Document G64VQB1O8Rx90mKODBMJoR01Y

In t e r n a t io n a l Sme l t in g a n d Re f in in g Co mp a n y 2" llrfiinlwfry, Nmv York Oi' f ic j c 'iKt October 17, 1913. Mr. F. 0. Case, Manager of Midwest District, International Sac 1ting and Refining Company, 20 North Hacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois. Dear Mr. Caset Joiinsor. et al. Application Serial #178,552, For* MET1DD OF rfiOLOCIH.C r.HITS LEAD I am sending you boresith copy of letter dated October 16th from Pennie, Davis, Marvin and Edmonds, relative to the above noted patent application, which is self-explanatory. Hill you kindly advise in detail, the nature of the improve ments made in this application, as noted in the second paragraph of this letter, in order that an affidavit may be filed in this connection at an early date. Tours very truly. 0 Enc. CC-Hr. G. E. Johnson pNYC00008482 WILLIAM H DiV[| Ar b a B. Ma r v in RCTINCO DT.A N S. Ed KONCS Fr a n k E. Bo r r o w s W. Br o w n Mo r t o k Me r t o n w . Sa o e Wil l is H.Ta y l o r . Jr . Er n e s t H. Me r c h a n t Ge o r o e E.Mid d l et o n Mo r r is D. Ja c k s o n R.Mo r t o n Ad a ms Ra y mo n d F. Ad a ms Le s l ie B.Yo u n o Da n ie l V. Ma h o n e y D4947 Pe n n ie , Da v is ,Ma r v in a n d Ed mo n d s Co u n s e l l o r s a t La w 165 Br o a d w a y Ne w Yo r k Wa s h in o t o n Omcts Na t io n a l Pr e s s Bu il l u n o October 16, As s o o l a t s s 1939 Ra y mo n d B Ca w y ib l d Ba l d w in Gu il d AMBROSE A. ARNOLD S. So w e l l Br o w n . Jr . Lo o is D. Fo r w a r d H-St a n l e t Ma n s y ie l d Gs o r o b E. Fa iy k y u l l Do n a l F. Me Ca r t k y Ha l E. Se a o r a y bs Jo h n Boxie Jo h n T. Fa r l ey Co r t Vo n Bo b t t t c k e k .Jj l Ja me s B. Ch r is t ie Ja k e s W, La is t Cy r u s S Ha p o o o o ' Ro o er T Mc Le a n Ha r o l d A Tr a v s r Ke n n e t h H. Mu r r a y Ha r r y E. Do w n e r Ca r l . Rimo Mr. Frederick Laist, Vice-President International Smelting & Refining Co. 25 Broadway, (Boom 1720) New York, N. Y. Dear Sir: Re: Johnson et al. Application, Serial No. 178,352, For; Method of Producing White Lead Last week I discussed the above-mentioned applica tion with the Examiner who is handling it in the Patent Office, and pointed out to him that the method claimed for control ling the bicarbonate ion concentration in the electrolyte is different from that described in the references and possesses marked advantages thereover. The Examiner appreciated the difference between the claimed method and the method shown in the references, but expressed the view that the claimed method (involving excess carbonation of the catholyte with compensating additions of sodium hydroxide to the anolyte) does not amount to a patentable improvement over the methods of the references (involving deficient carbonation of the catholyte with compensating additions of carbonate salts to the anolyte. The Examiner suggested that the difference between the two methods is substantially the same aa the difference in an analytical procedure between adding an excess of a titrating agent and then back- PNYC00008<*a3 N11448.01 Mr. Frederick Laist -2- October 16, 1939 titrating, and titrating direct to the end point. I explain ed to the Examiner that however obvious this procedure might seem to be, the fact remains that it was not obvious to those who have had many years experience in the production of white lead, and that when it was first conceived and tried it was found to result in substantial operating improvements. The Examiner stated, however, that these improvements were not apparent from the record and indicated that the case would receive more favorable consideration if we could establish that unexpected results were obtained by use of the claimed method. This suggestion of the Examiners may be met by filing an affidavit setting forth the nature of the improve ments made possible by the method described and claimed in the application. I will appreciate it, therefore, if you will.ask Mr. Johnson to advise in detail the nature of the Improvements made. As I understand it, these improvements fall into two categories, (1) simplification of control over the bicarbonate concentration in the anolyte, and (2) more accurate control of bicarbonate ion concentration. The affidavit should state exactly how control of the anolyte composition was simplified (are fewer control analysis necessary, and if so how many; is operation of the carbonatio'n tower simplified, and if so in what manner and to what extent; is excess carbonation with addition of caustic to the anolyte simpler or otherwise better than deficient carbonation and addition of sodium carbonate to the anolyte, PNYC00008484 Mr. Frederick Laist -3- October 16, 1939 and if so in what manner) and how such control was made more precise (hor would anolyte composition fluctuate from time to time under the old procedure as compared with similar fluctuations under the improved procedure). I believe it would be advantageous to file the affidavit referred to above at as early a date as possible. Very truly yours, PNYC00006485