« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
The first proposition, it is submitted, is thus filled did they commence to draw the absolutely in conflict with the express and metal therefrom, and when by such use the uncontroverted proof in the record, as mani: quantity in the reservoir was reduced to fested by the references which I have al. about one half, then the drawing off was ready made. Let me recur to the practices stopped, so as to retain about the one half under consideration to show that this is the until there was a further replenishing from case. Take the Whitney practice as testified the furnace, and thus the operation contin. to by Whitney. After saying that with ued. How, by a mere affirmation, it can be drawals were not made from the reservoir held that the process which has just been until "it was nearly full," and describing described did not contemplate the constant the drawing off of the molten metal from the retention of a considerable residuum in the reservoir, he said:
reservoir is to my mind inexplicable. Let “And [as] the iron continued to melt (in me quote again from the record the unconthe cupolas) the ladle was constantly being tradicted testimony as to the practice in filled from the cupolas, and it was kept full question: until all the iron charged in the three cu- “The custom was to empty the receiving polas was melted and the bottoms dropped." ladle about one half; then hold the remain
The witness thus clearly showed, not only der of iron in the reservior until the cupolas the constant retention of molten metal in were ready to be tapped again; and after the the reservoir, but that such retention was reservoir is full we start and pour out into recognized in the practice as essential to se. the smaller ladles again. The receiving cure "desired uniformity of molten metal.” ladle at all times is kept about one-half full, I cannot see how there can be doubt on this and it is this full when we tap the metal subject, in view of the fact that the wit. into it from the cupola." ness added :
* The irresistible conclusion thus arising “If we had drawn it (the molten metal] from this proof is, it seems to me, rendered directly from the cupola into the smaller if possible clearer, when it is recalled that ladles from which we pour the wheels, one as early as 1877 the London Engineering, wheel might have been poured out of very in a reference to this practice, declared: bard iron, and another wheel out of very "It was found advisable to employ a ladle soft iron, and so every shade between. There of so large a capacity, because by doing so would have been no uniformity in our work. a more complete mixture of the different But by taking it from the three cupolas, all irons is effected than would be the case if melting the same charges of iron, and col. a smaller vessel were employer'.". lecting them in a molten state, the inequali- And what has just been said applies ties of melting were all overcome and a uni- equally to the practice of making Bessemer form product produced.”
steel from cupola furnaces. That the exTake the wheel foundry practice as por cerpts which I have given on this subject trayed in Kirk's publication. The state clearly show that mixing by the use of a ment is made that "a quantity of molten residue was the result of the employment of iron should be kept in the cupola, or in a the accumulating ladle, and a result that large ladle, so as to*give the different brands was well known and intended, it seems to me of iron a chance to mix.” Again: "The iron cannot be gainsaid. How the Jones method, is all run out of the cupola as fast as it is as construed, can be declared to have been melted, and is mixed in a large ladle.” The novel-because in cupola metal there was no publication thus clearly pointed out the ad- variation requiring mixing-in face of the visability of retaining a residuum in the fact that the very patent which is sustained, cupola or in the reservoir, for the purpose in various forms of expression, expressly de of better mixing.
clares that such variation exists, is not by Recurring to the Altoona practice, doubt me comprehended. on the subject seems to me to be in reason Besides, the proposition involves an unimpossible. It is not gainsaid that such sound deduction, since it in effect not only practice embraced reservoiring and mixing. disregards the fact that the practices in It cannot, it is submitted, be affirmed that question were availed of with the avowed it did not embrace the retaining in the res- purpose of correcting the inequalities found ervoir of a large residuum of metal for the to exist in cupola metal, but also the erroneexpress and necessary purpose of making ous assumption that there could be patentthe mixing more perfect, if the proof as to able novelty in merely applying to blast fur. the practice pursued is not wholly disre- naces the well-known practices as to cupola garded. What was that practicei When metal. the metal in the cupolas began to melt, it It may well be conceded, without affecting was drawn off into the reservoir until the the case, that the variation is greater in reservoir was half full; then the withdraw. metal drawn from blast furnaces than in als from the cupolas were stopped. But the that drawn from cupolas, but this mere ditmetal in the half-full reservoir was not, ference in the degree of variations between however, then made use of. Why was it not the two affords no ground for construiug 80 used, although already in the reservoir ? | the Jones patent in such a way as to cause The answer is because it was deemed best, in it to cover the well-known prior methods. order to obtain beneficial results from mix- Nor does the example given in the opinion ing, to hold the half-full reservoir for a sub of the court for the purpose of illustrating sequent tapping therein from the furnace, of the difference which is found to exist be a quantity of molten metal sufficient to fill tween the practices to which I have referred the reservoir. Only when the reservoir was 'and the Jones patent, as now construed, en
able my mind to discover the difference. The sorted to on the continent of Europe, and court says (italics mine):
there is testimony in the record giving rise "Let us imagine a reservoir containing, to the inference that the greater uniformity say, three quarts, and filled with one quart of the ores used in the blast furnaces on each of three liquids of different constitu- the continent caused such processes to be ent parts, and withdrawn for further treat there at once quite successful. However, it ment at the rate of one or two quarts at a may not be doubted that on the continent time. Necessarily there would be some in the use of a reservoir or accumulating ladle cidental mixing, but it would occur at once sometimes obtained, and the advantages that the main object of the reservoir was a which it afforded of bringing about a desirretention of a suflicient quantity of the mix. able mixture of the metals from several ture to supply the receptacle for further furnaces was known. Thus Kohn, in the treatment, and if no necessity existed for a Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, longer retention of the liquid in the reser. 1871, speaking of the practice at Terrevoir, it could be very quickly emptied by Noire, in France, said: two discharges into the receiving vessel. “The iron is first run into a ladle, as ex. Now, let us substitute for this reservoir a plained by Mr. Menelaus, and so taken to cask of, say, sixty quarts, into which the the converter. The ladle is brought to the liquids of different constituent parts are back of one furnace, and half filled; it is poured in at one end from a multitude of then run to the next furnace and filled up. receptacles, and discharged at the other end In this way the Terre-Noire Company al. after remaining a certain time in the cask, ways obtain a mixture of the metals, and and that this cask could not be tilted so far therefore the greatest regularity is secured but what a quantity of liquid would be left through the rest of the work. The furnaces within it amounting, say, to half its capac-are kept in regular working order, and by ity. Now, if there be no distinction between carefully managing the charges of the blast these two operations there would be little furnaces, and watching them as much as left to the Jones process, the very vitality of possible, the practical result is that there which consists in the size of the cask rela- is no inconvenience as regards the furnaces tive to the ladles and the mixing of the va- themselves in tapping frequently. The same rious liquids poured into it before they are thing is done at Mr. Schneider's place at withdrawn."
Creuzot, but he believed they do not there In the first place, this example fails to go so far as to mix the iron." notice the fact that in the accumulating In England the direct process was not ladle the metal was received from several-made use of until about 1877, and it is in some instances as many as four or five shown that this largely resulted from the cupolas; and that in practice a residue was fact that the Bessemer plants in the early constantly maintained, and for the purpose use of the process were not connected with of mixing, and that these ladles could not blast furnaces. be drained of metal unless there was an in- In this country, though the manufacture tention to do so. The only distinction af. of Bessemer steel was commenced in the forded by the example is that resulting from early sixties, and in one or two of the early * the difference in sizes of the two supposed experimental plants a brief use was made receptacles in which the mixing was accom- of direct metal, the indirect process was in plished. But this would reduce the patent- general use until the year 1882, when the able novelty in the Jones process to the size first large plant equipped for direct use of of the reservoir. Indeed, it is so expressly blast-furnace metal began operations at the stated, since in the opinion it is declared new South Chicago works of the Illinois that "there would be little left to the Jones Steel Company, and later in the same year process, the very vitality of which consists the Edgar Thomson works (the Carnegie in the size of the cask relative to the ladles Company), with five new furnaces, also and the mixing of the various liquids passed commenced such work. These plants were into it before they are withdrawn.' The still producing steel by the direct process, mixing having been disposed of by what I with the use of the accumulating ladle, when have already said, it follows that the "very the Jones patent was granted in 1889, and vitality" of the patent is found to be the it was not until the year 1892 that a large size of the cask relative to the ladles, which storage tank was installed at the South Chi. in reason is a direct abandonment of the cago works. whole theory of a dominant pool previously A number of patents having relation to expounded as the source of vitality in the the making of steel by the Bessemer direct patent. But the size of the reservoir, process were from time to time granted becalled by the court a cask-relative to the fore the Jones patent was issued, and I capacity of the plant is clearly shown not shall now notice the most important of such to have been novel by what has been previ- inventions, as also some other publications ously said, and will be further demonstrated embodied in the literature of the art. beyond peradventure by the consideration In the British patent to Deighton of 1873 which it is now proposed to give to the purpose of the inventor, among others,
was declared in the specifications to be to The Manufacture of Bessemer Steel by the keep a steel-works plant or apparatus in Direct Process.
nearly uninterrupted work, thus very con.
siderably increasing the production of such The use of the direct process for Besse- plant. It was said: merizing, it would seem, was at once re- "Instead of manufacturing Bessemer iron
or steel from pig iron which has to be melt. | melting in a cupola or storing it in a large ed in cupolas, my invention also consists in reservoir,—A. L. Holley said (italics mine): taking the molten metal directly from the “It has not yet been practicable to work blast furnace to the converter, in which case the blast furnace with sufficient regularity I prefer to arrange the Bessemer plant in to realize approximately the theoretical ada line at a right angle to a row of two or vantages of the direct process. more blast furnaces, and place a vessel to *“Fourth. The obvious remedy is to mix a receive the molten metal tapped from two number of blast.furnace charges, so as to or more blast furnaces to get a better aver. reduce the irregularity to a minimum. Two age of metal which will be more suitable for systems of doing this are on the eve of making Bessemer steel or metal of uniforon trial: The one is simply mixing so few quality, the vessel or receiver being placed charges in a tank that the metal will be on a weighing machine so that any required drawn out before it chills; the other is to weight may be drawn or tapped from it and store a larger number of charges in a heated charged into the converter.
tank,—that is to say, in an immense openThe apparatus was then described in de hearth furnace.” tail, and consisted of blast furnaces, ar. The first of these two systems of mixing ranged in a line, with channels from each would seem to be that embodied in the folfurnace to a common reservoir or mixer, lowing portion of Mr. Holley's description and with a connection from the mixer to a of the West Cumberland practice: converter, so that the molten metal in run. "In order to get a more uniform metal, ning from the blast furnaces might go into Mr. Snelus is about trying the experiment the reservoir and be mixed, and might be of placing a twenty-ton ladle on a hydraulic drawn off as desired to the converter. It lift at the 'A' pit, so arranged as to store, was stated that the receiving vessel "is mix, and pour, say, three six-ton to sevenplaced low enough to give fall for the molten ton blast-furnace taps, or to mix blast fur. metal to flow from the blast furnaces to nace and cupola metal. No doubt this body this receiver m, which forms a receptacle of metal will 'live' if the ladle is thickly for nixing the molten metal from two or lined and well covered. Mr. Snelus has an. more of the smelting furnaces. From the other object also: tapping half or a third receiver m the mixed molten met al is tapped of a vessel heat out of the blast furnaceand flows down the swivel through n into in other words, tapping so often-wears out the converter a. By placing the vessel m the tap hole more rapidly; slag gets into on a weighing machine it can be readily as the walls and weakens them. It is prefer: certained when the exact quantity required able in every way, as blast-furnace men well has been tapped from it into the converter." understand, to tap a full hearth. At the
In 1885, a few years prior to the grant same time improvements in working the fur. of the Jones patent, two United States pat. nace are gradually developing. More care ents were issued to James P. Witherow (1) lis taken as to the selection of ores, the size for apparatus for the manufacture of iron of ore and limestone, the distribution of ma. and steel; and (2) steel-plant appliance, terials in the furnace, the temperature of which patent showed a blast furnace, an the blast, and all elements of uniformity. intermediate storage vessel of large size, and
Uniform results in the Bessemer a converter. In brief, the purpose of the department can hardly be expected unless a Witherow reservoir apparatus was to receive number of blast-furnace charges are mixed. and store the molten metal for the purpose This would seem to be the theoretical soluof preventing the detention incident to the tion of the problem." necessity of discharging the contents of the
The second of the two systems of mixing blast furnaces when there is no converter is undoubtedly the one then being erected ready to receive it. The advantages of the at Moss Bay, England, viz., a sixty-ton relarge storage receptacle was thus stated in verberatory coal-fired furnace or two forty. the specification of one of the patents:
ton furnaces. The ladles of blast-furnace “ 'The metal is usually tapped from a
metal were to be “tapped out into the large blast furnace once in every six hours, and reverberatory furnace,” in which “it is the the quantity thus cast is many times in ex. tons of iron from all the blast furnaces."
intention to store and keep hot some sixty cess of the charge of a converter. The charge of a converter is from one to five perhaps an economical one, was not success.
This method, for some reason not stated, tons, and in the case of a blast furnace usu- ful. Mr. Holley, in the article just noticed, ally runs from ten to fifty tons. The time between charges of the converter with* the use of this large furnace,” said:
referring to the arrangements in connection is usually twenty minutes and upward, and "The complex manipulations due to the arthe metal from the furnace must be kept rangement described seem likely to take unin condition to be tapped from time to time necessary amount of time and labor.” into the converter as needed.'
After reviewing the practice in the vari. The evidence establishes that the Deigh- Jous English and continental steel works ton and Witherow reservoirs were each of a using direct metal, Mr. Holley summed up capacity of 100 tons.
his conclusions, and recommended the Amer. Commenting, in June, 1877, upon the ican works to continue for the present to merits and demerits of the use, then just select and remelt the pig metal, and confine commenced in England, of direct metal, - their efforts for some time “to the prelimthat is, the conversion of molten metal di- inary department of the direct process,-to rect from the blast furnace, without re-'increasing our uniformity of blast-furnace
working and product.” We excerpt the fol. I was a well-known expedient to cover a ladle lowing passages from the conclusions con- or other receptacle for molten metal when tained in the report:
the metal was required to be retained longer “Fourth. But if the storage of a large than the customary time. The inappositequantity of iron in a reverberatory furnace ness of the suggestion that the Deighton or other reservoir should prove successful, patent ought not to be given any weight as then a few blast furnaces making even an showing the state of the art, because the irregular product, and, if necessary, working patentee allowed the patent to lapse for the in connection with cupolas, would largely nonpayment of fees, cannot be better illuseconomize the Bessemer manufacture. trated than by this case, when it is recalled
“In fact, this mixing of irregular irons that the patent to Mushet, which made Beson a very large scale, thus avoiding the ex. semerizing commercially practicable, was al. pensive niceties of ore selection and the new lowed to lapse because the Patent Office fees cessity of many furnaces, is the theroetical were not paid. key to the situation. When the way to its The demonstration of want of novelty successful adoption is demonstrated, the di- in the patent as construed, which arises from rect process will undoubtedly have great ad. the previous considerations, entirely dis. vantages, even over the present practice on poses of the case, as it is, as already obthe continent, which employs manganiferous served, conceded that, unless the patent
But until this large-scale mixing is means what it is now held to mean, there developed it should not appear that the use was no infringement by the defendant. It of our comparatively irregular blast-furnace is to me equally clear, however, that even and part cupola metal can result in any sub- if the state of the art be, arguendo, put out . stantial saving
of view, the patent cannot be held to signify "But the mixing problem is not such a what it is now decided to mean (a) without difficult one. A small amount of flame repudiating the true meaning of the patent, spread over a large surface of metal should which is-properly deducible from the procertainly keep it hot for a long time, seeing ceedings in the Patent Office, that is, the filethat the metal will keep hot in a ladle ex wrapper and contents, and without refusing posed to air for an hour or more. And to give effect to the express declarations and should there be any trouble about stopping admissions of the patentee (Jones) as to the the tap hole in a large storing furnace, it significance of the patent, which is also would not be a very difficult or expensive shown by the proceedings in question; and matter (considering the Pernot revolving (6) without misconceiving and misconstruhearth experience) to tip the whole hearth ing the patent. Let me briefly demonstrate to pour a charge.”
these propositions. Without stopping to comment in detail As I have said at the outset, the applicaupon all the matters just referred to, there tion for the patent in suit when first made can be no question that they demonstrate was rejected by the Patent Office, on the that if the vitality of the Jones patent de ground of the prior state of the art, as evipends upon the size of the reservoir, it was denced by the Witherow patents and thu clearly anticipated. They also further.es. Kirk publication. An amended application tablish that the advisability of the use of was thereupon filed, which beyond all quesa large reservoir for the purposes of storage tion eliminated from the patent all claim and mixing was well known; and that it to an exclusive right to reservoir or store was deemed to be an obvious and desirable the molten metal. When this amendment expedient is also apparent.
was presented to the Patent Office, counsel It is not denied that the Deighton and for the applicant submitted a written arguWitherow patents each provided for a reser-ment to demonstrate the patentability of the voir, the former (Deighton) laying stress method covered by the amended application, upon the advantages resulting from the in which no reference whatever was made to mixing in such reservoir. Both patents, it the importance of a residue, whether of seems to me, in effect contemplating as they small or considerable size, but the purpose did the continuous operation of the plant, of the inventor was thus declared (italics and, in view of the relative capacities of the nine) "to have a receptacle capable of holdfurnace or furnaces, the reservoir and the ing metal in a molten condition, into which converters, necessarily embraced the pres- metal, it may be, from several blast fur. ence in the reservoir of a considerable resid- naces, is run from time to time, and from uum, without which residue the proposed which metal is drawn for treatment in the .continuity was impossible. As it is to me converters, or otherwise, as required. This apparent, I do not stop to refer to the tes continuous pouring into and drawing out of timony showing that this must necessarily a common receptacle produces such a mix. be the case. The argument that the Deigh- ture of the charges as results in an uniform ton reservoir had no cover, and therefore it average quality of metal, whether treated is not the Jones process, ignores the fact in the converters or used for casting without that Jones in his process patent does not such treatment, as is very desirable, but has provide for the operation of his method in hitherto been found unattainable." But the & covered receptacle, but, on the contrary, amended application was rejected, and the in the specifications of that patent, it is examiner-evidently having in mind the declared that the process may be carried on statement in the argument of counsel above in a charging ladle, an uncovered receptacle. referred to-called the attention of the apFurther, it is to be borne in mind that the plicant to the fact that the continual pourrecord overwhelmingly establishes that it ing into and drawing out of the molten metal
to produce a mixture was anticipated by this, and this only: The selection of sepathe Kirk publication. The examiner said rate portions of molten metal, pouring the (italics mine):
same into a reservoir, mixing such aggre“The process, as now claimed, seems to be gated portions of molten metal thoroughly fully met by the description in Kirk's Metal until it, the commingled metal, became uni. Founding, heretofore referred to, * which form, so that the equalized metal might be states that the metal is run continuously used, not alone in the making of steel in a from the cupola and mixed in the ladlo, converter, but in any other process of mak. from which it is tapped into the smaller ing steel, in a foundry, or in any other mode ladle. See also the additional references of where a uniform product was desired. Hay. British patents No. 859, Broman, March 23, ing thus provided for equalizing the contents 1866, page 5, lines 25-35, and No. 2382, of the reservoir when filled with selected Stewart, May 10, 1883, page 6, lines 9 and metal and mixing had been accomplished, 10."
the patent contemplated that this equalized When it is borne in mind that the Kirk molten metal present in the reservoir should publication thus referred to provided ex. be drawn off for any desirable purpose down pressly for a continuous inflowing and out to an undetermined residue, so that when a drawing of the metal, and besides expressly fresh supply of selected metal was charged said “a quantity of molten metal should be into the reservoir the metal thus newly supkept
80 as to give the different plied might be mixed with the residuun, brands of iron a chance to mix," the conclu. and thus not only a further supply of equal. sion cannot by me be escaped that the ex. ized metal might be obtained, but also, as aminer pointed out to Jones that the con- a result, abrupt variations between the ception of a continuous inflow and outflow, freshly equalized metal and that of the preand the keeping of a residue for the purpose ceding batch discharged from the reservoir of mixing, was not patentable.
would be avoided. The presumption cannot be indulged in To demonstrate the correctness of this that the amendment was not intended to ob. construction, which, as already shown, was viate the objection on account of which the undoubtedly the view taken by the Patent Patent Office had rejected the application, Office, let me come to consider the applicaand, moreover, it cannot be assumed that tion for the patent, the amendments, and the Patent Office issued the patent for a the patent as granted. method which it declared was not patent- The application, as originally filed, conable. But now the patent is construed by tained a statement of the primary object of the court as covering the continuous flowing the invention, which is excerpted in the mar... into and withdrawal from a reservoir of gin.t molten metal, and as alone referring to the * This was followed by a statement of the prevention of abrupt variations in the metal
f“The primary object of the invention is to drawn from the reservoir for use in a con provide means for insuring uniformity in the verter, while Jones himself declared to the product of a Bessemer steel works or similarPatent Office that the patent as amended plant, in which the metal from more than one related to metal drawn (from a reservoir) |.(subsequently amended to read 'one or more') for treatment in a converter, or otherwise, blast furnaces is employed to charge the con
The product of the different furnaces, as required. Besides, was expressly stat
or of the same furnace at different times, ya. ed that what the patent contemplated was ries id quality, the variation depending on the the production of a uniform quality of kind of ore employed, and on many other conmetal, intended for further treatment in the ditions well known to those skilled in the art, converters, or to be used for casting without so that when the converters are charged at one such treatment. It is submitted that this time with the output from one furnace, and at demonstrates that the construction now
another time with the output from another fur given by the court to the patent is directly nace or furnaces, the manufactured steel lacks. repugnant to the meaning which Jones af- uniformity in grade. To avoid this I employ fixed to it, and besides is in conflict with sultably constructed reservoirs or vessels, into
which the molten metal from the blast furnaces. the ruling of the Patent Office, in which
Is put, the vessels being of proper capacity to Jones acquiesced, and upon which the patent hold a considerable charge of metal from a was issued; and therefore that the construc- single furnace, or from a number of furnaces, tion which the patent now receives amounts, and belng adapted to retain the metal in a it seems to me, to a grant by judicial deci- molten state for sufficient time to enable the sion of a new and different patent from that different charges to mix and become homogewhich the Patent Office allowed.
The advantage which I thus obtain in Conclusive as is the view just stated, it is securing uniformity and homogeneity in the made, if possible,* more so if the correct con- total product will be readily understood by struction of the patent be ascertained. This
those familiar with the operations of a steel it is proposed to demonstrate by an analysis works and the frequent loss which is caused by
the lack of such uniformity. Such apparatus of the patent as originally applied for, by a consideration of the amendments made to it. possesses also an additional advantage in that
it makes it possible to dispense with cupola lurand by its text in its final form. Consider
for remelting the pigs preparatory to ing these matters, it will, I think, appear charging the converters. The metal may be that the patent was not, as how held to be, tapped from th
blast furnaces into ladles or solely one for the prevention of abrupt varia
trucks, carried to and discharged Into the mixtions in the metal drawn from the receping reservoir or vessel, and there retained ID tacle for use in a converter. On the con a molten state antil suficient metal has been trary, the true purport of the patent was accumulated to charge the convertera”