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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386419_0024%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Transcript of Record
- **Published:** January 1, 1957

## Text

|

to i

oo
ta

Te

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 ,

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

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

14
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 : @

15
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? 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

.

oA

060 patent is to prevent everybody els

42

~~ 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

a

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—

Carl Otto—For Plaintiff—Cross.
e

(). 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.

AD

Car! Otto—For Plaintiff—Cross.
t
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 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
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.

86
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.

87
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 « * * *

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.

Q. And how is the ammonia recovered, or eliminated
from the gas produced in that plant? A. In eracker type
saturators.

8D
Edward J. Helm—For Defendants—Direct.
*

(346) Q. That is a saturator of the same general type
in existence at Bethlehem prior to the Underwood modi-
fidition? A. Basically, except it is a round, rather thaa
oval saturator.

(). Has that saturator ever been modified to include
any arrangement similar to the Underwood modification?
A. No, it has not.

: e @ * 2 ‘

(248) Epwarp J. Heus, having been first duly sworn, as
a Witness, thereupon testified as follows: :

Direct: Examination by Mr. Lutz:

Q). Mr. Helm, will you please give the Court your resi-
dence address?) A. 475 Sage Drive, Mt. Lebanon, Penn-
svlvania,.

Q. And where did you obtain your technical education,
Mr. Helm? A. At the University of Pittsburgh.

Q. What degree? A. Bachelor of Science in Chemical
Engineering. |

(). And will you just state, briefly, your experience since
vraduation? (349) A. | worked for about two and a half
vears in the Research Department of the M. W. Kellogg
Company in Jersey City, New Jersey, working on develop-
ment of catalytie refining processes. Then came with Kop-
pers Company in January of 1941; with Koppers Company
have spent about five years in the Project Engineering
Department, about five years in the Operating Department,
and approximately five years on- development work, for the
past three years, as manager of the Development Section
of the Engineering and Construction Division of Koppers
Company. —

Q. Are you a member of any learned societies? A. I
ama member of the American Institute of Chemical Engi-
neers: IT am a registered Professional Engineer id the

Se

90
Edward J. Helm—For Defendants—Direct.

State of Pennsylvania; a member of the Eastern States
Blast Furnace and Coke Oven Association.

Q. In connection with your employment with the Kop-
pers Company, have you had occasion to become familiar
with the treatment of coke oven gas? A. Yes, I have.

Q. And with the different types of apparatus that are
used for that process? A. Yes, sir.

‘
6 @ e e 2

Q. I show you a copy of a chart which has been marked
Defendants’ Exhibit 15. It is my understanding, Mr.
Heim, that this chart which has been marked Defendants’
Exhibit 15 was prepared under your supervision, and thai
it is an exact copy of Figure 3 of this Otto spray patent,
is that correct? A. That is correct. |

Q. And what, if anything, has been added to this chart
No. 1? A. To my knowledge, nothing has been added to
the copy (352) which I have. The enlarged chart has been
eolored to bring out for more—to bring out so that it can
he seen more easily the relationship between the gas,
liquor and slurry flows. 3 ;

Q. While you are speaking of the colors, will you just
explain to us the colors that are used? Red is used to
represent what? A. Red is used to represent the flow
path of the liquor.

Q. And blue represents what? A. Blue represents the
flow path of the gas.

Q. And what does purple represent? A. Purple repre-
sents the flow path of the slurry of erystals removed from
the saturator to the feed for the dryer; in other words,
that is the path of the slurry product.

Q. Mr. Helm, you said that nothing, has been added to
this chart, Defendants’ Exhibit 15. T believe you meant
nothing structurally has heen added? A. That is correct.

Q. Actually, the legends have been added, have they
not? A. That is correct.

91
Edward J. Helm—For Deféadants—Direct.

Q. In other words, the names of the different parts
(354) have been added in order to help to make that clear?
A. That is correct, | beg your pardon,

Q. Mr. Helm, I show you a chart which has been marked
Defendants’ Exhibit 16. Will you tell us what this chait
Defendants’ Exhibit 16 showst
of the center, there is a view cailed an elevation. Do vou
follow me? A. Yes, sir.

(). Aid on this Defendants’ Exhibit La letter M_ has
been applied to a certain gtrueture, Can vou tell us what
that is? AL Yes, sir, that represents the sprays which werg
added to thie saturator.

Q. In other words, these are what are called *ysprayy
pipas’* on these drawings?) A. That is correct.

Q2 And extending above and below they center dine of
these pipes marked M are certain curved ea What do
those” eurved lines represent? A. The spray “deflectors
which were located adjacent (O91) to each spray in the P
spray pipes. J

. * . e *

Q). Then do To understand, Mr. Helm, that these curved
(202) parts which wou have referred to as detleetor plates
would break the stream of liquid up into streams? A. -
Yes, sir. Well, E would say that they would break the
streamis of liquid uy into droplets. :

Q). Have vou had any previous experience, practical ex-
perience, With similar types of plates in breaking a stream
up inte droplets or spray? A. Yes, Roppers Company hay
for many veidrsvused what we eall splash type. or splash
plate type sprays or spray nozzles, which are so designed
that the liquid) being spraved flows through an orifice in

102
Edward J. Helm—For Defendants—Direct.

the pipe in a solid stream and this stream impinges on a
deflector or splash plate which is mounted several inches
below the bottom of the orifice and held in that position by
spider-like supports. In many instances, there are two
of these deflector plates suspended. one below the other and
both below the bottom of the spray orifice. Usually a
smaller orifice is located in each of the lower deflector
plates. The purpose of this desiim is to permit the solid
stream of liquid flowing through the nozzle orifice to im-
pinge upon the deflector plates and to splash therefrom
and be broker up into many droplets, individual spray
droplets.

Q. Based on your experience with that type of spray
(393) nozzle which you have referred to as a splash plate
spray, would you give us your opinion as to whether or
not these deflector plates illustrated on the Underwood
saturator, Defendanty Exhibit 14, would be effective in
breaking that liquor sprayed under pressure into r@latively
fine streams? A. In my opinion that would be effective,
and I would say that they would break the liquid up, not
particularly into streams, but rather into individual par-
ticles or droplets.

Q. Now, Mr. Helm, you have referred to these splash
plate 4eprays with which you have had some expert
ence. Will you tell us briefly what the advantages and dis-

advantages of that type spray are? You mentioned some |

of the advantages. Just summarize them briefly. A. The
advantages of a splash type plate spray are (394) that
relatively they are designed or fabricated with the largest
possible passages which would tend to make them the type
most free from tendency to clog, as compared with other
nozzles, such as the Spraco or Spraying svstem type nozzle.

Q. How about ease of cleaning? A. When or if they .

are used with systems that result in clogging, in spite of
the relative freedom from clogging tendencies, they can

103
Edward J. Helm-—For Defendants—Dvrect.

easily be cleaned by rodding—sticking a rod through the
nozzle and connecting piping without shutting down the
apparatus or withdrawing the nozzle and spray pipes from
the apparatus.

Q. Are there any disadvantages to this type spray?
Yes, | would say that the principal disadvantage is the fact
that this type spray does not provide as uniform a dis-
tribution of the spray partteles as does a so-calied Spraco
or full cone typA spray. |

(). You make reference to the Sprace nozzle. Will yon
just briefly summarize the advantages and disadvantages
of the Spraco nozzle? A. As compared with the splash
plate nozzle, | think the advantages and disadvantages are
practically reversed. The Spraco type nozzle has rela-
tively smaller (395) passages, speaking of the minimum
restrictions in each type nozzle, which would be the most
likely spots for clogging to occur. On the other hand, the
Spraco type nozzle definitely provides a more uniform
spray which provides a cone of spray in which the droplets
are quite uniformly dispersed.

Q. Then, Mr. Helm, considering the fact that each of
these types of spray nozzles has its advantages and dis-
advantages, how wauld you, as an engineer, decide which
of these types to use in a particular location? A. I would, |
| believe, make such a decision entirely upon the basis of
the likelihood of the particular system involved to result
in clogging of the sprays, considered in combination with.
the need to obtain extremely uniform distribution of the
spray throughout the area into which it is “lesired to dis-
perse the spray. Those two considerations would have to
he weighed and in many cases, tuey are opposing ¢con-
siderations. And-it would have to he decided which of the
two limitations was more important.

104
Edward J. Helm—I or Defendants—Drrect.

Q. Mr. Helm, I show you a copy of Jeremiassen patent
9.375,922. I believe you have studied this patent at our
request?

Q. In other words, Mr. Helm, i believe what you are say-
ing is, then, that a saturated solution is one which would
maintain a certain stability over a long period of time, and
that the solution ean, for a temporary period of time, con-
tnin more of the dissolved solid, and that’s what we call
supersaturated? A. That's correct.

Q). And the metastable range of supersaturation is
(403) one rather indefinite range in this supersaturation
stave? A. That is correct, and | might add that beyond
the metastable range or above the metastable range there
is a tendency for additional crystals to be precipitated in
rather large quantities.

Q. but | understand there is no definite, clear dividing
line between these different degrees of supersaturation!
A. That is my understanding also; sach things as agitation
and other similar conditions have some effect on that limit.

Q. Now, Mr. Helin, when you were discussing the splash
plate type of spray, | believe vou said that Noppers has
used that type of spray in a number of locations for quite
a time, is that correct? A. Vhat is correct.

Q). Approximately how far back ean you date the use
of that splash plate spray in coke oven equipment by Kep
pers? A. That type of spray was used by Koppers in coke
oven gas processing equipment back as far as 116. back
to some of the earliest installations made by Koppers
"Q. - show you a copy of Becker patent No. Ld47.016,
PN 25] and eall vour especial attention to Figure 3. Can
vou (404) tellus whether Figure 3 shows any use of sprays
such as vou have been discussing? AL Yes, sir, it does.

Q). Where? Please tell us the location. A. One of the
locations is in the collecting main for the gas leaving the
evens in the upper left-hand corner of the Figure 3, desig-
nated by the number 15- that is, the-eollecting main is
designated.

, 10S
Edward J. Helm—For Defendants—Direct.

(). What is number 12 on that figure?) A. Number 12
is the ascension pipe, or stand pipe for conveying the gas
from the ovens into the collecting main.

Q. And just above the reference 12 are some lines which
come down from pipe 29. What do those lines represent?
A. Those lines repres®nt a spray for contacting the gas in
the oven collecting main with liquor, which is commonly
referred to as flushing liquor, for the purpose of cooling
the gas.

Q. And ean you tell us whether or not sprays in this loca-
tion are still being used by Koppers today?) A,_Yes, sir,
they are.

Q. Have any other type of nozzles been used in this
location?

(405) The Witness: Other than splash plate
type!

Q. Yes. A. Yes, since sometime in the middle 1920's
Koppers has used Spraco nozzles in this location.

Q. Mr. Helm, | believe you have several times in your
iestimony referred to Koppers installations that were made
prior to your becoming an employee of Koppers. Will you
please explain how you becanse familiar with (427) those
prior installations?) A. As a part of my position as
manager of the development section, as well as a part of
my duties in my previous positions with Koppers Com-
pany, it has been my duty to become familiar with many
of the past installations through the drawings, specifiea-
tions, operating data and other records that are kept by
the company for that purpose.

Q. And I believe in connection with all of these prior
installations vou have testified about, you have recently
reviewed those drawings and other records?) A. That is
correct. “ere

Aw

109
Edytird J. Helm— For Defendants—Direct.

Q. Now, Mr. Helm, you, have testified concerning the

structure of some of the old Koppers type saturators

which were installed in 1917 and dates thereabout, which
were of the cracker pipe type that have a horseshoe shaped
cracker pipe. Can you tell us what materials were used
in those saturators? A. The saturator shells were made
either of steel or cast iron and were lined with lead to
resist the corrosive action of the sulphuric acid in the
liquor. (430) The outer shell, having little or no resist-
ance to the acid, served only to back up and strengthen
the lead lining which was the corrosion-resistant material.

Q. Now will you please tell us, give us your opinion,
as to whether or not it would be very prad¢tical to use the
sprays in that type of a saturator? A. In.my opinion it
wonld not be very practical as shown by the operation of
the Bethlehem or Underwood spray saturators, due to the
tendency of the erystals earried by the liquor, whieh would
be sprayed into the saturater, to erode the lead. These
crystals are very hata and abrasive and sprayint this
material against the lead lining would have a very similar

-aetion to sand-blasting material.

Q. Can you tell us what material Noppers uses to-
day in its spray seturators? A. Yes, sir. We use type
“16 extra low carbon stainless steel. TP oimight add that we
have not in all eases used extra low carbor stainless, but
there is a definite maximum limitation of the carbon con-
tent of the type 316 stainless steel in order to obtain satin:
factory welding and fabrication characte ‘ristics.

Q). And I believe that you testified im connection with
the Seaboard saturator that Koppers first ased (451) stain-
less steel in saturators in about that time, 144, is that
correct? A. With the exception of the cracker ;pipes in
the Monessen and Weirten type saturators. In- those
cases the eracker pipes were simply made from sections
of stainless steel pipe and required no welding or other

/ 110
Edward J. Helm—For Defendants—Dvrect.

fabrication. At that time Koppers had not yet developed
satisfactory welding techniques for the use of stainless
steel in order that the welds would be resistant to the
corrosive action of the acid-containing liquor.

Q. Do I understand this problem of welding was one
reason why stainless steel had not been used earlier in
the saturators? A. That is why it had not been-used any
more extensively earlier. }

Q. Were there any other problems so far as materials
or equipment go that retarded the use of sprays in satu.
rators?’ A. Yes. It has only been within the past approxi
mately fifteen years that satisfactory pumps were available
ef circulating liguor containing erystals in sulphuric acif.
It was necessary to have available pumps made of corro-
sion resistant materials and provided with suitable pack-
ing glands which would prevent the (432) liquor contain-
ing crystals from scoring the shafts of the pump and fromm
destroying the packing, thus permitting excessive leakage
from the pumps.
~Q. Now, Mr. Helm, you have testified about several types
ef saturator that were known prior to the beginning: of
1946, which had a_ relatively low seal and were of. the
eracker pipe type. Is that correct? A. That is correct.

Q. And I wish you would give us your opinion of ‘the
comparison of that saturator which apparently was the
hest known type say at the end of 1945, compare that with
the spray type saturator-as to the different characteristics.
First of all, how would they compare as to recovery of
ammonia? A. Either type, either the eracker pipe type
or the spray type would recover essentially all the am-
monia. There is no difference.

Q. How about the production, of crystals? XN. They
both produce ammonium ‘sulpha e erystals of essentially
the same type and characteristi¢s.

Q. How about the manpower required for their opera

|

111
Edward J. Helm—For Defendants—Direct.

tion? . 7

Cross Examination by Mr. Morton:

‘*e s > @ .

(462) Q. T show you United States patent 2,673,001. Is
the patent TE have jast handed you a patent owned by the
Koppers Company? A. Yes, sir. itis.

Q@. And is it a patent which discloses a construction
which is embodied in the Follansbee installation? A. Yes,

sir, it does,

‘>

113
Edward J. Helm—For Defendants—Cross.

(). Thank you. Now in your capacity as manager of
the development department, vou are familiar, are sou
not, With the construction of all the saturaters that have
een installed by the Koppers Company at least since the
installation of the center dip saturator at Wheeling! A.
l believe that is correct. 1 would not say that | know all
the details but | have some familiarity with all of thei.

Q). 1 believe T an’ correct that the first saturator ealled
the spray saturator for general-purposes, that the (405)
Koppers Company installed was at Neville Island in the
premises of Pittsburgh Coke and Chemical? A. That i-
correct.

(). And that since that time all of the ammonia satarator
apparatus which has been supplied by Noppers te its
customers have been spray type. A. TD ¢heliewe that i
correct,

Y. Tell us whether all) that apparatus has been of
the type exemplified by the Wheeling installation, model
17? A. No, sir, there have been some installations whict)
have differed in some respects froma the Wheeling in-
stailation. os

Q. And one of the differences, for example, has been
that in some of these more recent; that is, more recent
than Wheeling and Neville Island installations, some of
the apparatus whieh is physically combined with the
seometrie structure arrangement shown in 17 have been
separated again. Isn't that correct? A. That is correct.
One of the elements incorporated in the Wheeling satura-
tor on one or two installations, has been suppled as a
separate clement,

(). For example, some of vour recent installations have
the acid catcher as a separate vessel, similar in (480)
that respect te being a separate vessel to the arrangement

‘

-~?
Ww

114

Edward J. Helm--For cane caeomiare
} ‘ > oa P gee a : vif
of the acid catcher on exhibit 15, 4° That is correct. Dif-
ferent in farm but similar ageleing a separate unic.
ee

- a * .

Q. Now let us turn a moment to the installation (496)
about whieh vou talked for some time yesterday, namely,
the Un lerwood modifieation of the old style cfacker pipe
‘saturators at Bethlehem plant of the Bethlehem Steel Com-
pany. ft was my understanding of the purport of your
testimony vesterday that you identified the exhibit draw-
ing, specifically Defendants’ Exhibit 11, as illustrating a
construction whieh was installed at Bethlehem. Did you
ever see that construction poureen t

The Court: Isn't that number 142) You are speak®
ing of the drawing rather than the exhibit.

Mr. Morton: Yes. The actual drawing, | beheve
was exhibit 11. ° ’

A. 1 presume that is the right number, No, | did not see
this modification in operation at sethlehem.

(). So that the exhibit, the simplified exhibit 14, which
was | believe prepared under your direction, Was prepared
exbaubit ll, as a matter

of engineering experience, and not personal experience with

the apparatus) A. That is correct.

» (Q. It was, Liam sure quite accidentally, in the phrasing

of the questiong and answers, the implication that you knew

that this drawihg was a correct drawing of an installation
‘ that was made, and any knowledge you (497) have about
that is something you have learned in your investigation of

this litigation. Isn't that right?! A. That is correct. J

might add, Mr. Morton, that I had learned of this drawing

prior to the instigation of this litigation.

Q). You had?) A. Yes. Not through observation, but |
had learned of Mie existence of this drawing and had seen
this drawing.

asa simplification of the drawin

fe: 115
Edward J. Helm--For Defendants—Cross.

(). Prior to. the instigation of the litigation; might Task,
had you seen that prior to dune 3, 1952, the date of the
‘scue Of the patent in suit? A. No, sir.

_(). Where did you first see the drawing exhibit 11? A.
I first saw the drawing exhibit 1] at Bethlehem, Pa.

(). So far as you know, Were you the first employee of the
K«ppers Company to see that drawing? A. Lido not believe
that Twas. | P

Q). Do vou know who was! “A. T do not know who was
rst.

Q. When didgyou first hear about the existence of the ap-
paratus depietedy or purported to be depicted, on exhibit
112 (498) A. bdo not know whether | ean answer with any
certainty as to the exact date.
here which would bring them al] together, show sunilarities
and differences. In making (628) that analysis, they are
all dealing with a general problem which is ilustrated in
the diagram on the left-hand side there, which is coke
oven gas containing amunonia flowing in and being treated
in some kind of a process with sulphuric acid to make
coke oven gas not containing ammonia and to make atm,
mionium sulphate.

The Court: When you speak of similarities and
differences, do you mean sinifarities and differences
as between these Various drawings or—

-

‘
lue

124
Arthur H. Radasch-—Yor Plaintiff —Direct.

The Witness: The various schemes and the de-
velopment of ammonium sulphate production over
the years, as represented by—~

The Court: Similarities and differences in the
process, is that what yeu mean?

The Witness: That's correct, sir.

; /

Q. (By Mr. Morton :) Now, ‘to recap, Professor, | think
the general process which you have illustrated by this
figure on the left is common to all of the varying appa
ratuses for the production of ammonium sulpuate from
cok@oven gas, is it not? A. Yes. They all take coke
as with ammonia, get the ammonia out by using

sulphune acid, and they make ammonium sulphate.
Q. Vedy good. Now, from there. (629) A. In making

this analysis to analyze what, goes on inside the cirele, so
to speak, since they deal with gases and since they deal
with liquid solutions. and since they also deal with solids
or crystals, it seemed to me that 1 should analyze this on
a scientific basis and consider those factors which are
necessary to characterize sysfems of that kind, and the
three factors which the plivsical chemists use, and the
chemical engineers also, are the pressure, temperature,
and the various concentrations that are involved in these
systems. os

| had to select one of these factors as the principal
distinguishing characteristic to get an illustration such as
| wanted. Pressure is not a particularly good one, be
cause except for certain parts of cycles they all operate
at substantially atmospheric pressure. There are little
differences in temperature, although they all on) these
are operating say from 45 degrees up to 80 to 85 degrees.

Q). And by that you mean 45 to so centigrade? A. Yes.
The best: division was in terms of the concentration, so |
have drawn a line right across the middle of this chart

125
4 Arthur H. Radasch—For Plaintiff—Direct.

from right to left, and I have above that line a number of
processes which we have heen talking about, or which
have been talked about here, which use (650), as stated in
the upper left-hand corner, saturated and supersaturated
this weuld be ee a sul.
phurie acid tower but it iLAS the only piece that [ could get
ho! doz. Jf this, pae king i isin there and the liquid descends,
it can get hung up,-and there. can be loval Situations as
Jeremiassen qdeseribed, Avhere even thouth you pian. to
operaie an exit with an unsaturated solttion, this. hanging
up’ “of the liquid in there in contaet with mage gas than

my = *

corresponds to, the liquid flow, that liquid (C46) can ,

become saturated arsl finally ‘supersaturated, su that salts
earn be produce ‘ed in a tower, and.I would hke to exphain
the second sentence, that, that would account for Mr.
Beckers. thinking that nee thogen he wanted to run a
tower so that he came out with ar ‘unsaturated solution, -
this salt which might be tempoggrily formed could ‘become
dflodged, sould dump, could be partially dissolved so that.
the encrustations .could ng longer hang on to this thing,
and could drop down into the exit solution.

Now that is a rather lone explanation hut T thought I
could sliorten it. “So that fs iy reason for putting: Becker
1,307,534 below the line.

Q. That is below the line which separates apparatus
working with tt saturated solution containing erystals from
those working with unsaturated, non-erystal containing
solution? A. Yessir. In this particular patent, and also
in the preceding patent issued on thesame day, the product

of the towers went to another place for production of the

ammonium sulphate erystals. While [ have made this
whole analysis on thie basis -of a first approach in terms of
fundamental science, Y do recognize, of course, that there
are, comparing one with another, a great many C47) dif.
ferences in the way a man would carry out his idea, and

ay therefore there are many engineering differences here

besides differences in concentration.

Now Lean go to the Becker patent in the second panel at

the top.

J

{
'
|
=
¥

:

ee

”

4

t 131

Arthur Ih Radasch-—F or Plaintiff— Direct.

&
(). Does that hatatteety illustrate anything more than

a conventional craeker pipet A. Well this particular sketch -

here is the type of thing shown diagrammatically: in the
earlier 1919 Becker patent, but in iny thinking this par-
ticular conventional:crack@r pipe stands not only for 1919,
it stands for 1930, it stands also for multiple cracker pipes,
and all kinds of cracker pipes. 1 do@reeognize, of course,

that. there are engineering ard operating differences one”

from the other. And it stands also for the oval eracker
pipe saturator. ‘

Q. Now in the eracker pipe design which you have ide al-
_ ized under the heading Bec ker 1,747,616, does var pass

through the reaction zone from inlet to outlet unobstructed

in its flow! A. No, it is obstructed.

Q). Obstructed by what? A. By the liquor that it would
have to-pays through and pus sh out of the way to do so.

G45) Q). That is the gas is introduced into a bath of
liquid and bubbles through the Liquid before it ean pro-
a to the exit? A.-That’s correct: © >.

Q. What is that hath? A. Well, that bath, since this
represents the conventional erac ‘ker pipe design, when i
is operated normally, will be a solution of ammonium sul-
qhate that will contain’ also sulphuric acid ami ino which
there will be ‘suspended ammonium sulphate crystals.

\. That is why it is placedtpbove the Tine! 1 oA. Yes, sis
Now | core next to the Jeremiassen patent, and | think
an understanding of the Jeremiassen patent depends at
solutely onca clearunderstanding of what is meant hy these
Hetastable solutions.

t * ° e *

49) The Witness: [hope i can do this without

adding to the confusion, [| would: like te simplify

it if J ean. Here are a couple of solutions 1 pre
pared in New York, which are in the metastable con-

132

4
) Arthur H. Radasch—F or Plaintiff—Dtrect. 2

dition. Now | think we ought to have a definition

of that. As I understand it, a metastable equilgp

) rium is a very definite equilibrium. It is not the

most. stable one but it is a very definite one, and

can continue to .xist for usually as long as you

want it, and it can be discharged when yau intro-

duce a stable phase. There are several materials

that can be used to demonstrate this, and one of the

‘best is sodium thiosulphate, which is the material
developed in water in each of these two flasks.

Let me open one of them. And the@TL got a bottle

of sodium thiosulphate eryvstals here and if J take

a little tiny seed, all LT have to do is crack up one of

these and get a little material. | rather hesitate te

do this, because sometimes these experiments don’t

“swork, but let’s see if I can make this work. If not, . ;

I will Rave to trv another. .Drop a little seed in

there. You can see that grow and of course now

JS the metastability is destroyed, and that is) what

“wa stable phase.

-happens when you introds

- Mr. Latz: Le @ record show that Professor

(650) Radasch Kot only dropped a erystal, but shook
the bottle. : ;

The Witness: May To ouse this other bottle, and
ask Mr. Lutz if he witl,hoid it and not shake it or
do anything he wants to, and J wall put “another

| er. stal in.it. ,

Q. Before we come ta that, vou night tell the court just
what is in the bottle Before vou that is perfeetly clear.
A. That is a metastable solution of sedium thiosulphate
in water. {a

Q..In other words, that is a solution of sedi. thie.
sulohate which contains more sodium thiosulphate in oer
centage terms than is considered to be a saturated solu

S eebientea ORR ek cana oc Aaa ADA eS aie

133 we
Arthur IH. Radasch—-For Plaintiff —Direct.

tion! Is that right? A. If you took the solution off this
and filtered off the crystals that would be a saturated solu-
tion and the content of sodium thiosulphate in that selu-
tion is less. These are both prepared from the same orig:
inal mixture, because some of it will have been removed
as erystais.

(). The witness has reference to the bottle in which he
dropped a seed crystal and which now contains a very sub-
stantial mass of ervstal. Those two solutions, the (651) one
vou have just treated, and the one in the sealed bottle, were
made by vou in New York? A. Yes..

(). And were they brought down by vou in what sort of
transportation?” A. Shall P name them all? ‘o )

Q. Yes. A. Foot, subway, bus, train and private aute
mobite,

~~ PQYor came by way of Steubenville and dfove over
Jhére, Did vou take any extraordinary means to protect

trip? A. No, sou don't have to do that. b think there
isa lot of misunderstanding about this metastable tends, of course, to supersaturate those drops and wher
vou get in-the presence of erystals, a degree of super
scisir sate, Tae forms, and the ervstals being present the
supersaturation is discharged on the erystals. When I
say discharged, | do not mean totally discharged, but I

140

*

Arthur H. Radasch—For Plaintiff-- Direct.

mean it is being discharged on the ery stals. In other words,
there is an operation set up Where aumnenia ts being fed
inte the drop at a certain rate, and at that rate or a rate
near that, the ammonium sulphate supersaturation being
produced is being discharged on the crystals.

Q. In essence then there is happening in the sprayed
material from the Otto arrangement by virtue of its spray-
ing a liquid, we eall it red here, exactly the same thing
that happened in the bath in the early eracker pipe? A.
That is right. The Otto saturator does the same two
functions as are done ia the cracker pipe apparatus, ab-
sorption and erystallization,

Q). Both at the same time?) A. Occurring simultaneously,

In the sume reaction zone. Now did you find any
other apparatus in which ~ took place at one place ina
spray; that is where the gas passes through the reaction
zone without obstruction ia reaction is ¢aused te oceur
in a spray? A. You mean the reaction accompanied by
crystallization?

(663) Q. That's right, the whole eracker pipe r reaetion
takes place without a eracker pipe, in a stream of gas flow-
ing through space without obstruction. A. 1 dont know of
any illustration, any other illustration that T can give
where both absorption and erystallization take place at the
came time ina spray, and that makes me think that the
Otto apparatus is unique in that respéet. TP think that
there are} know of other places where absorption and
ervstallization ecenr in the same unit, in the same zone of
a anit. but net in a spray form.

) That would be, for example, in’ the conventional
eracker pipe? AL That is one example, and there are
others.

Q. On the other hand, wh: ce absorption of ammonia is
the principal objective, sprays have been used for many
years, the crystallization taking place elsewhere. Ts that

141
Arthur H. Radasch--For Plaintiff-—Divrect.

right?) For example, here (indicating). A. 1 don't know
about sprays having been used for many years. In other
words, here is a Neumeyver and a Wellstein and a Brunek
patent, all about the same, and a Doherty patent, but I can't
sav that they have been used fora number of years,

Q. At least if you follow the teaching of those (664) old
patents, vou would spray to obtain the absorption of the
ammonia but the erystallization would have to be done some
place else? AL At another place, Now TP jest want to clear
one point before LT leave it. There is alse some erystalliza-
tion that takes place in another place in the Otto saturator.
iy other werds, as the droplet» fallin this Otte saturater,
and are reacting the free sulphurie acid is reacting with
the vas and tending to produce a supersaturation, met in
the metastable region though, while eryvstais are present
and it is being discharged on those ervstals, of course that
is true just before the drop hits th: pool of lbquid at the
bottom. As soon as it hits that pool there is mo longer
any gas, and therefore no further reaction ean take place,
latoat that@noment it was slightly supersaturated and was
discharging the supersaturation on the erystals that were
in the spray and when it gets down mn the bath, down be
low, that supersaturation that exists in there. of course,
has to be discharged on the ecvstals down below,

° . . . .

Q. Hlaving regard to the treatment of the tad in the
Jeremiassen imvention and Towill refer te the sanplitied
sketeh of that whieh appears in the onper row of sketebe-s
on Plaintiff’s Exhibit 22--having revard te the treaties
Whieh is given the eireulated flatd ae" remiuisassen bs thy
pump and other apparatus, the flued which Jerenias-en
states is in ao metastable condition, is that Maid aeitated: in
the operation of Jeremiassen’s deview gs he deseries on!
A. Wello it certainty would be agitated as it coe. throu!
the prubtipe.

142
Arthur H. Radasch--l’or Plaintiff —Direct.

(@. Now, could you point out in the Jeremiassen patent
any other differences than the quality of the circulated
solution between Jeremiassen’s process and apparatus
and the process and apparatus of the Otte spray satura-
tor patent in suit?) A. Yes, there are differences in’ the
way that he makes his contact with the absorbing solu-
tion and the gas, beeause (675) he wants to get what he
ealls a falling rain or veil or curtain—I think that ‘*weil”’
‘is the word that he uses —but that ts a different type of
contact situation from what vou get in a spray, and Lhe
says that he does not want a spray and he says—-or in
effect hé says that—and he does not want a packed tower
either, because either one of those types of operation in
higethinking, as I read it, would defeat what he is trying
to do. Now, the reason that he does net want a packed
tower, I think I indicated’ yesterday, is that jf he had a
packed tower and this saturated solution were held up in
that tower for any length of time locally that setaration
would become a supersaturated con lition on beyond what
he wanted, and would tend to produce erystals.

If vou take a droplét or a little pid of ld and hie
it through the height that he might have in his tower, ten
or fifteen feet, or his ghamber, it would obviously fall
something like a second or less, and if you took ghe same
droplet or a quantety of solution and let it flow down
through a packed tower the time would be very much longer,
and in a packed tower of any sizable height, five, tem or
ify «nm feet, the. time could run into minutes from the tine
the material is introduced at the top (674) to the tintie’
that Tt lows out the bottom, and he does net want it to be
held up there any great length of time.

He does not want a spray either, because droplets of a
spray would get, he says, on the walls of his chamber and
tend to begome supersaturated to the point where erystal
formation woul take place and he wants to avoid these

a

Aw

14:5
Arthur dl. Radasch-—For Plantiff—Darect.

inerustations, and he carefully, designs his apparatus so
that the boundary--l was going to say side walls; they
weren’t exactly walls in the sense that they are a total
enclosure--the boundary of the space between the gas

inlet passage and the inside of the chatuber where he has

this falling rain slopes, and the gas is always going in-
wards, so that he tries as hard as possible to keep drops
away from the ‘alls, if you can call it that, of his gas
chamber. In ether words, he wants to avoid a spray effect,
and he dees not want a packed tower either.

Q. tlow about comparing the structure called for in the
Otto patent with respect tothe contact achieved between
vas and liquid and between the wetting of the walls?) .\.
Well, in all eases in the Otto design he has a very heavy

pray in és chamber and also a heavy spray goine against
he Walls of the chamber.

Q). In other words, instead of keeping the walls dry he
seeps them extra wet, is the right? (679) A. Yes.

Q. And with respect to the place where the release ot
supersaturation is to take place’ in the erystal-formine
portions of the two apparatuses, is there a difference be.
iween the two, Jeremias-en and Otte? AL Well, in the
Otte process, with plenty of erystals ino the cireulating
stream, the supersaturation which is being produced bs
reaction of the gas ‘on that solution is beim dischiarwed
partly in the gas space as the spray falfs through—

Q. That space right here underneath the sprays? A,
Yes, sir, Parthy in the connecting pipe between the ab-
sorbing seetion and what is denoted in the Otto patent

asa eryvstallizer—

Q). That's this tank here to which the lower connecting
pipe discharges, is that richt? A. Yes. And the sbalance
of the supersaturation over there, in the erystallizer. In
Ather Words, an thie (ite pracess the supersatoration is
being discharged en route to the final tank over there.

144

Arthur H. Radasch—-For Plaintiff—Direct.

Q. What does Jeremiassen say about the discharge of

his supersaturation? A. His process, which is based en

« the Isaachsen idea, the supersaturation whieh he is getting
in the falling (676) spray, he does not disclose any dis-
charge of that in the spray and he does not disclose any
discharge of that en route to the place where the erystals
are, but he does say that the supersaturation is being dis-
charged, or the solution is being desupersaturated, down
there where the erystals are.

Q. That is to say, in the bottom of the part marked
red on your Exhibit 32?) A. Which is a point somewhat
remote in the sense that there Is a connecting passage—

(). That’s this downcomer here on this drawing, is that
right?) A. Yes, a point remote where the supersaturation
is produced.

. € * . *

(678) Q. Now, Professor, | show you Defendants’ J¢%-
hibit 16, which is an illustration of the spray saturator
owned by the defendant Wheeling Steel Corporation and
operating at Follansbee, West Virginia. Can you tell us
whether, from that drawing and from any other studies
you may have made of the construction and operation of
that saturator—first, whether the apparatus and operation
for affecting the contact between the gas and the liquid
therein follows-the teaching of the Jeremiassen patent,
that ‘is, in the form of a veil, or whether it corresponds to
what vou have charactérized as the spray method of the
Otis disclosure? A. Well, this shows diagrammatically a
number of sprays, so that I would eail this a spray type
equipment. | 2

(). And the sprays are located so that they will do which
—avoid the walls as in Jeremiassen, or copiously wet the
walls? %. Well, they ‘would certainly wet the walls
ceaplously.

-Q. Now, the evidence available here is quite clear that

145
Arthur H. Radasch—lor Plaintyf— Direct.

in the Wheeling saturator the liquid sprayed through the
inain spray is a saturated solution of ammonium sulphate
(O09) celal uisiuds. Having that in mind would
vou compare the places where crystallization takes place
in the Wheeling saturator with the places where erystal-
lization is deseribed as taking place in the Jeremiassen ar-
rangement and the place where crystallization takes place
i; the Otte arrangement? A. Well, if this is a solution
containing crystals and acid, as soon as the spray is warm,
that is, as soon as the liquid leaves the nozzle, the anumonia
in the gas with which it is in contact would react with it,
and since there are erystals in it the supersaturation which
tends to be produced would start to be discharged on those
erystals, and would continue in the bath below it until the
liquor became desupersaturated completely.

(>. What vou have just described is the crystallization
that would take place, that does take place, in the Wheel-
ing saturator-as vou analyzed. That, if 1 reeall correctly,
would net be the sequence under which erystallizati-n takes
place -in the Jeremiassen operation as he describes it,
would it?) A. In the Jeremiassen as I understand it, the
liquor is only supersaturated at ene place and then is
desupersaturated in another place.

And in the Otto, on the other handy the erystalhzation
(680) takes place substantially in the same manner and
in the same places as in the Wheeling, is that right? A.
Yes, sir. : . :

(). Now, in the Jeremiassen patent the eireulation is
deseribed as in the metastable range throughout, is it not?

The Witness: You mean the eirculation of the
liquor leaving the— ee

Q. The liquor leaving the pump and on its way back
to the ervstallization space is described by Jeremiassen, |
believe, as a eirculation in which the metastable limits

} \ 146
Arthur H. Radasch) -For Plaintiff Cross.

are never exceeded, is that right? A. | think | would have
to refer to the Jeremiassen to see whether that is the
ase. : a

Q. Please do. A. Well, he doesn’t describe it exacthy
that way.

Q. How does he describe it?) A. He says, ‘*An impor-
tant characteristic feature of the process which is the
object of the invention consists therein that the solution
to be concentrated by contact with the gas is introduced
into the gas space in an approximately saturated condi--
tion.’’ That is line 14 on column 2, and then farther down,
line 33, he says, ‘Referring to Figure 1, the numeral 1 des-
ignates the pump foreing (681) approximately saturated
solution up into a container 2.”’

Q. So that the portion which is cireulated through Jere-
miassen’s is described as being saturated and as coming
down without ever exceeding the metastable limit, is that
right?) A. In the coming down part it does not exceed the
metastable limit.

Q. Would it, therefore, in the coming down part con-
tain any crystals? A. Not the way I understand me-
tastable solutions. —

Q. How does that compare with the circulation in’ the
Wheeling saturator as shown on Defendants’ Exhibit 16?
A. Well, this cireulation here, as 1 understand it, con-
tains crystals and therefore it is a seeded solution, gs in
the Otto process.

SI ¢ . . a
(Cross Examination by Mr. Brown:
. id * » ®@ *
(686) Q. Tasked you about your personal knowledve a-
a teacher and professor of chenbeal envineering, Professor,
and on that basis will vou say whether or not you your-
self personally knew before 1946 of the availability of

147
Arthur Ho Radascho For Plaintiff Cross.

the process of spraying a liquid through a gas to cause
some chemical reaction or to cause any effect or inter-
action between the liquid and the gas?) A. 1 knew of the
availability of sprays to cause such reactions.

Q). And before 1946?

The Witness: Before 1946?

Q. Yes, sir. A. Yes, sir.

(G87) Q. Wouldn't you say that any qualitied chemical
enginger in or prior to 145 had such similar knowledge?
A. Wel, if cou mean by ‘tarfy’) amy possible one, 1 would
Say ves, but if by ttany’* you mean all qualified chemical
Pngineers 1 would say definitely no.

(). Well, anyhow, a fair proportion of them had) such
knowledge vou agree with that, | assume? A. They had
such knowledge of spray devices to cet contact with liquid
and gas.

Q: Yes. A. Yes. :

Q. Did you mean te tell the Court that in) your. re-
search and study leading up to what you called the evolu
tien of abunenium saturaters, that you had found no ref-
erences in the published art or patented article of a sul-
pharie acid solution being passed in finely divided form
through ammonia gas for the purpose of removing cn
monia prior to the Otto spray patent in suit? A. T found
such a reference, ves.

. You had found such reference? A, Yes, sir.

Q. Well, TP must have overlooked it. What was that
reference? Did you refer to it in your direct testimony!
A. No, T have not referred to it.

(GSS) Q. Well, would you mind telling me what it ts
new? A. No, sir. It is the Tiddy patent 1.007 757 filed
in August, 1931, and granted in 1905,

Q. What does that patent teach vou as a chemical en-

148
Arthur H, Radasch—For Plaintiff-—Cross.

gineer and what, in your opinion, does it show as to pro-
Jecting sprayed sulphuric acid solution into a space con-
taining coke even gas or other gas to be treated by the
sprayed liquid?) A. Well, it taught me a lot, beeause |
knew something about that development and | knew that
Mr. Tiddy had in mind the fact that a spray from a spray
nozzle to do this job might not work on the basf@f some
other experience that he had had and that he devised a
partieular kind of spray equipment to do this job, which
I distinguish from a spray tower type of equipment.

Q. Well, so far as the interaction of the sprayed. sul-
phurie acid solution into coke oven gas, the fine particles
thrown up by the rollers in the Tiddy patent would inter-
act with the coke oven gas and remove the ammonia in the
form of ammonium sulphate, would they not? A. That's
correct.

Q. So that there, as vou understand it, before the date
claimed for his invention of the spray patent by Dr. Otto.
which, for your information, | will tell vou on the record
(689) was in May or later of 1946, so that this Tiddy
patent, as you interpret it, showed that a prior inventor
had proposed to remove ammonia from coke oven gas by
spraying, or eall it what vou will, projecting fine particles
of sulphurie acid solution through the gas? A. Mr. Tiddy
very definitely did propose that.

Q. Have vou the patent before vou? A. | can cet it.

Mr. Brown: May | hand a copy to the Court?
And it may facilitate things if we now mark it as
Defendants’ ! xhibit 37.

Q. Professor, this Tiddy patent describes spraying the
sulphuric acid through the coke oven gas. You have agreed
with that? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Will vou also agree that this spraved material was

* 149
Arthur H. Radasch—For Plaintiff ross.

picked up out of the mother liquor bath which contained
amionium sulphate crystals? A. We haven't agreed to
it vet. 7 can agree to it now.

Q. Sir? A. You asked if we had agreed to it:

Q. Yes. (690) A. T can agree to it now.

(Q). You agree to it now?) A. That this bath down here
contains ammonium sulphate and ammonium sulphate
crystals.

(). And will you agree that the material picked up and
sprayed through the gas contains ammonium sulphate
eryvstals? A. | think that would be the case, because while
the bath is very deep there are undoubtedly crystals at the
top of the bath. IT am not too suré about that, though,
Mr. Brown, because | don’t know exactly what this con-
dition woukl be at the top of the bath, but [I think there
are erystals in that spray liquor.

Q). | was quoting that sentence, **The sprayed liquor
containing ammonium sulphate, both dissolved and erystal-
line,’ that refers and is a staterment by Tirddy that his
spray (691) did contain ammonium sulphate crystals? A.
Yes.

Q. You agree to that?) A. Yes, I agree.

(@. Will you also agree that in the apparatus, which
for the purposes of my question is Hlustrated in.the upper
part of Figure 2 at the right of the drawing, the space
hetween the roller and the easing in which the gas is sub-
jected to spray is unobstructed? A. Yes.

Q. In other words, sulphurie acid solution containing
ammonium sulphate erystals is spraxedsthrough coke oven
vas in an unobstructed space, as | understand it? A. Yes,
I would agree to that.

Q). Now, Professor, [| believe you only referred in your
development of the evolution of ammonium saturators to
publications. You didn’t go out into the cominereial art

150

Arthur H. Radasch——-For Plaintiff-—-Cross.

at ail, as | understand it. A. I don’t know what you mean
by commercial art, as distinguished from publications.

, Q. Well, | mean saturators as they were built and used
and operated-in the field. A, Well, | had seen some during
the course of years.

Q. Well, sir, | think we are misunderstanding each (692)
other. I mean your testimony was based pon publica-
tions rather than upon any commercial installations. A.
That is correct.

Q. Did you know-ahout the Underwood saturator at
Bethlehem which has been proved here while you were
sitting in the court room, did you know about that before
you heard of it in this court room or in your preparation
of this case? .A.,Not before that.

a). But assuming that that Underwood-Bethlehem instal-
lation operated as has been described by Mr. Helm and
Mr. Stout, that also would be an instance in which sul-
phurie acid solution containing ammonium sulphate crys-
tals was sprayed through an unobstructed space through
which coke oven gas was passing, would it not? he
understood it? A. Do L know his definition! 1 cant re
call that.

(). | think | can tell you he said it mean, to him an
empty space, A. Yes.

(). And he me®@hi space which didn’t have pipes passine
through it and sprays, and so forth, which bight became
(705) encrusted with ammonium sulphate erystals. That
is as J understand what he meaht Do you accept that-
proposition? A. 1 accept that in part, yes, sir.

(Q. What part do you not accept: A. Well, | mean I
accept that as part of the picture of an unobstructed space.
There is another part; say for example it did not contain
packing or baflles or cracker pipes.

Q. | just want to make sure we do understand a pot
which | think is important. That your only distinction
from the spraying of a sulpluric acid solutior containing
entrained crystals throug: coke oven gas a exemplified
in the Underwood, Bethlehem apparatus, whieh has hewn
proved in your presence, is that you say there Was an
obstructed space through which the gas and liquid passes.
Ix that right? A. Through which the gas passed.

(). Through which the gas passed? A. Yes, sir.

Q. We are agreed on that then? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, do you remember, Professor,. the Otto bell-
mouth type saturator that was put in at Wheeling €
whieh (706) is charged to infringe one of the patents 41
suit? A. Yes.

158
Arthur H. Radasch--For Plaintiff—ross.

(). And, Vrofessor, | will show. you a copy of that patent
and ask you to look at Fig. 6 on page 2 of the patent. A.
Yes, sir. : .

Q). At the right-harié side of the Fig. 6 you see kind of
-a nebulous figure marked B-4, which the text describes a-
a spray foreed up into the gas chamber by gas passing
through’ the bath and then up into the chamber. “Ts that
vour understanding? A. Yes, sites

(). And the patent also states that this spray foreed up
by the gas through the liquid hath is sufficient to wash the
walls of the tank to prevent salting up. Remember that 2
A. [ don't remémber that, but 1 will take your word for
it. , &

Q. Well, take my word for it, and assuming that that
4707) is so, is not that’ an instance in which a spray ts.
foreed through’coke oven gas, the spray eonsisting of ae
liquid containing entrained erystals?) A. This is prac: -
tically the same as you would find in ali craeker Bipes.

Q.- Isn't i. true then that in view of the Wav vot under.
stand it, that all eracker pipes involve the production Af a
spray passing through the coke oven gas, that spray e¢on-
sisting of sulphurie .aeid) solution containing: entraimed
erystals?) A. There is a spray from all eraeker pipes and
in all apparatus of this kind which gets into the was. T do
not quite agree that the spray passes through tie space.
‘Vhat means something a little different to ime.

() Well, it passes upward into the space? A, Yes, sir,
nnd upward into the gas.

(). Hf it was sufficient to wash the walls of the tink, it
would pretty well pass through the space, would if not. or
at least a large part of the space? AL Oh, ves, it would,
have to pass from the point of egress of the solution ever
- to the wall.

Q. Yes, and up the wall too, if yan want to keep them
clean, wouldn’t it? A. Yes, up the wall fer: quite.a dis
tance. |

ee a ar ae

159
Arthur HW. Radasch—Lor Plaintiff —Cross.

(Tus) Q. Do you question that thgt spray would carry
entrained ammonium sulphate erystals?) A. No, sir

Q. You gave the court a somewhat—what seemed to me
4 somewhat theatrical exhibition yesterday on your illus-
tration Ofgthe rhetastable solution. Was that made with

the kind of mother hquor — in the saturator we are,

talking about? A. No, »

(). Not made with any ae ‘That is a in anve
suturators we are talking about, was it?) A The only
material that was involved there was water, ‘that is used
in sature‘ors, See oh

\. Professor, you went at great length into this meta-
stable matter, and [ frankly -adsuit_your superior knowl-
edge as far as Tam concerned, so | am not goings back
uiio it With you, but as IT understand your exposition of
‘lis matter, you did nut cite any authority, By that i
wean recognized treatises, text books, and so forth. You
know what mean by that. A. Yes, sik ¢

Q. But ierely gave your own definition and eXposiilon
of the inatter you discussed. ds that right?) A. T did net
cite an authority but L get my (709) definition trom an

authority. \

. Which adthority you did not cite? A. T did not ci

‘
ik. ?

i. LE want to ask one other question on thys and that is

call, Tf Lo understood you correctly, you said it) Was imn-

possible to have p metastable solution, saturated solution,
nn the presence of erystals. A. That is my understanding
of it. that metastable solution means no erystals. .
That is what you meant to tell the court vesterday?

That is correct. _ ee

(). That is what | Ynderstood) vou meant to say. A.
That is what TP imeant to say.

Q. If bam wrong about it, | would like you to correct it
now, Now, Professor, you purported to show the court

¢

160
Arthur H. Radasch—l'or Plamtiff—Cross.

the evolution of the saturator art, and particularly, amons
other things, you showed the. evolution of the cracker pipe
type saturator, Is that right? A. Well, | hardly think |
showed the evolution of the cracker pipe. 1 showed ¢
Bruck patent and one other Becker patent, but there eae
been a lot of other developments.

(710) Q. You didn’t show the court the cracker pipe
Otto saturator whieh is described in the patent in suit
here, did you? A. No, because to me that is another
illustration of the cracker pipe art.

Q. There has been a gradual evolution and imprevement
even in the old cracker pipe? A. Oh, yes.

Q. You observed that as you went alone? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that evolution had progi@ssively lowered “the
differential between the two sides of a eracker pipe satura.
tor, did it not?) A. Yes, sir, they were all working in that
direction,

Q. So just before 146, the crac ‘ker pipe art oad reduced
the differential down to a few inches, Ts that right?) A.
There have been a number of developments in the cracker
pipe art which reduced the differential. :

Q. Very materially?) A. Yes, materially.

Q. And that was progressive? A. Oh, yes.

Q. Now, Professor, | think you would avree as a (711)
teacher of chemical engineering that there is in nearly al!
arts a progessive development and improvement of appa
ratus as they go along. Isn't that right, in your exper:
ience? A. There is until that art ends. fe

Q. Does it ever end?) A. Yes, it ends sometimes when
another type of development_comes along and makes it
obsolete, then it ends.

Q. In other words, until something supersedes it. A
That is correct,

Q. And then maybe it will he completely discontinued ?
A. Correct.

®

- 161

Arthur H. Radasch— For Plaintiff-—Cross.

Q. But usually there is a progressive improvement as
you .£6 ‘along a Yés, Sir.

Q. — throughout the life of any apparatus or process.
jx that right, 7 general? A. J would think so.

Q. Professor, if 1 understood you correctly, you re-
ferred to the diagram at the lower right- hand corner of
this chart, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 82, and you we re asked what
the X across the middle of the tank was, and (712) you

said that was the conventional way of indicating a packed

tpwer. Is that right?

(701) A. (eontinuing) The difference between Otto and
Jeremiassen, as | said, is that Jeremiassen wants this rain
and Otto uses a spray, which | think engineeringly is a
sivmificani thing. The ©@tto process discloses that the cir-
culation consists of a solution of sulphate, sulphurie aeid,
including i cuspension of crystals. The Jeremiassen
process does not disclose erystals in circulation. That is
another distinetion between the two. The third thing is
that Otte, as PE said, accomplishes absorption and ervstafti-
gation as does a eracker pipe in the same zone, the

ervstallization is continued as the solution from the bottom.

Cc | 166

x

Arthur H. Radasch--For Plaintiff —Re-cross.

goes, over towards his so-called erystallizer, whereas the
crystallization in the Jeremiassen patent is stated to take
place at a point remote from where the absorption takes
place. . ;

(762) Now on the Tiddy patent, which is not shown on
the chart, I recognize from the standpoint of engineering
that the method of generating the spray is a different
one, and | think that.Mr. Tiddy had in mind in 1931 that
sprays would nét have worked, because he knew of another
case where sprays from spray nozzles did not work, and
he knew from that ease also that spray rolls did work,
and on the basis of that engineering device, I think there
is a difference between the two.

Q. Now, Professor, | just want to clear up what may
seem a little difficult for you to testify about, was Mr.
Tiddy at any time an employee of an organization for
which you were also an employee? A. Well, I@think the
answer to that is no. I was employed by the Barret
Division and he was employed by the Semet Engineering
Corporation, I think it was at that time, and each exer-.
cised authority over its own employees. They were both
controlled by Allied Chemical and Dye.

Q. Did you ever work on projects involving roll type
spray apparatus that you know Mr. Tiddy also worked
on? A. Well, | worked on spray roll types of apparatus
and | know he was interested in those, and T had to con-
sult (763) with him on the use of that type of apparatus
for ammonia recovery. | ‘

--Re-cross Examination by Mr. Brown:

(769) Q. If you took this metastable gadget that you
have talked so much about out of Jeremiassen and just con-

(). Don't talk about what he doesn’t want tor do, but
talk about what he does. Call it a rain or a spray, we
agreed this morning that that breaks the liquid up into
small drops and causes it to fall down through the sas
chamber, and | think vou agreed this morning that that
would be suffieient to take the ammonia gas out of the
eoke oven gas, didn't yout A. 1 did not avree that it broke
it up into small drops. 1 did agree that it would take the
ammonia out of the coke oven gas.

Q). All right, then, whether you call ita spray ora shower
ora veil, or what-not, the liquid falls freely down through
the gas and is sufficient to take ammonia ‘out of the gas. Do
weagree onthat? A. Yes.

Q. Doesn't that have substantially all vou have attributed
to Doctor Otto, except that you say Doctor Otte has en-
trained erystals in the liquid which he (771) showers or
sprays or pours, or carries by hack for all we care, down
through the gas chamber, sufficiently to take out the am.
monia from ‘the gas chamber. Isn't that about the only
differenee you ean point out in the broad veneral prae-
ticing of the two processes? — A. Well, Doctor’ Otte, |
don't believe, said that he showered or sprayed or poured
it down there. He said that he sprayed that.

Q. All rigit, he said he sprayed it. Tf we should call
the Jeremiassen shower, as you call it, a spray, then what
would be left to be distinguishingly different in the way

168
Arthur H. Radasch—For Plaintiff—Re-direct.

the two processes are carried out in Jeremiassen and Otte?
A. If you should call it a spray?

Q. Yes. Permit me to take the liberty of calling it a
spray. A. Well, | think the thing that ts then left is the
fact that Doctor Otto discloses circulation of mother liquor
plus erystals and Jeremiassen does not disclose any crystals
in that circulating line.

Q. Then we come down to my question, The only dif-
ference would be, that you see, Doctor Otto included
erystals iff his spray line and Jeremiassen didnot. Would
that he the difference you find? (772) A. On the supposi-
tion that one of the differences is to be voided, then that
is a remaining difference.

Q. And the only remaining difference, isn't it, Im es-
ance? ‘A. No, there is one other remaining difference.
The fact that Jeremiassen produces his absorption in one
place and deposits the supersaturation-made because of
absorption in another place.

Q. Well, both of them do the erystallizing, the formation
of erystals, in substance, in the crystallizing chamber, do
they not? A. Jeremiassen discloses that that is where he
does it. Doctor Otto discloses that it takes place in the
transmission line over there as well as in the chamber.

Re-direct Examination by Mr. Morton:

(776) Q. Professor, | show you Defendants” Ext@hit Ts.
one of the patents contained in there, a patent granted to
Sperr, or more accurately, to the Koppers Company as
assignee of Sperr, September 26th, 1933. Do you find in
that patent a mechanism for producing a spray which is
the same as the spray producing mechanism of this Tidds
patent which became Defendants’ Exhibit 37 this morn-
ing? A. It looks substantially the same to me. He has

169
Louis A. Farmet—For Plaintif[—Direct.

five spray rolls in here instead *of Tiddy having two, but
otherwise it was an apparatus which looked about the
same.

(). How many did Tiddy have? Two? A. Yes, two.

Q. Take a look at the patent. A. Tam sorry, Tiddy
patent does have three and (777) Sperr has five.

QO. But essentially those rolls are performing the same
function in the same way, as far as they are described in
those two patents, Tiddy and Sperr. Is that right? A.
Well, | would assume so, although | have never seen the
Sperr patent before.

Q). And that methed of producing spray ix one with
whieh you are familiar as far as your engineering prac-
tice and training, is it-not? A. Yes, [ had some experi-
ence with it.

(). Is that method of producing a spray inberchangeable
in results in all eases and places with other methods of
producing spray which have heen deseribed here during
the trial? A. No, It is a different device engineeringly
and in the situations with whieh [ had some familiarity
spray nozzles wouldn't work, but this type of device did
work, so vou can't say that ene just simply replaces an-
other, in any one of these devices.

(787) Loris A. Farixer, having been first duly sworn as
a Witness, thereupon testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Morton:

Q. Where de you live, Mr. Farinet? A. Hellertown,
Ponnsvivania.

Q. By whom are you employed?) A. Bethlehem Stee!
Corporation.

(). How long have you heen employed by Betniehem
Steel Corporation? A. Oh, about thirty-six years.

170
Louis A, Farinet—For Plaintiff—Durrect.

Q. What is-your present job at Bethlehem Steel Com-
pany?) A. Genera! By-Product Foreman.

Q. How long have you been General By-Prpduct Fore-
man? (738) A. About two and a half years atthe present
time.

Q. During the period from about, say, 1941 to 1946,
what was your job at Bethlehem?) A. Turn Foreman.

Q. And as Turn Foreman Wid you have .under your
supervision the ammonia saturator apparatus located at
that Bethlehem. plant? A. Yes, sir.

. Did you also have as a fellow employee as Turt
- foreman at Bethlehem a Mr. R. Philemon Stout? A. Yes,
sir.

Q. How long was he Turn Foreman with you, to the
best of your recollection? A. Well, somewhere in “41 |
think he took over, and he left in “44.

Q. Do you know how late in “44 he left? A. In the
Fall of the vear sometime.

Q). In the Fall_of.the year? A. Yes, sir. I think
was October, if TL am not mistaken,

Q). Now, Mr. Farinet, during the period “41-'46, while
vou were working as one of the turn feremen at the
By-Product Plant ‘of the Bethlehem Steel - “Company, do
.ou recall that any structural or operating changes were
made (739) to the saturators there? A. Yes, sir.

(). Now, Mr. Farinet, that drawing hefore vou has been
marked in this case already as Defendants’ Exhibit 14
and is intended to be a simplified but nevertheless aceu-
rate illustration in a general way of the way those satu-
rators at Bethlehem looked after the changes had been
made in them. Do yon agree that that’s— .

193

Otto Depositwn.

These are mentioned, I think, in this patent which I men-
‘tioned. This refers to the other applications,

(). Well, is it fair to say, then, that, over a period of
time, vou were working.to develop a spray-type saturator!
\. That’s right. ,

(). And that these prior applications represented other
forms, or- Whatever you wank to call them—steps—in the
development which led up to the patent in suit—is that
right? A. That’s right. That is & eentinuaney in it, be-
eause Tunderstand that this patent in suit also refers to
this,

i _« . ° e

(Q. 12) Q. In the file history, there are some affidavits by
certain Officials of the Bethlehem Steel Company, if 1 re-
call —two of them, if [T reeall rightly. A. That's right.

() Can you tell me who prepared those affidavits— who
wrote them up before they were signed?

The Witness: (Addressing Mr. Hubbell) Did) vou
prepare them!

A. Tdon't know if Mr. Hubbell prepared them,

(Is your answer that yeu don't know? A. I won't
sax that. | think Mr. Hubbell worked with this, tee. i
know that. To don’t remember quite that) perftortuance,

Q. Do you know who collected the information that is
referred te in those two affidavits im yveour file history! UN.
What is that?

(). De vou know who collected the infortuation? A. The
information, for example, vot see, that we, of course, put
up, was to show: the importance to show there were,
before, so many saturators, and iater on, so maity satue
raters. That was the idea that came from us- te show
iQ@uportance of the invention.

(). Well, now, that is the object. You have stated the
object of the affidavits. What I want to know is, who pre-

184
Otto Deposition.

~ pared those affidavits? That is the first question. (OQ. 13) A.
i talked with Mr. Hubbell about that.

Q. Did you prepare them, or did Mr. Hubbell prepare
them?
Q). As far as you know, Mr. Hubbell did?) A. Yes.

(). Now, do you know who interviewed the men that
made affidavits, preliminary to preparing the affidavits!
Was that vou or Mr. Hubbell, or somebody else? AL |
think | approached the men.

Q. And then reported to Mr. Hubbell? A. And Tre.
ported to Mr. Hubbell 1 don't think that) Mr: Hubbell
ever saw th on

Q. And, | assume, that was shortly before the affidavit
wereexecuted? A. Yes, that is
something quite different: nothing to do with this ster

Q. Then, is at fair te say that yeu had seen Mir. Cox
cuite frequently in the last two vears?) A. Po wouldn't eat
that frequently, Vou see, When Vou see hidteh, perhaps, two
or three times ima year.

(). kivers veur! A. Two tithes, yee rhapes, especial! s at
the meetimes,

(0.15) Q. Did vou, at any of those meetings with Mr.
Cox, discuss the suit brought by sou avainst NKoppers and
Wheeling? AL No.

Q. Did sou ever diseuss his affidavit with him after he
exeented it? OAL DL jrast expressed to him my thanks that
he gave us the affidavet. That's all [TE did, which is quite
natural. |

Q. Now, as to the other man, what contact have you had
with him: sinee he exeeuted his affidavit? AL Mr. Pugh?
You see, with him PE had very close contact because he left
the Bethlehem Steel Company, and we engaged him as
an engineer, and when he was in our offiee, and there. in
his werk, ef course, | had then contact with him abeut
the work that Wits to bie done in our office. Then, of COUTTS,
vou have close contact, vou see.

(0.16) Q. Did vou ever ask Mr. Cox to come and work
for vour COMPANY. A. No. We didn’t ask Mr. Pugh, beeeuttise

186
Otto Deposition.

Mr. Pugh had to leave the Bethlehem Steel Company, and
we were looking for engineers, and then we approached
him. We didn’t put any incentive there to leave the Beth-
lehem Steel Company.

i
Sd @ e e s

(0.17) Q. Is my memory correct that you ssid that Mr.
Hubbell hed never seen Mr. Cox and Mr. Pugh, so far a-
you knew? A. Yes I think he never saw thet.

Q. Did you know a Mr. Underwood of the Bethleher
Steel Company? A. Oh, yes, sure, [ knew him, becarse
he gave us a first saturator order for a cracker pipe. That
was another construction.

(QO. 18) Q. Did Mr. Pugh and Mr. Cox work under Mr.
Underwood for the Bethlehem Steel Company? A. No
Mr. -tnderwood was the superintendent at Bethlehem
at. the Bethlehem plant of Bethlehem Steel—and he wa-
the superintendent of the coke ovens in Bethlehem, while:
Cox was the superintendent of the coke ovens at John~
town, and Pugh was the superintendent of the coke oven-
in Lackawanna,

Q. Was Mr. Underwood, so far as you know, in an)
way a higher official in an engineering capacity for Beth
lehem than Mr. Cox and Mr. Pugh?) A. No, PE don’t thin!
‘so, beeause | understand the situation so that they a!
were superintendents of different plants; that they hav
a coke committee, and [understand that at that gyme Mr
Underwood was the chairman of this committee.

Q. Dr. Otte, do vou expect to be g witness for plaintif
at the trial of this case? A. Do T expect that? T den’
know how that goes on. [ think that is with the Court
and, of course, if they ask me, I certainly will be a witnes-
Jetause | want to do everything in favor of our interest:

Q. Mr. Fnderwood was chairman of the coke committe
of the Bethlehem Steel Company, at the home offiee, wasn’
he, to your knowledge? A. Yes, that is what [ just tol

a

vv

—

1S7
Otto Deposition.

you. That is what | understood, but | understand that
they always select, sometimes (Q. 19) this gentleman, and
sometimes another gentleman.

Q. Welk | am asking just for your information. Isnt
it a-fact that Mr. Underwood had & very large part in
determining what coke oven apparatus would be installed
by Hethfenem in all of its plants, or any of its plants?
A. Well, because he was—-has been—very long with the
sethlehem Company, and once, IT tell you this, we found
out, to our own damage, when this order for the coke oven
and steel went to IKoppers, that it was due to him.

Q. 1 think the answer to my question is vex, isn’t it?
A. Well, 1 think he had sme inthuence there. They
listened, in any case, to what he said.

Q). Did Mr. Underwood ever turn over to you data re
garding his own experiments in ‘connection with the sat
urators for removing ammonia from coke oven gas? A.
No, net data. T remember, he talked about what happened
there with the plant after we built it. Not only he, but,
l think, all the people at Bethlehem: were very cooperative.
They didn't keep secret what was going on with the sut-
urator,. ;

Q. Did Mr. Underwood ever turn over toe vou, notes and
data about his own study of Saturaters for removing an
monia from coke oven gas? A. No, LE wouldn't say that.

(). Do vou know whether or not he had worked on the
subject matter of removal of ammonia from coke oven vias
fora good (@, 20) many vears before you put in any instal.
lations for Bethlehem?! Al No. To remember there was a
matent once on Underwood, but [T weuldn’t say it was a
caturater—was it a saturator, or something that he worked
on--but | don’t remember that | talked with him about it.

(). Your answer, then, is that Mr. Underwood never dis
cussed with vou before vou made an installation for Beth-
chem of a saturator for removing ammonia from coke

1

188
Otto De position,

oven vas, that general subject matter?) A. No, no. |
didn’t talk with him especially.

°(Q. How long have vou known Mr. Underwood? A. I
saw Mr. Underwood when [T came over, you see. Of
course, | visited all the different plants. LT tried to visit
not only Mr. Underwood but other plants. Then, 1 saw
him. That must be, perhaps, | saw him already in 7°59,
‘40. And then | tried to keep contact with him, but TP only
remember that he reaced very sour.

Q. Did you see hina rather frequently from TS ont A,
1 saw him then frequently after we have built the plant,
hecause Lo went over there to the plant, and it was the
veneral practice, before | went to the plant, to say ‘* Hello”
to the superintendent.

» Q. Didn’t vou see him rather frequently before vou put
he any apparatus for Bethelelem of any kind?) A. No.

(O. 21) Q. Dr. Otte, in the development of the apparatu-
Which is deseribed in the patent in suit, on whieh vou have
said vou had at least tive prior applieations filed A.
(Interposing) That's right,

(). —did you werk with any engineer or other person
in that development? AL Totiade most myself. You see,
| talked, perhaps, sometimes with my son, but TP didn’t
talk with other engineers,

Q). Then, the developrient A. (interposing) Was en
tirely made by miveelf.

GQ. And vou didn’t consult anybody, at all? AL No,

“Q. In that development?) AL Ne.

Q. Didn't you ge arennd and talk te anvbody?) AL After
| had developed it, vou see. then 1 tried. of course, to sel)
it—-to try to vet it in practice,

(). Now, when do you regard your development, as em
bodied in the patent in suit. as having been completed tn
vou? A. TP didn't quite get that,

(The Jast question was read.)

189
Otto Deposition.

A. Do you mean the time?

(). Yes. A. In generai, | tell vou this: T would tay s bout
April, May--in “46 or ‘47—when was this first patent
going in?

(QO. 22) (Off the record.)

A. (Continuing) | guess, about April or May, 1946, aud
then I also remember when | made the fiest effort to sell
it, because we had then in our office Professor Simmons
and Professor Stahl, from the Research Department of
Bethlehem. To them | even showed my patent drawing
before the patent was filed. I said, “*T yhow ‘you this only
confidentially.’ yl tt mae

(). Is that the patent rains of the pate nt in suit that
you are talking about?) AJ That’s right. You see, [ had
the patent drawing —it was either this (indieating)-

. o o . ° ?

Q. What drawing is that?) A. Of my application,

° pee, . .

A, (Continuing) You see, application was made on
June 4, 1946.) But. as far as [ remember, | showed that
drawing to the Bethlehem people earlier.

Q. | ask you, again, was that one of the drawings that
is now in your patent in suit?) A. That patent is not in
the patent in suit, because—wait a minute. (0. 23) Yes,
maybe nt quite accurately, because this drawing T made:
myself.

Mr. Morton: In referring to this, drawing, the
witness refers toa drawing labeled oF igure B,°* gir 7-
his file of the proceedings in Applieation, Serial No.
O7344. |

Mr. Brown: Is that one of the abandoned apph-
cations?

-

=~

4. - 190

Otto Depositwn. ie o

“Mr. Morton: It is one of the abandoned apati-
cations. . . ) '

a

Q. And you didn’t show any of the drav ies that are
now in your patent in suit— is that correct?) A. That is
corrcet; because they were made later. But they were
very similar to it. As a matter of fact, | think they are
practically identical, if you look at these two ‘trawings.

‘ « * * — : *

(QO. 26) Q. Dr. Otte, have you kept yourself familiar with
the literature relating to by-product coke ovens, and pa tic
ularly with relation to the removal of ammonia gas from
by-preduct coke ovens? A. Yes, | did. :

(). Has that been true for a great many vears? A. Oh,
yes; always. You see, it comes in the business ‘auto-
matically, just being there. :
~Q. Were you familiar with the literature and the prac:
tical art in Germany even before you came to the United
States? A. That's right; oh, yes.

‘i > ° ~ . ” a

(O. 28) Q. Now, do you know of any other situation,
aside from removal of auinonia from coke oven gas, where
apparatus and methods are’ used| for removing one fas
from another gas?) A. You remeovp, alse, benzol from the
coke oven gas. You see, you remeye naphthedlene, and vou
remoye tar. You see. in the othed fields, there are man)
nossibilities Where you remove, ‘alko, in the oil industry,
and, for exampley | dont like to forget that you renreve
H.S. You remove that. And eyanates, you remove, You
see, that is a very/big field, if you are going into that one.

(): Before you completed the invention which vou allege
is covered by. the patent im suit, did you know of the fses
of sprays for scrubbing cases ang separating, tases? A.
Do vou mean, the use of sprays Roreeerubbine t

e?
~~

Pee

Otlo Deposition.

‘

Q). | am using the terms loosely, and you ear Wefine them
to suit yourself, 1 think vou will know what | mean. A.
The use of sprays, | certainly knew that—the use of sprays.
And especialiy [| knew them in connection with towers
which are filled with grids,

Pi 24) Q. Did you know, from either practical experience
@ your knowledge gf the literature, and that includes
patents, of the use of sprays for separating one gas froin
another, or for taking some element out of the gas?) [am
talking about sprays, now, particularly. A. Well, sprays,
for example—you know the Felt-Warner. There you use—
it was a very successful serubber& You see, they take
the: liquor which flowed in from the top and made it
distribute b® a rotating movement, and took, then, for
example, the henzol out ; also, they could take, with water,

the ammonia out. You see! that was a very suecessful

scrubber.

Q. And those scrubbers that you are“falking about, you
knew about?.. A. That they didn’t use sprays. They
divide up the liquor by rotating means,

(). Did’ you know of any use of sprays fer removal of
one element from a gas, prior to the completion of ‘the
‘avention which you say is covered by the patent in suit?
A. LT kriew ot the erid brushers, Vou see the utid serub-
bers, you would say. You see, whey yau have to dise
tribute the sprays inthe top. |

(J. Is that the only ‘use you knew of sprays before you
ninde what vou - A, (Tnterposing) Thac’s right. The
Otte Company had a big (0. 30) spray, that, is, also-—you
Gnd that in the patent application. That is catled a splash

pray. That is a spray Which is accepted in--T think
Wetthy uses it in the patent on that. That i= a splash

pray, like an unbreiia, and to distribute the liquor over the
crids. Forexample, the Otte Company, in Germany, they
had a tower, a scrubber, where they had sprays in different,

aN

192

Otto Deposition.

é sections, to distvibute the gas. And then they had grids

helow it.

Q@ Is that all you knew, from your reading and ex-
perience, prior to the date you have given as completion
of the invention of the patent in suit? Tam referring
to the use of sprays. A. That's right.

Q. Is it your understanding that your patent discloses
anything not previously known to you and in the art, to
vour knowledge, as to the production and use of sprays?
A. Sure.

Q. Well, I don’t understand your answer, Sure, what?
A. 1 didn’t know that that was done before. | do not
know that sprays, in this way, as 1 did it, were ever
used before. | also never had before, this idea, because -
we had to do something here te improve our construction,
You see, in Europe, much more went on with the old
cracker pipe saturator. Pe

Q. 1 don’t want to interrupt you, put, if you have
answered all you want to answer, | will ask vou another
question, A. Is that enough answer foc that?

(0. 31) Q. That is for you to say. ‘You answer all you
want to. A. Yes. You see, | didn’t know anything before.

Q. Well, new, you knew that vould go out in the
commercial market, long prior to 1946, and buy spray,
nezzjes that would give vou practiealy any kind of spray
vou wanted, didn’t you? A. Yes, but I didn’t know that
I could use a spray, especially for the mother liquor.
] was myself very hesitant.

Q. Well, isn’t it a fact that the sprays you used in the
first spray-type saturaters vou, made, were sprays that
were on the market and could be bought by anvbody? A.
Sure, sure. [ knew that there were sprinkler sprays.

Q. And didn’t you know that there was a company that
would give you a spray nozzle that would give vou prac-
tically any kind of spray you wanted? A, Yes, because,
6 :

193
Otto Deposition,

especially T can tell you, [ was very pleased. 1 can tell
you, | developed the idea even in Germany, many years
before, for a spray with a whirling action, with waves
in it--in Germany-—and we tried it there. I‘Was very
pleased that in America you could buy these sprays jus!
on the open market without any difficulfy, and [ hep-
pened to think about, if the spray weidld work or not
work. -L knew the spray would work.

° . ‘ * .

(0. 32) Q. When you started to use the spray, all you
had to do was go out in the open market, and you could
vet a spray that would give you any kind of spray as to
fineness, or diffuseness, of *the emuilsitication- whatever
vou Want to eall it--of the liquid? A. That’s right. °

Q. And the mere facet of the use ®f spray nozzles fol
giving vou any desired degree of fineness of spray, was
well known in the art as something that vou could ve
on the open market?! A. That's right: absolutely.

Q. And didn't you know that these sprays were Used

for producing any desired fineness of spray, for pro

jecting that spray-~ A. (Interposing) | knew that.
Q. —-for projecting that spray into an open chamber:

A. do knew that. The only thing T did not know wa; t

—

é .
ase of the spray for mother liquor, where slurry come.

in, and liquor comes in, and slurry ean be very thick. |
was very glad to find out that these sprays never clow up.
That, I did not know. 5

Q). You didn't know it. but when vou went out and
bought one, von were able to g@t a spray that would do
exactly What vou wanted if to do, by purchase in the open

market? A. That’s right.

(). Well, now, reverting a little, what were these sprays
used for, prior te vour alleged invention——[ mean, =prias
(OL 33) nogazles? AL Fspecaliv for cooling,

. 2

194 « ?

7

Otto Depositwn.

(). Gases? .A. For cooling air or for cooling, also, water.
You know, in the spray towers, they are used a lot, coin-
monly.

Q. Didn't. you also know that they were also used in
closed tanks or compartments’ for spraying a liquid
through a gas, for treating the gas, prior to your com-
pletion of what you call your invention? A. I ani telling
you that they were used for ‘distribution of ghe liquor
in serubbers which were not empty—that means, in the
coke oven field I talk, about now. You see, where they
alwavs—there were grids in, to give a bigger surface
for distributing.

(). | am not sure you answered my question, so I will
ask it egain: did you know, through literature or other-
wise, of the use of sprays for discharging’a liquid through
a vas, for any purpose? A. For any purpose? Sure.
That | knew, that ‘a spray——just you spray into a gas,
especially in air—they are mostly used for water, for
cooling water. That is well known. i

Q. Weil, you vould, in a general sense, regard air
as a gas, wouldn’t wut are shown and illustrated, where the spray is in-
jected into a tank which has cylindrical walls, for example,
and the spray is unobstructed and unimpeded in any way
antilit reaches the bottom of the tank?) A. Until it reaches
the bottom of the tank? Just spray--vou have te go back
now to the Jeremiassen patent. You have jet sprays.

(). No, without reference to any patents. Poam asking
vou just the veneral question. bo will put it this way: don't
vou know that the art shows sprays whieh. projected a
lignuer into a tank or compartment whatever vou want to
enilat--in which there were no baffles or erids, or anything
else?) AL Just a spray.

Q)) Until the liquid came to rest at the bottom of the re
ceptacle— whatever-vou want te call it, CO. 44) AL These
sprays are used in pivelimes, sure.

(). Is sour answer ves? AL Yes, that is known.

Q. Well, then, as [To understand it, the words ‘‘unohb
structed space.’ im sour patent, mean simpiv that the
-praved liquor could pass directly from the spray nozzle
down through the colopartment to the prot Where the
liguer is first collected -is that right! A. That’s right,

©. And if there was any obstruction in there, sueh as a

baffle or a partition across the tank, then that would }

oan
obstruction. ois that what vou mean? A. Phatts right.

Q). Doetor, didn’t vou know betore vour ‘eompletion of
the subject matter which is described and explained im veut
patent in suit, that the absorptive effeet of liquor passine
downward through an unobstructed receptach: throtusl
Which coke oven vas was passing, would depend in absorp
tive effect somewhat on the finenes A. Ne. 5, was not built, and I
tell you this: it wasn't built beeause it would infringe the

: 3

& 20, P
* Otto i,

g
Jeremiassen patent. Not the Jeremiassen patent “which
vou have in mind. i will tell you the feature: it would
‘infringe to have e& central pipe coin into the erystallizer.

Q. You are referring to a Jeremiassen, United States
patent? A. Yes. his is another patent, 7

Q. T noticed that yoyugpassed ever No. 4. What is that?
(O. 5d) A. Sos. 3 and 4 are‘more or less the shme, and with
some modification these were built in dolinsto¥n and Ford,
and Morgantown, and [ndiattpolds: ,

Q. Which of these four fagins arg arranger nts thet are
-shown in your patent drawing?) A. Nos, 3-and 4 are prac
tically the same, 9 aah

Q). That is the reason [| am saying four’ instead ‘of
“five? Which of these four formes ef apparatus that are
shown in vour patent dyawing do vou regard as the Rest
and most-effective for your purposes in carrying out, the
process of the patent? A. Well, E think we make aways
jraprovement at this No. 3 ans 4. because nobody would
build a serubber like we built it, beforg+-the first one.» A.
serubber is mostly built as é evlinder, ‘paratlel, but we
did it the other’form, because Bethlehem wanted us to
Huild it in such a way that we eould go over to a cracker
pipe. : ,

Q). Whieh one of them did vou pick asthe best? A. Th?
Sand 4. RAs | 3
* e * * 7”

(0. a6) Qo Now, Doctor, was there anything new in your
patent. in vour opinieny in the tar catcher? A. What Is
that?

Q). The tragi for catchime tat nnd eliminating tA Fer

mean, the tar crom the overflow

.(). Tar; yes. A Oh. ves, there is nothing special,
Q That was an oid and convertion unit? A. Yes, thi

tar yet came aff

() Po sou use the heating Jaenets on vour appari

J : 207

4 2 Otto Deposition.
q ‘ /
as they (QO. 57) are shown in the fixures? A, Not as they

2 are shown, becattse that is too expensiyg Weeuse, now,
pa sghh ache We have copper fiipes pasa and we put
the heat in there. 3

Q. But, yvourdo use heat with all of then? A. Phat’s
ryt.

(ods it eesential for the practicing of your patent? A.
lramakes it Caster. It is difficult to run without it.»

Q. Well, now, Doctor, T notice in these several draw-
ings of your patent that vou have what [ will roughdy cail
erystallizer receptacles, placed At a number of different
positions with referehe@ to thé spray chamber—is .that
reht? A. That's right. '

Q). Does itimake any difference where your erystallizing
ena sber ix Jocated With reference to the spray. chaniber?!
\ cf doesn it-make much difference.

, Q). It can be below cor to the side of, or even at the top,
if you pumped it ug? AL Oh, sure, if Vou pulnperd sloup,
vou could, Tt is only a question as to the purhp that Tod
would have, and ‘that Koppers stieatd know, Decause they
Wave done it.

Mr. Brown: Perhaps they do know it.

Q. And that is true, also, or the aenl) cateher and the
tar trap? x. Wat aominute, Do sou mean the acid
_ vateher? ee “ees
(OL 58; Q Yes. AL That is conventional, isn't it? This
evelone acids catcher is tue same as with the cracker pape.
(. And that can be at the top or the side, or any con
venient place? A. Oh, ves, because, as a catéher, TP think
- oo. are pcauniet nee: less all the sar:
Q) Ip facet, thes’ are’ conventional with anv kind of
ipparatus for treathig ¢éoke oven gas? AL Yess ther

ime Ponts sonhatbuctions.

208
Otto Depositwn.

Q). The same is true about the tar separator? A. Yes;
you could say that. You see, there is nothing | would
say is revolutionary or special there.

Q). As | understand, also, from the variety of forms
you have shown, you can position the crystallizing chani-
ber at any convenient point! A. That's right.

Q. And you can use one chamber or two chambers, or
a multiple of chambers?) A. Phat’s right.

(). And, se far as your interpretation of your invention
is concerned, it doesn’t make any ‘particular difference
where you place your erystallizing chamber? A. No, it
doesn’t make any difference, ;

Q. Now, Dr. Otto, if any competent engimeer, familiar
with (QO. 59) mechanieal arrangements and treatment of
vases, were told to remove ammonia from coke oven gas by
spraying a suitable liquor through the vas, vou would
expect nim to be able to design an apparatus that would
do that, without callingson anything more thas engineer
ing skill, would vou not! A. No, [| wouldn’t—-well, 1 tell
vou this: there vou come to something like a gentleman
I know. He said. * Well, 4 don't value your patents or
inventions sa hich. PT think a much hisher thing than the
patent is the task whieh vou kav, and some additional,
heeause very offen Souccan then say that vou came to
do it like thet") >. 3

(The last answer was read.) i A

Al Cogpinning) Letoine express this: vou have to salve
aoproblen, and te potoup this problem is sonjetimes mue!
more oliffieutt than te solve it, because people in this was
wav. dP want te divide my mind up now, to get with thi-
liquorothe ammonia out.’ ‘

Vout see, after TP had decided that) that wold work,

hen atoas vers’censy for dn engineer then. to. draw up

POY

Otto Deposition,
a

the apparatus how to do it, Do you see that—as soon
as | tell hint that will work, but noboby assumes that
it Will work . en even | know that people even called
me: TL was absolutely crazy to go in on a thing tike that,
when we built the saturator in Lackawanna. And perhaps
only the facet that more or less, vou see, J was the onls
one to make the decision, | got (QO. 60) it through, also,
which has worked, economically worked, was the old
cracker pipe saturator, and | want to keep up, as far a-
possible, these conditions. You see, in the eracker pipe
saturator, vou have also this.

(QO. $6) Q. What Tam asking you ts -and it is the only
point that | had in mind-—there is no viete In ome spray ae
distinguished from two sprays or half a dozen sprays, or
whether they are arranged areund ina cirele, or Whether
here is one in the middle that covers the whole chamber!
A. Mr. Brown, EF would only say this: if you make toe
many sprays, then the sprays are se tall, then vou cote
fod point whee the strays will block up. | eontdn't tel!
vou where Yat point is. “Then yeu find out, aecording,
where vou would have ‘diffieultres

Q. Then. ven reduce it te an absurditw? §. Thagt*- rivht

(). Se, vou ean nike any arrangement at | ris, with
a vide variety, a Wide range of variations, smd stat geet

satisfactory results? AL That's riht,

\ 217
Otto Deposition.

Q. And, also, you have shown some sprays for washing
down the walls. You could use them or not use them,
could you not? A. Yes. That means, for example, if we
don't use it, we have to put more killing and more water in

(O) ST) YQ. Vou would have te kill it mere often? A
That's right. And elean it, amd so om.

Q. In other words, it is not the essence of vour inven
tion, it is simply a matter of good engineering and chore,
according te what vou want tesde in a particular case
is that right? A. That’s right, ves, sir.

- . . al .

(ss) Qo And ifwe were to show you a drawing dated
prior to your date of invention, which, as [| reeall, is in Pe

your invention, as you cone eive jt to he -which showed
nospras at the tep of a eylindrieal eh: unber through whieh
a oven gas was being passed. to be treated by th.
spray, and the liquor resulting from the spray was col
lected in the hogtom of that chamber, that would? t the
essential elements of your patented invention, a. seu
understand it, in se far as treating gas coke ovem owls
with aospray, is concerned, would it not? AL To den't
know. But Pb didn’t see sueh a coustrie tien vet,

Mr. Brown: Po will have the question read. it you
want. Loam just asking yeu a simple question, |
will COL S@) hawe it read if vou want, beeause TP thins

Venu wan answer at without s@erme what Loam tail
P ¢ @. ot
mic otabout. otf Vee ean ff anmewer, theta, cof areola ttses,
that as eut. But P think vou ean “answer it
(The dast question was read ) “
\ You sav ven have a drawing
) oo. 1 didn’t sav th | dof Dower -!
ee oebya we A. GF 4 i { \ t «]

218

Cito Deposition. (neat
) a
Q. Yes. A. Yes, of course, if vou have such a drawing
which reads to this (indicating), and, -of course, 1 can

cee that it is the’same, isn't it?) Is it patented already— -

if vou find the construction even the same, and deseribed
the same? :

(The question that was previously read, was read
again.)
A. 1 wouldn't say that. No, | wouldn't say that, be-
efuse vou have mentioned a-patent back of it.
Q. | don't think | mentioned any patent, sir. (A. You
mentioned a patent back of it.

(). Now, Doetor, 1 am asking you, as an emrineer and —

aus a patenteé, and as a builder of saturators and as 4p
engineer who. designed a great many satura ors, what
seemed to me to be a rather simple question. You will

nete that the question left out the matter of recirculation ‘

of Jiuor containing (O. 90) erystals. But, | am asking you
as to the element of treating “‘eoke oven gas with a spray
and collecting ‘the liquor in the’ bettem of the chamber
through whieb the gas and the spray passed, if that would
nat meet that partievtar feature of your invention, as
vou understand it. A. Ji would meet, to have just a spray
there, and not a circulation, and ngt to talk about what
kind of liquor you are circulating. It refers just that
there is a spray. !

Q). It would meet the spray part of it?) A. Yes, sir
it would meet the spray.

Q. Well, now, if that drawing or whatever text went
with it, showed that liquor was drawn off from the bottom
of that chamber, and reeireulated to the sprays at the
top,.it would inev-tebly have entrained crystals in, the
spray, would it not?) A. IT wouldn't say that. Did that
say it had?

4s

A

eT Ee ee

Jay
a Otte Deposition.

Let us assume “that it just took the Lauer out of

Kottom mand at east took part of it up to the top and

‘t down again throuth the spray. The spray would
fe entrained erystals, would it mot? A. Under certain
nditions, yes? under certain ‘conditions: but yeu hav
‘o make the conditions right.

Q. Well, 1 will assume that it hasn't been put through
evaporators, and so forth. A. You see, if others had these
“Weas, they didn’t go ahead’and build it on a big seaie.

(O. 91 Nir. Brown: Let us not argue the case now.
Mr. Morton will do that for you.

Gy. All Tam trying to get you te tell me— A. ( Inter-
Aosing) That you know vourself, [| think.

Q. Sir? A. That you can answer vourself, Tf that is
the case, well, then vou have it.

(. Then, that is that? A. Yes, but I think that is com:
on sense,

( Don't you know of any patent or publication, prior
t. 1946, which showed and desctibed apparatus in which
coke oven vas was passed through a chamber at the.
top of which sprays were located, and the sprays wer
supplied. from liquor which was drawn froin the foto
of that ekamber? -'A. LE only know what you have me
tioned to us—-this patent of Becker that you refs rred 1

(). | didn’t mention a patent of Becker. fam quite
sure TE didn’t. A. Tami sure you did. You brought it We

Q. Does. your answer mean that Beeker shows that
arrangement—this combination that [have stated In MN
question to you? And remember, you brought Becker
nto it: | didn't. A. No; | just wonder if that is it. |=
this it (indicating)? |

Q.-Now, miy question was—I asked you a question, and,
ax | understood vou te say, in effeet, that is What Becker
shows. (0. 92) Is that what you say Becker shows? A. Well,

‘

20
(jitto Di position,

‘to seets that vou vay that this is just the same. That
ix how Pounderstand that you refer to this patent.

Q). F don’t accept that. I didn't sav that 1} was refer-
ring to anything. | was asking you. A. You mentioned
several pategts to Us,

Q. Toamay have, but | don’t remember tuaentioning any
patents except those that you mentioned, / :

Mr. Morton: f think that what the witress heat
in nfind by saying that yeu mentioned it, Was that ¢
the answer recited certain patents. ; ;

The Witness: You cited certain patents against
us.

(). Now, understand, | didn’t ask you about the Becker
patent, but | thoucht veu said that that was--that ms
eye: tien was. in effect, a statement of what Becker shows.
I Is that Tisha!
\. That's right. Well, look here. May 1 just: say this.
| hope vou don’t mind. | know, in Lackawanna once we
are fold by the people in Lackawanna that the Kopper-
Company only has the last =pray- when vou copied it
sie higher aeidity. Then, they pointed out, and said,
“Well, von see, we have done that already, here.” S56, |
shink. at that time, vou see, if you sit on the oiler side
of the table, vou would argue differently. 1 would just
ike to say that.

GQ. Well, Doctor, what [aim trving to get at is, the
place Where you add acid in the apparatus shown am your
patent — A. (Interposins) Yes,

Q. --is net critical. But that by adding it in diiferent
places, you can get different desirable or undesirable re-
cilte? A. For different purposes, that’s rucht: that’s

Q. And the thing thar I wanted to ask cou was whether
or net, once an apparatus was made se vou could add it
at (QO, LOL) different points, any> chetical engineer could
have told) vou what would be the result, could he mot? 4.
Yes, he could, Just like when you have made an mivel
tion, then vou ean say that.

(QO. 102) Q. Dr. Otte, does your inferimation pernit \ou
to say whether or not the Wheeling saturators that aré here
nvolved utilize the liquid) seal, such as eleent GLoof
Fisure 4 of vour patent?) A. Tt is a seal, but it is net
the same kind of a seal.

(). It doesn’t use anv “U" shaped tube extending out-
cde? AJ No. Hereste The pipe going down in a con:
tuiner, just as you find with the Wilputte: construction.

226)
Otto Deposition.

Q. The answer is pe, to my question, isn’t it! A. No,
itis not the sames Tt is not the same, [t's the seal.

Q. But your seal ix a pipe which extends from the
bottom of (GO. 103) your axial chamber through the wos) iy
shaped pipe that overflows into your erystallizer? A.
That’s right. ;

Q. And that, you understand, Wheelmg does not use?
A. That's right.

e s « * es

(0. 108) Q. Is it fair to say that the use of a spray to
‘reat a gas is for the purpose of getting greater contact he-
tween liquid and gas? A. That was not the first purpose.
The first purpose was to get the pressure difference down.

* bad a * °°

(QO. 110) Q. Tf, in the eracker pipe type of saturator for
treating coke oven gas to remove ammonia, sprays were
placed around the cracker pipe ata substantial distance ~
from the surface of the liquid, surrounding the lower end of
the ergeker pipe, would you regard those sprays as being
used to treat the coke oven gas i an unobstructed space?
A. Hf you have

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386419_0024%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.