Document KD46wpBQXBZZRN2NjM17JR6r

.4 William H. Davis Arda B- MaRVIK - NCT.MCS Pf an S. Edmonds Frank E. Harrows W Brown Morton Merton W. Saoe Willis H.TaTloh.Jb. Ernest H.Mehchant Oeoroe E.Middle ton Morris D. Jackson R.Morton Adams Raymond F. Adams Leslie B.Young Daniel V. Mahoney D4947 Pennie, Davis, Marvin and Edmonds Counsellors at Law 165 Broadway New York ' Washington Offices National Press Buildino ee- Arsocxatkr - Raymond B Cumru) Baldwin Guild Ambrose A. Arnold S. Howell Brown. Jr. Louis D. Forward H. Stanley Mansfield George E.Faithfull Donal F. McCarthy Hal E.Seaoravrs John Rojcie John T. Farley Curt Von Boetticrer.Jr . James B.Christie Jakes W. Laist Cyrus S.IUpoooo Rooer T. Mc Lean Harold A.Traver Merton S.Neill W. Peters Blanc Frederick L.Bissinoeb Kenneth R.Murray Carl E Rino W. B. Morton , Ja. August 20, 1940 Mr. Frederick Laist, Vice-President International Smelting and Refining Co. 25 Broadway, (Room 1720} New York, N. Y. Dear Sir: Re: Johnson et al. Application, Ser. No. 178,352, Filed December 6, 1937, For: Method of Producing White Lead Enclosed are two copies of an Office action recently received in the above-mentioned application. Although the rejection is made final, I feel that the rejection is improper and the Examiner's action arbitrary. I believe it would be advisable to continue prosecution of this case, if necessary going to the Board of Appeals which will not be a very expensive procedure and will give us an opportunity to overcome the Examiner's arbitrary rejection. I will be very glad to have any comments which you or Mr. Johnson may care to offer concerning this application. Since the Examiner insists that the prior Johnson patent anticipates the claims in this case, it might be helpful to procure -an affidavit from Mr. Johnson to the effect that he was unaware of the alleged teachings of hi3 prior patent until they had been pointed out to him by the Examiner. Vejy^-truly yours, Copy with enclosure sent to Mr.'^^e-^"August-'21, 1940 g PNVC00008442 N11213 0 p Y e; DEPARTMENT OP COMMERCE United States Patent Office Washington Pennie, Davis, Marvin & Edmonds 165 BroadwayNew York, N. Y. Applicant: Ser. No, Filed For G. E Johnson et al 178,352 Dec. 6, 1937 Method of Producing White Lead AMENDMENT DUE February 6. 1941 MAILED August 6. 1940 Responsive to letters of Ootober 14, 1939 and December 28, 1939. Claims 2, 4, 5 and 11 are again rejected as unpatentable over Johnson et al. The affidavit submitted has been carefully con sidered, but is not thought to constitute a showing of unexpected results. The steps recited in the first paragraph of page 3 of the affidavit indicate that affiant followed the Harrington process. Comparison should have been made with processes 2 and 4 of the reference (page 1, lines 39 to 50), in neither of which is it necessary to titrate the catholyte, adjust the CO2 damper, or rely on flow of catholyte through the diaphragm. In comparison with processes 2 or 4 of Johnson et al, applicant differs in adding alkali (instead of acid) to the anolyte. As it is well known that the bicerbonate ion oan be adjusted either by adding acid or alkali (note Rosenstein), no invention is seen in the claimed process. As .an issue is reached, this action is FINAL. FINAL Examiner. pnYC0000^3 N11213.01