Document mmnkvoQVzw9BMpLdjwbDrVzkQ

WllLUM H DiVtS Arb* B. Majivik - rctirco Dean S Esmonds Frank E. Barrows V/. Brown Morton Merton W. Sage Witxxs H.Taylor. Jr. Ernest H.Merchant Geohoe E.Middleton Mobbis D. Jackson R.Mobton Ax'am s Raymond F. Adams Leslie B.Younq Dantel V. Mahoney D4947 Pennie, Davis,Marvin and Edmonds Counsellors at Law 165 Broadway New York . Waskimoton Offices National Press Buildino November 27, Raymokc B.C*imi n Baldwin Guild Ambrose A.Arnold S.Eoweu Brown,J*. Louis D. Forward H.Starlet Mansfield Georoe E.Faitbptll Donal F. M?Cartbt Hal E.Seaokav-kk John Hoxie John T. Fahlet Curt Von Boetticeler.Jr. James B.Christie Jakes W. Laist Ctrcs S. ELapoood Roger T.M?Lr ah Hahold A.Traver Merton 5.Neill W.Petehs Blanc Frederick L.Bjssinoek Kenneth B.Murrat Carl E. Rino W. B. Morton. Jr. 1940 1. ij ,. ,,,,,^.t; | Mr, Frederick Laist, Vioe-Presiueuc International Smelting and Refining Co. 25 Broadway (Room 1720) New York, N. Y. Dear Sir: Re: Application of Johnson, Bowman and Knox, Ser. No. 178,352, Filed December 6, 1937, For: Method of Producing White Lead Enclosed is a proposed affidavit to be executed by Mr. Knox at East Chicago for use in further prosecution of the above-mentioned application. The affidavit is designed to traverse certain grounds for rejection upon which the Examiner relies on the basis of a prior patent of which Mr. Knox is one of the patentees. If this affidavit is satisfactory and correctly states the facts, I will appreciate having it executed and returned at as early a date as is convenient. Although we still have considerable time in which to reply to the last Office action, it is to be borne in mind that the Office action was made final, and that consequently we should not delay any more than is necessary. It is quite possible that when the Examiner con siders the enclosed affidavit he will raise the objection that it does not present specific test data to support the - PNYC N11210 Mr. Frederick Laist -2- November 27, 1940 statements made. Although I would consider such an objection to the affidavit as unsound, it would be advisable to be prepared to submit such data should it be required. I do not believe this will require special test work. If Mr. Knox can look through his test records of the work leading to development of the process covered by the Johnson et al. patent No. 1,845,713, I imagine that he will find the sort of information that might be required. This information should include specific figures as to the quantities of acetic acid or sodium bicarbonate, as the case may be, added in following control procedures (2) and (4) of the abovementioned Johnson et al. patent. The data should also include figures showing the actual amount of electrolyte that was from time to time required to be discarded, and if possible, the amount of valuable salts present in such discarded electrolyte. . Mr. Knox can forward this data at his convenience. It will not be necessary meanwhile to delay execution of the enclosed affidavit. Very truly yours, Enc coo 7 3I` if ttrr "i th *' n c: o:: v re cent- -ir. Cs so - ll/i^./^o P**C00008433