Transcript of Record — Koppers Co. v. Otto (No. 660)

Supreme Court brief1957

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

to i

In THE A. ;

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Docket No. 7401

CARL CTTQ ie

2 Plaintiff- Appellant,

vs.

KOPPERS COM!YANY, INC. ana

WHEELING STEEL CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellces.

APPEAL FROM THE UnNitep States District Coukt Fok °

‘ NoxTHeRN District oF Wes’) VIkGINIA AT \WHEEBLING

JOINT APPENDIX, VOL. |

TESTIMONY—TRIAL AND DEPOSITIONS

— —— _

W. Brown Mortes, Jr., Esg., Jo.

Rozexrt Mckay, Es.,

Pennie, Epmonps, Morton,

Barrows and TayLor,

New York, New York,

joun E. Wesserr, Eso.,

Myron Cowen, Esq,

HupBBELL and Coleen,

New York, New York,

Jarry Brown, Ese

Kar. B. Lutz, bso.

Brown, CritoHurow, FLiek

& PrcKITAM,

Pittsburgh, Pennsyivama,

Wricut Hucus, kso..

Seumipt, Hucces & Laas,

Wheeling, West Virgiia

For Defendants-Appellees.

Frank A, (Brive, Jr, Es,

(Brien and O'brien,

Wheeling, West-Virginia,

‘For Plaintiff-Appellar

INDEX Te JOINT APPENDIX, VOL. |

Testimony Av Tidatr

Harold C. Cox,

Co , Seeee ad (peed Ae ee Re eee

Te er ee a abies ak ra ee ok Ska

Robert A. Blackburn,

OOS ree A pt aay Ne IE ee

ee ROPER PPO TTS a Pan be

Elliott Preston,

; NS, OSE re er P Tee ee ae ae A ee

Civde C. Bird,

aT. ere ed Ss AU ne oman eg le eae

(ross OE Oy ripe rr re ee Wr ag es ee

ee A re ear ee

Betestial GFORB .. i445 5 <<. Biss ds es om

Dr. Carl Otto,

ME oy obs ie teak. oa

CNR: 2s na bis he « 30% 5 A ae acetate

ee, CEP ETO iy eee Tae ren Tee ho

Re-cross eA sie rae er Le ee ee ee

R. Philemon Stout,

OTN) Seen eee re SERS Ae ere ek ee

ye ROE Pi Oye, PR ye a: Lee ee

Kdward J. Pelin.

RE ee ata a dl ee os: ee ee ee Ae ee S

Cross be POE CE ee ee Oe Le bol.

GRRE locas dad ko eae arty eet ae

ROU. oe alee s A We WOR Ae See oo Re

Re-direet PCC EEE Tee tee ot 4 tk

Re-eross 2.2... PN ad eae any ee

emareet cic ts EN cess aes aivanees.

Louis A. Farinet,

ee Pe EO ea dante

Homer H. Lowry,

(Oe SPOTTER CET eT Oe ko |:

yt Er Or ert ere eS eg Bold

DrposiTIONS

Dr. Carl Otto (by Defendants),

eel: skew nahn keawens sk ees tere

James A. Beatty (by Defendants),

Oe BOP eer ee os eke

te PE eer ee ek ad:

William J. Toohey, Jr. (by Defendants),

(RS err rrr eT SE lee lath

Hi. A. Byrns (by Plaintiff),

eae Ag are Nata gk es SSE See Oe

CW. Phillips (by Plaintiff),

SR ee Piensa etwas aad SRS

interrogatories

Opinion re Interrogatories

Order re Interrogatories

Opinion on the ec

SEE NE isa eS Gio eis ik chek Ca Re ee Oe

INDEX

INDEX TO JOINT APPENDIX, VOL. 1

OviInioNS AND OnDERS APPEALED From

Plaintiff’s Exhibits:

File Wrapper of U.S. Patent No. 2,599,067 |...

Office Action of September 29, 1948

Office Action of January 20, 1950

* Se ¢ BR OD Of

Letter of July 3, 1950 (transmitting Affidavits). .

ee ee

Raper GF Teerene (8 casi ss scck..........

Amendment filed February 1, 1951

Amendment filed September 25, 1951

- ec eo ow

. Examiner’s Statement Before Boara of Appeals

Copy of U.S. Patent No. 2,599,067

die Lette dit, Me. Sy i Ra I a ee Se me oe oe oe a a oe ae oe er a er ee

a6 20 2S 6.0 2-e Se

e224 2'¢ @€ 6 82 6 od Sow

8242 2S CR WD 6 2 6 eS

22 2. &.8 *« 2b 4 &- be

eee Oe ape eae b

ee a a a a oe a ee

lil

iv INDEX

9 Prior Art Cited in U.S. Patent POO OOT :

Monsanto 441,106 ..........--- Le eee

Eneas 1,101,264 ......... 2. cece e een eee eee

Jeremiassen 2,375,922 2.0... ccc cee eee eee ees

4 .

Article by Wethly .....----::e eee eee reece

Spraco Catalogue ......-..+--++sseeeereeeree:

3. Copy of Otto Patent. 2425004 22... eee ee

5. Bethlehem Steel Company Inter-Company Let-

ter, Cox to Hough .........- 0c cee eee ee erence

@. Koppers’ Lecture ......2.-+-- se see ce tser tenes

10, Stipulation ... 2.06.65. .ke. cents ee tendon aes |

97. Van Ackeren Patent No. 2.671,011 ....-....5-5-

392. Radasch.Chart .......... Coane tae mmnerirene vir

40. Hiitte Handbook, pages SIS-S1I9, 200 2.0.2... e-

Translation of Hiitte Handbook, pages SIS-SI9..

Plaintiff's Deposition Eahibits:

2A to Byrns--Inter-Company Letter ot Woodward

Iron Company from Pierce to White .......--

4 to Byrns’ Deposition—RKoppers Conipany Letter

Changing Specifications of Woodward Siturator

1 to Phillips’ Deposition—Letter from Koppers Com-

~ pany to Phillips ......----- a Aey atoat ah ee RAS

2A to Phillips —Letter from Woodward) Pron Coim-

pany to Koppers Company... 0.65. 5055+5 507:

2B to Phillips—Letter from NKoppers to Woodward

From COmpaAMny ..-. ccc cnet enn e ee eben re Mee eee

Re quest for Admissions Served aie Detendants hey

ES Geet me Per ane orem ey rr te ees ee a

4u4

40s

405

INDEN

Deteondants® Eiabrhits:

Chart of Tnderwood Saturator ..<...c.cecccse

Chart of Fig. 3 of Otte-Sprayv Patent ......

Mlow Diagram of Koppers’ Wheeling Installation

.. Prior Art Cited in Defendants’? Booklet:

Doherty 997,908

one Re ee A Gir ay a oo a ee ee oe ke

re oat a als eee ea ho Pe

I I og grag Ls ae ids a veces

Hiitte Handbook, page 220 .........c0ccceceee.

Translation of Hitte Handbook. page 220 0.0...

19. Doherty Chart .... Pines ce video Rey:

RON gaa wae ai SU Se exes

2, Beeemet Chart—La07 Ot 8k ce cee wees’

Wheeling Steel Installation Chart

ED IMR he oe ae awk CONE eek bebe be

Jeremimssen. Chart... ).......... RY Rare

Benzol Washer

monessen Maturator ...........

Pe ee 6 ct )

Seaboard Sasurater Piers tg yo

PURHRIIIDE TOGTUPAIOT ow. oe eee

Tidds oe OE oo, Re a I

roa

7) Haneue Co Cox, having been first duly sworn as a

witness, thereupon testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Morton:

. Where do vou live, Mr. Cox?) A. Johnstown, Penn-

~yiVania.

@. And what is your present occupation? A. Super-

intendent of the Coke Plant, Bethiehem Steel Company,

at Johnstown,

Q. How long have you held this position?) A. Since

May 1, 1940.

(). Now, Mr. Cox, will you tell the Court something

about the installation which constitutes the Coke Oven

Plant of Bethlehem Steel Company at Johnstown. What

sort of plant is this? A. Well, it’s the Franklin Coke

Miant. It’s located in (10) Franklin Borough, which is part

of the Johnstown plant of the Bethlehem Steel Company.

The Coke Plant at Franklin consists of batteries of coke

ovens, apd a ecal handling division for supplying the

batteries with coai, and a coal chemical section for the

recovery Of the chemical by-products from the gases that

come from the batteries.

(). Does this coal chemieal section include apparatus

tor the recovery of ammonia from the coke oven gas? OA.

Yes, sir.

Q. Back in 1947 when vou wrote the letter [PX 5} to

Mr. Hough, about which veu have testified a littl: before,

what sort of apparatus was included in the plant, if any, for

the recovery of ammonia from the coke oven gas? A. Well,

we had four old type eracker pipe saturators that were

mult, to the best of my knowledge, somewhere around 1921,

*b)

(). What sort of condition were these saturators in in

M7? A. They were in pretty bad condition.

—

Harold C. Cor——Fer Plaintiff Direct.

Q. Was it a part of the responsibility of the job that you

had as superintendent of the Coke Oven Plant to make

recommendations to Bethlehem Company concerning the

repair or replacement of these saturators in 1947? A.

Yes.

(11) Q. Did you make such recommendations? <A. Yes,

Fdid. °

Q. What was the recommendation that you made? A. |

recommended that the old saturators be replaced with the

modern type saturators at that time.

Q. Did you specify in your recommendations any par-

ticular type of saturator as desirable? A. Yes, the first

recommendation that I made was for an Otto eracker pipe

saturator, and later on, why, | changed that recommenda-

tion to an Otto spray type saturator.

Q. And as part of your employment and responsibility

in that employment, did you visit plants where these vari-

ous types of saturators were in operation and observe

them personally before making your recommendations? A.

Yes, I did. .

Q. Where did you observe an Otto cracker pipe saturator

in operation? A. At the Bethlehem plant, Bethlehem,

Pennsylvania.

Q. Where did you observe an Otto spray type: saturator

in operation? “A. At the Lackawanna plant, New York, of

the Bethlehem Steel Company. ae

Q. Am I correct in my understanding that the letter of

October 20, 1947, which you wrote Mr. Hough, and of which

(12) you have here a copy, you tell us, from the Engineer-

ing Department files, is the written record of your recom-

mendations you have.just told us about and the reasons for

them which you made at that time?) A. That's right.

Q. Mr. Cox, when you visited the Lackawanna plant o!

the Bethlehem Steel Company and observed there an Otte

“-*

—

Harold C. Cox —-Fer Plaintiff Direct.

spray saturater in operation, did you observe Its weme rey

shape and configuration? A. Yes, sir. |

(18) Q. Mr. Cox, you have told us you saw the general

shape and configuration of the Lackawanna saturator, Can

vou tell us whether the saturator as you saw it at Lacka-

19) wanna was of a different shape from the saturator sub-

sequently installed by you at Jehnstown?

A. The Lackawanna saturator was built with a bellied-

out section in it so that if it failed as a spray job a cracker

pipe could be installed in this hellied-out section, and that

‘s different from the one that we installed at Johnstown,

in that the one at Johnstown was made more or less

straight up and down, and the sprays installed, with no pos-

sibility of ever converting it to this cracker pipe job. .

Q. Do you know whether the Lackawanna saturator ever,

20) in fact, was converted to a cracker pipe job? A. It was

not.

(). In other words, it continued as a spray saturator sue-

cessfully? A. That’s right. ‘

Q. Now, Mr. Cox, voa are the Harold Cox, are you not,

who executed an affidavit on June 14, 1950, for use in the

prosecution of onetof Dr. Otto's patent applications? A.

Yes. ,

(). Have you recently had occasion to re-read that affi-

davit? A. Yes, I have. :

(). Can you describe to the Court, Mr. Cox, roughly the

saturator problem as it existed at Johnstown in 1947, the.

size of the apparatus, the capacity, and such details. as

von think would enable the Court to understand the prob-

lem that vou faced in 1947 with the replacement of satura-

tors, and then describe to the Court your present installa-

tien and how it. differs? I think probably you can do it

hetter than for me to ask it of vou question by question.

9°

Harold e. Car- kor Plato Direct.

A. Well, in around this time, 145 to Lode, when L Deer

active in the Coke Plant. We had four of the old) type

eracker—pipe saturators. They chad been in service

~ (21) since somewhere around 121 or “22, something like

that, and for about ten to thirteen vears previous to THT

they had not been repaired to any greaf extent, and conse.

quently they were in a very poor dition in 147. We

were having difficulty in keeping them on the line, and the

repairs that were necessary were going to be excessive and

very expensive, and at that time the Franklin CNke Pha

was enlarging its coke producing facilities, so that the load

on these old saturaters was going to be even greater and

they couldn't possibly take eare of the current load, so ir

was certainly to my, interest in doing my job and to the

interest of the Bethlehem Steel Company te do something

about this problem of the eld saturaters, get them in con.

dition to handle the load properly, and also in condition te

handle the increased load, or replace them with something

that was more moderna and newer. So | knew at that time,

of course, in Our own company, that our Bethlehem plant

vas going ahead with some new seturators at.their North.

ampton plant, and [ was down and took a look at them,

and they certainly did look all right to me "They were an

Otto type saturator with eracker pipes, and on coming

back from my visit there [ recommended to my boss that

that looked like it would be the sensible answer to our

problem, to replace our four old jobs with a couple ot

saturators of that type. And along (22) ahout the same

passe Si course, why, the job was going in at our Lacka-

wannh plant, and it got into operation, as 1 remember,

sometime about Augast, 1947, so | made a trip up there to

look that job over, and after seeing it in operation and

talking to the Bethlehem Steel Company operators, | ean.

back to Johnstown and then | wrote this letter in which |

brought out the feet that Lackawanna saturator was oper-

ating satisfactorily as a spray tpe job and it looked to me

Harold ©. Cor For Plaintiff—Direct - suena

as though that was the answer te our immediate prohfem

f taking care of our aumnonia removal problem at phe

Franklin Coke Plant, so that’s what | reeommended, and

stated TN Pesan for recommending it as resultine in power

savings and labor savines, and also reduce our losses on

sales of sulphate .

Q. Was that recommendation acted upon by the com

pany?) oA. Well, after writing that letter Thad several

others to write to explain some of the savings, and se forth,

to Various and sundry people in the Bethhem organiza-

tion, but it finally was approved and we got the job in

stalled. ti

Q). So that now at vour Johnstown plant, instead of the

four old sateraters that were there before this time you

have one spray type saturator, is that right?) A. That‘.

right.

Am | correct in my understanding from what vou

have (23) said that the capacity of the one spray type

saturator vou have there now is greater than the combined

capacity of the four that were there before? A. Yes, that’s

right.

(). And how about the space oceupied by the one spray

type saturater compared with the space requirement of the

four older ones?) A. Well, the Ot¥a_spray saturater is o¢-*

eupying the space that was just about oceupied by one of

the old type saturators.

Q. And is there any difference in the gas pressure drop

across the spray saturator as compared to the gas pressure

drop across the older type saturators? A. Yes, our spray

saturator has a crop that’s normally around six to seven

aches of water, and the old type saturators, oh, it ran from

nineteen inches up ta somewhere around thirty-five ineles

lrop.

Q. And it is a faet, is it not, that the lower the drop the

ess power is required io put the gas through the satura-

‘or, is that right?) A. Yes, toat’s right.

”

6°

Harold C. Cor—for Plaintiff—Cross.

(24) Cross Examination by Mr. Brown:

* & “ * s

Q. Well now, Mr. Morton breught out that you gave an

(25) affidavit on behalf of Otto in connection with his

prosecution of a patent on a spray type saturator. Page

remember that? ” Ay Yes.

Q. Isn't it a fact that that affidavit wgs. prepared by

counsel and signed by you, and that you did not yourself

write it?) A. That’s right, yes.

Q. And is it not a fact ‘that you ane been somewhat

of an advocate of the 4)tto saturators since, oh, say, 1947,

around there? A. Well, I was an advocate for one for

myself. | never advocated it to anyone else.

Q. You have been a pooster for the Otto saturator, as

| understand? A. It has worked very well for us-

Q. Was it your understanding when. you gave that afh-

davit that the use-of sprays in connection with saturatons

s a

was new with Otto?

The Witness: Will yeu say that again?

Q. Was it your understanding when you gave, thyat affi-

davit-that the use of sprays in ‘connection with taking

aninonia out of coke oven gas Was something new with

Otte us of 1947, or thereabouts? (26) A. Yes, it was my |

understanding. it was new.

-Q. So far as you knew, the use of sprays in saturator-

was new? A. That’s right.

Q. Now, | believe you said that these four saturators

at Johnstown wére in very bad shape and, in fae t, as |

interpret, were orgs t@ the point where they had

to be replaced in‘i9— A. 47.

4). (Continuing) 47. Was that when you replaced. them?

‘lt was later that you replaced them, I believe. A. We re.

placed them in 1949—

Harold C. Cor—For Plaintiff—Cross.

€

actually, “when we started

Q. Yes. <A. (Continuing)

operation. :

Q. And if | understand your testimony correctiy, they

liad just reached the point where they were about falling

apart and they had to be replaced, is that right? A. They

had to have extgnsive’ repairs.

Q. Well now, in this letter that you produced you have

viven a calculation of an annual labor saving of $232,000.00.

[ assume that’s by putting in the Otto type saturatéy in

place of the four. old ones. Do you remember that? A.

Yes. |

(27) Q. How did you figure that $32,000.00 labé® sav-

ing? <A. Well, with the four saturators we used two men

a turn, that’s each eight-hour turn. --We call them saturator

operators. We could eliminate one of those fellows. And

thén we had dryer operators— .

~Q. Pardon me. Were there two men for each of the

four saturators? A. No, sir.

. Q. Two men fer the four saturators? A. ‘For the whole

thing, yes. And then we had dryer operators—as I re-

member, we had one on each saturator—and we eliminated

those, entirely.

Q). Is that elimination of the drver due to the use of the

‘spray type as distingnished from the cracker pipe type?

A. No, not directly. it was due to the incorporation of

the automatic sulphate dryer equipment. -

Q. Wasn’t a good deal of the labor cost of these old

saturators due tothe fact that they were practically worn

out, and they had trouble with the pumps and trouble with

pipmg, and so forth? A. Yes, that’s right. ‘

“Q. So that there would have been a substantial saving

with any new and up-to-date and efficieRt apparatus put

in, | assume? (28) A. No. If the saturators themselves

had been in excellent condition, we still would have re-

quired those same men to operate them, but the repair

‘

Harold C. Coa—-For | laintiff —Jross.

work that was necessary to be done by mechanical means

would have been eliminated, of course, for some time, until

they wore out again.

Q. Qidn’t you figure in the mechanical labor, of repairs,

and so forth, when you were figuring how mae ‘h you would

save by putting in this new saturator? A. No, 1 was figur-

ing operating saving. | think later on in the letter there

you will find the estimated repair expenses that would be

eliminated.

Q. Now, if vou had put in a new eracker pipe saturator

where one installation did the work of the four that were

replaced, would you have been able to make the same sav-

ings of labor that you have referreé to in your letter!

The Witness: Of labor?

Q. “Yes. A. ¥es,_ siz.

Q. How do vou figure $44500.00 saving in the cost of

power per year due to putting in the one saturator in

place of four? A. Well, in order to get gas through the

old saturators, it was pumped through by tusbines, and

approximately (29) forty million cubie feet of gas a day

pumped through a saturator bath that’s nineteen to thirty

inches deep requires more power than what it would take

to pump the gas through a saturator with sprays in it

where vour gas is bubbling through no depth of liguor

Q. But some of your power is required to force the

mother liquor through the sprays, | assufhe?) A. That’s

right, ves. |

“~ Q. And the saving in power, as T understand you, is that

‘the difference is due to the head of liquid which vou had

to-overcome in forcing the gas through the liquid, is that

right?) A. That’s right, ves. .

Q. And if vou had put in a single eracker pipe type

installation to take the place of the four, and it had, savy,

four inches #f-head over the openings in the cracker pipe,

pe gc ae ie

: y

Harold ©. Cor—For Plaintiff —Cross.

you would have a subsiantial saving of power also, is that

right?) A. Yes. If we had installed the Otto cracker pipe

tvpe of saturator the savings in-power would have been

something over the old saturators, but not as great as the

<pray saturafor job.

QW. Well, putting it in one sentence, the saving of power

you refer to is in the amount of power required to (30)

force the gas through the saturator, is that right? A.

That’s right, :

Q. | believe vou said that due to increased eapaeity af

vour by-product eoke ovens che NOCESSIEY for handling hare

coke oven gas had arisen, is that right? A. That's right,

(). Ix it nota fact that partretarly during the war vears

that all the steel companies were faged with the probler

of handling more and more coke oven gas dune to meres

steel making capacity, and therefore mere coke beme used

inthe blast furnaces, is that true? A. Generally, ves,

Q. Now, as far asvremoval of ammonia from the cokes

oven gas, the old saturators teok the anmanionia out. | ae

stine-—T mean the old cracker pipe tvpe. <A. If thev were .

in good condition they would take the ammowia out.

(). Unless there was One defieieney, Inechanieal de

feleney, they operated satisfactorily, as far as removal of

aunonia Was concerned? Al That's right.

Q. And that’s true alse, is it mot, as-to the produetion

of animonitni sulphate salt?

The Witness: How was that?

(ol) Q. Losay, is it not also true that the old eracker

pipe saturators when in good condition were satisfactory

sg far as the production of ammonium sulphate erystals

is concerned? A. Yes, ;

Q).. So that, as LT understand your testimony, up to this

point, the inain advantaze of the, what vou call the Otte

Type spray saturater, was a saving of power required for

aR aaa nse

—$—

Robert A. Blackburn—For Plawmtiff—Direct.

forcing the gas through it, and a saving of space, and of

being able to use one instead of four installations, is that

about right?) A. That’s right.

Q. But you haven't said anything, as I recall, about

the effectiveness of spray for securing ‘he ultimate result

as compared to the cracker pipe in securing the same re-

sult. You have talked about cost and space but not as to

efficiency in any way. Am I right about that? A. That’s

right. ee.

(32) Q. As T understand it, the saving of labor due to

putting in the Otto spray type saturator as chmpared to

the four old eracker pipe saturators, was that one man

could run the new saturator, whereas it required two men

to run the four saturators. Is that right? <A. Yes, that is

right. That is part of the saving. We have dryer oper-

ators | mentioned before that were eliminated.

Q. Which Was outside of the— A. That was auxiliary

equipment to the saturators.

Q. It was an auxiliary, wasn’t it?) A. Yes.

QM. And they use dryers with the new kind of saturator,

do they not, or the equivalent of it?) A. That's right.

(39) Roperr A. Buackarrn, having been first duly sworn

us a Witness, testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Morton:

' 7

Q). Where do you live, Mr. Blackburn?) A. Ingomar.

Q. What is your present occupation? (40) A. Contract

Engineer for Koppers Company.

Q. What generally are the duties of.a Contract Engineer

for Koppers Company? A. They are to act as a liaison

between the customer and the departments of the Koppers

Company.

Robert A, Blackburh—For Plaintiff —Diveet.

Q. How long have you been employed by the Koppers

Company? A. About 20 vears.. ;

Q. In what capacities have you worked for the Koppers

Company during those 20 vears? A. I have worked as an

operator in the Research Department, as a Research Engi-

neer. In the Patent Department writing up patent specifi-

cations, In the Engineering Department as a Project Engi-

neer, and then later as assistant Chief Project Engineer,

as Well as Contract Engineer.

Q. Has your employment with the Koppers Company

brought you into contact with the construction of apparatus

know as ammonia saturators?” A. Yes, sir.

(QJ. Have you ever, during your employment with the

Koppers Company, been called on to instruct other Kop-

pers personnel in matters relating to ammonia saturater

construction? (41) A. Yes, sir.

(). What was the nature of that instructional course? © A.

It was in cannection with a course covering coke oven plant

design. ; ‘

Q. Did you prepare the material which constituted that

course yourself? A. Yes, sir, with the assistance of the

facilities of the company im duplicating and drafting work

in connection therewith. *

(). Have you brought with vou today a copy of the

instructional material relating to ammonia saturators

which vou so prepared? A. 1 have, sir. ;

(). May I see it?) A. It would be lecture 7,

Q). T understand you hand me a book entitled Coke Oven

Piant Design, Course K-171, R. A. Blackburn. That is the

complete course to which vou referred? A. Yes, sir.

Q). And it included as lecture 7, headed Coke Oven Plant

Design, By-Product Equipment, Ammonium Sulphate,

General, some discussion of the construction and operation

-of the apparatus we know as ammonia saturators? (42) A.

Yes, sir.

Robert A. Blackburn—Ffor Plaintiff —Direct.

Q. Thehalance of this entire course K-171 was concerned

with other aspeets of By-Product Plant designs? A. That

is true, |

Q. 1 think then 1 will give you back your hook. | under-

stand that the separate lecture 7 you handed me consists

of pages 42 through 50, and is the same as What appears

in the whole course? A. That’s right.

| Said p. marked PX &. |

Q. Mr. Blackburn, when did you deliver this lecture 7?

A. | have given it in four separate years,.in the spring of

the vears, probably, 1 believe from “49 through “)35--1949

through 1953.

(43) Q. Am 1 correct,in ny understanding that the notes

which have been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit Number >

are the notes of the lectures as you gave them in 1949? A.

No, sir, they are not. |

Q. What vear do these particular notes relate to? A,

The notes are a development of the material presented dur-

ing ‘40, "HO and °51, and actually represent a gradual re-

fining of. the material in the course. The last two years |

taueht the course b furnished them-with outliness Prior te

that time they had te take notes. Tf you are inferring may-

he that this is similar material to what we had in 1949, 1

Ware not exactly. j 7

Q). ‘These exactly are the outlines which you did furnish

the Jast two vears you gave the course. Ts that correct!

A. That is right, sir.

Q. That would be in 19527 A. I believe that is probabls

spring of “52 or “53.

(). Who were the students’ who attended this course !

A. Koppers Company employees.

Q. Where was the course given? A, In the Koppers

Building.

13 «

Robert A. Blackburn—-For Plainti ff—Re-direct.

Q. And the giving of the course was a part of your duties

as an emplovee of the Koppers Company. Is that

(44) right?) A. No, sir.

Q. Were you paid for it by some other organization

than the Koppers Company?) A. 7 was paid for it by the

Koppers Company bit it was strictly a voluntary proposi- -

tion. TF did not have to give the course as a duty.

Q). Who was in charge of the course as a whole? A. The

training director of Koppers Colapany.

* * * * *

(90) Re-direct Examination by Mr. Morton:

Q. Mr. Blackburn, would you be able to tell me of your

own knowledge how many installations of center dip type

saturators the hoppers Company has made and where they

are made? A. At Wheeling Steel; at Crucible Steel at

Midland, Ohio; at Republic Steel at Warren, Pennsstvania ;:

oly at Kaiser Company, Fontana, California. That is all

that Lean reeall.

Q. Are any of those installations, as far as vou know,

still incuse?) AL As far as | know, two of the installations

are still im use, |

Q). Which are those two? A. Crucible Steed at. Midland,

and Republic Steel at Warren,

(). Can vou tell ine how many installations of spray type

ammonia saturators have been made by the Koppers Com-

pany and where they are located?” Al TL might not be able

to sive them all, but at Pittsburgh Coke & Chemical.

Neville Tsland.

(). That ix one installation. A. Tam starting down the

ist. At Woodward Steel, Birmingham, Alabama. At

Sloss-Shefield Coke Plant of United States Cast Tron Piqrey

Company, Birmingham, The Kaiser Steel Company, Fon-

tana. The Wheeling Steel Company, Follanshee. The Re.

public Steel Company at Youngstown. The United States

Elliott Preston—For Plaintiff—Direct.

Steel and Wire Company at Duluth. The Algoma Steel

Company, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. That’s all I can

recall. oes |

Q. Now_Mr. Blackburn, am,! correct in understanding

that the first such spray instfllation made was the one

made at Neville Island for Pittsburgh Coke and Chemical

Company? A. Correct, sir.

Q. Can you tell me whether since that installation was

‘made and successfully operated, Koppers Company has in-

stalled any ammonia saturator installation other than of

the spray type? (53) A. | don’t believe so.

‘

Ex.uiott Prestox, having been first duly sworn as a wit-

ness, testified as follows: >

Direct Examination by Mr. Morton:

Y. Where do you live, Mr. Preston? A. Glenshaw,

Pennsylvania.

Q. What is vour present occupation? A. General super-

intendent operating department, Koppers Company, engi.

neering and construction division.

Q. What are the duties of that position? A. Theeover-

all duties of the position are fo see that the coke and

chemical plants built by the division go into operation

properly, :

Q. How long have vou held that position with the Kop

pers Company? A. Since about 1946-—"45 or 746,

Q. How long have you been employed hy the Koppers

Company in any other capacity? A. Since 1924,

Q. What position did vou oecupy with the Koppers Com‘

pany in T9419? (4) A. T was assistant operating superin

tendent.

° J e s : @

Elliott Wreston—F or Plaintif-—Direct.

(63) Q. Now, Mr. Preston, did you have any connection

in the course of your employment by the Koppers Company

with the construction at Wheeling of the spray type satura-

ters Which subsequently replaced the center dip type we

have just been talking about? A. It came under the activi-

ties of my department to see that it was put into operation,

that it got into operation.

Q. Would you be able te say of your own knowledge

whether the center dip type installation at Wheeling had

worn out or otherwise failed in service prior to the instal-

lation of the spray saturators? A. 1 have no recollection

or knowledye of its having worn out?

Q. Now, this morning | asked Mr. Blackburn if he eould

tell ne of his knowledge how many installations of center

dip type saturators had been made by the Koppers Com-

pany. Could you tell me from your knowledge how Mans

had been made? A. Well, | would find it hard to enumerate

them. My (64) recollection is that it was about three or

four.

QQ. As T reeall, specifically, Mr. Blackburn, said that there

Was an installation for the Wheeling Steel Companys at

Mollansbee, an installation for Crucible Steel at Midland,

un installation for Republic Steel at Warren, and an in-

stallation for Kaiser at Fontana, California. Can vou tell

meat there were any others? A. Well, I couldn't identify

them at the moment. It's possible, but- .

_Q Do vou know whether the Koppers Company ever in-

stalled a saturator for the American Rolling Mills Com-

pany? A. We installed—-ves, we installed a spray type

saturator for the American Rolling Mills.

(). A spray type?” A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall whether, prior to the installation of the

spray type, they installed a center dip type? <A. 1 don't

recall it.

(2. Could fou rocali how many saturators of the spray

type the KRoppers Company has installed? 4. Well, to my

(

Clyde C. Bird—For Plaintiff —Direct.

recollection about—one, two, three, four, five, six—my best

recollection at the moment would be probably seven or

eight.

(65). Q. And does it accord with your recolleétion, Mr.

Preston, that the first spray type saturator installed by

the Koppers Company was installed at Neville Island for

the Pittsburgh Coke and Chemical Company? A. Yes.

Q. And does it also accord with your recollection, Mr.

Preston, that subsequent to the installation of the Neville

Island saturator and its operation successfully the Koppers

Company has not installed any other than a spray type

saturator for any customer in the United States? A. Well,

I don’t have the chronology of the different units in my

mind, but | believe that’s substantially correct.

e al ° @ s

(119) Cryer C. Binn, having been first duly sworn as a

witness, thereypon testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Morton:

Q. Where do vou live, Mr. Bird?) A. Follanshee.

(). And what = is your present oecupation? A. By-

Prodact Turn Foreman.

Q. Fer what company?) A. Wheeling Steel Corporation.

Q. And does vour job as By-Product Turn Forenian in-

elide supervision of apparatus owned by Wheeling Steel

Corporation (120) known as the ammonia saturator? ~A.

That's correct.

° ie s °

(128) Cross Examination by Mr. Brown:

Q. Mr. Bird, were you a turn foreman in the operation

of the cracker pipe saturators that were at Wheeling be-

e Clyde C. Bird—For Plaintiff—Cross.

fore the present spray type were put in?) A. That is

correct.

Q. Ard did you add sulphurie acid to the liquor that

was used for removing ammonia in the cracker pipe type

of apparatus which was superseded by the present spray

type? (129) A. That is correct. -

Q. Was the amount of sulphuric acid that you added in

the same proportion to the amount of gas that was being

treated as in the case of the later spray type saturators?

A. Yes, the same amount was used*in proportion to the

amount of yas we had.

Q. Did you kill, as you have described, in the use of

the cracker pipe saturators that preceded the present

spray type saturators? A. That is correct.

Q. Did you kil] about the same frequency and about the

same extent in connection with the cracker pipe as with

the present spray type? A. That is correct.

Q. Do the present spray type saturators rest on the

same foundations and use the same bow] structure at the

fottom of the saturator that the former cracker pipe

-aturators which were superseded by the present spray

‘ype saturators? A. That’s correct. |

Q. So that, as far as ground space is concerned, the

‘pray type occupy the same “space that the two eracker

pipe saturators oecupied, is that right? A. Thatés right.

(130) Q. Is there any change in the number of men that

operated the two cracker pipe saturators, as distinguished

‘ran the present spray type saturaters? A. We have

added no new personnel,

Q. You use the same men and the same nutnber of men

‘or each of the two types we are referring to? A. That's

right.

Q. And of course Tam talking about the cracker pipe

“aturators that were displaced by the present spray type—-

that’s what yeu understand? A. That's What I under-

stand.

Clude C. Bird—For Plaintiff——Cross.

Q. And was the mother liquor, by which I mean the

liquor containing sulphurie acid that had passed through

the saturater, was that recirculated to the bath in the

cracker type saturators? <A. Correct.

Q. Now, during the kill operation which vou have de-

scribed and to which Mr. Morton has referred, the passage

of coke oven gas through the saturator is not stopped, is

it? A. No.

Q. And the gas continues to pass through at the same

rate as it does at all other times, as I understanll? A.

That’s right.

(131) Q. And the ammonia is removed even during the

killing operation, as I understand? A. That’s right.

Q. The only difference is that yeu don’t recover the

crystals, but vou more or less store them up and take

them out at a later tite, is that right? A. That’s right.

Q. And I believe vou said—I may be repeating—that

the practice of killing was substantially the same with the

cracker pipe as it is with the present —_ type? A,

That's right. ™

Q. And for the same purpose generally? A. Same pur-

pose.

e 2 es e o

(135) By the Court:

(). Mr. Bird, vou have testified that-prier to the instal

lation of the present saturators at Wheeling Stee!

(136) there were two saturators, have vou not?! A. That’s

right, and we have two today.

(). Yes, and vou have réplaced those with two that. ov.

cupy about the same space—- A. That’s right.

(). (Continuing) —that the other saturagms did. They

produce substantially the same result? A. Qhat’s right.

(). In other words, you recover from those ajnmonian’

sulphate erystals?) A. That's right,

Clyde C. Bird——For Plaintiff-—Cross.

‘Q. Tell me in your own words, and as simply as you ean,

what the difference is in the process by which the sulphate

crystals are removed or recovered.

The Witness: Between the two saturators?

The Court: Yes.

Al Well, the dip type saturator, the gits enters the satur--

ator. it goes down through a pipe which is covered at the

end by this bath, and the gas to pass through this bath

bubbles up through it, and your ammonia is pieked up

from the gas by the sulphuric acid in that action. Then

as the gas passes on through the saturator, there is a

spray, Which we call the mother liquor spray, which is used

to clean the gas with this high concentrated acid solution,

(157) and it passes— |

(). You are still talking about the cracker pipe now? A,

‘That’s rreht.

(). All right. A. Now, in the spray tvpe saturator, the

gas enters and as it first enters the saturator it comes in

contact with a spray of mother liquor—or circul: ited hquor,

and that gas then passes around antl down through the

saturator and comes out and is washed again with the

mother liqjuor high concentrated acid as it) leaves re

saturator. But the difference is that one saturator has

little differential, which is the spray type saturator, an

the other one has a high differential, because there is no

hath covering the bottom of the dip pipe in the spray type

saturator, Your gas comes in contact with a sprayed mist

of tiquor.

(). Your sprayed mist is sprayed from the tep oe

saturator and spraved downward, is it? A. That‘s right.

(). And that then passes through the gas which is heing

circulated in that particular chamber? A. That's right.

Q. Then where does the gas go? A. It travels Gn’

through, and as it passes out inte (138) what we eall the

Clue, C. Bird—For Plaintiff —Nebuttal, direct.

outlet pipe, it is sprayed again by the motker liquor, which

you have heard us speak of, high concentrated acid solu-

tion, and that cleans it of any excess ammonium that would

be in the gas. Then it travels out of the saturator and on

to the other equinment.

(731) Civpe C. Birn, who previously testified, was re.

called and testified in rebuttal as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Morton:

(733) Q. Now, on the two sheets, Plaintiff's Exhibit 19

and Plaintiff's Exhibit 33. both of these are on the same °

form, are they not?) A. That’s right, same form

Q. There is another heading, **l’ressure Inches, of

Water," In. HO," is that right!

(734) And under that is a sub-heading, **Total Diff.”

What does that tell vou about the nature of the data re-

corded under that heading? <A. That’s the differential

pressure across the saturator itself, vas pressurt

Q. When a change occurs in that total difference or dif-’

ferential across the saturator itself, what does that indi-

cate as to the operation or operating conditions inside the

satufator? A. Well, to the operator of the sacarator that

is an indication of possible salting up of the saturator, or

some kind of an obstruction in the saturator, in the gas °

passage through the saturator.

Q. In the gas passage through the saturator’? A. That

is right.

(). Now, just one more thing. If I understand you ecor-

rectly, or if | understood the nature of this operation cor-

rectly, there are sometimes also changes in the spray pres.

sure occurring, What would that indicate, if that pres.

Clyde C. Buard—For Plaintiff—Rebattal, cross.

sure fluctuated, to yout <A. Well, if the gauge has not

been changed, if it’s the same gauge we have been using,

then | would be under the impression that there would be

maybe a build-up of salt in this chamber before our sprays,

or possibly in the (735) spray nezzles s, or we naught have

salt building in the bump, the suction of the pump. There's

two or three things that could come into that.

Q. Do you also get tar or foreign matter from time to

time in the liquor causing clogging of the sprays y, A. Not

those sprays.

(). Which sprays might have such a problem? A. We

might have a tar build-up.of small particles in the mother

jnjuer spray, but in my operation of the saturater | don't

believe | have ever found that the circulating liquor

sprays ever clogged up due to any foreign matter.

(. On the print before you thre are some sprays

marked Lo and) F, which are the main sprays and the

mother liquer sprays, is that right?) A. The two sprays

warked Loare the mother liquor sprays, and the ones

marked F are the circulating liquor sprays.

(. Well now, when | talked to you before at Follans-

bee in January of 155, | asked vou whether vou had diffi

culty with the operation of the saturator through plugging

up of the sprays marked on this drawing, Exhibit 4, as L

and Fy and vou said, ** Yes, we had, but it was not from

salt."? A. That‘is correct.

(736) Q. Se that the operation of these sprays has not

caused you trouble from salting up but rather from some

other form of difieuity?) A. That's from other forms of

foreign matter that would get in there, such-as caskets

orchard particles of tar, or such like. Never have I found

it where salt has c6lleeted enough to cause us troubie in

our sprays.

Cross Examination by Mr. Lutz:

Y. Mr. Bird, referring to this model saturator, which

\ 22

Carl -Otto—For Plaintiff —Direct.

is- Defendants’ Exhibit-17, and referring varticularly to

the sprays in the primary absorption chamber, do I under-

stand you to say that you have never found those sprays:

sogeee up? A. Not with salt.

. Q. Have you found any tendeney for salt to deposit in.

t Oags spray nozzles?’ A. Not in the spray nozzles them-

selveS, no. We-have had salt build up a little bit in the

chamber in experime nting witheour saturater-but not for

an ordinary Tun we have never had. any trouble with those

sprays salting up.

Q. Mr. Bird, how often do you.kill-this saturator? A.

Ou® policy has been here the jast four to six months of

killing it every forty-eight hours.

(737) Q. Would there be any tendency, in your opinion,

for those spravs to salt up. if you did not kill that fre-

quently? A. No. We have run longer than that and we

never had the sprays plug up with salt.

: e ° _ e

(154) Docror Cart Orro, having been first duly sworn

as a Witness, testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Morton:

Q). Where da vou now -live, Dogtor, A. In Manhassett,

Long Island, ’

Y. You are the Carl Otto who is plaintiff in this pro-

ceeditfg, are vou not? A. Tam. o

(). What is your present peenpation! A. J am the presi-

dent of the Otto Construction (155)\ C&rporation in New

York. ; 4

(). What im the business of that company? A. The build,

inv of coke oven by-product plants.

Germany.

QO. Wher were you born, Doctor? Al-At Dahlhausen,

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff—Direct. .

Q. What was your edueation? A. I went first to Dresden,

high school, and then.] went fy the Institute of Technology

at Charlottenburg and-from there to Institute 0 Tech-

nology in BPESau. ~At Charlottenburg | made — Bach-

elor and Master Desre ‘e and at Breslau I got my Doetor

Degree,

Q. In what field was your Doctor's Degree? A. It was

in Metallurgy. | nee

Q. How long have you been associated with the coke over

industry? A. Twas associated with the ecke ove n sian

after T left the Institate of Tee hnology, and even before in

iv Vacations | used to do some practical work om coke oven

yRN by product plants to familiarize myself with this

subject.

Q. What were the dates of the tinies when you were

still in fhe Institute of Techonolgy? 2 AL To made my Doe-

tor Degree in 1913 and two years before my Master and

. two vears before ‘that my Bachelor (156) Degree.

Q. With what organizations did you obtain practical

experience at or about that time’in the by-product field?

A. i did that with the company of my father in Germany

called the Doctor C. Otte and ( omp sty,

Q). Is that company still in existence? A. That company

is still in istence ; ' sa Pt :

7 Q. Do vou have any connection with it now? Ad have.

Q. What connection? A. Loan stil! the main share

Wider of hea company,

Q. After vou obgyained your Doetor’s De ‘vree, | helleve

pe said in lO. did you go to work for that company?

A. T did.

Q. Ino what — did vou werk for that company ?

A. First as a Tore © - less consulting engineer. T was on

the Board and late Ts a 1925, | was the technical genera}

manager of that company, |. x

Q. What was the business of that company } t A. To build

coke oven and by-product plants. :

Carl Otfto—For Plaintiff—Direct.

‘

Q. Was the business of that company confined to Ger-

many? A, No, it was not confined to Germany. It did

(157) business all over the world.

Q. How Jong did you remain as technical director of that:

company? A. I remained technical director until 1956 and

I was then made Chairman of the roard until 1939 when

I left for the U. S.A. | i ecrt bai

Q. You say you left for the UL S. A. in 19507 A. Yes.

Q. Left from Germany?) A. No, from Holland. |

Q. When did you leave Germany to go to Holland? A,

In 1936. :

Q. Did vou liave, while you were in Holland, any con-

nection with the.coke oven industry other than yvour-posi- |

tion as Chairman of the Board of the German company?

\. Twas ther the general manager of the Dutch Company

Which brilt coke oven by-product plants in Holland.

Q. What way the name of that conipany? _ A. The Otte

Simon Carves Company.

(). When was the American company of the Otto Con-

streetion Company formed? A. That was formed+-1 could

not say correetly——[ think either “37 or “BS,

(15S) Q. Tt was already in existence when vou came to

the United States?) A. It was already in existence when |

vame to the [nited States.

(). Now | noted 4n the file history of the center dip patent

here in suit,.Plaimtff’s Exhibit 3, that vou are ae in de-

J sertbed as a citizen of the Empire of Germany, while

the file his ‘tory of the spray patent in suit, Plamtiff’s Ey

hibit 1, vou were described as a citizen of the United States,

That's right.

Q). | take it that vou weye naturalized in the period he

tween the filing of the x) patent and the fine fof the

other. Ts that meht? A. Yes, | was naturalized in Novem:

ber LO45, |

Q. What has te Sn the business of the Otte Cr onstruction

J Ls

FAY |

Carl Otto—-For Plamtiff—Direct.

Corporation in the United States? A. Our business is in

the by-product field, 3

When did you first concern yourself with the ap-

paratus in that field which we have been here discussing,

called ajnmonia saturators? OA. Well, L was familiar with

aminonia saturators already before, and I saw here the

plants to try to sell apparatus to them,

(159) Q. What problems, if any, appeared to vou to be

confronting the United States concagre mr industry with re-

speef to ammonia saturators when™ you got started over

here? A. T found that the conditions in the United States

were different as first we had to faee here the competition

of the biggest by-product coke combany in the world, which

mutkes it much more diffiegit than in Europe.

Q. What was that cofupetition vou had to face here?

What was the name ef your principal coipetitor as vou

found it here?) A. The inain competitor Was the Koppers

Company,

Q. What. other? 1: And another company was Wil-

patte, and lie had to face the same competition, and since

Phave anear friend im Wilputte, he said vou do not know

What Vou are agaimst*here in the United States. It is

different from any other couptry, and Wilputte also later

had to sellout to keep in bus siness to the Allied Chemical

. Do = understand that vou remained the principal

ewneroof the Otto Constraetion Corporation of the United

States! 1160) A. That's right. |

Q). What other major shareholders are there? 4A. My

son, Who is here.’

"Q. And that ix all?) A. That iy all.

Q). Gome back to ammonia saturators, what problems

apprared to be confronting the American by-products coke

(ven industry with respect to their ammonia saturator in-

stallations when vou were getting started with your Amer-

: ~ Carl Otto-—For Plaintiff—Direct.

ican business? A. The problem was that it was the trend

of the time, by-product plants were getting too small for the

gas output. They wanted to put in more ovens, and ‘he-

cause the by-product coke ovens are looked at by the steel

plants as a necessary evil, they wanted, of course, to put—

to spend as little money as possible for any extens/in.

Therefore, it was 8 portant to design apparatus which

could take care of this problem and take care of the condi-

tions to get bigger output through the by-product plants,

resulting in remodeling the old by-product plant. ¢

* e * ® *

(169) Q. Now you have testified, Doctor, that the ap--

paratus shown on Plaintiff's Mxhibit 28) [a. flare-mouth

eracker-pipe saturator] was actually constructed and in.

stalled at Bethlehem Steel plant at Bethlehem, Pennsyl-

vania, and is still there. Can you tell me what individual

or individuals you dealt with at the Bethlehem Steel Com

pany in selfing them that apparatus?) A. You mean the

name of the individual | dealt with? ?

170) Q. That’s right. The names of the individuals, if

nore than one, that vou dealt with at Bethlehem Steel when

you sold them that apparatus on that print. A. Mainly

with Mr. C. W. Underwood. He was at that time the super.

intendent of the plant of Bethlehem Steel in Bethlehem,

Q. Was he superintendent of the whole steel plant. or

coke oven plant?) A. He was only the’ Superintendent of

the coke oven plant.

(172) Q. Now, Doctor, let's turn to the other patent here

in suit, the patent directed toward the Spray type satura

tors, the patent and the history of its prosecution being

shown by Plaintiff's Exhibits 1 and 2.) Tell us something

about the circumstances under which vou were led to the

apparatus therein shown. A. The idea of the spray satur-

Carl Otto—For Plamtiff—Direct.,

ator was to Improve further the idea of the horizontal flow

in the cracker pipe saturator to decrease the pressure dif-

rerence still further. ;

(. When did you first sueceed in jetting a contraet for

the construction of apparatus of the spray type? A. We

succeeded to get the first contract of this spray saturator

bs the Bethlehhem Steel Company in August, 1946.

(103) Q. At what plant of Bethlehem Steel Company

was this spray apparatus to be installed?) A. This ap-

paratus was to be installed at the Lackawanna plant of

Bethlehem Steel

— Q. Was the contract for that Se as originally let

y the Bethlehem Steel for a spray apparatus? A. It

Was not for a spray apparatus. It was given to us, I think

in April or May, for cracker pipe saturator of the same

type as built for Bethlehem Steel at Bethlehem.

(J. Can vou tell us about the eireumstances under which

the contract ‘was modified to provide for your spray ay-

paratus? A. It was modified because [ had shown my

patent application for spray saturator to two gentlemen

of the Bethlehem Steel Company.

Q. Who were those two people? These two people

are Mr. Stahl and Professor Simmons.

). By whom -was the decision to modify the contract

froma e¢racker pipe, center dip cracker pipe structure to

spray-considered at Bethleboia, so far as vou know? A. |

could not Ine ntion the person for that. I think that was

decided in general in the main office of (174) Bethlehem

Steel Corporation, with the local engineers at Lac ‘kawanna

Q. Did you have any dealings with Mr. Underwood in

connection with the Lackawanna installation? A; ho,

had not.

Q. T now show vow Otto C onstruction (* orporation print

Jo15, dated July 25th, “, ies Il ask you, does that print

(See Joint App., Vol. Il, p. 347] correctly illustrate the

ra)

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff-—Direct.

spray installation for the Lackawanna plant of the Beth-

lehem Steel Company you have been talking about? A.

Yes, it does. It shows the installation which was built.

This shows the spray saturator as built at Lackawanna.

Q. Was that the first spray saturator built by you or

your company? <A. That is the first spray saturator as

built by me or the company.

Q. Now is there any point in the gas flow through the

apparatus shown on the print before you at which the gas

is hubbled through a body of liquid, no matter how shal-

low? A. No, at no point ean the gas bubble through liquor

on this drawing.

Q. Was the apparatus which was constructed aceording

(175) to the print before you so built that it could be -

modified to provide means for bubbling the gas flow

through a boc. of liquid?) A. It was. The reason this

was provided is—I don’t see, the dimension-—but I think |

it was twelve feet. The lower part is twelve feet, which

would have been the dimension of the cracker pipe satura-

tor in similarity with the cracker pipe saturator at Beth-

lechem. The upper part decreased then to eight feet, which

is in accordanee, in coincidence, with the spray saturator

if it would have been built without ¢onsidering that the

spray saturator may have failed and would have been re-

modeled to a ctacker pipe satprator,

(176) Q. Dr. Otto, if IT reeall, before the noon adjourn-

ment vou had told us certain aspects of the apparatus

illustrated (177) on the print (Joint App., Vol. TI, p. 547)

which showed” that it had been installed with possibilits

that it could be converted back to a center dip cracker pipe

type satgirator. Was the fact that this structure was so de-

signed known to the Bethlehem Steel Company? <A. It

was known to the Bethlehem Steel Company that this con-

Carl Otto—-For Plaintiff —Direct.

struction was designed in this way to be changed to a

cracker pipe saturator.

Q). And why was it so designed? A. Because Bethlehem

Steel didn’t feel quite sure that this construction could do

what they expected of it.

*Q. Could you tell us from recollection, in, chronological

order, the dates and places at which spray saturator in-

stallations built from plans supplied by vou or by the Otto

Construction Company have been built in the United

States? -A. The first spray saturator was built at Lacka-

wanna. It was started in August, °47. |

Q. By ‘started,’ do you mean that the construction was -

started— <A. No, no.

Q). (Continuing)—or the operafion was started? A.

That the operation was started. [do not remember qfite

all the dates of the next saturators. | think the (17S) next

one was built at Johnstown, [ couldn't give vou the date

when it. wes—-when the order was given and when it was

started. The following plant was Ford, Detroit. Another

plant was in Indianapolis, Citizens Glass. Then Clairton,

the first order for three spray saturators. Then Bethlehem

Steel, Bethlehem, two spray saturators. And then the last

one Was three spray saturators for Clairton.

(). What company operates the plant at Clairton? A,

U.S. Steel. The U.S. Steel Company.

Q). And since the installation and successful operation

of the spray saturator at Lackawanna, have vou or has the

Otte baer Company constructed any plants, any

apparatus, for the production of ammonium sulphate from

coke oven gas other than a@ the spray type? A. We have

not. °

Q. You mentioned that the Bethlehem Steel Company

had purchased a spray installation for use at their Bethle-

hem, Pennsylvania plant. Can vou tell me-whether that

spray installation was used to supplement or whether it

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff--Direct..

superseded the center dip type installation which you have

already told us they had brought for that plant earher?

A. It superseded this installation which-they had before of

two cracker pipe saturators.

Q. Can you tell us from recollection what the gas

(179) through put capacity of the two center dip cracker

pipe saturators at the Bethlehem Steel plant was?) A. The

two cracker pipe saturators had each a through put of

fifty-five million eubie feet of gas. We installed, in addi

tion, one saturator to take eare of hundred million cubic

feet of gas. It was a spray saturator.

Q). That is to say that each of the two cracker pipe

“saturators could handle fifty-five by themselves! AL Yes.

Q. Or the two together could handle THO? A. That's

right, the two together. So these two cracker pipe satura

tors are a standby forthe new spray saturators.

| e sd * ¢ °

(187) Q. Dr. Otto, it is iny anderstanding trom: the testi

mony here today that the Wheeling Steel Corporation al

wavs operated these saturaters | flare mouth eracker-pipe

saturators! installed— A. Singly.

Q). (Continuing)-— singly, with the other as a standby.

What would have been the effeet of putting 74 million

A. Through one.

(ISS) QQ. (Continuing) through one oon the pressure

differential at which that saturator operated? A. The

pressure difference would have been extremely high then

in the newly erected cracker pipe saturator.

(). And if it had been desired te reduce that pressure

differential other than by making a spray type installation,

eould it have been done by making other changes im the

plant?) A. Well, that could have been done only while I

do net know the conditions of the other part of the by-

product plant, that T assume in this case that they could

also have made changes in the pipeline and other apparatus

to decrease the load on the gas exhauster.

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff-—Cross,

(). Will you explain te the Court what is a gas ex-

hauster? AL The eas exhauster is the gas pump te pump

hae gas whieh is made in the eyke oven plant through the

oy-product plant. It’s like a pumping machine.

The Court: LT think | understand.

The Witness: And this gas exhauster is provided

for a certain quantity, a certain load in pressure. |

look at this situation that Wheeling in this ease could

either putin a saturator like a spray saturator which

had the lower (189) pressure difference, or if the V

would have gone on with their old saturaters it

would have been necessary for them to make other

changes in their by-prodQet plant. I. mveelf, can, of

course, not say here whad changes they would have

had to make to take this lond away from the ex

tuyters, bat TL think the emsiest Wid to ovVereatiue

Vas situation Was to prt ina spray saturater which

had a low pressure difference,

Cross Examination by Mri Brown:

Q. Doctor, if yeu took the spray type saturator that vou

have just been talking about and put thretich say fifty

Hillion cubie feet of gas in a given amount of tite, and

increased that amount of gas passing through it te sity

seventy-five millien eubie feet, would you not alse inerease

the differential pressure? AL 1 would,

Q. In other words, if vou put more gis through a viven

saturater as compared to any given time, vou will raise

the differential that we are talking about? A. Yes.

Q). Phe differential pressure, or at least part of the

pressure that‘vou have been talking about as differe ntial

pressure, on the two sides of the saturater in the cracker

(190) pipe, is due in Jarge measure te the faet that vas is

forced downward in the cracker pipe? AL Right.

Carl Ottoe—For Plaintiff—Cross.

Q. And has to overcome the preseure of liquid surround-

ing the lower end of the pipe, isn’t that right! A. That's

— .

And the higher the depth, the greater the depth, of

hon surrounding the pipe above the lower outlet end of

the pipe, the greater pressure required to force gas through

it? A. That's right.

Q. And that’s true of all eracker pipe installations?

A. That’s right, of all eracker pipe ins stallations.

Q. Now, it has been said several times “in the testimony,

I think in the file history, that the eracker pipe prior art

involved heads of liquid of twenty or thirty, maybe more,

“Mehes of liquid that had to be overcome hy pressure on

the «as, is that meht? A. That’. right. You say twenty-

sa inches?) A. Twenty-eight?

—_.

The Witness: [didn’t quite vet the figure.

Mr. Brown: 1 sagl twenty or more inches,

The Witness: Twenty or more inehes?

Mr. Brown: ‘To think there’s seme reference to

mavbe (19D) mere than twenty or thirty.

The Witness: [t's twenty, up to thirty, even

thirts five,

Yes, sir, that’s what I beste Now, isn’t itva facet

that before vou duinde vour alleved invention depending, on

~prayvs for removing anamonta cas from coke oven gas, that

the cracker pipe art had developed cracker pipe installa-

tions in Which the head of liguer, the depth of liquor above

the lower end of the pipe was only three or four inches?

The Witness: In a cracker pipe?

Mr. Brown: Yes.

A. No, | have never—not three or four inches.

Carl Otto—For Plaintif—Cross.

Well, how many inches of liquor were there in the

eracker pipe installation that vou referred to in your —

examination as having been put in at, | believe, Bethlehem ?

That's what vou call the dip 4% pe, or something. A. The

dip type. At Bethlehem, to my recollection, we had a pres-

sure difference—I talk only of the saturator itself, mot of

the acid catcher included —of ten inches, and the lowest

was about eight inches, 7

(2) Mr. Brown: Dr. Otto, will vou have vour

eounsel give vou a copy of [the Otte flare-aneouth |

patent? ?

Thereupon, Mr. Morton handed a document to the

witness.

(). Have vouit? A. Yes, TP have it.

Q. Will you loék at Figure 4, Sheet 2. of the drawing?

A. Ral es 4, ves, sir.

And tell us what the distance a, indicated on the right

ae of that figure, is, and Toan: assuming that that dis-

-tance is the depth of liquor. A. That's right.

(195) Q. Above the lower edge of the eracker pipe, is

that right?) A. That is correet. That is the depth of the

quor. |

(). Isn't that stated somewhere in the patent to be four

inches?) A. That is right. but it does not mean that the

pressure difference is not only four inches, beeause, of the

horizontal way to the cireumference the gas has some addi-

tional pressure loss, in addition to the dip in the liquer,

You have, of course, to add to the four inches, vou have to

consider the specifie gravity, which is about 12. so vou

have to multiply four by r oto vet the water gauge the pres.

« loss hy the dip. .

_ Ae

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff —Cross.

Q). Well, vou may be right, to convert a measure of pres

sure from inches of water to inches of fluid) of liquor

would require a factor, but my point is not dependent on

that. In the cracker pipe deseribed in your second paten

in suit, the differential pressure due to forcing the was

through the mother liquor was the force necessary to over-

come a head of something like four or six inches, is. that

right?

The Witness: A head of four, six, incoes liquor?

Q. Yes. A. Yes. ‘

(194) Q. And | think that before that, ~ [ understand

what you have said in your patent and else ee bate they had

to overcome a head of very muech— A. More.

Q. (Continuing)--many more inches of. liquor, isn’t

that right? A. Yes, that’s right.

Q). So that at the time of vour making vour alleged in

vention of the spray saturator, cracker pipes had also

greatly reduced the pressure necessary to force gas

through the mother liquor, isn’t that right?

The Witness: The cracker pipe lower the dip int:

the eraeker pipe beforé--do Lunderstand vou right!

Mr. Brown: Tam afraid | didn’t understand vour

words, ;

The Witness: | didn't quite get that.

Mr. Brown: Doctor, if you will speak a litth

slower. We ail want to understand vou.

The Court: [don’t believe he understood your

question, Mr. Brown. Lf you will go back and re.

state it or have it read to him perhaps we ean ge

an answer,

Therenpon the question was read.

(). Doctor, by that To mean the depth of insertion of

eracker pipes into the liquor bath had heen greatly re

Carl Otta—For Plaintiff Cross,

duced in vour dip type cracker pipe installation, isn’t that,

195) right? A. We reduced the dip in our éracker pipe.

(). Very materially?) A. Yes, very materially.

(). Doctor Otte, in this cracker dip type, | believe vou

call it—T have been calling it the bell-miouth type, but vou

ne what Tmean— A. 1 know what youcmean,

The construction of your [flare-mouth | patent in suit.

W c ‘nthe gas was forced through the eracker pipe and out

under the bell-shaped terminal, that gas picked up a lot of

hyuer and carried it up into the space above the terminal

in the form of aspray, did it not? A. Yes.

And that was before Vour invention of the spray type

patent? A. In every cracker pipe saturator when gas

habbles through a liquor something is carried up.

QM. Yes. A. That's right.

Q). Bnutoas Tounderstand the theory of vour belb-type or

Hhinve-tyy of cracker pipe, vou got the gas further away

and gave a wider-— A. Contact.

(196) (Continuing )--eontact., because veur vas es.

eaped from a much wider end of the pipe than it did with-

out the bell, is that right?) A. That’s right.

Q). And now vou also called in that patent for the gas

soing down at great velocity, isn't that right?-

The Witness: -[ didn't vet that.

Q. You pumped vour gas through this cracker pipe on

the [flare-mouth| patent at sufficient velocity to pick up

Hyior and spray itup through the space above the surface

of the liquor bath, did vou not?) A. Well, [did not inerease,

especially, the velocity.

Q). You used enough velocity to pick up the liquor and

carry if up as a spray into the space above the liquor bath

surface? AL Well, but my purpose was reany to make it

w horizontally and contact the liquor, |

Carl Otte —For Plaintiff—Cross. : ..

QJ. Doesn't your patent talk about picking up the liquor

and carrying it up in a cevser effeet! AL That is done in

every eracker pipe saturatgr, always parts of the liquer

are carried up above the bath.

Q. When you brought, as Punderstand you, your seeond

patent, the lower edge of the cracker pipe up near the sur

face of the liquor bath, the vas passing under that

(190) surface would piek up iiore liquer and carry it up

Inte the space above the surface of the bath, would it not?

. Palo net think that Thad that imomind. Toenty had= in

mind to a place, the contact time, of a eracker pipe

saturator, whieh, in the old type, is dome vertieally, now

Ina herizontal way.

Revardless of what vou were shooting at, will vou

look at Figare Goef vour second patent in-suit! AL Figure

The Court: When vou speak of the second a nt,

da vou toean the moore recent one?

\lr. Brown: The Thorpe Peeent one, Vers, amd it i.

the second patent he put im suit, and what Peal

the bed paouth.

The Court: You are talking about

Mr. Brown: The patent that emds in) 74.

The Conrt: 794. all right. Figure 6?

Mr. Brown: Figure 6, at the bottom of Sheer.

Q). Have vou that before vou, Doetor? AL Ves. Db lave

it before me, Figure @.

QQ. Doesn't that Figure 6 show that the gas passing under

the bottem of the eracker pipe and up through the Hauer

bath picked up, liquerin the form oof a spray and took it mp

Inte the free space ahowe the bath? AL Tt shows that the

liquer particles are carried away (1s) but this san

pieture vou will have in any eracker pape saturator,

Q. Wouldn't it be more so in the particular one where

STi

Carl Otto— For Plaintiff—Cross.

the cracker pipe was not immersed as deeply? A. No, a

do not think that it is more.

Q. You think it would be the same with any cracker

pipe? AL Tt would be the same with any,

Q. You think you could get that same spray if vou had

the eracker poly ite thirty-tive inches below the surface of the

bath? AL Yes, because what vou mentioned there is new

totue. Tt is quite interesting to get vour idea. }

(Phen with all eracker pipe installations the gas pass.

moup threngh the liquid has carried a spray up into the

~putce ahewe the surface of the liquor, if T understand vou

correetiy, now? AL Yes, te a certain distance, and that is

the regsem why every eracker pipe saturater, or all

“aturators, have to use acid exteher, or vou ean also call it

cnentrainment catcher,

Q). Dr. Otte, what do vou understamd to be a pray in

the sense of aliquid passed through a gas?

The Witness: You mean what | call i spray?

CIN OQ. Yes What do you mean and what do’ vop

Inderstand by the word ‘spray’ in vour patent? AL A

ahdividing of liquor, ora subdividing of aestream of liquor

im stomall paarticdes.

(F Then af the liquor passed through the gas chamber

mostnall particles it was a spray.as that right? A. That

lL would met say. TP say in the spray vou subdivide the

quer um stall particles,

Q) Well, would you say that amy means that breaks up

jostream oof Tiquer ante stuall particles in the gas chamber

in a spray?

A. No. TP wouldn't say that, because a ~pray

is tostive a spray nozzle when vou have special means te

hinewe this,

Q. When seu water vour dawn with an ordinary garden

bese do yeu call that a spray? A. That's a spray.

Carl Otto-—-for Plaintiff —Cross.

Q. When vou take a showerbath and have an ordinary

head there to divide the water into a stream, do ydu q

that aspray? A. That depends, because you have s

bath with a spray and von have other showerbay

ample, the older ones which are more like g#hower that

means sinall openings. | wouldn't call hee ny. |

Q. You didn’t invent anything yourself in regard to

(200) sprays or spray nozzles, so'far as your patent on the

Ray type saturator is concerned, did you? A, No. In

connection With the spray type saturators, no, | did not in-

vent a new design of a spray.

Q. As a matter of fact, the sprays that vou used and

referred to im your patent, and that vou use in vour

saturators, had been on the open market and on sale long

before vour alleged date of invention in the spray patent,

ix that right?) A. That’s right,

Q. And vou sitnply bought them - vourself and.put them

in vour saturator, so to speak?) A. That’s right.

“Q. And you can buy them-—they will give vou most any

kind of sprays vou Want-—can’t vou-—course sprays, fine

sprays? A. That’s right.

(}. Streams, mists, atomiizers, or what not? A. That’s

right. — ‘ | .

Q. And that was ali well long before anything vou claim

inseither patent? A. That's right, 7

(). Now, Dottor, Po notice in vour patent vou oak of

serubbers in serubbing space. What do vou una. and by

(201) ‘teas serubber?*’* A. TP understand inctthe gas serub-

ler, the space where the gas domes in contact with the

fiquid where it: wants to he contacted with.

Q. For the plrpose of taking something out af the gas?

A. Yes, for the purpose of taking. Something out, or for

cooling, ‘You can take out something ahemically, or vou

ean use for absorption, like vou have, for example, sérub-

‘bers for the benzol washers. :

® ,

eae ; .

| Carl Otto-—For Plaintiff—Cross.

Q). Well, doesn’t the word **scrubbing’’ unpiy cleaning

or taking something out?) A. That’s right.

(202) Q. | think in one of your previous answers, Doc-

tag Otto, yvoutsaid you were familiar with scrubbers. A.

That's right. A

(). Before any date we are concerned with here. A,

What is that? :

(). Before any date of invention that you claim in your

{ spray patent in suit? A. That's right.

().-And those serubbers involved spraying = liquids

through a chamber containing gas. A. That’s right.

And you knew that liquor was sprayed through gas

teoserub it, by which E mean taking something out of the

ves. Is that right?) A. That's @yht. .

Q. Didn’t you also know that in connection with am-

monia ga, sprays had been employed for bringing liquid

into comact with the gas for removing ammonia from -

coke oven gas?) A. Only with packed towers, using water

‘as absorbing. liquor, and similar, to take ammonia out of

tre coke oven gas.

(). That's all that you knew about the use of (205)

<praygng something through coke oven gas? A. Taking

out ammonia from the gas. _

(). That was the extent of your knowle edge, and that was

the basis upon which vou stated what vou believed to he

iin invention. Is that correct?! A. You know from omy

invention there are several othef iteaus which jare? also

mneluded. ;

Q. | am.talking only about the spraying of a liquid

such as sulphurie act solution through coke oven gas. As

[understand your answer, vou said that you were famuil

iar with spraving water. A. That’s right.

Through coke oven gas in packed towers, A. That's

right.

Q: And that was all you knew about the spraying of

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff —Cross.

sulphurie acid solution through coke oven gas? A. Not

sulphurie acid solution,

Q. Well, of any solution except water?) A. Yes, sir.

Q. That's myht? A. That's right.

Q. It was upon that basis that vou drew the specifica-

tions describing the subject matter which you have pat.

ented by this spray patent in suit. Do you (204) under-

stand? A. No, I did yor,

(. Put it this way: You have told us all that you knew

about spraying in connection with coke oven was at thy

time vou filed your application for the patent ino suit,

999,009. A. That’s right.

(209) (). Now, Doctor, the essential feature of the Otte.

spray saturator, as vou understand it, is the spraying oi

sulphuric acid through an unobstructed space through

Which coke oven gas passes, isn’t it?) AL This spraying is

not of sulphurie acid. The spraying of an acidified am

monium sulphate solution through an unobstructed space.

Q. Well, as [understand it, vou have modified my state

ment by defining the liquid that is spraved to be an acid:

fied solution of sulphurie acid containing ammonium sul

phate, (210) A. That is right.

.Q. Is that right?) A. That is right. T changed it.

Q. New the liquid vou ‘are talking about is mother

liquor that Jas previously passed hrough the saturator

and has been drawn off at some place and then is remis

“culated. Usn'tothat right? A. That is right.

(). So that the essential feature then is spraying liquor

containing sulphuric agd’ and ammonia sulphate ersstal-

through coke oven gas.- Ts that right? A. Not maint

Sulphurie abwhe but mainly mother Tiquer eontain nes ers

tals, this disaivr bere acid) fed with -alphurte aefd. Sul

phurie aed js a small proportion of this liquor,

Carl Otto—For Piaintiff—Cross.

— - ‘

(). Well, the liquor that is circulated in your spray type

of saturator is simply a part of the mother liquor that has

already been used, is it?) A. That's right.

(). Plus the addition of some sulphuric-acid? A. That

is right,

(). To make up for what has been lost by ammoniun:

sulphate crystals that have been removed? A. That is

right. <?

(LIE) Q. And that same kind of mother liquor existed

m the eracker pipe saturators, as | understand it.) [Ts that

right? A. What? ‘

Q. The same kind of mother liquer also resulted from

the use of the eracker pipe saturator? A. It is the same

type of mother lajuor as in a cracker pipe saturator.

Q). So what foam coming at and vetting to, with. some

cireuuvention as part of my mistake, sir, is that the real

crux of the invention which vou are asserting is the spray-

ng of acertain type of liqaor through coke oven gas con-

taining ammonia top the purpose of removing the am:

nonin. Isn't that right? -. That is right.

() Now the question TP was leading up t6, the auxiliary

wiatters apparatus such as tar Catchers, acid) catchers,

crystal separntors, crystal graders, and so forth, is con-

ventional apparatus not peculiar to spray type of satura-

torsatall Isn'tthat right? A. That's right.

(8 And such apparatus was old and’ well known in the

ertoamd can be of any conventional type, a> TP understand

it. (212) A. Haight ;

Q. And can be positioned at any partrenlar place in the

ne-taiiation that is comvement and engineermiv satis.

factory. obs that right? A -Right

Qo And not dependtnt upon anv invention on vour part

is to Where they are placed’ A. These additional parts

rrenot part of mv construetion,

(3. So that what vou really want to do by asserting this

060 patent is to prevent everybody els

~~ Carl Otto—For Plaintiff—«ross.

/ from spraying

mother liquor through coke oven ges in an unobstructed

space. Isn’t that right? A. That i& in so far right as we

do not want anybody to do this without cooperation with

us.

Q. Doctor, some of your claims, and some of your argu-

ments In connection with this 067 patent referred to a

whirling spraying. What do you understand by a whirling

spray as used in the practice of your invention—your al-

leged invention? .9 A whirling spray in the process of

iny construction is the spray that is mentioned by name

in thecappleation made by me personally, as a Spraco

spray.

Q). All you meant by spe aking of whirling spf¥ay in (215)

the argument to the patent office was "is you used :

Spraco nozzle for producing the spray? That is iat t.

But the same principle af this spray you ee also in the

spray construction of Spraying System in Chicago. — It

means that the liquor in the spray gets a whirling motion.

Q. While it is in the nozzle? A. Yes, that is right.

Q. And afier it gets out of the nozzle, does it move

in a spiral path er straight path; that is the individual

particles of liquor? A. By the power of energy the drops

are separated in suiall! parts by this whirling actton.

Q. Isn't it a fact that as soon as they are released —

the nozzle and the gpiral passage in the nozzle, that eé

drop is thrown out in a straight line ‘direct, and not a

spiral like a corkserew?) A. | certainly think it is not a

straight line, because by ¢ravity already vou get the power,

so under no circumstances is it a straight) line.

(J. The individual particle, when it leaves the nozzle,

would travel in’a straight line except as gravity may tend

to draw it towards the earth, or currents of gas might

move it sideways, but otherwise it moves (214) ina straight

line. Is that right? A. T eould not decide that. T think

453

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff—Cross!

these special companies, if vou are interested in that, they

will tell you what these drops de. T know that the drops

by this power of energy are separate and in small par-

ticles, Which is the object of tiny construction ;

(). If vou will take a wheel and dip one edge of it in

water and whirl it very rapidly it will pick up water and

throw it off in the form of drops, won't it? A. I didn’t

understand that.

(). If vou take a wheel and dip the lower edge of it in

water— <A. Yes, : ‘

(). —and then rotate the wheel very rapidly, it will pick

up liquor— <A. Yes.

(). ~ and throw it off, or some of it off, in the form of

drops. You will admit that, | assume? A. That's right.

Q. And those drops travel in a straight line tangentially

to the cireumference of the wheel. Don't vou know ‘that

as an engineer and chemist? A. It will move.

- Q. And the tangent—(215) A. Not to the radius.

(). If they move tangentially they mowe in a straight

line after they leave the wheel?) A. Not a straight line,

imeause of gravity, it will be influenced fy that.

Q). Yes, of course. A. It is not a straight line.

(). If veu shoot a buallet— AL A bullet also.

~Q. Wait a minute. Let me set it up before vou knock

t down, You said if you have a rifle barrel positioned

absolutely ‘iorizontal and vou fire a bullet out of it, the

bullet will start off ina straight line but will’he depressed

bv cravitv’ A. That is righit. .

() And will have a curve. Is that right? A. That is

right.

Q.- Now you can’t shoot a builet out of a rifle and make it

soinacorkserew course? A. No, .

(). Can you make it go ina spiral course? -A.L You can

if vou give the bullet a special shape. 5

(9. And that would be caused by friction with the air?

16) A. That's right.

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff—Cross.

Q. Like a baseball thrown by a good pitcher? A. That’s

right.

Q. The curve is caused by whirling of the ball in the air?

A. That’s right.

Q. But except for that, it would go in a straight line,

except as gravity or wind changed its direction, wouldn't

it? A. That’s right.

Q. And the same would be true of drops coming out

of a spray, wouldn't it?) A. Well, if you disregard—.

4). Disregard gravity and disregard currents of air, it

would go in a straight line? A. That’s right, it would.

Q). Doctor, it is a fact, isn’t it, that the need for handling

more and more coke oven gas has grown in the last ten

years as the steel industry has grown in capacity, and

the demand for steel?) A. The need for getting more and

more gas?

(). In other words, the production of coke oven gas is

proportional to the production of steel. Isn’t that right?

217) A. That’s right.

Q. And there has been a growing need for more and

more coke ovens, or particularly for coke, and = conse-

quently more and more coke oven gas to be handled.

Ixn't that right? A. That’s right.

(220) Q. You knew Mr. Underwood up at the Bethle-

hem Steel Company? A. Bee pardon? He is dead.

Q. You did know him? A. Yes.

Q). He was superintendent of the coke oven pkant? A.

He was superintendent of the coke oven and by-product

pi@at? ‘

Q. And you installed the ‘re one of thes se cracker pipe

A. Two.

(221) Q. —installations? A. Two eracker pipe satura:

tors, | Yo

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff—Cross.

Q. And then later-vou installed a spray type saturator

or saturators? A. That is correct.

Q. Well, now, did you know that Mr. Underwood had

himself prior to any time you were at Bethlehe “m, put spray

pipes inside of ammonia saturators at the hy- aegis oven

of the Bethlehem Steel Company at Bethlehem? Did you

know that?) A. No, I did not know that. | heard of this

first by the deposition at Bethlehem.

Q. You had never heard ofthat before? A. | had never

heard of it.

Q. You do know now what it was, don't you? A.?

know the deposition. |

Q. You have seen the drawings of it. haven't vou, the

drawings of the spray pipes put in by Mr. Underwood? A,

No, I don't remember that. 1 only semember the depesi-

tion,

Qe the depositions had with them exhibits which were

drawings of the Bethle hem Steel Cowgpany showing =pray

pipes put into the space above the liquor level in the am-

monia saturators, (222) A. I did not see these drawings.

only got from™Mr. Morton the deposition. |

Q. You never even saw— ~ A. The written deposition. I

saw that.

_Y. You never saw those drawings? Ned didn't see the

drawings. .

Q. Then I cant very well ask about them-— A. No.-

you can't. ;

Q. —-at-this moment. Doctor, the taking of ammonia

fas out-of coke oven vas is by having <u! Iphurie acid solu

tion brought into contaet with the gas containing atmitnonia.

ixthat right? A. That os right:

Q.. And when brought inte contact the reacting takes

place in which the sulphurie acid and ammonia combine

to form ammonium sulphate. Is that-right? A. That's

right,

—

Carl Otto—-For Plaintiff Cross.

Q. And ammenium sulphate is a solid, a erystal? A.

That is right. —~.

Q. And to bring about this reaction and to take the

ammonia out of gas, it is desirable to bring the gas into

as intimate contact with the liquid containing sulphuric

mage 8 A, That’s right.

223) Q. —as possible? A. That's right.

Q. The het ‘tter the surface contact of ig with the liquid,

the quicker the reaction takes place. Is ) thar’ right? A.

That's right. |

Q. Is it not a fact that a spray of dividing liquid: inte

fine particles and forcing it through a gas is the most eff.

cient — means of bringing ligtid into contact with a

gas? A. It is one means.

Q). Do vou know of a better means? A. Well, we have,

like in the cracker pipe saturator, vou have the bubbling

through like the bubbling towers. Your contact can be

doye in many ways.

My question was, isn’t the spray way the most. effi-

cient Way of bringing the gas and liquid into surface con-

tact, to your knowledge as an engineer_and chemist? A,

| would say it is one way but | don t ak i is the most

eferent way. \

Q). Well, was it not to vour knowledge prior to the time

that vou claim to have made the invention of this spray

tvpe patent, known to vou that one way used by (224)

chemists was to spray a liquid through a vas where there

Was to be a reaction or a scrubbing of the gas by the liquer

-reaction with or scrubbing by the was——let me rephrase

that.

Didn't vou know as an engineer prior to sav 1940 that

ehemists bad long used the sprav method of bringing a

liquid into intimate contact with a gas? A. T knew that

sprays were used, but [ also knew that in the past all

chemists and engineers knew that there had to be done

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff—Cross.

niostly something additional to get the effect of the real

contact, and for this packed towers were used in the past

in invest scrulsbers, and there were many inventions made

on the type of filling used in these packed towers.

Q. Didn't you know that benzol had been scrubbed out

by spraying a liquid through a gas which was not packed,

trough gas in a space that was not packed? A. No, that

was not known to me, | knew veryemany different pack-

ings used in benzol towers where you wanted a very inti-

inate contact, because the absorption c* the benzol is not

quite as fast as we‘would like jt to be.

Q. Then do I understand that your knowledge at the

tune you applied for the O67 spray type patent in suit

(2t5y did not include knowledge that the spraying of a

liguid through a gas for the purpose of scrubbing it or

creating a reaction between ingredients of the gas and

bquid, vou didn’t know that that process had been used?

A. That u@t was the vest process to be used, [ did not

know, ,

The Court: He didn’t ask vou if it was the best.

He asked vou if you knew those had been used?

A. I knew that sprays were used in open spaces like

for example in the cooling main where it was impossible

te use packings.

Q). Then you knew that sprays had been used in unob-

structed chambers containing gas where it was desired for

the diquid to have some effeet on the vas? A. That"

right, and | knew that this effeet was not too efficient. |”

QM. Do vou think the spray type saturater as now made

by the Otto Company is more efficient in bringing liquid

into contact with ammonia gas than similar use of sprays

n unobstructed spaces before vour invention?

The Court: Do you understand the question?

A. No, don’t quite see.

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff—Cross.

The Court: Please read the question.

Thereupon the question was pead.

(226) A. I only think it is perhaps more efficient be-

cause here we use the contact between ammonia and sul-

phurie acid. Other sprays in other use have to be designed

differently. |

Q. Then is there anvihing about the way youuse sprays

through an unobstructed space filled with coke oVen gas

that makes your spray any more efficient than other sprays

that have been similarly used for treating gas in an open

space? A. You-know they also built benzol scrubbers with

sprays. They have to be designed differently. So you

have to design everything, every apparatus in the right

way,

i (). Now, apse do vou think that is an answer to my

question? Do vay seriously think that? A. Because |

don’t quite get your\question.

Mr. Morton: \ have some difficulty too.

The Court: Let’s have it read. It was not the

court’s idea that it was responsive.

Thereupon the question was read.

Mr. Morton: If IT may inject, [ find it difficult to

understand exactly what the word **efficient’* means

in that sentence. If 1 understand the Doctor's tes-

timeny correctly, he has said that Me answer de-

pends upon the (227) applieation—that is, the basic

fluids and gases being dealt with. Perhaps vou have

some inore general meaning for the term efficient

that would let us get an answer, 3

Mr. Brown: Well, there is nothing holy about

the word efficient. You may take effe elive, or any

synonym you wish.

The Witness: You want—

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff—Cross.

Q. | want to know if you have done something and

taught something in your patent that makes the use of the

spraying of a solution.of sulphuric-acid through coke oven

gas more effective, more efficient, more valuable or differ-

ent In any way from pgior spraying of sulphuric acid solu-

tions through coke even gas, and we will prove that that

has been done, | think. A. In this general way. | could

hot answer that question.

Q. [don’t know whether you mean there is no difference

or Whether vou can't answer thé quesgon, T don’t know

what you mean. A. | can’t answer it bedguse you want to

compare this with ether art such as benzol serubber in

ficieney. Fdo not know how to do that to mv best knowl-

edge, ;

The Gourt: That was not my understanding of

your (225) question, Mr. Brown. Let’s have it

read,

Thereupon the question was read as follows: **]

want to know if you have done something and taught

something in your patent that makes the use of the

spraying of a solution of stlphurie acid through coke

oven gas more effective, more efficient, more valuable

or different in any way from prior spraying of sul.

phurie acid solutions through eoke oven gas, and we

will prove that that has been done, [I think.’

The Court: He ix confining his question to the

spraying ef sulphuric acid solution through coke

oven vas in both instances, as IT understand.

Mr. Brown: That's right, sir.

I would vike to say that | do not spray sulphurie

acid solution, i spray an acidified solution of saturated

ammonium sulphate solution containing crystals through

an unobstructed space.

Carl Otto—Feor Plaintiff—Cross.

Q. This definition vou have given of the acidified solu

tion means simply that it is the mother liquid that is pro

duced in saturators, isn’t it?) A. That is right.

(2. Is there anything in your patent in the way you

(229) do it, or the apparatus used, that gives any differ

ent effect to spraying the mother liquid through coke oven

gas as distinguished from other cases where mother liquid

is sprayed through an open space containing coke oven

gas?

Mr. Morton: My objection to that is that this

Witness has said he knew of no such other case,

so if you would define one such other case, 1 am

sufe he would make a comparison for you.

Mr. Brown: ! think maybe we are getting no

where beeause | think the witness—what | was

‘ving to vet°at was whether or not there was

spmething in the patent, that he had done some.

thing thet changed the prior ert spray, ¢ of liquid

though a gas in order to produce a tecetion be-

the liquid and the gas for which ne coald

vet the benefit. If it does exactly the same thing

it always did when you Spraved liquid) through

vas, then | am going to argue there is nothing to

it, Just using it the way it had always been used

with the same effect. T was giving him a chance, |

if there is something particular or peculiar about

what he does in the way of spraying, | am tryine

to find out what it is. That is the purpose ot

my interrogation, ~ will admit it is hard, and ne

eriticism of Doctor Otto. LT have no (230) eritieisn

of him. IT think we do have a little trouble wit!

our respective background of languages. He doesn’t

quite understand me and at times [ don’t quite

understand him, but [T am not inferring in- th:

slightest devree any reflection on the Doetor.

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff—Cross.

The Court: 1 am not sure whether the Doctor

is trying to draw some distinction between the acidi-

fied solution of sulphurie acid, which he repeats, and

the solution of sulphuric acid. Perhaps that is the

vist of the difference between vou. | am not sure.

I} oqiust confess [To oam confused at some of the

answers.

Mr. Brown: The point you make, sir, T tried

to cover by asking hin if what he meant by the

acidified liquor was the mother liquor produced

in any—

The Court: And he went through that at some

length earlier in his cross examination, and then

you seemed to think If was necessary to interrogate

him further with reference to that difference. In

each instance he says well it isn’t the spraying

of sulphuric aeid through the gas. [It is spraying

acidified solution of sulphurie acid. Ts that it?

Mr. Morton: That’s right.

The Court: Is that the correct terminology?

Mr. Morton: The Doctor’s last answer was that

he (231) was-spraving an aeidified saturated solu-

tion of ammoniam sulphate containing crystals into

an unobstructed space.

The Court: Yes. But it is something he vets

from the mother liquor some place.

Mr. Morton: That's right, vour Honor. It comes

rignt out of the lath at the bortom as shown by the

patent drawingsand if Tounderstand and as T recall,

when asked about whether that mother liquor was

net pretty muck othe same thing, he said it) was.

Now the question is whether it was ever sprayed in

this manner before. Tf that is the question,

The Court: | wonder whether we are all together,

and | am not sure vet.

§2

Carl Otto-—For Plaintiff-—Cross.

Mr. Brown: [| am certainly not trying to confuse

the Doctor or quibble. 1 was trying to%get it

straightened out so we would be all meaning the

same thing.

The Court: That's what we are all trying to do,

get at the elaimlof the Doctor as to his invention,

and what it covered.

Q. Doctor, you don’t add anything to the acidified liquor,

as you used the term, in order to produce what is sprayed

into the unobstructed space in carrying out your patented

process, do you? (232) A. Ne, |b do net add anything

besides the replacing always of sulphuric acid in reward

to the absorption of anunonia. Nothing is added otherwi-

to the bath.

Q. In other words, vou take out of the mother liquor at

some stage a drawoff and you take that up to your sprays

and force it down through the gas. A. That is right.

Q). Without the addition or subtraction of anything «x

cept perhaps the addition of sulphuric acid to maintain a

certain desired strength of solution. A. That is right.

Q). Ix that correct, sir! A. That is right.

Q. | will ask one other question. You say ammonium

erystals are in the acidified solution that vou spray. Those

are in there inherently in the mother liquor at the place

where vou take it off, isn’t itt AL Right.

Q. You don’t put them inf A. No.

Y. You don’t manufacture them for that purpose? A.

No.

(Q. They are there and they have always been there if

you took liquor off at that point in any such (233) arrange

ment? A. Also the eracker pipe arrangement,

(). Yes, the cracker pipe or any other type. A. Richt.

HN;

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff-—Cross.

(236) Q. Just to avoid confusion, | will say that in refer-

S37) ring te your spray type saturator in your examina.

tion |oam referring to the Wheeling Noppers saturator

hat is charged to infringe your patent No. 2,049,000. | Ts

that your understanding, Doctor! A. That's my under-

standing.

( And when Po have referred or will refer to your

cracker pipe type of saturator, fam referring to the strue-

tune shown im your patent in suit Ne. 2425 cos. Ts that

your understanding?) A. That's my understanding.

Q. Tam putting this in beeause Mr. Morton referred to

jt as a center dip type and To refer te it as a bell-meuth

"pe. but we are talking about these two saturators covered

by the two patents in suct, one of whieh is the spray type

and the other of which is the eracker pipe. AL Yes, sir.

Q. Now, Doctor, maybe we ean get together on some

fundamentals whieh may be already in the record but seat

tered through various places, and so Tam going to ask you

certain qfestions to see af we can agree on certain funda-

mentals. As bunderstand it, the remeval of ammenia fromm

coke owen ats A. That’s rucht. :

Q. Now, let me finis! my question, please. Maybe (20s)

vou won't agree when P get through. «(Continuum ques

tion)-—the removal of ammonia gas frei coke oven yas in

the saturaters we are talking about ts bw bringing the gas

into contact with the sulphuric acid solution, the sulphuric

acid and the ammonia reacting to form ammonium sul

phate, is that right?) A. That’» right.

(). And | belewe it is established by the record that to

bring this reaction about it is necessary te bring the coke

oven gas inte contact with the surface of liquid contaming

sulphurie acid. is that right?) A. That’. richt.

Q. And TP obelteve we ean also aeree that the reaction

takes place more rapidly and more effectively the greater

the contact of the eas with the surface of the liquid: con-

taining sulphurie acid, is that right? A. That's right.

4 e

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff—Cross.

(). And that has been common knowledge lont prior to

any dates we are coneerned with here, is tuat right? te

-That’s right. | : |

Q. Can we agree that the greatest surface e¢ of a liquid,

of a given amoypt. of liquid, with a gay coat be produced by

dividing the liquid ap into ‘sniall partic les, as ee

from liquid in a basin or pool, is that night? ({289) 4

didn’t get that. . /

Mr. Brown: Will oe: Te ad it, and if you. don’t

understand it please say 46 and I will try to make

itclear, . .

Thereupon, the elton wes real, fh

A. The bigeest surface can, be ac higved by: ‘sulptividing

the liquid in small partic ‘les, that’s right. *

Q. And if you take a given amount of liquidy the finer

the particle into which itis divided the greater stirface

contact of liquid there is available for conwaet with the gas

through which the ices passes, is that: right? A. ess

is right. .” , es

. Q. In other words, a "fine spray’ of a given, amount of

liquid gives vou a sreater surtace contact of liquid: and

vas than a very coarse spray. A. That is right.

Q. And the surface of any. liquid divided into drops or

particles is greater for a given amount of liquid the finer

eiteas divided, is that right? A. That is right.

Q). In other words, if you took a globule the size of a

baseball, assuming that that cquld be done-—which, of

course, is not true--and divide it inte four, the same

V4 qameunt of Liquid, info four spheres, rou woud have

toore surface Ay You talk always about) the “same

rount

GQ. Letome finish, please, Continuing questiond-- vou

would have mere surfeee of the quid than vou avould has

im the figuad an a simarly sphere to A. Vhat’s right.

Car! Otto—For Plaintiff—Cross.

Q. NOW, all of this was known to chemists and physicists

before any date we are concernedowith here, | assume? A.

fis mathematical, : ae &

(Q). It’s just mathematical, and it’s ph\sies, isn’t it? A,

That’s right.

Q). Known to any engineer or physicist or ‘oathemuti-

cian? .A. That is right.

Q. It-is a geometrical proposition, im°effeet? AL No

answer, Bete © | ‘ e

Q. Two spheres having the ~aine ,Vollineg as one spheres.

jrould have more surface than a <ifizele ~pher® as | oander-

stand it? *A. ‘Phatls right,

Q. Now, Doctor, can we agree that there is no (241)

patticular virtue to the word ‘spray’? alone when applied

to Liquid whieh-ts exposed in divided form: to gas for’ the

“purpose of treating the vas with the liquid, either for

absorption or for reaction of} chemicals -in ‘the gas and

liquid? Tf vou don’t understand the question we will have

itread. A. You say was a ¥irtue—

Thereupon, the question was read.

The Witness: TP don't understand, a virtue of the

spray should be. What do vou gean by this.

Q.. Well, whether vou call it a spray or not, if te liquid

ix in finely divided form and-the gas is passed through a

chamber where the divided yiidl alse passes, it doesn’)

tatke any difference whether vou eall ita spay or call it

some other name, does it, as far as your patent iS on

corned? AL The patent, | think, reads ‘ton sprays."’

(). Weil, if Vou could divide Vour hud hy any IeOALS,

Whether by spras nozzle or otherwise, so that smal] par

hieles ofthe diqgud were exposed te the gas, the result world

« the same whether vou eall ita spray or not? That is me

int. A. Well, | think in-my patent preee:< PE onl} hav

: ri)

Carl Otto--For Plaintiff Cross.

used sprays spray nogdles. 1 think flat makes if tor

(242) definite. ;

Q. Cant you answer ms question as te Whether or pet

the result would be the same whether you produced th:

particles by a spray nezzg or by other tears, provided

the particies of liquid) were passed through the gas? A

Well, | think if has been proven already Yhat even spray

nozzles vive different results, so if you would: use othe

means. Which bas te be just studied and tested, that that

will be the same result.

Q). The ultimate object of amy team used to brine on

into contact with breguired in finely divided form i. the ex

y, .

posure of the gas to the surhace of the liquidas that rhe?

A. That is right. =

Q.- And your patent refers to the use of both fine spriy:

and coarse sprays, and either one can he used te secure the

results vou aimed at im veur patent, ts that right? A.

That is right, or, PE wou'd like to say. as [rete tiber, I

my patent Prefer te tha course sprays at the exit 1 aehiey:

an additional purpose te hit oft of the sais the stnailer ey

trained droplet. nike ‘ A

-Q. In other words) vou inean for certain purposes at

-eertain locations vou cvish a coarse spray and at other:

(243) vou may desire ading spray? MV. That is right,

Q. Now, isn’t it also a faet that in the spray coming out

of nozzles, such as vou deseribe in your patent, there ar

globules of liquid of varying sizes? AX. -That’s right,

Q. You can’t produce hy any ricnns knaywn to van:

spray in which allot the globules of Hepat are exnethy tf

SHR Az, ean vou? OA. Exactly the same size, | rasnot.. J

wonld <ay in every spray the particles always differ oan

some way. You always have bigver de haates amed stanties

eomiung out of the same sprays ’

Q). [In other words, it’s a kind of ramen size that cor

cout f othe ~PITALN there ore toatl onAs and there oa

By ere ereep re Te

Cari Otto | or Plarintith Cross

ceorones? A. That's right. Inoimy patent | think [aise

haik didaout the averuve <1ze.

W. Oy that vou mean voutwould add up the sizes of the

tieoonts and the bay ones and divide ty two and yet an

vernv@? A. That's mht.

Q. Aid all of that was known to users of smrays and

oravy nozzles prior to any date we are concerned wath

here, (244) was itcnet’ AL TP do net think it was known tn

coobibecctpom mhoaur DrOCess, beaa tine | think otherw inecother

wople would fave used ait

1) Well, Doetor det. don’t argue that, What Towant te

eof anatase that phvaterets, chemists anid CITC ES, bre MW That,

% Sr re

nozzles prodiiced variving sizés of viobules of livid that ae

poured through those nozzles before Vou migade what

con eall your spray type saturator ynvention? AL Well,

could say that the people. the acompamiés, who brilt these

-pras nozzles, thea knew that, that they could deliver ta the 8

eistomers spray nozzles for different globule.

(). And. as acmatter of facet, they advertised before nv

date we are concerned with here, that they were prepared

to furnish nozzles to produce’ any desired fineness. or

conrseness of spray of Liquid forced through those nozzles,

that right? AJ TL have not scen that these cormpanie-

advertised just that thes could give different fineness, that

when we talked with therm that we had this difference in

ize to face they wave us there advice,

Q. The word “Sprace’’ has been used. That's a trade

name oof the spray company whieh specaalybd in making

Moray (245) nmegales, is that right? Al Phat is meht,

QO. That’s what we mean when we sav Spracc? A

Sprace, Pt’s welbkqown on the Proited States, a

Oo Ane for the purpose of ernbody ing vour atlewed in

vention ven went to the Sprace Coiypany and’ bought Bie

orate Whe tev had previousty heen soaking and selling

r produciny -praved diguor forced through the neazzte,

«4 } , a oe er ? os a

hat rignt \. That*’s right

be 0 + -

Carl Otto —For Plamtiff—Cross.

(). Now, Doctor, vesterday several times in reply to ques

tions vou spoke of using an acidified liquor for spraying

Into Vout spray type saturater. Just what do you mea

by “acidified ?”” A, By “werditiel liquor’? TP mean am.

nonin sulphate liquor saturated, which Contains a cer

tain percentage of acid,

Q. And the acid’ was squlphurie acid?) AL Sulphuric acid.

Q). Then isn’tat fair to sav that when vou said ‘acids

fied." vou meant that the liquor cou spreved there con

tained sulpharte acid? A. That's right. It contains, ier

exatuple, heoween one and a half te ten, or even a few per

cent taoresate ad.

(240) Qo Aad when vou took tnother liquor from Sentiy

place an othe dime of piping or the settlement basins and

earrted if to the top of vour saturatory adding sulphuric

acid as needed, vou produced an acidified liquor, did) vou

not? e

The Witness: What was the be eMning ?

The reupon, the question was read.

eee aren

Let me change the word “produced? to you had an

acidified liquor.’ A. [bats right. To had an acidified. |

oe produce i by pumping it out. /

And in the old eracker pipe inst: Nations, oo nother

east Was an aeiditied lnguor, was it not? A. That was

an aeidified liquor,

(). Now, Doctor, vour claims and the specification of vour

spray type patent referred to spraying liquid) througs:

wnmonia gas in oan unobstructed space. What) de you

understand and what did voa meen by the word: ‘tunel:

structed Jas applied to that parti@ular space? Aw First,

i didn’t spray the liquor, You @nid ammonia through coke

oven gas space? .

2.3

Thereapon, the question was read.

Che Witness: You SAN throuch ammonia ons?

Carl Otto-— For Plaintiff Cross.

(). | don’t care whether it’s simmenia gas or anything

vise. Tam talking akout your patent specification and

247) the claims of your patent in suit on the spray type

efsaturator. A. That referred to spraving a liquid through

a coke oven gas containing ammonia, because, exeuse me,

Mr. Brown, | did net have in mind concentrated ammonia.

0 | think vou are reading intocmy question something |

Taitusn’t there. To want to know what vou meant by an.

jinebstructed space in sour specifieation and claims... A.

hy oan unobstructed space T inean something contrary to

the space as vou find in the old type scrubbers which are

‘ied up with som® grids: or tiles, =

Q. In other words. if Pounderstand correethy, and Pam

asking for information, vou were referring to a saturater

hich did not have grids over whieh the hquid: flowed A:

That’s right.

Q. (Continuing) in order to give surface cexposure to

the gas? 4. Phat ts right. é

Q. You referred to taking those out of the chamber and

depending upon the spray alone? AL Yes, to have an empty

space there,

Q. Well now, would vou say that the cracker pipe strue-

ture of vour eracker pipe phtent here in suit i248) em-

buted an unobstructed space abowe the bath of mother

wuor and remember that vou had a central cracker pipe

estes Ted down through the chanmiber? Al Mv process refers

too spraying Lauer inte an unobstrueted spage A cracker

pipe constrnetion ts absolutely different Som that.

(Now, then, will you answer my question? AL You,

nav’ there not the sorays as T have in my process, + .

Q. Was there an ounehstructed space, in the sense that

onouse tat term oom ‘vour spray type patent, existing in

ur eracker pipe installation? AL No. PT would not sas

Mat.

, al ° ) ge * ;

Q You weruld sav, then, that iff there-was a central

cindrieals member extending down te a Positien around

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff—Cross.

the axis of yoyr spray chamber, that that would be an

obstructed chamber for passage of the ammonia gas

through it? A. No, I would not, because you can see out-

side of the cracker pipe the gas goes up and there it goes

through an empty space, and you might call that unob-

structed. .

Q. Did you say obstructed?) A. Unobstructed.

Q. Do you not regard the space above the bath of (249)

liquor and existing above the liquor bath.as it appears in

the structure of your cracker pipe patent as being an unob-

structed space through which the gas passes? A. Well, |

think that’s unobstructed.

Q. Now, in your cracker pipe patent, you say that when

the gas passes underneath the bell-shaped terminal of the

eracker pipe and around the edge and up through the gas,

it entrains and earries with it globules of the mother

liquor, is that right? A. There is some entrainment car-

ried with the gas. This entrainment does not fill out this

unobstructed space to such an extent that it would remove

the gas to the . xpected efficiency. That means, without us-

ing the contact under the cracker pipe this apparatus would

not give the expected result.

Q. Wil! you agree that the finely divided liquor carried

up into the space which you have said was an unobstructed

_space— A. Yes. |

Q. (Continuing)—in your cracker pipe installation would

have a material affect in removing ammonia from the coke

oven gas that was passed through the eracker pipe and bath

and through the saturator? A. I would not cal! that a.

material affect. I would say that that would have some

effect in addition to (250) the effect achieved by the

contact of the gas with the liquor bubbling thrdugh another

cracker pipe. =

Q. If I understand ven correctly, vou adinit that it would

have some effect, but you say that it would not be sufficient

Sg PTS he

Tet eey ee

bales Sa Kn

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff—Cross.

per se, or alone, to take out all the ammonia, is that what

you mean? A. That's right, it has some; ean be a small

effect.

Q. Well, now, you said in a prior answer that the fine

particles carried up by the gas did not extend—TI forget

what you said, but you intimated they didn't extend up-

ward very far—that is, the spray, or whatever you want

to call it, did not extend through the chamber, is that

right? A. That’s right.

(). Your. patent says that the gas passing under the

mouthpiece of vour cracker pipe carries up mother liquor

to wash the walls of the gas treatment chamber and prevent

salting thereon. Does that not mean that vou considered

that the particles carried up by the gas would extend up

to and put liquid over all of the walls of the chamber? | A.

No, it would not, because when we built our saturators we

had to install special cleaning sprays at the side to keep the

walls clean, so this effect was not really fully achieved as

vou describe it.

(251) Q. I know it’s in vour patent. [ won't look for it.

If your patent says that enough liquor was entrained in

the gas in vour cracker pipe installation to wash the walls

and prevent formation of salt, you now say that is in-

correct? A. Et is incorrect because we found out that still

some cleaning sprays which are supplied with hot water’

respectively with mother liquor had to be used in addition.

Z -

Mr. Brown: I call the Court’s attention to the

eracker pipe patent, Column 12, beginning with line

20, which says:

“The gas moving rapidly through and out of the

emulsified liquor body, B-4, splashes liquor against

the gas space wall at a rate appreciably in excess of

the rate at which bath lavor adherims: to the wall is

evaporated by the gas flosing through the gas space."’

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff—€ross.

Q. That statement is correct, is it not? A. I don’t re-

member it that way.

The Court: Let the witness examine it, Mr.

Brown, please.

The Witness: That is all right, I believe vou,

Mr. Brown, that you read it right.

(252) Thereupon, Mr. Brown handed a document

to the witness,

The Witness: Mr. Brown, from my knowledge

now, | tell you—you want me to—

Q. Yes, go ahead. A. From my knowledge now, I tell

vou that this does not work in this way as deseribed

this patent, that, in addition, cleaning sprays had to be

used.

Q. I believe vou testified yesterday that in all cracker

pipe saturators, even those in 1916 and 1917, the gas

forced down through the cracker pipe and bubbling up

through the basin of mother liquor entrained and earried

up particles of liquid into the gas space above the surface

of the bath, is that right? A. That’s right.

Q. I think. vou said that that was substantially equally

true of the old cracker pipe as compared with your pat-

ented eracker pipe described in the patent in suit? A.

That’s right, because I do not think that this patent in

suit has more entrainment or works in this respect diffe T-

ent from the old type cracker pipes.

(). Well, will vou admit, then, that in all of the cracker

pipe installations the passage of gas through the cracker

pipe and upward through the liquid picked up (253) par-

ticles of liquid and carried them up in the form of smal!

particles into the gas space above the surface of the liquid!

It carries up some, but not sifficient to take care of the

wanted removal of the ammonia from the gas if it could

work alone.

Q But it had a substantial effect in removing ammonia,

did )it not, this, what I will call spray effect of the gas

bubbking through the bath? A. | say not substantial. |

say some effect. ;

Q. This same cracker pipe patent of yours in suit refers

to the use of nozzles through the wall of the tank, | suppose

you would call it, in which the gas is treated for the pur-

_ pose of introducing atomized water sprays, is that night?

. I know it is so.

The Witness ; You talk about our spray saturator?

_Q. No, Tam “talking about your eracker pipe. Whac I

wt pointing out is that you had nozzles provided in the

welll of the tank through poet ‘h vou could introduce water

in the form of fine spray. A. That is not right. | had pro

vided pipe lines inside. These pipe lines had holes, and

the water sprayed, in effect, out of these holes against the

wall.

Q. What kind of nozzles—-

(254) Mr. Morton: Mr. Brown, it might help if

you gave the witness a copy of the patent whieh you

are asking him to talk about (handing document to

the witness).

/The Court: Mr. Morton, you have handed the

Witness a copy ofa patent. You might identify it.

Mr. orton: Copy of the patent, Plaintiff's Ex-

hibit 3, in the case, namels, patent 2,425,794, and

unmarked copy.

Q. The only point, Doctor, that IT had in mind was to

bring out, if it ts a fact, that in 1942 you were familiar

= the use of spray nozzles for atomizing your liquid,

_ | was familiar and knew spray nozzles for atomizing

any iiquid, but we did not use these in this eraeker pipe

Carl Otto-——For Plaintiff—Cross.

saturator for cleaning purpose, because vou will see under

drawing—I think it was given to you about our cracker

pipe saturator for Buffalo—that the pipe lines are pro-

vided with holes and not with spray nozzles, because the

cleaning of the walls is a different purpose. You would

put a cleaning nozzle, for example, also a spray nozzle for

water, in an exit pipe to spray against the wall, but to clean

the walls in our saturator we wanted to make use of the

water in such a way that absolutely most of the water was

sprayed against the wall and not in the space of the

saturator,

(255) Q. Well, the patent will speak for itself and I

don’t want to labor the point because, from my point of

view, it was a minor thing. I merely wanted to show that

you were familiar with the use of atomizing nozzles before

any date claimed for your invention of the spray patent

in suit. A. In general, certajnly | knew atomizing nozzles.

Q. In your deposition, as T recall, you said that when

you decided to make ® saturator depending upon spraying

liquor for removing ammonia gas, one of your problems

was to find a non-clogging spray nozzle, is that right? A.

That was right, because in my process | had to use these

nozzles for a liquor as used in the cracker pipe saturators,

Q. And you solved that problem by going to the spray

company and buying one of their conventional commercial!

nozzles? A. | solved that problean by designing a saturator

and installing Spraco nozzles.

Q. Yes. ‘thé problem Tam talking about was to find a

non-clogging spray nozzle. A. That’s right.

Q. And you found that already on the market, so that

(256) all you had to do was te go out and buy it, is that

right?) <A. Well, that is right, but it) gave still some

thought beeause we know now what the tests male for

example, at Bethlehenn, that nozzles alse clog Uy, and that

these fests were given up and that the whole test was a

failure.

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff—Cross.

Q). Well, I think you are trying to load your answer

up a little, Doctor, and if you would just answer the

question and stop it would please me better. 1 think

was a simple question and that vou answered it in’ the

affirmative, that is, that you solved the problem of findins

a non-clogging spray nozzle by buying a commercial noz-

zie in the open market that had been developed long be-

fore any date we are concerned with here. A. Well, |

could say it was not— ;

| . Q. Can you answer that ves or no! A. No, not in this

way. | have to say it was not quite as easy as you put

it, because it gave us a let of thought: otherwise, this

would have been done certainly long before by many other

engineers,

Q). When you say vou gave it a lot of theucht, was that

uncertainty in your mind as to whether Spraco nozzles

would elog or not clog? A. It was—-we had-to think about

would the Spraco nozzies really do the purpose which we

expected of them.

(207) Q. And that doubt, if that’s what was worrying

you, Was resolved simply by putting them in and trAne

them, is that right?) A. No, we did not, beeause these

Spraco nozzles we used were too big. We could not just

ake a test. We designed the satvrator for Lackawanna.

and we designed it in such a way that in case it would fail

we could always go back to the old type of cracker pipe

saturator. ‘

Q). As IT recall, in your deposition vou said that vou were

uncertain as te whether the Spraco nozzle would work,

and you were very much pleased to find when vou tried it

out in-an installation that it did work and did not elox, is

that right?) A. That's right. We were very pleased chat

the Lackawanna saturator did not give is any treuble at

}

all.

Q. T feel that it might be pertinent te put it in at this

tity

Car! Oito-—For Plainitff—-Cross.

plas sou had nothing whatever to do with the design of

the Spracu nozzles themselves! A. Now The Spraco

noe is ok, =~

Q. Doctor, correct me if Pam wrong, hut my under-

standing is that ammonium sulphate crystals are hard,

Ammonium sulphate erystais are hard. :

Q. Yes. (QDS) A. Certainly, ves.

(3. So that when you force a stream of liquid containing

ammonium sulphate erystals under considerate pressure

vou have an eroding effect? A. That is right.

(). Just like a sand blast on the side of a maarble (wall

to clean it, isn’tit?) A. That is rivht.

Q. And that was one objection to the use of sprays con

taining ammonifim sulphate erystals with lead-lned satu.

rater types, wasn't it? AL | think vou could met build

these nozzles and pipe tines out of lead lining, and T don’t

think they would keep too lone, : '

(). You think lead would be ereded? A. 1 think lead

would be eroded. > We did not iF that out. ;

(). You didn't have anything to dd with tv: wting Monell

roetal or sigiinfess steel, i presume? A. No. | iad nothine

to le with at.

Q. Yor vot those on the open market? A. TP got those

on the open inarket. ;

(). And they are resistant te acid and alse resistant to

epasion, as compared te lead? (259) A. They are.

Q. Doétor, is it fair te say that even in the eracker pipe

art there was a trend towards preducing saturators that

would have less gas pressure differential on the two sides

of the saturater?

ee ~ The Witness: Yeu mean in the cracker pipe

<aturator—

Carl Otta- kar Plaintift C "Fax.

Q). Art. ee

: o< / a Re :

The Witnéss (Contiwuing):-—art, there was a

well, in that way that everybody tried to keep the

dip of the cracker pipe no deeper than necessaYy.

Q. And, as a matter of fact, there was an evolution ins

that art preducing a deercasing pressure differential over

the vers?

The gee 1 didn’t understand you?

vO,

Thereupoh, the question was reed.

Q. In other words, vou yourself have testified that your

eracker pipe structure whieh is described in your cracker

pipe patent im suit very materially pugs the differential

pressure as esinpared to certain older eracker ype in-

siallations. That’s right, ism’t it’) A. a reduced mate

rially, but that was due to as fferent construction of the

cracker pipe. ‘

Q. But there was a very riatergal decrease in the dit

ferential. pressure--( 260) A, By) our construction—

(. (Continuing) -in the eracker pipe art) before the

~pray type Otte installation came in? AL | Couldn't sis

that. Toontly will say that ne coke oven bs product badder

would use a dip dee pee whe: at NeECces-ary, |

Q. Now, Doetor, that brings up an interestimu point,

” * * ? +

(267) Q. Doctor, is it fair te say that the crux and (26%)

exsence of what vou regard as the invention described and

claimed in the spray patent in suit is the use of sprays

exclusively to take ammonia out of edie oven wast A.

You talk about the erux and essence?

Mr. Brown: Please read the question

Thereupon the question was read.

‘

Carl Otto—-For Plaintiff—Cross.

A. Our invention, or our process, is deseribed clearly in

the claims of our patent, and that is not as broad as 1 think

you just expressed yourself, It is the spraying of acidified

saturated liquor. That means liquor of dissolved am-

monium sulphate containing crystals in an unobstrueted

space.

Q. That is the crux and essence of your invention as

you have just-stated it? AA. That’s right.

Q. And that invention, as you understand, woula be in-

fringed regardless of the apparatus that was used to prae-

tice it, provided the process met the definition you have

given. Is that right?) A. That is right. That is the

process claim. [see pore in our claim it is also inferred

that this liquor gets supersaturated. Tt is also mentioned

in there,

-Q. Let's take one thing ata time. The apparatus (269)

for,earrying ovt your invention may he widely varied?

A. May be what?

Q. The apparatus for carrying out your mvention of

your spray patent may be widely varied. ts that correct?

A. That is right.

Q. As a matter of fact, your patent shows five different

forms on that. A. That is night. We show different forms.

Q. As I understand, two of those have never ever heen

Tuitt,tIs that right? Figures two and five, as T- reeail.

A. Some have not been built. We have built one in Lacka-

wanna and we have built one in Jounstown, a eviindrical.

Q). You didn't buikt the apparatus shown in firures two

and five, did vou? A. In what?

). Figures two and five of the drawing of your patent.

\. That is right. We have not built them all.

(3. And | think you testified that vou had some six or

more other pending applications on different forms of ap-

paratus for utilizing sprays. Is that right? (270) Most

of which have been abandoned, I believe is what you said.

Car! Otto For Plaintiff--Cross.

A. TP have not all of that in my knowledge, because | leave

this to our patent lawyers. 1 could not answer that

question. 3

A. Q. Who is your patent lawyer! A. Mr. Habbell.

(). He is the aman that wrote all the arguments and

amendments to both of the patents in suit, isn’the? A,

That is right.

(). And I believe in your depesition you said sometimes

vou didn't even see what he said te the Patent Office. Is

‘that right? A. That is right.

Q). And he dew the two affidavits that were filed in the

spray case, one of sary hy Mr. Cox, who testified, and’ the

other by Mr. Pugh. A. That is right.

(). And Mr. Cox tentified that he signed what was sent

to him Ly Mr. Hubbeti, A. That is right.

Q. Mr. Pugh entered the employ of Otto som time after

he gave an aflidavit which was parallel to that (271) of

Mr. Cox, did he not?) A. That is right.

* * * * *

(278) Q. Doctor, | believe vou agree that in use of the

word unobstructed space in Which mother liquer is sprayed,

through coke'oven vas, the unobstructed space was space

withofit erids or other members over which the £209)

— would flow. Is that right? A. That is right.

And you knew, did yeu not, that the v hae spraved

Bet hiquor into the top of these pac ked towe ra in ye r

to intreduce the mother liquor into the treatment chamber

You knew that? A. Yes, | know that from the saturators

built by Wilputte for using under-saturated solution in

their spray towers which were filled with brick tiles.

() So that if you took out the brick, and so forth, out

of that saturater and made the spray at the top bie enggich

and used: the mother liquor norimal to all sae

would come out with what vou clan is the crux of your

invention, would yeu not? A. No, that is not our in-

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff-—Cross.

vention, because Wwe really changed this Wilputte in-

stallation at Lorain. This installation was built with the

spray to spray under-saturaied ammonium sulphate liquor

over tiles. We changed this installation because there

was a lot of trouble to this installation. We installed new

sprays at the top and we installed additional sprays and

used under-saturated liquor. This installation—

Q. You used under-saturated liquor? A. Under-satu-

rated liquor. This installation has (200) nothing to do

with what we claim in our patent and is quite a different

type of a saturator to take out the ammonia from the

coke oven gas. Anybody, any company can use this

process.

Q. Provide! he puts the packing back in. Is that right?

A. No, Our patent is not se broad to cover also that. ht

is definitely Limited: to saturated solution and as soon as

anybody uses under-saturated solution in the scrubbers

and has a separate apparatus where he evaporates this

liquor to make the erystals precipitate, he does not imn-

fringe our patent.

‘Q. Referring to that saturated and under-saturated

liquor, are you forgetting the patent says you can Ure for

the liquor sprayed into the saturater, saturated, un-

caturated liquor?) Are you forgetting that? A. That ts

right, but that means that oceasionally the precess Puls

through saturated solution and having even erystals

entrained. :

Q. We won't get anywhere by arguing that. As 1 under-

stand, you have no licensees under vour spray type patent,

have vou? A. No.

(281) Q. Lunderstand the Wilputte Company or Allied

Chemical have built what you eall spray type saturators.

Is that right? A. Yes, they have.

(). Have they taken a license? A. What?

(). Have they taken a license from you, or asked for

one? <A. Not yet.

Carl Otte—For Plaintiff-—Re-direct.

Q). The Spraco nozzle like you have used in all of your

spray type saturators is the spray nozzle covered by a

certain Eneas patent which you have identified in your

file history? A. That is right.

Q. Of spray “type apparatus? A. That is right.

Q. Doctor, there might be some little confusion about

this, but | think we can agree on it, that for commercial

purposes a large ammonimun sutpnate crystal is preferable.

len't that right? By large, T mean larger than the fine

ones that may be produced. A. That is right. Some peo-

ple like larger erystals and other people also may think

it is not necessary. |

Q. And the way of making large erystals instead of

(282) fine crystals is by circulation of the sediment of the

erystalizing chamber? A. That is right, by running of

the plant.

Q. That applies to spray type of cracker pipe type? A.

Right.

Q. It is the way vou handle the mother liquor? A. That

ix right.

(283) Redirect Examination by Mr. Morton: ;

(201) Q. Dr. Otte, on cross examination you were asked

what vou imecat by whirling spray. To have now obtained

and have here a piece of apparatus whieh Poask vou te

identify if you can (handing object te the witness). A.

This is a spray nozzle made by the Spraying System in

Chicago. This spray nozzle has an insert which produces

a whirling action inside the nozzle. By this whirling

netion the centrifugal force begins to act on the globule:

when they leave the orifice of the nozzle, and by this the

liquor stream is divided in small particies outside the

nozzle.

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff— Re-direct.

Q. I take it that it is the action of a piece of (292) ap-

paratus such as you have shown us here consisting of two

parts, the nozzle proper and this insert, which constitute

what you have reference to as a whirling spray? A, That's

right. ‘The principle is the same as in the Spraco nozzic.

Mr. Morton: | have here and offer in evidence

the apparatus which has just been identified lw thie

witness—the nozzle ts marked as 26-A and the in-

sert as 26-B.

(Thereupon, the two parts of the Spraying SyE-

tem of Chicago nozzle were received into evidence

as Plaintiff's Exhibits Nos. 26-.\ and 26-1, respee-

tively.)

Q. Now, Dr. Otto, T have here another piece of ap-

paratus. Can you identify that (handing article to wit-

ness). A. That's a Spraco nozzle.

Q. By that you mean what? A. That’s a nozzle made

by another American company, That is Spray Engimeer-

ing. .

Q). The name of the company that makes the Spraco

nozzle is Spray Engineering? A. Spray Engineering,

Q. From the point of view of producing a whirling

pray, Dr, Otto, is there any difference between the nozzle

(293) which has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit JOON

and 26-B? A. No, there is no difference in the action. We

have used both nozzles side by vide, and they give the

same effect. !

(). There is an insert <imilar to the part 26-B inside the

Spraco nozzle, is there not? A. Yes, there’s an insert, but

this you can’t take out. This | think ts not removable

no, | think it is, but you have to have a screw driver.

Mr. Morton: [might explain | think it “js stuck

in this one.

——-

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff-——Re-direct.

Q. Now, Dr. Otte, it might clear up something for the

Court—in action, when these nozzles of the type we are

talking about are working to produce a whirling spray,

does the insert, part 26-5, move or turn within the nozzle,

part 26-A? A. No, it should not, because that’s the reason

why this little set screw is provided.

(). And it is the reaction of the stream against the in-

sert which causes the stream to turn, is that right?) A.

That's right.

294) Q@. In your spray saturators, Dr. Otte, do vou use

spray nozzles made of any particular material for sprayv-

ing the recirculated bath liquor?) A. We like best Alloyco

material,

(). What sort of material is that?) A. That’s a stain-

less steel, which is especially hard and stands the erosion

perfectly. 6

Q). Are nozzles made of this material expensive? A.

Well, the big nozzles are, and the small ones are less,

Q. For example, a three-inch nozzle, if vou know? A.

Well, they are more expensive, as the cast iron; they are

not too expensive because they amount only toa small part

of the whole apparatus. |

Q. What would you say, if you know, a three-ineh stain-

less steel spray nozzle of this whirling spray type would

cost? A. T couldn't tell vou the price, but you get. this

price froin the Spray System Company and the Spray

ngvineering Company.

(). Now, Doctor, on your cross eXamination you were

asked just what vou considered to be the crux or essence

of your invention. Would you tell the Court whether or

not it Was an olject or purpose of your invention merely to

(205) provide a means for removing ammonia from coke

oven gas? A. No, it was not only the removal) of the am-

monia, because | think t ie patent of ours is entitled ** Pro-

duction of Ammonium Sulphate."* I think, therefore, that

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff—Re-cross.

my process incorporates the removal of ammonia from

the coke oven gas and, at the same time, with the same

process, the making of ammonium sulphate. | like to com-

pare this with other processes which are used for the re-

moval of ammonia in the coke oven by-product field. These

other processes are the removal of ammonia from the

coke oven gas by scrubbing the gas with, water and mak-

ing the water absorb the ammonia. To produce, thn,

ammonium sulphate out of this absorbing liquor, a separate

process has to be used in an ammonia still, where the

ammonia is driven off from the water which has absorbed

ammonia in the ammonia scrubber. So the two processes

are here in action. Besides this, there is a third process

used for the ammonia recovery. | think | mentioned this

- this morning by referring to the plant built by the Wil-

.-putte Company at Lorain, Ohio. In this plant the am-

moOnIa: Is scrubbed out -with unaersaturated acidified solu-

tion’6f ammonium sulphate, and the ammonia is absorbed

in the liquid by forming ammonium sulphate which is dis-

solved in the liquid. No crystals are formed, This liquid

is then (296) used for a second process where ammonium

sulphate crystals are formed in an evaporator. This

process consists practically of two processes like the in-

direct process using water for absorption. The big ad-

vantage of our process is to have one process for absorb-

ing the ammonia and for producing ammonium sulphate.

Up to now such a process existed in the cracker pipe satu-

rators, but I think that our spray type saturator will re-

ace this construction.

Reé-cross Examination. by Mr. Brown:

Q. Doctor, so that there may not be any mistake, my

understanding is you testified yesterday and testified again

today that any whirling there was of the liquid oceurred

inside of the nozzle? A. That’s right.

R. Philemon Stout——-For Defendants —Direct.

Q. AV before it passed out-of the nozzle? A. That’s

right.

W. So that there wasn’t any whirling of the particles in

the sense of projecting them in a spiral fashion after they

left the nozzle? A. No,

R. Puimemon Strout, having been first duly sworn as a

witness, thereupon testified as follows:

(308) Direct Examination by Mr. Lutz:

Q. Mr. Stout, will you please give us your residence

address?) A. North Radcliffe Street, Mountwood Route,

Bristol, Pennsylvania.

Q. And will you please state your present employment!

A. I am assistant chief chemist of the Philadelphia Coke

Company. °

Q. Mr. Stout, where did you receive your technical edu-

cation? (309) A. I prec tt with a B.S. in Chemical

Engineering from the University of Illinois in 1997.

Q. And what was your first employment after you gradu-

ated?=A. L went te work for Bethlehem Steel Company at

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

. Q. And tell us, briefly, the different positions you have

held with that company! A. For the first ten months |

was on @ training course over the whole steel plant, and

then in May, 1938, I went down to the coke plant, where

[ was continued on a training course in the coke plant

for about a year, and then was inate an extra shift fore-

man in the by-product department

Q. What do you mean by “extra shift foreman’’? A.

Well, | worked ordinarily on the day turn, but IT was avail-

able to relieve the regular shift foreman, that is, the men

who covered the eight-hour shifts, for vacations, sickness,

and did special process work in the by-product department.

R. Philemon Stout-——For Def ndants— Direct.

@. Then do | understand that subsequently you became

a regular foreman? A. | became a regular turn foreman

in February, 1941.

Q. And what eection was that in? (310) A. That was

in the by-product, department.

Q. And this by-product section has supervision over

what particular pieces of apparatus? A. That included

the primary gas coolers, tar extractors, tar dryers, satur

rators, ammonia still, light oil serubbing and recovery

plant.

Q. And then I understand that your job as a foreman

included supervision over these ammonia saturators, we'll

eall them? A. On my shift, yes, sir.

Q. And during your duties in supervising these satura-

tors, can you tell us whether or not vou became familiar

with their construction and operation? A. | did.

Q. Mr. Stout, 1 show you a drawing which has been

marked Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 tw¥this case, which is

a Koppers drawirs 14,920). Will you please tell us what

that drawing shows? A. That shows the original oval

cracker pipe saturators as were used at Bethlehem.

Q. Do I understand that’s the construction as those

<aturators were at the time you became a shift foreman?

A, Yes.

Q. And you say they were an oval type cracker pipe

(311) saturator? A. Yes,

Q. What is the shape of the cracker pipe itself in that

saturator? A. In plan view it ix U-shaped pipe going

around inside of the vessel, at an opening at the hettom

with slotted slots to allow the escape of the gas through

the liquor.

Q. Mr. Stout, I show you another drawing which has

been marked -Defendant’s Exhibit 6 in this ease, It is

Koppers drawing No. 29 337. 1 understand that this

drawing shows the general plan arrangement of these old

oval saturators, is that correct? A. That is correct, yes.

\ eld

\ ‘a

R. Philemon Stout--Far Defendants—Direct.

Q. And how many of these old oval saturators were

there in the plant? A. There were five of them there.

Q). And then do | understand that sometime later there

were some changes made in these saturators? A. Yer,

later spray pipes were added and reeireulating pumps were

installed outside of the. saturators.

Q. And this work was done while you were shift fore-

aa #4. Yes, sir.

Q. And you knew the construciion that was being put

in (312) at that time? A. Yes, sir. .

Q. Did you know the reason for these changes heing

made? A. Well; one reason was to cut down the differen-

tial across the saturator, because they were Increasing

coke oven capacity, and the need to handle more gas with

no greater pressure drop, or possibly less, and it was also

expected that the quality of the salt would be improved.

Q. You say, the quantity of gas was being increased.

What was the reason for this increase in quantity of gas?

A. They were putting into operation another battery of

coke ovens.

Q. And you say that they expeeted to improve the quality

of the salt. Just what do vou mean by that? -How was

that to be done? A. It was expected by reeireulating

liguor and erystals that there would be an increase in the

size of the erystal from erystal forination from the sprays.

Q. Referring, in general, to these changes which you

have mentioned, did vou know who originated the idea ef

these changes? A. As far as | know, Mr. Underwood. We

referred to it as ** Underwood's Baby.”

(313) Q. This was Mr. Charles EB. Underwood, as. |

understand? A. Yes, he was superintendens of the Coke

Plant.

Q. What was his position at that time? A. He was

superintendent of the Coke Plant, Northampton Division,

Jethlehens Steel Company. |

A OCD.

R. Philemon Stout—For Defendants-—Direct.

Q. Mr. Stout, I show you a drawing which has been

marked Defendant’s Exhibit 11 in this case. It is Beth-

lehem Steel Company drawing No. N. 3942. Will you

please tell us quite briefly what this drawing shows? A.

This is a general arrangement of the saturators, showing

the illustration of the spray pipes and the recirculating

liquor pumps. :

7 * * 6 * ,

Q. And how many of these circulating pumps were

there for each spray saturator? A. There were two pumps,

for each saturator. Ag

Q. Mr. Stont, I show you another drawing which has

been marked Defendants’ Exhibit 10 in this ease, Beth-*

lehem drawing No. N-3941. Starting at a reference point

in the center of this drawing, just abo-e and to the right

of center, the red letter J has heen applied to.a certain

part. Will you tell as what tha: part is, Mr. Stout? A.

That’s a section of the spray pipe, and it is so identified

on the drawing.

(315) Q. In other words, right under it, by the letter

tis the legend ‘‘Spray Pipe?”’ A. That is right.

Q. And what are these things which appear to be pro-

jeetions which stick up and down from that piece of pipe?

A. They were deflectors to create a spray from the pipe:

that is. at each deflector plate there was a half-inch hole

for the discharge of liquor against the spray across this —

deflector pipe. ‘

QO. Can vou tell us from this drawing. Mr. Stout. now

far andrt these holes were in this snray mipe? A. Ae-

carding to the drawing, there are 47 A6ths inehes he-

tween the holes. :

QO. Would von infer from this drawing that there was

a deflector for each hole in the pine? A. That is correct.

R. Philemon Stout—-For Defendants—Direct.

{Thereupon a chart, DX 14, was discussed. This

chart is a simplified drawing based on the two

drawings previously discussed. |

Q. Now [ wish vou would just come down and using

this pointer here, tell us a little bit more about the opera-

tion. Tell us first, please, Mr. Stout, how the gas passes

through this saturator shown on this chart?) <A. In this

elevation view the gas comes in the gas inlet on the left

of this view, and passes out through the cracker pipe and

passes out through the slots along the bottom of the

‘cracker pipe, and then flows up through the open space

in the saturator:and out through (318) the gas outlet. In

the plan view that would be coming in from the dual inlet

and going out on both sides of the cracker pipe, all around

the periphery of the cracker pipe in the center of the

suturator.

o @ a * S

(319) Q. Will you explain how the liquor circulates

through that saturator? A. The liquor tevel is maintained

as indicated on the drawing Just above the slots. This

dual suction pump—the dual pump suctions from that

liquor and circulates it back through the U-shaped spray

pipe so that it created a spray in the space above the

cracker pipe and dropped down into™the liquor, so it: was

maintained in constant circulation.

(). Am I correct in saying thet these red curved lines

extending above ane below spray pipes represent the path

of the spray?) A. Yes, as near as I could tell.

(). And projecting above and below from this spray pipe,

| notice a number of little squares. What are they? A.

Those squares represent the deflector plates which were

welded to the spray pipe at each one of the spray holes.

(j. And you say that Equor was circulated by the pumps

up to that spray pipe? A. That is right. “There are two

“il

R. Philemon Stout—lor Defendants— Direct.

pumps pulling, sughion from the bath in the saturator,

pumping it up. Bach pump pumped into one end of this

U-shaped loop. It (320) all in one U-shaped pipe.

Q. What would you say the result was of pumping that

liquor ander pressure through those pipes? What would

it do so far av the space within the saturator goes? A. It

ereated a spray which completely covered the cross sec:

tion, so that the gas in passing up through this open space

had to pass through the spray which was being created.

“T%). 1 believe that is all we need on that chart, Yop may

resume the stand. Will you tell me what the composition

was of this liquor cireulated by the pumps up to the spray

pipes? A. It was saturated ammonia liquor, or saturated

ammonium sulphate Tiquor, [twas about twenty-five

grams per liter sulphurie acid saturated with ammonium

sulphate and carried crystals in suspension.

Q. In other words, this was just about the same com-

position as the liquor that was normally present in an

ammonia saturator? A, That is correct,

Q. And the liquor that was present in this saturator

after vou added the spray pipes, was of substantially the

same composition as the liquor present in the old satura-

tors? (321) A. That is right. We didn't change that part

of the operation,

Q). Now, Mr. Stout, could you tell us whether or not in

the ‘operation of this Underwood saturator using sprays,

there were any crystals present in that liquor pumped to

the spray pipes! “A. Yes, there were.

Q. How could you tell that. A. At one of the points we

had a leakaue in the packing gland on the pumps, on the

circulating pumps, and erystals were present there.

Q. How could you tell that, when it 'eaked out? A.

They were there immediately on leaking out and they also

abraced the shaft severely, which was what was giving us

trouble with leakage there. There was also evidence in

R. Philemon Stou hus ‘fe ndaunt ‘ Dine cf.

the saturator. After we had had it in operation tor a tes

months, we developed some leaks of liquor from the sat

urator, and it was found out these leaks were just below

where the spray pipes were around the saturater wail, and

the abrasive effect of the crystals had cut, phe lead lining

of the saturator. my

@. Was anything done to repair those leaks!) A. Yes.

At that time they opened the saturator and built a lead

support at the bottom and laid an acid- (522) proof brick

lining around the wall of the saturator.

-Q. Referring agaip-te-that drawing, Defendants" Ex-

hibit 11, qhat in Bethlehem Steel drawing number S042, i=

there any Mdication on this drawing of that correction you

have just said+that change—the adeing of the brie.

lining?) A. Yes, in the upper left-hand corner, near the

elevation view of the saturator, it shows acid rest-ting

beick four feet high around the side of the saturator, which

was addi as revjsion one.

Q. Now you say revision one. Wil? you please explain

to the court where that notation is of revision one, and

what it means?) A. Thyre is a Roman numeral one which

is circled— ” ag

(). Just a minute before vou zet to the eireled nunibes

one. | believe it is correct that in this block in the lower

right-hand corner of the drawing where the ** Bethlehem

Steel Company’ appears, there is a list of different re

visions under the column ** revision number.’ A. Correet.

Q. And a Roman numeral ‘one’? in that column! A.

Right.

(Q. What does that Roman numeral *‘one’’ refer to! A.

That refers to this circled Roman numeral ene (525) up

here atSthe left middle, which points to this briek lining

which was added.

Q. Does that column down there in the name block give

you any indication as to the date the change was made?

R. Philemon Stout-—For Defendants—Direct.

That is dated February 6, 1945, and | think that was

installed at just about the same time this drawing was—

was plated on the revision—and that was about two or

three months after this. installation had been put into

operation. ;

Q. in other words then this-- A! It was the first diffi,

culty we had had with the operation. (

Q. Then the date of this revision number one, when the

brick lining was added, is a reference point from which

you can state definitely that these saturators with this

ppray rg had heen in operation several*months prior to

this?) A. Two or three-months at least prior to that date.

(). That would fix ae date of starting at least about the

end of 1942.- Right! ? That is right. '

hes Now, Mr. ‘Stout, how many of ee se satdrators—I

spray pipes! A. Two of the ati werraltered Pre. and

placed into operation, and then they werft ahead later and

altered two more, | think the alteration of the second two

was completed after this brick lining was dddéd to the

first two. While that was heyae done we went back to the

operation of the other two in the ‘conventional Inanner.

Q). Can you tellus, Mr. Stout, how. much of a job it was

to change one of these saturators by adding the purnps and

spray pipes? A. Well, it covered several weeks’ work by

our own construction efew; probably six or eight men, plus

alot longer tine hya le ad burner in making the necessary

revisions te le unl lining. ;

Q. And were any conside rable materials involved in such

a change? <A. Yes, it involved the acid- resisting bronze

pipiney and these deflector plates, and for each saturator

two circulating liquor pumps, ;

Those pumps aren't cheap, are thes? A. No, thes

pe nvt.

R. Philemon Stont—For Defendants—Direct.

(). Now after these’saturators were altered by having

(325) the spray pipes, how many of them were operated

at one time? A. We normally operated two at a time.

In the end there were four converted and we operated two

at a time, two running and two spare.

(). Can you tell us what depth of seal wa maintained

in these saturators*\, A. The drawing indicates in’ the

upper left-hand corner a seal of five inches, above the slots.

(). What do you mean by the seal in this type saturator?

A\. That is the depth of the liqgQor above the top of ihe

slots through which the cas eseaped from the cracker pipe.

a total differential of fifteen to eighteen inches. That in-

cluded the acid separators after the saturator., ;

(). Now, Mr. Stout, I believe vou stated when vou were

demonstrating on this chart, Defendants’ Exhibit 14, that

the action of these deflectors Was to break the quer up

into fine particles and spray it through a chamber. What

was the ultimate effeet produced by having (520) this

<pray present there in that chamber? A. The <pray was

to remove ammonia from the gas. We reduced the seal so

that there was less ammonia being removed in the liquor

hath and then created the spray ahove to remove the hal-

ance of ammonia from the gas at reduced over-all differ

ential.

Q). Now, Mr. Stout, do you know of vour own knowledge

when the Bethlehem Steel Company ceased to operate

these Underwood satyugators with spravs? A. No, T don’t. -

Q. What do you know about how long they were oper-

ated? A. They were still in operation when [ Jeft Bethle-

hem Steel Company in October 144. -

Q). Now prior to‘vour leaving the employ of the Beth-

leherm Stee] Company in October 1944, had vou heard of

twa spare saturators.

S+

R. Philemon Stout—For Defendants—Direct.

any decision to abandon the operation of the spray satuTa-

tors? A. No, | had not. oP

Q. 1 believe you stated previously that these saturators

started operating about the end of 1942 and you have just

said they were still operating in October 1944. That would

be approximately two years. Is that correct? (327) A.

That is mght.

Q. During this period of approximately two years, how

much of the time were these spray saturators operated!

A. Except for the period early in- 1945 when this brick

lining was being installed in the first pair of saturators,

they were operated substantially all the time, except fora

‘ase of failure of some part of the equipment, which was

temporary, because We could always switch over to the

(). ‘And’ during this two-year period, can you tell us

about how wueh gas daily was being passed through these

spray saturators?

Q. During most of that period we were producing sixty

to seventy million cubic feet of gas a day.

Q. As F understand the purpose of putting in the satura

tors was to handle an inereased volume of gas. A. That is

right, to handle an increased volume of gas without in-

creased differential because of the limited gas pumping

capacity.

Q. Can you tell us whether the saturators performed the

job expected of them? A. Yes, we succeeded in staking

care of the gas in a satisfactory manner,

(328) Q. What was done with this gas that was passed

through the saturators during this two-vear period? A.

It was disposed of as underfiring gas on the ovens, as gas

in the steel mill and part of it was sold for domestic

distribution by the town of Bethlehem Gas Company.

Q. Was that disposition of this gas anv different from

the way vou had disposed of it previous to the installation

ensnnsmemmmmmneuemmmenemmasnenneen

R. Philemon Stout—For Defendants—Derect.

of these spray pipes?) A. No, that continued to be the same

sy> tem.

Q). During this two-vear period, did you hear any Com:

plaints that the gas was of inferior quality?) A. No.

(). Did vou know of any difftculties with the salt) pro

duced by these saturators? A. No, we had no particular

trouble with the salt during tis time.

Q). Did you hear of any joss of salt or deficleney in

quantity of salt produced?) A. None that I knew of.

Q. Were any difficulties encountered in the operation of

these spray saturators? A. Well, the biggest difficulty

was with the cipsulating pumios which gave us “trouble at

the packing ($29) gland where we had leakage at the

packing gland, and because of the presence of salt crys-

tals and their abrasive and cotrosive nature, there was

coring of the shaft and we had considerable difficulty

with packing. After the installation of the brick liming,

which took up four inches of space between the cracker

pipe and the wall of theesaturator, so there was smalher

space, We experienced more trouble with salting-up of that

part of the saturator, and therefore we went to a little

strenger acid kill during that time, to keep down the salt

ing-up in the saturators.

Q. Mr. Stout, at this point Po wish vou would take the

pointer again and show the court on the chart, Defendants’

Exhibit 4. just where it was that this salting-up occurred

that vou have been discussing? A. On this seetion view,

section AA, the space between the cracker pipe and. the

briek wall which was mavrower by four inches, probably

five inches, than it had been originally. Tt was close enough

that there was a build-up of salt from the liquor—build-ap

across there.

Q. fn other words, the salt had a tendenev to bridge’

‘over from the eracker pipe te the brick lining. A. That’s

righit.

R. Philemon Stout—F'or Defendants—Cross.

Q. And it was the presence of this brick lining which

(330) narrowed that gap and made it possible for that

spot to sait-up? A. It aggravated the condition, yes.

Q. Then as [ understand your testimony, ali that was

needed io overcome this difficulty was that you had to kill

a little more frequently than previously. A. That’s correct.

Q. Now, Mr. Stout, did you have any trouble with clog-

ging up of these spray nozzles on the spray pipes? A.

We had difficulty maintaining circulation because at the

far end of the pipe when we were operating two pulps,

the velocity was low and the salt would tend to settle out

in the pipes, and the pipes would fill up. If only one

pump was operating, instead of being the far end, it wa-

back toward the opposite end of the U, and we found

several times on opening it up it was the ease that the

pipe was filled up with sait at the far end rather than—

we didn't have any trouble with the nozzles themselves

plugging up.

Q. Mr. Stout, TP should ask you one other question. |

forgot to ask you about this matter of the purple line

here. Will vou explain what the purple lines are at the

top of the plan view and at the left of the section AA?

A. Those were the salt: slurry pumps which recovered

salt and pumped it to the drain tables, or salt dryers.

Q. What was the salt pumped out through these lines?

"A. It was the amménium sulphate product.

(332) Cross Examination by Mr. Morton:

Q. Mr. Stout, if I recall correctly, you testified that your

knowledge of the path taken by the recirculating bath

liquor which passed out of the holes in the pipe marked

“Spray pipes’? on this chart Defendants’ Exhibit 14, ha-

been reconstructed by you on the basis of the level given

the brick lining later installed. Is that right! A. I did

not prepare that drawing.

R. Philemon Stout—For Defendants—Cross.

Q. You did not. How would you, if you were to attempt

to reproduce that path which was taken hy the material

issuing out of the holes in these pipes, how would you,

what knowledge would you use, to make such reproduction?

X. The bottom discharge could be identified by the point

at which we cut through the lining of the saturator which

was the upper portion of where the brick was installed,

which is about as is shown on that drawing. The spray

it the top follows a similar pattern in reverse, and at one

time one saturator, when it was open, the pumps were

operated with water, to satisfy ourselves taat the sprays

were covering the entire inside of the saturator.

(333) Q. By covering the entire inside of the saturator,

vou mean they reached to the top? A. No, not filling the

entire space, but clear across the <aturator.

Q). Making,oin short, a veil or curtain across the cross

section of the saturator taken this way (indicating)? A.

At least one complete curtain, ves.

(). Do you know Mr. Louis A. Farinet? A. Yes, he was

one of dhe other by-product turn foreman.

(). His job was the same practically as yours on a dif-

ferent shift? A. That's right.

(). | believe you testified that one difference between

the operation of the saturators with the Underwood modi-

fieations and their operation in their unmodified state, was

that a more frequent or increased kill of longer duration

was required, with the modified saturators than with the

un-modified saturators. A. That’s right, we used a more

severe, 4 don't think we changed the number of kill. I

think we used a more severe kill.

(). By more severe, what do you mean? A. We killed

with acid, where we used 100 grams per liter, we went to

about 150 grams per liter

R. Philemon Stout—For Defendants—Cross. _

Q. That would result, would it rot, in a longer time when

the saturator was not precipitating crystals--would it not,

A. That is right.

> « * * *

Q. Now in the course of your examination you had ocea.

sion on direct examination once or twice to use the term

nozzle. Having reference to the print Defendants” Exhibit

10, which I believe you have with you, Mr. Stout, (34: ”) was

there any other structure inserted in the saturators during

the time when they embodied the Unde rwood modifieations,

any other structure than that illustrated on print 10, which

you had in mind when you used the term nozzle? A. No.

Q. Mr. Stout, do you have any recollection that a°strue-

ture of the sort shown on the print Defendants’ l:xhibit

13.1 just handed you, was ever installed in the Underwood

modification at Bethlehem during your time there? A. |

do not.

* a « * s

Q. | understand you said you were. currently employed

by the Philadelphia Coke Company as assistant: chief

chemist. A.-Yes, sir.

Q). Does fhat work involve you in any use ef apparatus

containing systems for contacting gas with liquid?) A.

Yes. We run control tests on all of the equipment in the

by-product plant, at the coke plant there, and as part of

the technical force of the plant are in on most. process

discussions.

Q. Now I take it from what rou have just said, the

Philadelphia Coke Compan¥ has a coke oven plant of some

sort? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that a by-product plant or some other form? A.

It is acby-product coke oven plant, yes.

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.