Mandate United States Court of Appeals

‘The negative rule accrued from many litigations

was condensed about as precisely as the subject

permits in Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-

Warner Corp., 303 U. S. 545, 549:

‘‘The mere aggregation of a number ‘of old parts

or elements which, in the aggregation, perform or

produce no new or different function or operation

than that theretofore performed or produced by

them, is not patentable invention.’’

‘The conjunction or concert of known elements

must contribute something; only when the whole in

some way exceeds the sum of its parts is the accum-

ulation of old devices patentable. Elements may,

of course, especially in chemistry or electronics,

take on some new quality or function from being

brought into concert, but this is not a usual result

of uniting elements old in mechanics.’

‘*The Court then makes this meaningful ubserva-

tion:

‘Courts should scrutinize combination claims

with a care proportioned to the difficulty and im-

probability of finding invention in an assembly of

old elements.’

‘*Plaintiff contends that its combination of elements has

solved the age-old problems of asphalt paving; that the

invention has, by its combination, produced a new result

which has advanced the art, and further points to its com-

mercial success and the fact that it has answered a long-felt

want.

13a

Opinion and Mandate United States Court of Appeals

‘*Entron of Maryland v. Jerrold, 295 F. 2d 670 (4th Cir.

1961), set forth the standard for determining whether the

elements of a combination exhibit a new result in the fol-

lowing language:

‘The inquiry should more appr#** ely be directed

to whether the elements of the oy » «on perform

or produce a new, different or additionai function or

operation . . . in the combination than that thereto-

fore performed or produced by them.’

‘“‘It is my opinion that plaintiff’s combination in no way

exceeds the sum of its parts. Each element of the combina-

tion performs in the same manner and performs the same

job that it formerly did when not in combination. All that

plaintiff has done is to construct four elements known in the

prior art on one chassis. In regard to plaintiff’s contention

of commercial success, see A &P Tea Co. v. Supermarket

Corp., supra, at 153, wherein the Court stated:

‘The Court of Appeals and the respondent both

lean heavily on evidence that this device filled a long-

felt want and has enjoyed commercial success. But

commercial suczess without invention will not make

patentability ...’

‘‘Based upon the foregoing, it is my opinion that the

Neville patent is not a valid patent .. .’’

I think Julge Field correctly adjudged invalidity of the

patent and that the court, in reversing his decision, ignores

the teaching of Lincoln Engimeering Co. v. Stewart-Warner

Corp., 303 U. S. 545, 549 (1938), relied upon by the district

court.

I respectfully dissent.

l4a

Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Circuit Filed November 22, 1968

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For Tue Fourrs Crrecuir

No. 12,020.

de.

4

Pavement Satvace Company, Inc.,

Appellant,

V8.

Awnverson’s Buiack Rock, Inc.,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.

»™=

.

Upon the petition of the appellee by its counsel, and for

cause shown,

It is ordered that the mandate be, and it is hereby,

stayed pending application of the appellee in the Supreme

Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari to this

Court, provided the application is filed in the Supreme

Court within the time prescribed by law .

s/ Ciement F, Haynsworrn, Jp.

Chief Judge, Fourth Circuit.

A True Copy, Teste:

Samvzet W. Punuses, Clerk

By Jo Ann Krexparriog,

Deputy Clerk

Filed Nov 22 1968

Samvuge., W. Puuuies

Clerk

lida

Opinion of the District Court, 8. D. W. Va., July 25, 1967

July 25, 1967

Edward W. Eardley, Esquire

Steptoe & Johnson

Attorneys at Law

Kanawha Valley Building

Charlston, W. Va. 25301

Frank L. Taylor, Jr., Esquire

Kay, Casto & Chaney

Attorneys at Law

Charleston National Bank Bldg.

Charleston, W. Va. 25301

Re: Pavement Salvage Company, Ine.

v. Andersons’-Black Rock, Inc.

Civil Action No. 2927

Gentlemen :

I have given careful consideration to the motion of

the plaintiff for a new trial and to amend the judgment

entered in this case, and have concluded that the motion

presents no material or grounds which would justify any

change in the conclusions which I reached in this case

as set forth in my opinion filed on March 23, 1967.

Accordingly, the motion will be denied and counsel may

prepare an appropriate order.

Very truly yours,

Joun A. Fretps, Jz.

United States District Judge

l6a

Opinion of the District Court, S$. D. W. Va.,

March 23, 1964

IN THE

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

For tHe Sournern Distaict or West Vincinua

At CHARLESTON

Civil Action No. 2927

,™

i

Pavement Satvace Company, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

Vv.

Anpezsons’ Buack Rock, Luc.,

Defendant.

Orinion

Pavement Salvage Company, Incorporated (hereinafter

called Pavement Salvage) brought this action for patent

infringement against Andersons’-Black Rock, Incorporated

(hereinafter called Andersons’). The patent in suit United

States Patent No. 3,055,280 for ‘‘Means for Treating Bitu-

minous Pavement’’ (hereinafter called the Neville patent)

and was issued on September 25, 1962. Application for the

patent was filed February 20, 1959, by Charles A. Neville.

The patent was assigned by Neville to Pavement Salvage.

Paving materials for highways consist of two ‘‘classes”’

of concrete—-Portland cement concrete and bituminous

concrete, the latter being the class in which we are inter-

ested, Bituminous concrete is formed by heating an asphal-

tic material to a sufficient temperature to make it readily

lia

Opinion of the District Court

workable and then mixing it with a heated aggregate (sand

or gravel).

The problem of keeping transportation moving and the

width of the modern highways makes it desirable to pave

the roadway in two or more strips. It is here that the

problem is created. The bituminous mixture used must be

poured at a temperature of 250° to 290° Fahrenheit in

order that it be pliable and capable of being shaped. As

is frequently the case, the first strip of asphalt has cooled

substantially by the time the adjoining strip is to be laid,

creating what is known as a ‘‘cold joint’’. This so-called

cold joint results in a poor bonding between the strips,

allowing dirt nad water to enter between them, ultimately

leading to deterioration of the roadway. This deteriora-

tion brought about by the cold joint has long been a prob-

lem in the field of highway paving.

In an effort to eliminate the cold joint, three procedures

have been attempted. One approach was the use of a

direct flame on the asphalt in an attempt to soften it

sufficiently to produce a homogeneous fusion with the

atrip being laid. This, however, frequently caused the

asphalt to carbonize, resulting in poor bonding of the

two strips.

Another theory bas been to cut back several inches from

the edge of the previously laid strip and paint the strip

with hot asphalt. This has proved more successful than

the use of the direct flame but ordinarily the cold joint is

still present.

The third method is that of using radiant heat rather

than direct heat. This procedure was used as early as

1905 in patching asphalt, and is the method which is most

widely utilized by the paving industry today.

18a

Opimion of the District Court

The Neville patent description claims a combination of

apparatus for delivering penetrative radiant energy to the

exposed edge of the primary lane of pavement, placing

bituminous material against that lane, and then shaping

the newly placed material to desired contour and surface.

The apparatus or machine which performs these functions

is the invention which is involved in the present contro-

versy.

The Neville patent has nine claims, eight of which

Andersons’ have allegedly infringed. The claim which is

best illustrative of the patent is claim 4, which states:

‘‘4, Bituminous material paving apparatus com-

prising penetrative radiant energy generating

means, bituminous material placing means, and

pavement shaping means, said generating means

being supported at a distance from the pavement

and being movable along the surface whereby expos-

ure of the pavement to generated energy is limited

and scorching of the pavement avoided, said gener-

ating means comprising an enclosed chamber having

a perforate member forming a lower surface of said

generating means, and means to supply fuel to said

generating means and pass it outwardly through

said perforate member while combusting the fuel

adjacent said perforate member thereby heating

said perforate member to a high temperature

whereby penetrative radiant energy is generated

and directed against a portion of previously placed

bituminous material, said bituminous material plac-

ing means being disposed to place additional bitu-

minous material adjacent the section exposed to

said penetrative radiant energy, said pavement

19a

Opinion of the District Court

shaping means being disposed to shape the newly

placed bituminous material to a desired contour

and finish.’’

The other alleged infringed claims are merely descriptive

of the various aspects of the invention.

The patent then merely claims a paving apparatus com-

prised of: (1) a penetrative radiant energy generating

means, (2) a bituminous material placing means and (3) a

means for shaping pavement. Prior art indicates that

these individual means were known and used for a long

period by persons familiar with the art of highway paving

prior to the advent of the Neville invention.

In considering the prior art in chronological order, the

first relevant patent is United States Patent No. 799,014

(referred to hereafter as the Morcom patent) which was

issued in 1905. This patent teaches the repair of asphalt

pavement by the use of radiant heat. In describing his

invention Morcom stated:

‘*In my improved construction the heat is con-

veyed by radiation from the bottom of the combus-

tion-chamber, which is maintained in suitable proxi-

mity to the pavement, whereby the heat is effectu-

ally applied. * * *

‘««* * * This heat prepares the said portion of

the pavement to receive the new material and unite

therewith, as heretofore explained.’’

Here then was an apparatus patent in 1905 which used

radiant heat for the purpose of repairing asphalt, Pave-

ment Salvage contends that this does not apply to the

Neville patent because the Morcom invention was for

20a

Opinion of the District Court

‘*‘patching’’ caly, whereas the Neville machine provides

for the continuous paving along a strip to prevent a cold

joint. Concededly, the Morcom patent teaches only the

process of radiant heat and does not go into the process of

spreading and shaping the bituminous concrete.

In 1915 United States Patent No. 1,136,294 was issued to

Charles Switzer. This patent pertained to an invention for

heating asphalt pavement. The object thereof was to soften

the surface by radiant heat, so that a weighted roller,

when run over the pavement, would smooth or shape it.

In this patent the radiant heating mechanism and the

roller were combined in one frame. Again it should be —

pointed out that this provided no means for the simultane-

ous dispersion of the asphaltic material.

United States Patent No. 2,053,709 was issued in 1935

and pertained to a ‘“‘road reconditioning method and

machine’. The inventor, B. H. Flynn, stated that:

‘“‘The invention relates to the conditioning of

gravel roads, asphalt roads, * * * after the surfaces

thereof have become so rough and/or undulatory

that even the most careful resurfacing in the custom-

ary ways will not restore them to the smoothness

required. * * * It is the object of my invention,

however, to provide for effectively reconditioning

the surfaces of the roads * * * without disturbing

anything but the surface material, and moreover to

provide for reuse of the material.’’

% Flynn’s patent goes on to say that the roadway is

heated to between 125° and 150° Fahrenheit and the heated

surface is then hewed away. The material which is hewed

away is spread upon the subsurface and ‘‘then sprayed

Zla

Opinion of the District Court

with cut-back asphalt or other suitable binder * * * proving

a new surface’’. This invention combines the heating of

the road surface to make it workable and, to a degree, the

application of a new surface, by the use of a binding mate-

rial sprayed from the machine together with fragments of

the old road surface. No specific means for heating the

road was mentioned nor did it provide any method to

shape and smooth the new road surface.

I. M. Wells was granted Letters Patent No. 2,254,463 in

1941 pertaining to a means for constructing and recon-

structing road surfaces. This machine consists of a

heater to soften the road surface, an apparatus for dispens-

ing aggregate with the semi-liquid surface and a roller for

imbedding the aggregate into the surface. The roller

would also serve to shape the asphalt. The method of

heating is stated thusly:

‘«* * * The flames from the burners are indicated

as directed down onto the road surface for convert-

ing the top material of the road into a semi-fluid ~

mass. However, the heating of the road is not lim-

ited to this specific method of heating or to the

specific structure shown.”’

The patent granted J. L. Fizzell in 1955, Patent No.

2,705,906, performs much the same function as the Flynn

and Wells patents. The patent describes an ‘‘asphalt

road heater planer’’. The functions performed consist of

heating the road surface and planing a portion therefrom

in order to level and smooth it.

There is no need to discuss Patent No. 2,775,294 issued

in 1956 to G. Schwank which discloses a radiation burner,

since the burner itself is not covered by the Neville patent

except as one of the elements of the combination.

22a

Opinion of the District Court

The Neville patent is, as stated before, a combination

patent combining the elements of a screed, a spreader, a

leveler and a radiation burner. The patent as issued calls

for a combination of these elements on one chassis.

The present controversy resulted from the action of

Andersons’ placing a radiation heater on the front of a

Blaw-Knox paver, thus allowing the defendant’s machine

to perform the same functions with the same basic elements

as those described in plaintiff’s patent. Pavement Salvage

claims that its patent has been infringed whereas defend-

ant, Andersons’, in its answer challenges the validity of

plaintiff’s patent and denies infringement. The two issues,

of course, are: (1) is plaintiff’s patent valid, and (2) if so,

has defendant been guilty of infringement.

In regard to the issue of validity, it is conceded by plain-

tiff that its invention is merely a combination of elements.

Plaintiff further conceded that each of the elements

was known to the prior art. However, plaintiff contends

that the combination of these elements presents a new and

useful result amounting to inventiveness, and further, no

single item of the prior art discloses the claimed combina-

tion. 35 USCA §103 states that:

‘*A patent may not be obtained though the inven-

tion is not identically disclosed or described as set

forth in Section 102 of this title, if the differences

‘ between the subject matter sought to be patented and

the prior art are such that the subject matter as a

whole would have been obvious at the time the inven-

tion was made to a person having ordinary skill in

the art to which said subject matter pertains. Pat-

entability shall not be negatived by the manner

in which the invention was made.”’

23a

Opinion of the District Court

The validity of plaintiff’s patent is therefore dependent

upon this section of the Code and the case law evolving

therefrom. Title 35 USCA Section 282 provides that a

patent shall be presumed valid and casts the burden of

establishing invalidity upon the party asserting it. In

commenting on this statutory burden in Universal Incor-

porated v. Kay Manufacturing Corp., 301 F. 2d 140 (4th

Cir. 1962) the Court stated:

‘‘The plaintiff is also entitled to the benefits of

the statute, 35 USCA Section 282. * * * We do not

think as the plaintiff contends that an infringer

must prove invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The cases on which the plaintiff relies for this rule,

* * * were cases in which priority of discovery of

the same invention was the issue rather than

invalidity by reason of relevant disclosures of the

prior art.’’

See also Keiser v. High Poimt Hardware, 311 F., 2d 850

(4th Cir. 1962) and United States Pipe and Foundry Co.

v. Woodward Iron Co., 327 F. 2d 242 (4th Cir. 1964).

In the present case the defendant, then, must prove

that plaintiff’s invention was unpatentable, and this must

- be done by showing that the invention was obvious in the

prior art, and that the combination in its patent has

created no additional or different function nor produced

any unusual or unique results.

In Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U. S. 1 (1966), the

Court referred to the statutory test of obviousness as set

forth in 35 USCA §103, and went on to state with respect

to the 1952 Patent Act:

“‘The Act sets out the conditions of patentability

in three sections. An analysis of the structure of

24a

Opinion of the District Court

these three sections indicates that patentabiilty is -

dependent upon three explicit conditions: novelty

and utility as articulated and defined in $101 and

§102, and nonobviousness, the new statutory for-

mulation, as set out in §103. * * *”

As was stated earlier, plaintiff has combined four ele-

ments which were known in the prior art. Three of the

elements, the screed, leveler and spreader, when con-

structed on one chassis would not be a patentable inven-

tion. However, plaintiff added to this combination the

element of a radiant burner. The burner, by itself, is also

not patentable. Therefore, the question here is whether

the addition of the burner to the paving machine which

contains the other three elements has overcome obvious.

ness of the total combination.

The plaintiff bases his argument of unobviousness on

the following points: The testimony of plaintiff’s wit-

nesses Witkoski and Crowley, who stated that during the

critical period they were doubtful whether plaintiff’s

invention would be successful. These witnesses, however,

were basing their opinion on the fact that they were

doubtful that radiant heat would solve the problem of

cold joints. I am of the opinion that this does not get to

the heart of validity. Plaintiff’s patent is a combination

patent. The question of radiant heat was old in the art.

The pivotal question would more logically appear to be,

assuming that the radiant heat would work effectively,

was it obvious that a more successful machine would

evolve if all of the elements were constructed on one

chassis? It is my opinion that such a combination was

reasonably obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the

art.

25a

Opinion of the District Court

Plaintiff relies on Blaw-Knox v. I. D. Lam Company,

230 F. 2d 373 (7th Cir. 1956) in which the patent was one

for paving heavy concrete highways. There the patent

solved problems which had been prevalent for years, and

persons skilled in the art had attempted to utilize various

combinations and suggestions to solve the problem. How-

ever, that is not the situation in the present case. In

asphalt paving the only real problem has been the cold

joint, and the prior art shows that radiant heat is the

most successful answer to the problem.

In A & P Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corporation, 340 U. 8.

147 (1950) the Court made the following statements:

‘‘It is agreed that the key to patentability of a

mechanical device that brings old factors into

cooperation is presence or lack of invention.

‘‘The negative rule accrued from many litigations

was condensed about as precisely as the subject per-

mits in Lincoln Engimeering Co. v. Stewart-Warner

Corp., 303 U. S. 545, 549: ‘The mere aggregation of

a number of old parts or elements which, in the

aggregation, perform or produce no new or differ-

ent function or operation than that theretofore

performed or produced by them, is not patentable

invention.’ ’’

a e e

‘‘The conjunction or concert of known elements

must contribute something; only when the whole in

some way exceeds the sum of its parts is the accu-

mulation of old devices patentable. Elements may,

of course, especially in chemistry or electronics,

take on some new quality or function from being

26a

Opinion of the District Court

brought into concert, but this is not a usual result of

uniting elements old in mechanics.”’

The Court then makes this meaningful observation:

‘Courts should scrutinize combination patent

claims with a care proportioned to the difficulty and

improbability of finding invention in an assembly

of old elements.’’

Plaintiff contends that its combination of elements has

solved the age-old problems of asphalt paving; that the

invention has, by its combination, produced a new result

which has advanced the art, and further points to its

commercial success and the fact that it has answered a

long-felt want.

Entron of Maryland v. Jerrold, 295 F. 2a 670 (4th Cir.

1961), set forth the standard for determining whether

the elements of a combination exhibit a new result in the

following language:

“‘The inquiry should more appropriately be di-

rected to whether the elements of the combination

perform or produce a new, different or additional

function or operation * * * in the combination than

that theretofore performed or produced by them.”

It is my opinion that plaintiff’s combination in no

way exceeds the sum of its parts. Each element of the

combination performs in the same manner and performs

that same job that it formerly did when not in combination.

All that plaintiff has done is to construct four elements

known in the prior art on one chassis. In regard to plain-

tiff’s contention of commercial success, see A & P Tea Co.

27a

Opinion of the District Court

v. Supermarket Corp., supra, at 153, wherein the Court

stated :

‘““The Court of Appeals and the respondent both

lean heavily on evidence that this device filled a

long-felt want and has enjoyed commercial success.

But commercial success without invention will not

make patentability. * * * ”’

Based upon the foregoing, it is my opinion that the

Neville patent is not a valid patent, and hence I find no

need to rule on the question of infringement. Counsel may

prepare an appropriate order incorporating this opinion

by reference therein.

Joun A, Frew, Jz.

United States District Judge

Dated March 23, 1967

28a

Final Decree of the District Court, S. D. W. Va.,

March 23, 1967

IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

For tae Sovutnern Disrricr or West Vincinia

Civil Action No. 2927

-%

4

Pavement Satvace Company, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Anpenson’s Buack Rock, Inc.,

Defendant.

Fryau Decrer

This cause having been heard in open trial before me

and having thereafter been briefed by counsel it is, upon

consideration thereof, OBDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as

follows:

1. That my Opinion dated March 23, 1967, be in lieu

of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

2. That United States Letters Patent No. 3,055,280 in

suit is invalid.

3. That the complaint herein be, and the same hereby ~

is, dismissed with costs to the Defendant,

Enter: This 29th day of May, 1967.

Joun A. Fier, Jn.

Judge.

Approved by:

Frank L. Taytor, Jr.

Epwarp W. Eanpizy

29a

Excerpts From Trial Transcript

(5)

Francis C. Wrrxoski, called as witness on behalf of the

plaintiff, being first duly sworn, was examined and testi-

fied as follows:

(6)

In 1955 I was appointed as director of research and

testing for the Pennsylvania Department of Highways.

The responsibilities in this appointment included respon-

sibility for all of the materials used in the construction

of highways in Pennsylvania as well as concern for the

development of new materials, new products and new

methods in the technology of building roadways or build-

ing highways.

During the time that I served as the director of

research I was also a member of the American Associ-

ation of State Highway Officials committee on materials

and served as chairman of a subcommittee on paint mate-

rials and on several other committees, all involved with

highway construction or highway building.

(18)

*** A A blacktop paver is a mobile piece of equipment.

It can move along under its own power either on track or

on rubber tires. The trucker backs into the hopper, lifts

his bed and then the paver takes over. In other words,

the paver is able to push the truck and accept material

from the bed of the truck as it is being laid.

Q. Is the hopper the front end of the paver?

(19)

A. The hopper is the front end of the paver, yes. Then

the material goes from the hopper by a conveyer or belt

30a

Francis C. Witkoski—for Plaintiff —Direct

means through the machine and then it is placed or

spread. You have a tamper and a cutoff screed, All of or

at least most of the paving machines have self-leveling

devices, self-leveling bars.

In other words, if they are resurfacing or if they are

surfacing on a new roadway you may find slight indenta-

tions. This self-leveling bar then takes care of filling up

these indentations or the inconsistencies on the surface.

It certainly isn’t as flat as this desk top.

(20)

* * * Now, these machines can lay generally a width of

from eight to twelve feet of bituminous concrete pave-

ment. When they do this, of course, they are not able

then to lay the full width of a roadway because we are

talking most generally now of pavements that are twenty-

four feet wide and wider, so that the contractor has some

alternatives there.

He can either use one paver and pave one lane for a

day—let’s say a day’s run—and then end up with an

exposed edge or a joint, or he can have two pavers run-

ning in tandem, one following the other, oh, about twenty-

five or fifty feet somewhere, working distance. If he does

this, then, of course, he is able to get full width covering.

If he doesn’t run in tandem, and this is not always pos-

sible because when they are resurfacing you have to make

provision for the maintenance of traffic and all contrac-

tors, of course, don’t have a sufficient number of pavers

anyhow, so that generally they will lay the one lane,

one day’s run. Then the next day they come back and

start all over again and lay another lane to abut this edge,

this two inch or two and a half inch edge that they have

left,

3la

Francis C. Witkoski—for Plaintiff—Direct

Depending upon the specifications of the state, here

again that varies. Some states require that you cut back

into the joint an inch or two inches and paint the exposed

edge with

(21)

an asphaltic material, that is just plain asphalt, just the

plain black asphalt, before you run your second course.

The Court: How would you cut back into the

joint? :

The Witness: There are a couple of ways to do

it, either by hand or by using a pneumatic air

hammer. It depends on how strict or how stringent

the inspection is, and that it has to be cut and re-

painted, you see.

The Court: With a hot asphalt?

The Witness: With a hot asphalt, before the

abutting course is laid. These are the alternatives

that they have.

o = *

(22)

* * * A. Your Honor, this is the joint that we are talking

about. We could be looking down the roadway in this

direction. This is the full width of the roadway and we

have placed one

(23)

lane. In practice then it isn’t laid perfectly straight, you

see, so that the requirement is generally that the mate-

rial be cut back, this part then erased and the exposed

material painted.

The reason that they require the painting is that as

it is cut you disturb the structural strength that you have

32a

Francis C, Witkoski—for Plaintiff—Direct

here. If it is put on at the same time, then it follows

that these particles can fit together and coalesce into a

single or individual piece and resemble the body of the

pavement here, but as soon as we lay the material we

begin to cool it and as we cool it we set it and these

materials then take the place that they will eventually end

up in.

To cut it, we disturb this structural strength and so

the exposed stone is repainted and then another hot course

is Jaid against it in hopes that what we do is end up

with a complete ribbon of material without any sign of a

joint or a juncture.

The problem with this is many fold and it is an old

problem for reasons that can be readily seen. As you

cut it, as I said, you disturb the structural strength first

of all. Secondly, you build in a joint. By building in a

joint, then you set your pavement, you immediately build

in deterioration or the potential of deterioration because

water, fine dirt and then the freezing and the thawing

have their start in this

(24)

general area, and then we get disintegration.

Q. Excuse me just a moment, please. Mr. Witoski, you

say ‘‘this general area’. Do you mean now the place at

which the two parallel courses abut? A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. A. At the joint. In other words,

when we construct this way, when we build a joint this

way, we are building a problem in by ourselves, you see,

and setting up this pavement for eventual deterioration.

I think that clarifies the reason why and how we cut

it. Some states require that you cut back as much as four

inches into the old wearing course. Should I continue

with this?

33a

Francis C. Witkoski—for Plaintiff—Direct

Q. I want to develop with you fully—I think this is

the Court’s question—there is a celd joint? A. This is

what is referred to as a cold joint, yes.

Q. That is where one course is laid and comes down? A.

And then eventually you put another course against it

after it has cooled. As I said, as soon as you put your

one lane down, your material begins to cool and set and

if you allow this—if you pave for a day’s run you end

up with one lane and then this joint is cold.

(25)

The Court: Now, when you cut back and you get

your

hot asphalt in there and then start laying your

other course adjacent to it and abutting up against

that joint, does this hot asphalt help cure these con-

ditions or these possibilities of water or fine dirt

seeping into the joint?

The Witness: Your Honor, I don’t think that we

can say that it cures them, but it is the thing that

has been thought of as the best way of getting past

the problem, and actually the painting is just to

cover up the exposed pieces of aggregate.

For example, if you use pieces of limestone and

you cut it, the edge where it is cut is white; it is

just an exposed stone, so we repaint it and hope

that with new hot asphalt it will get in there, and

we try to close up this joint.

The Court: Was that the most common method

of meeting this problem?

The Witness: That is even today a common

method of meeting the problem.

The Court: All right. Go ahead, gentlemen.

34a

Francis C, Witkoski—for Plaintiff—Direct

Q. Is the painting a successful cure for the problems

of a cold joint? A. No, sir, it isn’t.

The Court: In other words, when you say it isn’t

successful, I assume that you stiil have these prob-

lems of water.

(26)

The Witness: Yes, sir, you very definitely do.

You very definitely do because you actually in cut-

ting it, you get a nice pathway for the water,

make it easy for the water to get into there.

* * *

(27)

Q. Mr. Witkoski, has the result of a cold joint been a

problem in the construction and maintenance of bitumi-

nous highways? A. Yes, sir, it very definitely has been,

and is.

Q. What are some of the undesirable results of the cold

joint? A. The deterioration of the pavement. Pave-

ments are designed to last for many years. Some of the

pavements are designed to last for twenty years, forty

years, or fifty years, and with an opening such as this, a

cold joint, as I said, we build in deterioration so that ac-

tually after a winter in some cases or two you not only see

this line of demarcation where your cold joint is, but you

see that some of the material is beginning to come »ut,

that you begin to lose material at the joint, and as that

happens this degradation continues from the joint, from

the cold joint inward into the center of the lane ; the center

of both lanes, as a matter of fact, and we have this

(28)

cupping action where we lose bituminous conerete and

then we require repairs in this general area.

35a

Francis C. Witkoski—for Plaintiff-——Direct

(49)

Q. Mr. Witkoski, did you ever meet Charles A, Neville?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Will you tell the Court how you came to meet Mr.

Neville and what transpired at that time? A. While I

was director of research for the Pennsylvania Depart-

ment of Highways one of my responsibilities was to meet

with people who had new materials or new equipment

that we could possibly incorporate into our specifications.

I don’t remember exactly when I met or when Charle

Neville came to my office. However, it was sometime

between 1955 and 1960. It was sometime during my

tenure that he came into my office, and during the course

of the discussion he told me very generally that he had

invented a piece of equipment that would heat the asphalt

and that would not burn the asphalt. In other words, he

had the secret to eliminating cold joints.

Charle Neville was a man that you wouldn’t forget if

you had seen him once. He was a very tall man, very

large man, as a matter of fact, and outspoken to say the

least. After some time in meeting with him I told him

in not quite these terms that I didn’t quite believe that he

had such a piece of equipment. That was my first encoun-

ter or my first meeting with Mr. Neville.

Q. Did you hear of Mr. Neville later?

(46)

A. Yes, I did. In the fall—the first meeting I had with

him I remember was in the summertime, and then the

following fall I had a request from the Pittsburgh Engi-

neering District to use an infrared heater on a bituminous

concrete paver.

We had trouble with joints, with cold joints, in not

only the metropolitan areas—that is Pittsburgh and Phila-

36a

Francis C, Witkoski—for Plaintiff—Direct

delphia—but we also had it on all of our highways. We

had a research team, a group of paving engineers from

the Central Laboratory, as a matter of fact, in the Pitts-

burgh area at this time looking over some of the failures

that we had in pavements, and by failures I mean areas

where we had newly laid bituminous concrete that were

showing signs of raveling or the loss of fine materials

along the longitudinal joints.

This request that we had then we certainly were inter-

ested in because anything that would help eliminate this

problem would have been to our advantage. So this

group saw this piece of equipment, which was either hung

or carried alongside of the bituminous paver, and they

reported back to me that it looked good.

As a result of that we then asked Mr. Neville and Mr.

Walker to supply us in the Highway Department labora-

tory with a few of these burners, just the burner unit

itself, the

(47)

purpose there being for us to give it some laboratory

testing to investigate it more fully.

We had a field report that it looked pretty good so we

wanted to follow this up with some laboratory work, and

they did deliver two or three of these burner units and the

bituminous concrete laboratory kept them over the winter

and we heated various types of mixes, we checked the

distance from the surfaces of the mix, we checked the

penetrations—as many things as we possibly could on a

laboratory scale.

Q. Did you continue to have an interest following that?

A. Yes, because after that the joint heater or the first of

the joint heaters, I guess the prototype or the model was

37a

Alexander Quayle—for Defendant—Direct

finally made and we, of course, were interested in it

because it did work.

(82)

ALEXANDER QuayYLg, called as a witness on behalf of the

defendant, being first duly sworn, was examined and testi-

fied as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. Borst:

Q. Where do you live, Mr. Quayle? A. Ridgewood,

New Jersey.

Q. And what is your present occupation? A. Vice-

President of Aeroil Products Company, South Hacken-

sack, New Jersey.

(102)

Q. I hand the witness a copy of the exhibit. Does the

teaching in Morcom deal with the subject of repairing

asphalt pavement? A. Yes. It covers a means of treating

asphalt pavement by the application of radiant energy.

Q. In particular what problems in the repair of asphalt

pavement does the Morcom patent expressly allude to and

purport to solve? A. Well, he raises the problem of

burning the surface of the asphalt by methods in use

prior to his patent and he solves

(103)

that problem in the same manner as the Neville patent by

the application of infrared or radiant energy. He also

raises the problem of treating asphalt in place rather than

removing it for treatment, and he solves this also in the

same manner as the Neville patent by the application of

radiant or infrared energy to the asphalt.

38a

Alexander Quayle—for Defendant—Direct

(113)

Q. Now, supposing we are to hang an infrared burner

on such a paver. Would there in your view be any change

or modification of the mechanical functioning of the con-

veyor means? A. No, none at all. The heater would have

no effect on the conveyor.

Q. Mechanically they are independent of each other!

A. Yes.

(114)

Q. With regard to the leveler or screed, is its function-

ing at all dependent on whether heaters are present? A.

No, it wouldn’t be dependent on either the heaters or

the conveyors. The screed and the tamper could be a sepa-

rate item. As a matter of fact, one of the companies I rep.

resent, the Muller Machinery Company, makes a separate

asphalt tamper and it performs the same function when it

is separate as when it is a part of the asphalt paving

machine that Barber-Greene makes.

Q. There is, then, no what we might call joint action

between any of the three basic components of the paver and

heater? A. No. The heater is hung on the paver merely

because that’s a convenient place to hang it when heating

the longitudinal joint. As a matter of fact, both ourselves

and Pavement Salvage make a separate heater which heats

the transverse joint and is not hung on the paving machine.

It performs exactly the same function on the transverse

joint as a separate heater, as this heater performs on the

longitudinal joint and it heats it to attempt to give a

better bond.

Q. Do I understand you to say. then that when the

radiant heater is removed from the chassis for use on

the transverse

39a

Alexander Quayle—for Defendant—C ross

(115)

joint that the distributor and screed function just as

effectively as they did when the heater was on the chassis?

A. Yes. When you take the heater off what you have left

is a standard Barber-Greene paving machine.

Q. Is the mechanical operation of any one of the three

main components in Neville changed or affected in any

manner by the presence of the other components? A. No, I

would say they are not.

(120) 7 6 @

Q. What is the name of this agency? A. The name at

the time the tests were made was National Bituminous

Concrete Association. They have changed their name

since. They are called now the National Asphalt Paving

Association. They are a national organization of paving

companies.

(121) . ” °

Q. To what do you attribute this failure to make such

recommendations? A. Well, the tests showed that the

infrared heat did not improve the tensile strength of the

joint and I think they agree with Mr. Witkoski, and I

would agree also, that tensile strength is a very important

property of the joint; and since the tests didn’t increase

the tensile strength, they felt that while there was a joint

problem, it apparently wasn’t solved by infrared, so they

went on to make tests on other aspects of it and other

areas where they felt they might improve the joint other

than the use of infrared.

(124) . * ~

Cross examination by Mr. Blenko:

(127) * * +

Q. And then after that you had turned your attention

to the particular type of heater which we are interested

in here, that is, joint heaters and the like. A. Yes.

40a

Alexander Quayle—for Defendant—Cross

Q. Can you tell us when that took place? <A. Not ex-

actly. I would say in 1961 approximately.

Q. You have referred in your direct examination to a

number of patents and publications. I would like to ask

you if you have reviewed them all, that is to say, before

you came here to give testimony to the Court. A. Yes,

sir.

Q. And have you also reviewed the Neville patent in

suit? A. Yes, sir.

(128)

Q. Have you reviewed the proceedings which led up to

the granting of that patent, that is, the file wrapper? A.

Yes, sir.

Q. Are we to understand that the import of your testi-

mony on direct examination is that parts of what is set

forth in the Neville-patent may be found in these earlier

references to which you have referred? A. I would say,

rather, that all of what is disclosed in the Neville patent

is found in earlier patents.

Q. All right. Which of the references that you have

dealt with this morning most nearly approaches what is

set forth in the Neville patent? A. I don’t think I could

be sure in answering that without going back over them

Q. Please do that. 1 don’t mean to get an offhand im-

pression. I ask that you refer to the patents. A. Could

I borrow them all? I would say it is very difficult to pick

one, but I think if I had to pick one I think I would pick

the Morcom patent as being closest.

Q. And that is what you believe to be the best reference?

A. Yes, although, as I say, I find it very difficult to pick

one and say that’s the best because the Wells patent, for

instance——

(129)

Q. Do you find any other patent that is better than the

. Morcom patent? A. Better in what way?

4la

Alexander Quayle—for Defendant—Cross

Q. is a better reference against the Neville patent. A.

Well, it depends on which elements you are discussing. |

would say, for instance, the Schwank patent shows the

burner part of the Neville device the best, but I am not a

patent lawyer and I just have the feeling that you are

asking me to do something that I don’t have the ability to

do, to pick out one of these patents which is the best

reference.

Q. I don’t want to ask you the questions as a lawyer at

all, Mr. Quayle. The questions which I am asking you are

for the purpose of laying the facts before the Court, and

my understanding is that you had reviewed all these as a

man claiming some skill in this art and that you were

stating what you found set forth in these various refer-

ences, and my question simply is which is your best refer-

ence.

I believe you have referred to the Morcom patent and

(130)

you have indicated, I believe, that that has some short-

comings and that you find other parts illustrated in the

Schwank patent. Is that a fair statement of your position?

A. I would add to that that I find other elements illur*rated

in the Wells patent. I think you are talking about which

of the three legs of a three-legged stool is the best, and I

don’t think I can answer.

Q. Let’s deal with it in those terms then. Are we to

understand that you look to these three patents to find what

is set forth and disclosed in the Neville patent? A. No.

If you put it in those terms, I would say that we look to

all of those that have been entered.

Q. Is it a fair understanding of your answer that you

must look to all of these patents to find what is disclosed

and claimed in the Neville patent?

42a

Alexander Quayle—for Defendant—Cross

(131)

A. Yes.

Q. And you do not find all those set forth in any single

one of the prior art references. I think that necessarily

follows but I want to have no doubt about it. A. Yes.

(151)

Q. Very well. When the paver moves down the roadway

and places one lane of the pavement, that particular opera-

tion involves placing the blacktop material and then dis-

tributing it, striking it off of the screed and shaping the

contour, does it not? A. Yes.

Q. The screed tamps it in and acts as a large flatiron to

shape the material, giving it a smooth even finish? A. The

tamper tamps it and the screed shapes it.

Q. It is a joint function of the two as the paver moves

along? A. Yes.

Q. When the first course is laid upon the highway is a

joint heater used at that point? A. Not normally. It

could be.

Q. The actual use is ordinarily when laying a second

(152)

course parallel to the first, isn’t it? A. Oh, I see what you

mean by course. No, it wouldn’t be used in laying the first

lane. A course is normally the complete road. It isn’t used

in laying the first lane.

Q. All right. Let’s deal with it in those terms? When

the first lane is laid you don’t use a joint heater? A.

That’s right.

Q. And you go back and lay a second lane alongside,

parallel to the first iane, abutting to it? A. Yes.

Q. That is the time when the joint heater is used? A. It

can be, yes.

43a

James Lewis Burati—for Defendant—Direct

Q. At that time is not the function of the joint heater

to make the first lane receptive to material in the second

lanct A. Well, it is to make it hot. I am not sure I under-

stand your meaning of the word receptive. It heats it.

Q. It is to produce a better bond at the joint, is it not?

A. It is intended to. Whether it does or not I would say is

questionable.

Q. Would you accept that at least it is intended to? A.

Yes.

Q. There may be a dispute beyond that point? A. Yes.

(153)

Q. If the joint heater does in fact produce a better bond,

that eliminates the cold joint, does it not? A. Yes.

Q. And that has a very real effect upon the bringing

together of these two lanes, the marriage, if you will, of

the blacktop material in the first lane with the blacktop

material in the second lane? A. It has an effect. Again

we get back to whether that effect is beneficial.

(170)

James Lewis Burati called as a witness on behalf of the

defendant being first duly sworn, was examined and tes-

tified as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. Borst:

Q. Where do you work? A. Anderson’s Black Rock,

Txeorporated.

Q. How long have you been there? A. Fifteen years.

Q. Have you had experience there with asphalt paving?

A. That’s right.

Q. How long? A. Well, I have been with Andersons’ for

fifteen years and prior to that I was with the road commis-

sion during the summer months, in some cases as an asphalt

inspector, blacktop inspector we call it. °

James Lewis Burati—for Defendant—Direct

(172)

Q. You are entirely familiar with the operation of the

three units, the feeder, the heaters and the screed? A.

Yes.

Q. Would it be a fact that the radiant energy heater

when so suspended would operate effectively though the

mechanical operation of the feeder were discontinued? A.

Would the joint heater burn? Yes, it would burn.

Q. Just as efficiently? A. As efficiently? Yes.

Q. Would the feeder feed just as efficiently if the burners

were not present? A. Yes.

Q. Suppose we should decide to do away with the

mechanical feeder altogether and you had your men shovel

aggregate onto the lanes to be paved. Would the screed

level and plane or iron the so shoveled material as ef-

ficiently? A. Yes.

Q. Without the presence of a feeder?

(173)

A. Well, the feeder doesn’t have anything to do with the

screed unit. The feed unit brings the material back and

the screed unit acts independent of the feeder.

Q. As far as you are concerned, mechanically the three

units are independent? <A. Yes.

Q. And function independently? A. Independently? Yes,

they function independently as a unit.

Q. What is the principal advantage in using a joint

sealer, radiant energy operated? A. Our main advantage

to using joint heaters—actually we use the joint heaters

because they are written into the specification. If we use

a joint heater with the paving spread or paving machine,

we can pave one lane, continuous lane, during the day

and the next morning or that night back up and lay the

second lane or pad the next day.

45a

Framcis C. Witkoski—Recalled—for Plaintiff —Direct

Francis C. Witkoski- -Recalled—for Plaintiff—Cross

(187)

Francis C. Wirkosk1, recalled as a witness on behalf of

the plaintiff in rebuttal, having been previously duly sworn,

was examined and testified further as follows:

(188)

Direct examination by Mr. Blenko:

o * o

(193)

A. Infrared comes in varying amounts from any warm

body.

* * *

(194)

Cross examination by Mr. Borst:

+ * e

(198)

e . &

Q. Why is it, then, that today we don’t use oil or gaso-

line to fuel the infrared heaters if one is about equivalent

to the other, economically speaking? A. The propane is

easier to handle. A propane tank is easier to handle.

Q. So might that not be the reason— A. So therefore

it does contribute to the economy of the operation, yes.

Q. Might that not itself contribute to the commercial

success today, such as there is, of the radiant energy

heater? A. Yes, I would agree with that.

Q. Such wasn’t available in 1905? A. Yes.

46a

Excerpts From Deposition of Leslie B. Crowley

(3)

Examination by Counsel for Plaintiff

By Mr. Blenko:

Q. Please state your name. A. Leslie B. Crowley.

Q. Where do you live, Mr. Crowley? A. 6720 Over-

brook Street, Falls Church, Virginia.

Q. What is your occupation? A. I am a consulting en.

gineer.

Q. I would like to have you state what your profes-

sional background career has been. I think it will be

simplest if you will start with your educational back-

ground and continue on up to the present time. I would

like you to do it in chronological order, stating what your

employment has been and what has been the general na-

ture of your duties. A. Yes.

I was graduated from high school in June of 1928. I

attended American Technical School 1935-36; Lincoln In-

stitute in 1937 and ’38; Research Testing Training Insti-

tute of

(4)

the West Point Military Academy, 1939. I started work

connected with civil engineering the summers 1926, ’27,

and ’28 when I was a rodman and chainman for the Maine

State Highway Commission; April 1929 to December 29,

foreman, Northeast Construction Company, Northeast

Harbor, Maine; 1930 and ’31, rodman and chainman,

Maine State Highway Commission; March ’32-December

33, survey man, White Lovejoy Construction Company

in Maine; January ’34-August ’35, foreman, Maine State

Highway Commission; August ’35-January ’36, chief of

party, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army;

January ’36 to August ’36, chief inspector, Closure Dams,

47a

Excerpts From Deposition of Leslie B. Crowley

Passamaquoddi District, Corps of Engineers; August °36

to January °38, engineer, Boston District Corps of En-

gineers, Department of the Army, Office Engineering ;

January ’38-December ’38, construction superintendent,

Highway Department, City of Boston, Massachusetts; De-

cember ’38 to October 41, chief inspector, construction,

Providence, Rhode Island, District Corps of Engineers;

October ’41 to July 742, civil engineering, McGraw-Purdy-

Henerson, at Naval Operating Base, Bermuda; July 1942

to September 1942, assistant chief engineer, Mobile Dis-

trict, Corps of Engineers, Alatoona Dam Project; Sep-

tember 42 to June ’43, deputy area engineer, Jacksonville,

District Corps of Engineers, airfield construc-

(5)

tion; June 1943 to June 1944, Chief, Design and Test

Section, Central Concrete Laboratory, North Atlantic

Division, Corps of Engineers; June 1944 to June 1945,

supervisory engineer, Engineer Division, Transportation

Corps, Department of Army; June ’35 to June ’48, Chief,

Roads, Railroads, Construction and Maintenance, Equip-

ment Branch, First Army Headquarters, Department of

the Army, Governors Island, New York. I was respon-

sible for the functions of all those things. August ’48 to

June ’51, Chief, Pavements and Railroads, and Assistant

Chief of Civil Engineering, Installation Division, Stra-

tegic Air Command, United States Air Force; June of

‘51 to August of 56, Chief, Pavements and Railroads Sec-

tion, Director of Installations, Headquarters, USAF;

August ’56 to July ’57, Consultant, Civil Enginering,

Director of Installations, Headquarters, USAF; July '57

to May 1960, Chief, Operational Facilities Branch, Direc-

tor of Civil Engineering, Headquerters, USAF; and from

May 1960 until the present time I am top consultant of

48a

Eacerpts From Deposition of Leslie B. Crowley

civil engineering, specializing in pavements and railroads,

in the Directorate of Civil Engineering, Headquarters,

USAF.

Q. Mr. Crowley, are you a registered professional en-

gineer? A. I am.

(6)

Q. Where are you registered? A. District of Columbia,

number 4261.

Q. Are you a member of any technical and profes-

sional societies relating to your profession? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Will you state those, please? A. Member, Consult-

ing Engineering Association; member, National Society

of Professional Engineers; member, American Society of

Military Engineers; member, American Road Builders

Association; appointed committeeman, Municipal Airport

Division, American Society of Civil Engineers; elected

member of Southern Highway Research Board Technical

Committees; elected member, Aero Space Transport Divi-

sion, American Society of Civil Engineers; chairman,

Subcommittee for airfield pavement maintenance, Ameri-

can Society of Civil Engineers; charter member, American

Institute of Plan Engineers; charter member, Association

of Engineers, Architects and Scientists; appointed Air

Force member, Highway Research Board, National Acad-

emy of Arts and Sciences; consultant to Air Force In-

stitute of Technology; consultant to Air Force Academy.

Q. Mr. Crowley, has it been a part of your professional

career to be involved with the construction and mainte-

nance of bituminous pavements?

(7)

A. Yes. A great deal of my time is devoted to this very

thing, construction and maintenance of bituminous pave-

ments.

49a

Excerpts From Deposition of Leslie B. Crowley

Q. Our interest today, Mr. Crowley, is in litigation in-

volving the treatment of bituminous pavements with radi-

ant energy. Can you tell us when that subject first came

to your attention? A. Yes. Sometime prior te 1954 the

man who I understood was the originator of ‘‘infra-red’’

heaters came to my office at that time. I was in the Penta-

gon. He explained to me what this infra-red heater would

do to improve the maintenance and repair, shall we say,

of pavements, particularly airfield pavements.

(8)

Mr. Neville attempted to interest me in this new device—

at least it was new to me—and he did create some inter-

est in me, but it was insufficient for me to take any action

at that time; and, quite honestly, it was because I did not

believe that this equipment would do the job. I don’t like

to say that, but that is what I believed at the time.

May I go on to say something about this?

Q. Please do. A. One of the principal uses of the infra-

red heater as it benefits the Air Force and Government in

general is that it heats the joints as you are laying down

the flexible material and permits a ‘‘marriage’’ of the

material or a binding of the material which precludes or

greatly minimizes the separation which is caused by cold

weather or dirty joints or for other reasons, deficiencies

which have been a part of bituminous paving since the

time asphalt or tar products were used.

Q. I am going to interrupt you for just a moment, Mr.

(9)

Crowley, because you have used some terms here which I

know are quite well known to you but which may be quite

strange to the court. A. Yes, sir.

0a

Excerpts From Deposition of Leslie B. Crowley

Q. I would like to interject a few questions for that

reason.

Will you tell us briefly the general process which is

conventionally followed in laying ¢ bituminous pavement,

A. Bituminous pavements are placed in lanes, usually

eight, sometimes 12 feet in width. The bituminous ma.

terials are placed at temperatures consistent with the

requirements for handling. A run of several hundred feet

is usually possible before the joint at the beginning of

the run starts to cool. Under normal activities it is

essential that the paving machine return to the beginning

of the lane to start a new lane contiguous with the first

lane.

Q. Are we to understand that you are referring now to

leying a second lane parallel to the first? A. Contiguous

width, touching.

Q. Side by side. A. In order to obtain a proper type

joint, that is, one which will not separate upon curing or

during cold weather, it is necessary that the temperatures

of the joints, that of

(10)

the first lane and that of the second, be approximately the

same temperature. The infra-red heater permits a re-

heating of the first lane joint when necessary and thus

assures that the temperature of the original joint and

the new joint is approximately the same when placed in

the lane,

Q. When Mr. Neville came to you in 1954, or a little

prior to that time, was separation at these joints recog-

nized as a problem in the paving industry? A. Yes. Cold

joints or separation at the joints has been the most diffi-

cult problem to overcome in the bituminous paving busi-

dla

Excerpts From Deposition of Leslie B. Crowley

ess since asphalt tars were used. Many efforts have

en made to solve this problem over the years but none

vere successful. It appears that the infra-red heater

joes this job satisfactorily.

(11)

4, Prior to President Kennedy’s January 1961 inaugura-

ion, a requirement arose for repair of the aircraft park-

ing area at Andrews Air Force Base. It was cold weather

that December. The temperatures during the time of the

repairs dropped down to 20 degrees Fahrenheit, or slightly

wlder. In order to minimize cold joints it was decided to

use the infra-red heater. Considerable interest was evi-

jenced in the use of this equipment and some other Gov-

ernment agencies sent representatives to observe. (ne of

these representatives was the head of the paving school at

the Engineer Research and Development Laboratories at

Fort Belvoir, Virginia. As a result of his interest in the

equipment and the apparent good job that was being done,

he caused a number of samples to be taken from the joint

and these samples were tested at the Corps of Engineers

Research Development Laboratories. Reports of these

tests indicate that during oscillograph re ‘dings they were

unable to find the joint in the pavement.

d2a

Claims 16 and 18 as Originally Filed in Neville

Application

16. The method of placing parallel courses of bitumi.

nous paving free of longitudinal faults and fissures which

comprises laying a course of paving material, progres.

sively subjecting a longitudinal edge of the material to

penetrative radiant energy, progressively placing a paral-

lel course of paving material abutting said edge following

application of said energy thereto, and then compacting

the placed paving material forming a pavement character-

ized by freedom from longitudinal joint fissures.

18. Apparatus for treating a bituminous pavement for

extension of its service life comprising generating means

to generate penetrative radiant energy, and means to

maintain said generating means in fixed relative position

to the pavement for advance along the pavement.

‘WIM YONs 0} asuodser UT PeTy

ysnoyy se payeey aq [TeYys uonned oy} peruedurosoe YOryM MOTE s8utpesooid 3}

jo ydy1osuey ayy Jo Adoo paynseo Aynp oy yey peTap1o JoyVIN St 3 Puy

*zepueyeo Axeumns e439 UO pecsetd st eseo

O42 pue “paws STIMOMND necoceeeee GIANOd au) 10y speeddy

JO JNOD 8938S Paul oy} 0} PeIOHAIO JO IM B JOF UjoIoY UOHHed sy],

°69 6I ° eeace eae eee %Z qoIreyW pet ‘TUVUOLLUAD SNIMOTIV waduO

‘our ‘°0D e8eaT SS quewesed

* zqU0TIFI8d

*souy ‘yoo YowTd-8, uoOszepUy

89 6) ‘wuay uaqopg‘ seer YLOT ON

SIWIS QINUFH 3G) JO JanoyD swusadnge

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Morcom Patent No. 799,014 (PX-5)

“+e eee eee aene

British Patent No. 756,911 ................++..

Pavers’ Digest for March, 1963 (PX-10) ........

Municipal and Pavers Catalog (PX-i3) ........

Aeroil Bulletin HE-PR-5

No. 799,014.

4. H. MORCOM.

PATENTED SEPT. 5, 1905.

APPARATUS FOR REPAIRING ASPHALT PAVEMENTS.

APPLICATION FILED DEO. 6, 1904.

aye

bes 2%

°

‘*

SSELLTS--SALET 1.

*.

Ne

~

sy

LW.

Buverstor

J.H.Morncom

ak aes

Otionrwy :

E2

Ez e

No. 799,014. PATENTED SEPT. 5. 1905.

J. H. MORCOM.

APPARATUS FOR REPAIRING ASPHALT PAVEMENTS.

ATPLICATION FILED DEO. 6, 1904.

g SRLLTS—SRLET 8.

Iuventor

% J.H.Morcom.

5

35

25

3°

35

40

45

‘rial.

UNITED STATES

JOHN H. MORCOM, OF DENVER, COLORADO, ASSIGNOR TO THE ECONOMIC

PATENT OFFICE.

ASPHALT STREET REPAIRS COMPANY.

APPARATUS FOR REPAIRING ASPHALT PAVEMENTS.

No. 799,014.

To all whom it may concern:

Be it known that 1. Joux H. Morcom, a citi-

zen of the United States, residing in the city

and county of Denver and State of Colorado,

have invented certain new and useful Improve-

ments in Apparatus for Repairing Asphalt

Pavements; and J do declare the following to

be a full, clear, and exact description of the

invention, such as will enable others skilled

1© in the art to which it appertains to make and

use the same, reference being had to the ac-

companying drawings, and to the figures of

reference marked thereon, which form a part

of this specification.

My invention relates to means or appora-

tus for repairing asphalt pavements. It is

well known that pavement of this character

needs repair in spots at intervals, and my im-

proved apparatus is designed to facilitate and

cheapen this work by_jreating the old pave-

ment in place in such a manner as to cause it

to anite with the new compound necessary to

even or level the worn-off surface, thereby

saving a great waste of material as eompared

with the method now in vogue in which the

old pavement is chopped out and thrown

away and replaced entirely with new mate-

Heretofore, so far as 1 am aware, the

machinesemployed for this purpose are adapt-

ed to apply either a direct flame ora blast of

hot air directly to the pavement. Either of

these methods (especially the flame) has a

tendency to burn the surface of the asphalt,

thus preventing it from uniting with the new

material.

In my improved construction the heat is

conveyed by radiation from the bottom of the

combustion-chamber, which is maintained in

suitable proximity to the pavement, whereby

the heat is effectually applied. I also employ

means surrounding the combustion-chamwber

and adapted to drop down upon the surround-

ing pavement to prevent the cooling action

of the outer air, which otherwise would re-

sult. By means of this protection the heat

of the combustion-chamber is more econom-

‘ically utilized.

Having briefly outlined my improved con-

struction, as well as the function it is intend-

ed to perform, 1 will proceed to describe the

same in detail, reference being male to the

accompanying drawings, in which is illus-

trated an embodiment thereof.

In the drawings, Figure 1 is a top or plan

Specification of Letters Patent.

Application Gled December 6, 1904. Serial No. 236,518.

Patented Sept. 5, 1V05.

view of my improved apparatus provided

with two combustion-chambers. Fig. 2 is a

side elevation of the same. Fig. 3 is a rear

view of Fig. 4 or a view looking in the direc-

tion of the arrow 3 in Fig. 4. Fig. 4 isa top

or plan view of one of the combustion-cham-

bers shown on a larger scale than in Figs. 1

and 2. Fig. 5 is a central section taken

through one of the combustion -chambers.

Fig. 6 is a diagrammatic view illustrating the

air-supply used in connection with the oil-

burners. Fig. 7 is a similar view illustrat-

ing the apparatus for supplying the fucl-oil

tothe burners.

The same reference characters indicate the

same parts in all the views.

Let the numeral 5 desiynate a suitable

framework mounted on large wheels 6 and a

centrally-located small wheel 7. In the draw-

ings 1 have simply illustrated a suitable ve-

hicle adapted to support my improved appa-

ratus, together with such other appliances of

ordinary construction us are found conven-

ient for use in connection therewith. These

consist of a fucl-oil tank 8 for supplying the

oil-burners and a gasolene-tank 9 for supply-

ing the gas-engine 10. .

Supported upon the rear extremity of the

vehicle are two combustion-chambers 12, each

of which is provided with a rear opening 13,

into which projects an oil-burner 14, suitably

mounted and supplied with oi! from a branc

pipe 15. The two branch pipes lead from s

main oil-supply pipe 16, which communicates

with the fuel-oil tank 8. The portion of the

pipe immediately connected with the battom:

of the oil-tank J will designate 17. This pipe

leads toa branch 18, which passes through the

mufller 19 of the yas-engine in order to heat

the oil preparatory to its delivery to the burn-

ers in order to facilitate its vaporization.

After passing through the muffler 19 the oil

flows to the main oil-pipe 16, which extends

rearwardly a suitable distance, thence up-

wardly, and thence rearwardly again above

the combustion-chambers, as best illustrated

in Fig. 2. The necessary air is supplied to

the burners from a blower 20, whence it passes

through a are 21 toa point 23 justin front

of the combustion-chambers, where it divides

into two branches 24, which pass through the

respective combustion-chambers in which the

air is heated in order to facilitate the atomiz-

ing and iguition of the oil. These pies 24

55

7°

80

85

go

105

lead to valve-controlled branch pipes 25, which | the combination with a suitable

| combustion - chamber mounted

enter the burners 14 between the oil-delivery

ipes 15 and the forward extremities of the

rncrs.

Each combustion-chamber is lined at the

top and sides with fire-brick or other suitable

material 26. The top lining is clearly shown

in Fig. 5. while the lining at the sides and

euds is illustrated by dotted lines in Fig. 4.

5

10

closed by a comparatively thin plate27. — This

hottum of each chamber is surrounded by a

depending Mange 28, Each conmbustion-cham-

ber is further supplied with vertically-adjust-

able side slides 29, adapted to be dropped

down upon the pavement surrounding the

ey of repair in order to further confine the

reat, which it is of course desirable to limit

in its action to the exact spot on the payement

where repair is necessary. The frontof each

combustion-chamber is provided with a de-

pending hinged plate 30, while the rear ex-

tremity of each chamber is provided with a

plate 31, having a roller 32 at its lower ex-

tremity. Each slide 29 is provided with slots,

througli which pass set-Lolts 33. It is evi-

dent that by loosening these bolts the slides

may be raised and lowered at will. The front

of each combustion-chamber is connected with

a vertical stack or smoke-pipe 34.

From the foregoing description the use and

operation of my improved apparatus will be

readily understood. The apparatus when in

use is moved to such a position that the com-

bustion-chambers are directly above the place

in the pavement to be repaired. The side

slides 29 are then dropped downwardly, the

oil and air turned on to supply the burners,

and thecombustible mixture tighted. Flames

from the burners are thus detivered to the re-

spective combustion-chambers, whereby the

bottom of each chamber is highly heated and

delivers its heat by radintion to the portion of

the pavement to be repaired. This heat pre-

pares the seid portion of the parement to re-

ceive the new material and unite therewith,

as heretofore explained.

Attention is called to the fact that the open-

ings 13 of the combustion-chambers are con-

siderably Jarger than the extremities of the

burners which project thereinto in order to

allow suflicient free air to enter the combus-

tion-chambers by virtue of the suction induced

by the issue of the air and oil from the buruers

for combustion purposes.

Having thus described my invention, what

I claim is-—

1. In an apparatus for repairing asphalt

pavement, the combination of a combustion-

chamber closed at the bottom, and means

mounted on the apparatus for heating the com-

bustion-chamber, whereby its bottom delivers

heat by radiation at the place of repair, sub-

stantially as ribed.

of the class described,

15

20

25

5

35

4°

45

50

55

65

2. In an apparatus

700,014

The bottom of each combustion-chamber is |

EY

vehicle, of a

thereon and

‘ having a closed bottom, means for heating the

combustion -chamber, and means mounted

thereon for confining the heat to the desired

location, substantially as described.

3. The combination with a suitable vehicle,

of a combustion-chamber mounted thereon,

said chamber being closed except at its ex-

tremities which are open for the introduction

of combustible mixture and free air for its

combustion and for the escape of the products

of combustion respectively, the closed bot-

tom of the combustion-chamber being sup-

ported in suitable proximity to the surface

where the apparatus is to be used whereby

the heat may be delivered to the said surface

by radiation, and suitable means mounted on

the vehicle for confining the heat within the

desired space or locality for the purpose set

forth.

4. The combination with a suitable vehicle,

of a combustion-chamber mounted thereon

and having a closed bottom, the said chamber

also having an opening for the introduction

of a combustible mixture and free air for its

combustion and also an opening for the escape

of the products of combustion, a burner

mounted in suitable proximity to the fuel-

opening of the combustion -chainber, and

means for delivering oil and air to the said

burner for the purpose set forth.

5. The combination with a suitable vehicle,

of a combuation-chamber having a closed bot-

tom adapted when the chamber is heated to

throw heat downwardly by radiation, a burner

mounted to deliver a combustible mixture to

the combustion-chamber, a conduit for deliv-

ering fuel-oil to the burner, means for heat-

ing the oil on its way to the burner, and an

air-conduit passing throngh the combustion-

chamber and connected with the sald burner

whereby the air is heated before it is deliv-

ered to the burner for the purpose set forth.

6. The combination with a suitable vehicle

provided with a fucl-oil tank, a blower and

| means for operating the same, of a combus-

tion-chamber also mounted on the vehicle and

having a clused bottom, a burner mounted to

deliver a combustible mixture to the combus-

tion-chamber for fuel purposes, a conduit

leading from the, fuel-oil-supply tank and

passing through the combustion - chamber,

said conduit being connected with the burner

outside of the combustion-chamber, a conduit

leading from the blower to the burner, and

means surrounding the air-conduit during a

»ortion of its course, for heating the air on

ts way to the burner.

7. The combination with a suitable vehicle,

of a combustion-clamber mounted thereon

and having a closed bottom, the walls of the

combustion-chember except the bottom be-

ing protected by a lining of suitable mate-

rial, a burner for delivering a combustible

7°

75

95

105

20

25

130

supplying air and fuel-oil to the burner,

means for heating the air ana oil before

, eereren to burner, substantially

The combination with a suitable vehicle,

plurality of distinct combustion-chambers

thercon and having clo~ed bottoms,

r mounted to deliver a combustible

to each combustion-chamber, an air-

having branches passing through the

ive combustion - chambers, the said

709,014

conduits being connected with the re-

re to the combustion-chamber, means | spective burners, and an oil-conduit for sup-

plying the burners with oil, said conduit hav- 15

ing branches leading to the respective burn-

ers, and suitable means for’ heating the oil on

its way to the burners, substantially as de-

scribed.

In testimony whereof ] aflix my signature in 20

presence of two witnesses.

JOHN H. MORCOM.

Witnesses:

Norman V. Fitts,

Dexa Neison.

PATENT SPECIFICATION

£é

Date of Application and filing Complete

Specification: Dec. 3, 19 54.

Application made in Netherlands on Dec. 7, 1953.

Complete Specification Published: Sept. 12, 1956.

756,911

No. 35/41/54,

Index at neceptance:- Glass 107, (4:5:

i).

COMPLETE SPECIFICATION

Improvemens in or relating to Methods and Machines for Laying and

‘Smoothing Bituminous or Asphaltic Paving and for Similar Purposes

. Grearbus Smit. of No. 47 Linneauskade,

Amsterdam. Netherlands, a Subject of the

Queen of The Netherlands, do hereby.

declare the invention, for which I pray that

Su patent may be granted to me. and the

method by which it is to be performed, to

be particularly described in and by’ the

following statement: —-

My present invention relates to a method

10 and a machine for surfacing a road with an

asphaltic or a bituminous mix, or for similar

purposes, said material being laid on new

subgrade or cxisting pavement, compacted

and smoothed in successively laid longi-

15 tudinal strips extending side by side.

In cases wherein it is not possible—with

the use of a travelling road paving machine

provided for instance with means for evenly

spreading. asphaltic material stored in

Wsoftcned condition in a hopper and dis-

charged onto the road through an aperture

‘extending crosswise of the direction of

travel of the machine. compacting it by a

movable tamper and smoothing it by a screed

25 or the like--to lay the paving in one run

covering the full width of the road, it is

necessary for the material to be laid in two

Or more strips disposed side by side. If. as

will ordinarily be the case, only one machine

30 is available, it is then necessary to lay said

strips successively. Under these conditions.

the strips laid in one run will necessarily have

to be of reduced length, because the first

strip should still be relatively soft when the

: strip is being laid alongside thereof.

Ihghe time interval between the laying of the

firy and that of the second strip excceds a

cegain limit. it is dillicult to-produce a per-

fegi bond of the strips. Indeed. the asphaltic

40 matcrial is compacted by the machine to a

certain degree and immediately thereafter

still further compressed by a roller.

(Compacting and compressing said matcrial

- __ is, as a matter of course, pees only as

_ 4lovg as the materigl is stil relatively soft.

laid in one run of

Therefore, if the first strip has cooled down

to below a given temperature and the mar-

ginal zonc thercof has, as a consequence, a

rather high degree of hardness. it is im-

possible to secure a reliable bond betwecn 50

the strips. for the fresh asphaltic material

laid on the marginal zonc of the first strip

during the laying of the second strip cannot

be pressed into the matcrial of the first strip

and this gives rise to the formation of a ridge, $5

which impairs the smoothness of the road

surface.

If. during the laying of ‘the second strip,

the end portions of the tamper of the

machine. which tamper acts as a vibrator. en- 60

gage the relitively hard marginal zonc of the

first strip. downward movement of the tam-

per is impeded thereby. so that the freshly

laid asphaltic material of the second strip is

imperfectly compacted. Morover. the sub- 65

grade, which is present intermediate said

hard ridges and the tamper. is crushed since

it cannot be forced into the ridge. and is

likely to damage the end portion of the

tamper. In addition, the tamper may crush 70

the hard ridge. which further interferes with

the reliability of the bond.

The consequence of the above phenomena

is that it is necessary. after the laying of the

two strips, to still finish ‘the seam. which in- 75

volves a corsidcrable deal of labour and

cost.

A defective bond between the strips has

the disadvantage that in cold weather and

owing to contraction of the paving. the width 80

of the joint is increased. Also in that case

the seam has to be finished.

Transverse ridges in the paving are a

nuisance to the traflic and give rise to pro-

gressively increasing irregularitics of the 85

road surface owing to the fact that vehicles

travelling thereon begin to oscillate. Now,

in view of the statements in the foregoing

naragraphs, the _— of the strips to be

the machine may not ex- 90

ts

£7 756,911

ceed say’ 25 metres, even under favourable

weather conditions, iLc., when the tempera-

ture of the atmosphere is high, and this cn-

tuils an excessive number of transverse joints

Sin the paving of the road. Besides, since the

excess of asphaltic material laid at the end

of cach strip is to be returned to the hopper, -

this increase of the number of transverse

joints, cntails correspondingly increased

Wdclays and unfavourably -aflects the homo-

geneity of the hot material in the hopper

owing to said excess material having a much

lower temperature and a greater hardness

than that in the hopper,

15 The above dillicultics can be avoided if, in

accordance with the invention, after the lay-

ing of a strip, a side marginal zone thercof

is heated and thereby softened, just before

the next strip is laid alongside said first

W strip. If this side marginal zonc is sufficiently

soft. the asphaltic material of the second

strip can readily be pressed into that of said

zone, even so that the scam disappears

altogether. The bond thus produced between

the strips is very strong. so that contraction

of the material will not result’ in fissures in

the scam. The tamper of the machine is

then capable of pressing the subgrade into

the paving everywhere. also into the softened

30 side marginal zone Of the first strip, so that

the subgrade cannot be crushed between the

tamper and said zone. Consequently, the

tamper is not liable to damage.

Other advantages derived from the inven-

B35 tion are that weather hazards are greatly

eliminated and that strips of any desired

length can be laid before a second strip is

laid alongside thereof, so that much time and

labour are saved and traffic delays and tic-

40 ups are minimized. If necessary. the various

strips may even be laid at considerable time

intervals. It will be understood that the

number of transverse joints is reduced as

the length of the strips laid in Gne run is

' 45 increased. ;

A machine adapted to carry out my novel

method may be provided at onc or at cither

side with a heating device in front of. but

close to the opening through which the

SOasphaltic material is discharged onto the

road, said device being adapted to heat a

side marginal zone, of predetermined length

and width. of the previously laid, adjacent

strip of the surfacing material. Said device

65 may comprise a metal shoe having a smooth

bottom face and being adaptcd to be heated.

Preferably. the heating device should be ver-

tically adjustable relative to the road surface.

so that it can permanently be held at a level

60a small distance above the surface of the

paving. the latter thus being heated mainly

by radiation.

The said shoe may be formed as a hollow,

elongated metal block accommodating a

‘@$ burner whose flame is adapted to devclop

lengthwise within the block, and the latter:

may be provided with a front opening shaped

as to cause the hot combustion gases escap-

ing therethrough to impinge on the road sur-

face to heat and thereby soften the already 70

hardened asphaltic material in front of the

block.

The accompanying drawing shows, by way

of example, a machine in accordance with

the invention.

Fig. | is a side clevational view of a

machine of known usual construction for

laying auspnalt in strips on uw road, said

machine being provided with a heating

device in accordance with the invention: and

Fig. 2 is a cross scctional view along the

line I-11 in Fig. 1, drawn to an enlarged

scale, of said device.

Referring to the drawing. | is an asphalt

paving machine of known construction, 85

wherein softened asphaltic materral 2 stored

in a hopper 3 is discharged, as at 4 and by

muins not shown, onto the surface of a road,

compacted by a tamper 5 adapted to be ver-

tically reciprocated at high speed: and there- 90

after levelled or paced to a desired profile

as at 6. This machine is driven by means

of endless tracks 8 to travel in the direction

indicated by the arrow 7, but since it is well

known, it is not necessary to describe it in 95

further dctaii.

On at least one of its sides the machine

is provided with a heating device 9 in accord-

ance with the invention. This device com-

prises an clongated hollow iron block having 100

a plane, smooth bottom face and being sus-

pended from the frame of the machine by

means of threaded rods 10 and nuts IL so

as to be adjustable in vertical direction.

Secured to the block 9 at the rear end 105

thereof is a burner 12 connected, by means

of a hose 13. to 4 reservoir 14 containing

propane or butane. The burner can thus

produce a flame extending lengthwise

through the chamber of the block, and the 110

hot gases of combustion can escape through

a discharge opening 15 at the front of the

block. Said opening is shaped as to direct

the coribustion gases downward in an in-

clined manner to the road to heat the paving 115

immediately in front thercof. .

The heating device. which is mounted a

short distance ahead of the discharge open-

ing 4 of the machine. serves to heat the mar-

ginal zone of « previously laid and set pav- 120

ing strip 16 through a suitable length and

width to render said zone sufliciently soft

as to be adapted. under the influence of

tamping and rolling. to firmly unite with the

heated asphaltic material 17 for the newly 125

laid adjacent strip and form a seamless sur-

face coating therewith,

The height of the block 9 above the road

should be adjusted so that the bottom facc

of the sole of the shoc is at a level a slight 190

EB

736,911

distance 18 above the previously laid strip

16.

What | claim is :--

1. A method of surfacing a road, by a

5 machine. with a layer of asphaltic or similar

material, which is discharged. compacted

and levelled in the form of longitudinal

strips extending side by side and laid suc-

cessively, characterized in this. that. after

Wone strip has been laid, its marginal zone

that is to be united with another strip. is

softencal, by heating, just prior to said other

strip being laid by the machine on the

adjacent portion of the road.

15 «2. A travelling machine for carrying out

the method claimed in Claim .1, comprising

means for evenly spreading over the road

softened asphaltic material stored in a hop-

per, through a discharge opening extending

werosswise of the direction of travel of the

machine. a movable tamper for compacting

said material. and means for levelling said

material. characterized by a heating device

ided on at least onc side of the machine

Zin front of and close to said material dis-

charge opening. said heating device being

adapted to heat a marginal zone of an

adjacent

material.

3. A machine as claimed in Claim 2, #0)

characterized in that the heating device com-

ises a shoe member having a smooth

tom face and means for heating said

shoc,

4. A machine as claimed in Claim 2 of 3, 35

characterized by means for vertically adjust-

ing the position of the heating device relative

to the road surface.

5. A machine as claimed in Claim 2.°3 of

4, characterized in that the heating device 40

comprises an clongated hollow metal block

in combination with a burner adapted to pro-

duce a flame extending lengthwise through

the chamber of the hollow block.

6. A machine as claimed in Claim 5, 45

characterized in that the block is provided

with a front opening shaped as to direct the

cembustion gases escaping therethrough

towards the road surface in front of the block

80 as to locally heat said surface.

REDDIE & GROSE,

Agents for the Applicant,

6, Bream’s Buildings, London, E.C.4.

previously laid strip of said

Bt)

Printed for Her Majesty's Stationery Office by Wickes & Andrews, Lid., E.C.4, 684/2.—1956,

Published at The Patent Office, 25, Southampton Buildings,

obtained.

may be

. W.C.2, from wh copies

756,911 COMPLETE SPECIFICATION

hs ag om is . —. ob

| SHEET

COPYRIGHT 1943, 1951, 1955,

and 1963.

By

BER-GREENE COMPANY

RORA, ILLINOIS, U. S.A.

FIRST EDITION

First Printing 3-43-15M

Second Printing 9-43-8M

Third Printing 11-444M

Fourth Printing 11464M

SECOND EDITION

Firat Printing 3-51-1SM

Second Printing 1-52-20M

THIRD EDITION

First Printing 463-25M

preface

For many years Barber-Greene hes (published date for

its own servicemen to use in the erection end operation

of Barber-Greene Bituminous Plants and Finishers. A»

this material was seen by others in tthe bituminous con-

struction industry, its value was recognized and many

requests were received for such data. The Barber-Greene

Bituminous Construction Handbook was the result.

The use ce! this Handbook hes now berome so general

‘that we have completely revised it with this edition,

gieatly amplifying the engineering data included, and ex

far as porsible, restricting all of the imformation included

to accepted practices. ’

Our business is the design and mnufacture of bitu-

minous construction equipment, and we do not pretend

to he final authorities on bituminous construction itself.

However, our organization has heem fortwaate in hev-

ing been in clese contact with construction operations

throughout this country, and in many other parts of the

world. We have observed, studied and discussed mea-

terials and methods with experienced engineers over

a wide area. These contacts have contributed immea~

urably. We ace indebted, directly andj indirectly, to many

agencies and individuals for much of the mo‘erials in-

eluded here. ;

We have striven to presen? the materiel in a simple,

practical manner designed specifically for contrectors

and construction engineers doing hijuminous paving.

We present it with the ope that it will be of help and

frequeni uscfsinczs 10 everyone Coninected with the pav-

ing industry.

BARBER“GREENE COMPANY

ys layers are often placed on old pavement sur-

werease the life of the pavement or to produce 8

face. This is usually a simple operation and fs

in the above application.

resurfacing operation the finisher is operating on

ace provided by the old pavement surface. There-

becomes the important feature of the tractor

"NG AT VARIABLE WIDTHS. The first step before

any laying operation is to decide what width mat

and to prepare the machine with proper ex

shoes, etc. to lay this required width. A standard

with the use of cut-off shoes can be set up to Jay

widths varying over s wide range of dimensions.

vxtensions singly or in pairs and with the use of

"hoes, the laying width of the machine can be in-

or decreased beyond this range.

sultiple lane work, the cutoff shoe should always be

posite the joint matching side and the final lane

the extensions perform the same function as the

wart of the screed. If it is » tamping screed, the wm

ection should also incorporate a tamper ber. If it is

nto screed, it is equally important that the extensions

watcin the vibration feature. Otherwise the mat leid

the extension section will be different than the main

TCHING PAVEMENTS. When matching a joint to a

previously laid, « small overigp is helpful in preventing

decrease in thickness. If the machine is started out

sn overlap of 2”, a qualified operator should be able

ie the machine with not less than 1” nor more than

p, provided care was exercised in laying straight

matching a joint that has been previously laid and

the depth of the overlapping mat must be high

h 20 that additional compaction from the roller will

the new mat down only to the level of the old mat.

overlap prevents sufficient density of material in

mw mat ahead of rolling, and will also likely cause

and tearing undor the screed.

Borber-Greene Compony

229

A recent development in joint matching has been a pro-

pane fueled infra-red heater attached on the side of the fin-

isher next to the previously laid mat. The purpose of this

unit is to preheat the existing mat edge just ahead of the

screed, to achieve a hot joint between the two mats.

FINISHERS WORKING IN ECHELON. This type of op-

eration is frequently used in airport and highway construc.

tien. The first finisher veually operstes from 60° to 100°

ahead of the second finisher, which is matching the joint

of the first machine. In addition to the high capacity ad-

vantage obtained, the joint quality is also improved be-

cause both strips are hot when the joint is made, assuring

union of material and a smoother joint with less rolling.

In tandem operations the roller must keep away from the

inside edge on the first strip about 6” to 12°. Then the sec-

ond strip can be laid the same depth as the unrolled part of

the first strip and the roller can then compact the joint

while the material is hot.

Figure 7-13 — Finishers Working in Echelon

CITY STREET CONSTRUCTION. Paving and repaving

operations in city street construction impose some added

considerations. It is often desirable to flatten the crown of

the pavement at the intersections. This is accomplished by

adjusting the synchronized crown control, which reduces

the crown in both the leading and trailing edges of the

screed by an equal amount.

Manholes require some hand work in asphalt paving op-

erations. On the binder, or first course, the screed is lifted

over the obstruction, or a ramp used to make the screed

Avrora, Illinois, U. S. A.

ING AT VARIABLE WIDTHS. The first step before

any laying operation is to decide what will oe’

was

matching « joint that has been previously laid

the depth of the overlapping mat must be

so that additional compaction

229

A recent development in joint matching has been a pro-

pane fueled infra-red heater attached on the side of the fin-

isher next to the previously laid mat. The purpose of this

unit to preheat the existing mat edge just ahead of the

te achieve a hot joint between the two mats.

FINISHERS WORKING IN ECHELON. This type of op-

eration is frequently used in airport and highway co-struc-

tien. The first finisher vevally operates from 60° to 160°

ahead of the second finisher, which is matching the joint

of the first machine. In addition to the high capacity ad-

vantage obtained, the joint quality is also improved be-

cause both strips are hot when the joint is made, assuring

union of material and a smoother joint with less rolling.

In tandem operations the roller must keep away from the

inside edge on the first strip about 6” to 12°. Then the sec-

ond strip can be laid the same depth as the unrolled part of

the first strip and the roller can then compact the joint

while the material is hot.

Figure 7-13 — Finishers Working in Echelon

CITY STREET CONSTRUCTION. Paving and repaving

operations in city street construction impose some added

considerations. It is often desirable to flatten the crown of

the pavement at the intersections. This is accomplished by

adjusting the synchronized crown control, which reduces

the crown in both the leading and trailing edges of the

screed by an equal amount.

Manholes require some hand work in asphalt paving op-

erations. On the binder, or first course, the screed is lifted

over the obstruction, or a ramp used to make the screed

Avrora, Illinois, U. S. A.

UY ) | [DQ

PRE OF

EIEG IBZ

vers” diges f

AEROIL PRODUCTS 0.

INC. SOUTH HACKENSACK, ° N.J.

MARCH, 1963

oe

*THIS AND THAT"

ving Contractors on the West

will be glad to know that Dick

ers is settled in Napa, California.

k has 21 years of Aeroil experience

is aow in charge of Acroil sales

West Coast.

Wheel Drive Co. of Davenport,

a revently demonstrated an Aecroil

PR-'8 wher temperature was mi-

10°F. Sold it too! Contractor is

g it to shave high spots on utility

oa) a» wl ee

~ S .

Se ee UE Re ee ee 4 ete ee iat abate

Big john* Hamilton almost caught

Dak-tas during recent cold spell

bliz..ard.

VENSKA TRAKTOR ts now dis-

ing Acroil Infra-Red in SWEDEN

City of Clifton, N.J. recently took

ery of 230 gallon bottom-fired

..New York City recently or-

i six more of the ever-popular

bination Tool Heater & Kettle.

ee ee ee

roil Infra-Red Dealer Sales Con-

tarts February Ist, 1963.

¢ ltest listofusers of Acroil Infra-

spralt Heaters includes:

tderal Aviation Agency, Washing-

a.

gp cGulre Air Force Base, New Jersey

w Air Force Base, South Caro-

sncoln Air Force Base, Nebraska

Reese Air Force Base, Texas

a 7. ca x

; se ’ =i, mn

Infra-Red joint scaling is fast being

written into asphalt highway specs by

enginecrs that are aware of joint prob-

lems and why they occur. A truly

homogeneous joint is obtained by using

HEATED ROLLER -

The Aeroil Heated Roller, featuring

two LPG burners, is extremely versatile

because of it's ability to “get in close”

to the curb. The two large burners

make this unit ideal for sealing patches,

edge work around manholes and curbs,

and general driveway and parking lot

work. It has also proven to be an

excellent companion picce for the Acroil

line of Infra-Red Asphalt Highway

Patchers. ONLY $198.00 F.0.B. Fac-

tory.

MORE & MORE HIGHWAY ENGINEERS

SPECIFY mor - RED JOINT SEALING

= 1 a Liye

73

;

~-

the Acroil HE-PR-8DL. Pilot Lights

are standard equipment. Recent orders

from Sweden, Isracl and Australia in-

dicate the worldwide interest in this

new approach to an old problem.

‘

es ie

‘

7

eS ee oe ae” ee eT

PAVERS CATALOG AVAILABLE

An all new Pavers 20 page catalog

avidlable FREE. Write to Aeroil

oducts Co., Dept. PD, South Hack-

, N.J. requesting Pavers Catalog

9. Bl,

ALL NEW LUTES AVAILABLE

SAVE $3.00

The all new 36" Aluminum Lute ts

available at a special price if the

s accompanied by this column

da check for the full amount. The

this a 7° full aluminum handle

(::) two heavy duty cross braces

te lute. Serrated on one side and

tor the other side. This lute has

m favored by Pavers for years at

6.5 cach. You can save $1.50 cach

ord :ring two lutes for $30.00. Send

theck AND this column to Miss

nett: Arnold, c/o Acroil Products

+ South Hackensack, N.J.

Tht. is THE Lightweight — Heavy

engih Lute that is in use from Coast

ASPHALT EQUIPMENT SEMINAR

Carl Carlsson of Acroil recently

held an equipment Seminar for all

of the asphalt crews in the New York

City Park Department. Care & Main-

tenance of Asphalt Kettles and Tool

Heaters was thoroughly covered by

Carlsson. This is the second year that

. the Seminar was held in New York

and is paying big dividends by re-

OPEN INVITATION

- We cordially welcome all of our

friends in the paving industry, includ-

ing municipal highway officials to visit

our plant whenever you are in the

vicinity of New York City. If you are

planning a trip into this arca, we will

be glad to help with hotel reservations.

Drop a note to either Emil Truemper

or Joe Halperin and let us know when

you will be arriving — we'll be looking

for you.

PAVERS — HEAR THIS!

In a recent contest to find the oldest

' Aeroll Heet-Master Kettle still in use --

a roofing contractor in Bradford, Penn-

sylvania won a new kettle when he

submitted proof of using the same

Acroil Kettle for 26 years. Purchased

in 1936-—i still operates every day.

Just one more indication of Acroil

"RUGGED CONSTRUCTION*— with

the contractors needs in mind.

ducing asphalt equipment maintenance

costs as well as eliminating costly

"Down-Time” of the asphalt equipment.

Municipalities or contractors wishing

such a free maintenance clinic should

write to Acroil giving a tentative date

that would be suitable to bring as

many asphalt men and equipment

together.

AUTOMATIC CONTROLS —

KEROSENE BURNERS

Automatic Temperature Controls

are now available on Acroil Kettles

equipped with kerosene burners. After

four years of ficld testing, these con-

trols will eliminate the necessity of re-

_ moving torch from kettle when material

reaches proper temperature. They are

only available factory installed on new

kettles.

00 ——weat C} See 0.

Write for free Iterature describing

Road Oil Burners that fit any make

Distributor.

000 eee CD Se — 0+

A new 4 page brochure is available

describing Acroil Infra-Red equipmeit

and applications.

6 AP oe

Acroll Cut-Back Sprayer fea-

a safety valve that turns off the

when the operator is spraying

tank under pressure:Avatilable

sizs—110 gallon and 200

(sy ia a aes

iba! oe mae

1, rt, 4

y Pe, ya NE do ae

‘OL

erate © accede ethtnasttneles \ mama

pard of Service Supply Corp.

to be enjoying himself at the

Hospitality Suite at a recent

on. The Service Supply Corp.

ts Acroil in Eastern Pennsyl-

tod carries a complete stock of

‘quipment, tools and parts, In

ground is Leo Mulligan, the

lactory Representative in Penn-

» Maryland and Virginia.

of Grooloy, Colorado is the

utisficd usor of an Infra-Red

kr ropaiving thoir streets. -

R.A. Hamilton of Hackensack, NJ.

operates two Acroil Vibratory Tandem

Rollers every day on the Tough Jobs.

These units outperform everyting in

their weight class. Small additional

Crave eeu '

yu

httcnsmeoutinng: « :

Harry Pulver ‘the Acroll Development

Engineer who had the most to do with

developing Acroil's Infra-Red equip-

ment, is shown proudly demonstrating

the 120,000 BTU Joint Sealer to a

group of asphalt crew foremen.

initial investment returned one hundred

fold in greater work capability and

minimum maintenance. Write for free

Bulletin VR-1 Today!

Paving Contractors in Arkansas will

recognize this fine Southern gentleman

as Mr. Mac Lyons. Mac has operated

the Lyons Machinery Co. in Little Rock

for more ycars than he cares to remem-

ber. They carry a complete stock of

Acroil Paving Tools and E.quipment

and ship promptly anywhere in Ar-

kansas or Northern Louisiana.

NEW PRODUCT NEWS

WATCII FOR THE ONLY HEATED "WALK-BEHIND* VIBRA-

TORY ROLLER. THIS UNIT WILL BE INTRODUCED IN THE

SPRING OF 1963 AND YOU CAN OBTAIN LITERATURE

WHEN IT BECOMES AVAILABLE BY WRITING NOW TO

EMIL TRUEMPER OF AEROIL PRODUCTS CO., 69 WESLEY

ST., SOUTII HACKENSACK, N. J.

oer? om

tad il dae Ls ASPHALT INSTITUTE

ite. ‘, ant LETTER

E(6

es ;

otf ; This excerpt from a recent lettcr shows '

ab Fa 3} ante | how the Asphalt Institute Engineers

— feel about Acroil Infra-Red Joint Scal

ers.

aax'd °° “Wearcespecially pleasedto have

- ' the information on your Infra-

Red Joint Heater since we are

actively encouraging contractors

to purchase units of this type for

use on asphalt paving machines

in order to insure better jotnt

_ construction.”

ie PAVERS LAMENT

aye : : , | He stood before the pearly gates,

| : oa nae’ elttates So 4 “ His face was scarred and old.

Savino 1s certainly busy demonstrating the Model HE-PR-48 Infra-Red High-

y Maintenance unit. ie He stood before the man of fate,

For admission to the fold.

. ? bo einem

" ae =} t "

x He | "What have you done?" St. Peter said,

ay a "To gain admission here?"

: es ae :

we 4 "I've been a paving contractor, sir,

For many and many a year."

The pearly gates swung open wide,

St. Peter touched the bell.

od! HE-PK-32 and a Model HE-PR-8DW are shown above being demon- “Come in and choose your harp, my

ted t» the Parkway Commission. Both of the units stayed with the maintenance friend,

all year and did an excellent job. You've had your share of hell."

paerew ee ee oe ree me ee ee eg ee PAORANee <e e e OR eee em

.

PRIDUCTS CO., INC.

cy St., So. Hackensack, N. J.

{S! CHICAGO LOS ANGELES

Myers & Quigg «asphalt Co

- 921 0 St SE

Washington, PD C

PC-33

|

Abe OO wine 6 ete tee

ae OT

|

a

PAVERS = |-—

CATALOG Pas

—— eid $e

bs | : | VETS

a9 py

Ve Be aT erornrcoe es 7 = ri ud

nevis:

"

Ui NAY | | i eae AbcEse oie

,

‘a

st

Wht, THM, Male hgotete

Pe ame

ae ae SS —

Le, fh.

lp.

A styAt? Pie EF,

5 ee ee el

or,

—

ad

+> BUGGIES |

=; CLEANING

ae ~ CONVEYGR

ASPHALT

ra yar wy

~ ADDITIONAL

AEROML

EQUIPMENT

PORTABLE.

NEALAS

POWER

‘

TANKS

RCISTS

PARKERS.

AL ROIL PRODUCTS COMPANY, inc.

69 Wesley Street . South Hackensack, New Jersey

Branch Offices 3217 Union Pacific Ave. 4648 South Wostorn Ave.

and Warehouses: Los Angeles, Caiif. Chicago, Ill,

rere seer aid at a a ed re wires cadbiiedl a tl 7 —

: ( RUSBERZED |} —___

. A

3! H oaspiigay: | 2

¥ i ein we Bre iene ee ee ae

! \ METS |

7 Y A

i san ao

| pay f pana

EA S

TEM PAGE

oe ee ee | re 3

" Infra-Red Highway Patchers and Joint Seabers 2... ae ae

HE-PR-32—HE-PR-8

Pavers Tools and Accessories wie

Smoothers—Tampers—Asphalt Rake—Hoe-Scarifier—fland “Type Squeegee—Lute—

Asphalt Sandals—Smoothie Too! Heater—Heated Asphalt Roller

Rubberized Asphalt Kettles (Oil Jacketed Type) 0.0... seen 6

Oe i cs acscnmticrsavsussensvesooricws Siokioed 7

Combination Tool Heater & Kettle—Toolmaster Deluxc—utility Tool Toters

Bottom Fired Kettles for Melting cia Tars,

IE OE I icici cacecancevccescsnpnnsnsovescc pe reese. Gas 8

Deluxe Heetmaster Tube Fired Kettles ............. ARTA, NOR mee Ne 5

"Cut Back and Emulsion Sprayers ......cccccccccocccscsccssseessssseseeeeeen ieee 10

Portable Compressed Air and Hand Pump Sprayers ................... 11

Vertical Heavy Duty Sprayers—Horizontal Heavy Duty Sprayers—4& 5 Gal. ‘Medium

Duty Hand Spray Outfits

Portable and Heavy Duty Steam Cleaners ooeoeccceccecccceee a esse 12

i on icok ichssepanodsimdausincanalaeass a

Portable Lead Melting Furnaces . rE SNE AP SOU 14

Compound Melting Pots . . a Bai 15

, ; Thawing Torches and Heavy Duty Burners 16

Thawing Torches—Combination Heavy Duly Thawing Outlits—-Upright Burner Outfits

—Portable L-P Gas Torches

Heetmaster and Bottom Fired Kettle Torches and

Bituminous Distributor Burners 17

Ce Ssteanace and Utility Torches . cs ae

No. 99 Seiics of Utility Torch2s--Compressed hir- Atomizing Typ: Low

Pressure Torches

Z

it INFRARED PATCHER

TRAILER MOUNTED

A. — HE-PR-48

Is designed for the PERMANENT repair of Bituminous bumps, cracks and pot-holes.

Properly used, the unit will not burn existing material, but will heat large areas, which

can be raked and rolled without adding new material.

Pot hole repairs are made permanent through the creation of a homogeneous joint

between the old material and the new. Only through an Infra-Red process such as this

@ permanent result possible.

The HE-PR-48 is mounted on a 2-wheel trailer chassis with a hand winch for raising

Infra-Red generators. The generators themselves achieve penetration

area 16 square feet within 3 minutes. With this increased coverage

and faster penetration time, a smaller crew is needed than previously used for this type

n be trailed behind an ordinary pick-up truck. Perfect for road

repair work where time is of an essence in keeping traffic flowing smoothly.

© DOES NOT BURN ASPHALT

© REPAIRS ASPHALT PERMANENTLY

© IDEAL FOR HOLES, CRACKS, BUMPS

SPLUCIFIGATIONS

ad

Length—-Healer Unit 52”

Wkth—testes elt di—C“=~=<“<“<‘“; ;3;7RY:*CtCS

—

EE oo ee ne nets a

10 ft. 6 in.

70 in.

61 in. with bottles

Height Heater Frame 33 in.

BTU Rating pay ; ~~” 600,000"

Poownatic Ties 690215 4 ply

iit ——i(i‘(‘“ésésés™s™ Cpe, 995 ths. wlth battles emis

INFRA-RED HIGHWAY PATCHERS

AND JOINT SEALERS

A.—THE PERMANENT METHOD OF ASPHALT PATCHING

The Patcher is equipped with three cylindrical stainless steel infra-red generators ‘which

give uniform infra-red frequency radiation. The generators are placed at the foci of stainless

parabolic reflectors to provide maximum reflection and uniform infra-red radiation to the

pevement.

The units operate on propane with generator orifice pressure of at least 10 PSI to

‘ assure windproof performance. Bottle rack with chain is provided for a 20 Ib. propane

cylinder. Removable handles, metal wheels, and ey hose, pressure regulator and POL

fittings are furnished as standard equipment.

Ke16"

HE-PR-32

© DOES NOT BURN ASPHALT |Length—Heater Bor =.

© REPAIRS ASPHALT PERMANENTLY eee Be a

© IDEAL FOR HOLES, CRACKS, BUMPS Overall Dimensions 40x 70x34

|Wheels 8” Stee!

B. — HE-PR-8

The Joint Sealer is suspended from the side of a paving machine, heating the edge of

the previously laid asphalt to secure a perfect bond. Usually two HE-PR-8D units are used

end to end as shown in the photo. The transverse joints are heated by a small wheel mounted

unit, the HE-PR-8W or HE-PR-8DW, similar to that used on the paving machine and specifically

designed for efficient heating of 2 narrow strip of pavement.

© SEALS PAVING JOINT PERMANENTLY

* DOES NOT BURN ASPHALT

® ATTACHES EASILY TO PAVER

HE-PR-OW HE-PR-CDW WE-PR BD

i 'k ———E Cae: SCARE >

a: Serene, ae a

Weight OOS 10 SaaS 100 Ibe. __- @&

Overall [ Dimensions Se 4 a Bx 10x54 __, 8x 100 54

BTU Rating = 80000 (20,000 170,000

RE OE none

Pilot Light Std. Std, Std.

v

PAVERS TOOLS AND A

SMOOTHERS

Model Stock No. Weight Dimensions _ Overall Length Handle

0 Smoother 76902 47 Ibs. 64" x 10” 6'7" 1%” Steel Pipe

1 Smoother 76901 57 Ibs. 7” x11" 6'7" 1%” Steel Pipe

TAMPERS

Base Overall

Model : Stock No. Weight Dimensions Length Handle

i Tamper 76161 17 Ibs. 6" x 6” & 1%” Steel Pipe

2 Tamper 76162 3i Ibs. 6"x8" 4° 8” 1%” Steel Pipe

3 Tamper 76163 36 Ibs. 6" x8" 4’ 8" 1%” Steel Pipe

Heavy Duty

A.— ASPHALT RAKE

Forged from bar steel. Head 16%" wide, 14 teeth 4” -™ Shank 18”. Safe to heat and

clean. Handle 5’. Weight 814 Ibs.

B. — HOE-SCARIFIER

Blade 10” wide with serrated head on one side and scoring point on other. ¥%” pipe

handle 6° long. Weight 1344 Ibs.

C.— HAND TYPE SQUEEGEE

Bituminous grout and seal coat spreading. Double rubber composition blade 20” long x 14”

thick x 5” wide, removable. 34” extra heavy pipe handle 6’ long. Weight 18 Ibs. BLADES

Extra composition rubber blade. Weight 144 ‘bs.

D.— LUTE

Lightweight 36” aluminum lute. One edge serrated, the other straight. Handle 8° long.

Optional 6° extension handle.

E.— ASPHALT SANDALS

Strap over pavers shoes, wood soles with inside drop heel. Heavy galvanized counter.

Smoeth bottoms. Adjustable padded straps over toe and inslep. Medium, Stock No. 76150;

Large, Stock No. 76151. Weight: pair 4 Ibs.

“F. — SMOOTHIE TOOL HEATER

Heats two tampers or smoothers. Propane fired. Mounted on whecls or legs for truck

mounting. Does not include gas hose or bottle. Height with handle 38”. Width, not including

wheels 18”. Inside width of tool chamber 15°. length 141%”. Weight 135 Ibs.

G.— HEATED ASPHALT ROLLER

A “finishing roller" as well as a “one man paver” for walks, driveways, and patios. Illus-

tration shows compact unit with handle telescoped to 5 feet. For quick transportation, a

hook is provided for the roller to hang from a truck tailboard. Asphalt does not adhere to

roller, no scrapers o1 water sprays necded. Two LPG burners. Hose and regulator furnished

Does not include gas bottle.

SPECIFICATIONS : ak

Steel Roller Width 18” Heat Up Time 10) Min

“Diameter % Steel ==” Maximum LPG

[Dimensions Gey age gts Pa oe nn nption Per Me. 2.5 bel

Length (Handle telescoped) i ae ea _ Weights

Length (Handle extended) . 96" = Without Bottle = 148 Ibs,

~ Width ~~ 9g Rolling With Bottle = 185 Ibs.

- RAST aaa UREA Shipping (No Botti) «160 Ibs]

bulletin no. HE-PR-5

Permanent asphalt repair now costs less than

@

ly |

IB soe ... PERMANENTLY

<a, une WRN!

NPY Naat

Ee OTE Ee ae ere

PL Ree AS Rie ay

bot hind

femporary repair:

t te

A few uscvs of AEROIL INFRA-RED equipment:

(tly of Saginaw, Michigan City of Huntington, West Virginia

Sicilian Asphalt, Brooklyn, N. Y. F. F. Earp and Son, Inc., Fairmont, W. Va.

Winkore Co., Minden, La. State Construction, Inc., Huntington, W. Va.

yall Ao phalt Corp., Panama City, Florida City of New York

Wright Paterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Obio New York Port of Authority

Sbecboyr in County, Sheboygan, Wisconsin City of Omaha, Nebraska

Stuats and Roads Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin State of Arkansas

Vally Construction Co., Rock Island. HL. TRUAX AFB., Wisconsin

City of Davenport, Davenport, lowa Commonwealth of Mass.

iso Tu Mix Co., luer Grove, Minn. Scott AFB., lil.

City of Ashland, Kentucky

If you are a highway or road official, or a contractor engaged

in the application or repair of asphalt surfaces then you

should at least investigate the tremendous potential of this

equipment. Fill out the coupon below and let us provide

ow with a FREE demonstration of this equipment on your

ighway.

YES, AEROIL, We would like a FREE Demonstration:

Name Bo te eee ae

Address. sitvnaipdetcocatcbent

City ae

Our pavement repair probiem is:

R-BL and HE-PR-8D

repairing the

EALING, this INFRA-RED

h when lay-

new

the cold - without

the two surfaces PERMA-

MEPR OL Is

HE-PR-32 HAND PORTABLE

PATCHER

wl ir and resurface bumps, ridges, cracks around

man traffic heaves, high spots and similar jobs

PERMANENTLY. Has penetrating power with 4 INFRA-

RED generators. Will not burn or injure asphalt because

of the INFRA-RED process. Easy for one man to operate

and move about. Perfect for smati asphalt crew.

The HE-PR-32 unit consists of four > BTU INFRA-

RED generators mounted beneath stainiess stee! para-

bolic reflectors. It is furnished complete with wheels,

handies, pressure regulators, lighting torch and bottie

chain. The unit is operated at gas pres-

sure of 20 psi, and consumes LPG fuel, which is con-

trolied through a high pressure regulator.

HE-PR-32

Length Heater Box 31”

Width Heater Box 34”

Weight ° 110 Ibs.

Overall Dimensions 40x70x34

Wheels 8” Steel

BTU Rating 120,000

R52 PATCHER

ther gives PERMANENT repair on \arger holes,

sunken sections of roads and resurfacing of

ys and runways. For patching asphalt over old and

and sewer lines, = oom —

applying epoxy coating. Elimin cutting

on chuck holes, with air compressors and chip-

is, also — of new asphalt and tools, there-

is the asphalt crew to repair more holes per day.

52 is self contained and has racks for carry-

own fuel botties. The heating grid is adjustable

flexibility to the operator for varying weather

and surface conditions. Easily towed by a

The unit has 10 INFRA-RED generators

52

Heater Unit 52”

Heater Unit 48”

Dimensions:

gt! 10 ft. 6 in.

: 70 in.

ght with bottles 61 in.

pater Frame 33 in.

ng 600,000

ic Tires 5:90x15 4 ply.

pprox. 725 ibs. with bottles empty.

HE-PR-8DW JOINT AND

CRACK SEALER

Here is the unit for sealing cracks and joints PER'MAN

ENTLY. The HE-PR-8DW is a single unit on wheeis to

permit you to operate on smali areas as driveways,

arking lots, transverse joints on highways and roads.

he HE-PR-8DW is also AVAILABLE as a TWIN PATCHER

as shown in photo and Specs. below.

HE-PR-BOW

Length — Heater Box 48

Width — Heater Box 10 :

Weight 100 It

Overall Dimensions 8x 10x54

BTU Rating 120,000

Wheels Std

Pilot Light Sid

HE-PR-BDW TWIN

Length — Heater Box

Width — Heater Box

Weight l

Overall Dimensions B

BTU Rating

Wheels

Pilot Light

All our INIFRA-RED products specifically utilix

diant Heat method w assure you of the most ex:

eflicient, und dependable periormance in repan

PERMANENTLY.

and eliminates

inates ing

the er

D

. The unt is easily

— LPG bottle racks

ell necessary hose, light-

rall Length

i wid ro

brall Height with bottles 61”

er Frame Height 33”

U Rating 1,200,000

ent, approx. 1.700 Ibs.

ht adjustme Hand Winch

Bottle Rack (4) 100 Ibs. bottle cap.

PERMANENT ASPHALT REPAIR

This remarkable new development is a dramatic break-

through in asphalt highway and road maintenance.

INFRA-RED heat is not new, but the application is rev-

olutionary. The INFRA-RED process softens the asphait

without burning the surface. It eliminates the necessity

of repair of the same chuck holes, cracks, and joints

every year. Resurface only once with INFRA-RED and

; the repair is PERMANENT.

before after

Shown here is the visual proof of the INFRA-RED

process. These photos demonstrate the perfect result

achieved with !NFRA-RED. This repair was made with

existing asphait, no new asphalt was needed. The bond

of the surface is PERMANENT and no injury was made

to the asphait. The joint between old and new surface

becomes bonded PERMANENTLY. There will be no pick-

up of i to repair the following years, once an INFRA-

RED unit is used on the job it becomes PERMANENT.

Complete Specifications on all INFRA-RED units are on

the oe pages. There is a unit to fit every purpose,

from chuck holes to complete highway resurfacing.