Document Gvq14xpR4kLMKbraDzjekmq7

International Smelting and Refining Company Office ok the Vice Phbsidkkt 25 Broadway New York C September 9, 1940 i Mr. James S. Laist, Pennle, Davie; Earvin St Edmonda, 165 Broadway, J New ork City. Re: Johnson et al. Application Serial So. 178,352 Riled Deoember 6tb, 1937 ?or: METHOD OF PROTOCIHO _________ yHITF LEAD Dear Sir: ' I am sending you herewith copy of Mr. Case's, letter of September 5th, 1940 relative to above noted patent application. I would appreciate your outlining an affidavit for execution by Mr. Johnson. Tours very truly, / S Enc. oc: Mr. F. 0. Case N11332 iPNrC00008444 Si m INTERNATIONAL SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY Sept. 5, 1940 Mr. Frederick Laist, Vice-President, . International Smelting & Refining Company, 25 Broadway, New York City. Dear Mr. Laist: Two complete files are enclosed relative to Johnson et al. Application Serial No. 178,352. We did not have a chance to discuss this with you recently at East Chicago, but we have all been over it and, as indicated by Mr, Johnson, we would appre ciate Mr. James W. Laist's outlining an affidavit for execution by Mr. Johnson. We believe that-Jim has all the information that he needs for this affidavit, but if there are any specific questions, it will be a pleasure to try and answer them. IV FOCivlc ends. Copy-Mr. James W. Laist 9/9/40 PNt CO 0008^^*5 International Smelting and Refining Company East Chicago, Indiana G. E. Johnson Plant Manager September 4th, 1940 Plants: East Chicago. Ind. akhok. Ohio Mr. F. 0. Case, Manager of Midwest District, International Smelting and Refining Company, 20 North ffacker Drive, 1" Chicago, Illinois. Re: Johnson et al. Application ` aerial no. ^,o,ao2 Filed December 6th, 1937 Dear Mr. Case:- For: Method of Producing White Lead --" '"v , . `- This letter will acknowledge receipt of yours of August 23rd, with particular reference to the above- mentioned patent application and an affidavit which Mr. James Laist suggested be prepared. Since the receipt of this information, we have carefully considered the attitude of the Patent Office and also the suggestions made. We agree with the suggestion of Mr. James Laist that the prosecution of this case be continued by filing an affidavit, and presenting it- to the Board of Appeals if necessary. It is our opinion that he is best qualified to prepare an affidavit along the lines that would be necessary to further prosecute the case. If this is satisfactory to Hr. Laist, we wish to suggest that he prepare such an affidavit that is satisfactory to him. We could then study and carefully consider the statements made in the affidavit, and if satisfactory execute it for use in presenting it to the Board of Appeals. PNYC00008446 Sheet #2 - Mr. F, 0. Case September 4th, 1940 We trust these suggestions are acceptable; if not, we would appreciate any further comments. GSJ/s end. Yery truly yours,^. s' PNVCOOOO844 7