Document zoD6BQQeo4YEaYZnvyEbgEZ0m

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 Of f i c e o k t h e Vic e p h me d k k t 25 Broadway New York September 9, 1940 Mr. James W. Laist, Rennie, Dayie; liarrln 4 Edmonds, 165 Broadway, J New *t ork City. Re: Johnson et al. Application Serial Ho. 178,352 Filed December 6th, 1937 For: METHOD OP PRODUCING _____________WHITE 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 Ur. Johnson. Tours very truly. i S Fnc. cc: Ur. F, 0. Case N11332 iPNYC00008444 INTERNATIONAL SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY CASE iER OF MIDWEST OlSTRICT- Sept. 5, 1940 SO N.WACKCR DRIVC CHICAGO.ILLINOIS Mr. Frederick Laist, Vice-President, International Smelting & Refining Company, 25 Broadway, Hew York City. Dear Mr. L-aists 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. FOCivlc ends. Copy-Mr. James W. Laist, 9/9/40 pNtCO0008445 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 Ea s t Ch ic a g o , In d ia n a G. E. Jo h n s o n Pl a n t Ma n a g e r September 4th, 1940 PLANTS: Ea s t Ch ic a g o , In d . a k r o n . Oh io ter,-. Hr. F. 0. Case, Manager of Midwest District, International Smelting and Refining Company, 20 North Wader Drive, 1" Chicago, Illinois. Re: Johnson et al. Application ` serial no. _.o,oo2 Filed December 6th, 1937 For: Method of Producing __________White Lead Dear Mr. Case:- ` ' . / ; - 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 Laiat 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 ease 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 Mr. 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. PMCOOOO844 Sheet Z - Mr. F, 0. Case September 4th, 1940 We trust these suggestions are acceptable; if not, we would appreciate any further comments. GEJ/s end. Yery truly yours -xr. s' < PNrC00006447