279 F. 713 | 2d Cir. | 1922
The appellee, by assignment, is the owner of the Gans patent, No. 1,195,923, dated August 22, 1916, for softer ing water. The Refinite Company is the manufacturer of an apparatus which, it is charged, infringes the patent in suit, and the appellant Harvey Laundry Company is a user of the apparatus.
Hardness of water in water supply varies. Water which comes in through the ground may carrj»- with it a high proportion of hardening constituents, and water which runs in on the top of the ground carries lil tie. As the proportion of the water supply from these sources varies, the hardness of the water in the si’pply will vary. Therefore a wide variation may be produced by the rains and seasonal variation. It has been necessary, because of this variation, to watch the water and add chemicals thereto, always in the right proportion, because, if the addition be too much or too little, undesirable results are obtained. It is desirous, in many businesses, where water is necessary, to obtain soft oi zero water. The patent in suit covers a zeolite apparatus for softer ing water.
It has -been found that certain double silicates have the remarkable power of changing their chemical compositions by the exchange and re-exchange of their bases. In the art, these silicates are invariably called zeolites. They have calcium as a base and when brought into contact with a solution containing potassium, the zeolites will give up their calcium to the solution and take up the potassium as a base. By this exchange a new chemical composition is formed. When new zeolites with the potassium bases are brought into contact with a solution containing lime, they will re-exchange their potassium for the calcium of tie lime, and thus resume their original chemical composition; and when zeolites containing sodium as a base are brought into contact with a solution containing lime, or lime and magnesia, they will give up their sodium to the solution, and take up as a new base the lime base or the bases of the lime and magnesia. When this is done, and they are brought in contact with a solution containing sodium — that is, a salt solution — they give up the lime base, or bases of the lime and mag-' nesia, and take back their original sodium base. It has been found that zeolites will exercise this power of exchange and re-exchange of bases p 'actically indefinitely and with little or no wear.
It is a known fact of chemistry that water is rendered hard by lime o • magnesia. The patent is claimed to disclose an apparatus for utilizir g zeolites having a sodium base in the softening of water. The zeoli:es take the hardening constituents, lime or lime and magnesia, competely out of the water, even though there originally were sodium
Zeolite water softening is a process of alternate chemical'action, and to operate the zeolites must be clean and kept clean. It is essential therefore, that there be unimpeded surface contact between the zeolites and the water iu order to obtain the exchange, for coaling the zeolites with impurities will prevent the exchange, and it has been found necessary for commercial purposes to filter the water before it reaches the zeolites. Iu practice, it has been found necessary to regenerate zeolite beds after 10 or 12 hours of softening, and, on the other hand, filter beds run for months without cleaning. It has also been found from experience that channeling of the zeolite bed destroys the operation of a zeolite softener. Such channeling is not fatal to filtering, for channels which permit the water to run therethrough permit the impurities to be carried by water, and this will shortly stop the channels.
Claims 1 and 5 of the patent in suit are in issue and are as follows:
“1. A water softening apparatus comprising a casing, a filter bed consisting of a layer of sand or quartz and a layer of zeolites or hydrated ainminoiilieates disposed on ilto layer of sand or quartz, means for permitting the passage of water through the casing, moans for cutting off the supply of water on the exhaustion of the zeolites, and means for passing through the casing a solution of a salt capable of regenerating! the zeolites.”
“5. Water softening apparatus comprising a casing, a filter bed consisting of a layer of zeolites or alumino-silicatos, supporting means for said layer, means for permitting the passage of water through the casing, means for cutting off the supply of water on the exhaustion of the zeolites, means for supplying and passing into the casing a solution of a salt capable of regenerating zeolites and means connected to the lowest point of the casing for removing the salt solution so introduced.”
In the construction of the patent in suit, the zeolite bed f is supported on a layer of gravel or quartz g. The bed is not confined by any structure at its top, so that, when water is admitted, the zeolites are free to and will arrange themselves with the fine zeolites at the top, thus forming this layer of high resistance to the water flow. This the bed will automatically do, because of the relative lightness of the smaller grains of the zeolites. The water enters through a pipe l, and first flows downwardly through a filter e, which takes out the impurities mechanically suspended in the water. The water then meets this layer of fine zeolites, which forces an even distribution of the water throughout the entire bed. The softened water flows out -through.a pipe j, and then through pipe collections to a point where the soft water is utilized- In use, the bed has a top layer of fine zeolites, and the coarser zeolites are below, so that the water flowing downwardly has the advantage that it can be easily cleaned. The inflowing water, although it may be filtered, will contain slimy constituents and.other impurities which will pass the filter. - If such impurities are not washed out of the bed, it has been found that they will coat the zeolites and prevent the necessary intimate contact between the water and the zeolites. So, where the
In the structure of the patent in suit, the apparatus is provided with an arrangement of pipes and valves by which a back-washing current of yrater can be sent upward through the bed; that is, through the pipe / md up through the bed, the water passing out through the hard water pipe l. This current of water readily dislodges and carries off any impurities which are on the top of the bed or in the top layer. The effect also is to stir up the entire zeolite bed, and this adds to a proper grading automatically, resulting in the heavier, coarser particles settling first, leaving the finer zeolites at the top. In regenerating the bed after exhaustion, the zeolites must disgorge the lime and magnesia which they take up and then take back their sodium. The apparatus in the patent in suit accomplishes this by running the salt solution into the bed through the pipe controlled by the valve; the hard water being slut off and the salt solution following the course of the hard water. Through this salt solution, the zeolites exercise their peculiar power of re-exchange, giving up lime and magnesia, and taking back sodium. These beds are regenerated in practice by filling the casing with the se It solution and allowing it to stand for hours. At the end of the regenerating period, the casing contains spent or exhausted salt solution, heavily charged with lime and magnesia. It is important that the spent salt solution be completely and thoroughly washed out. The lime and magnesia is picked up by the water, and, although the water has been softened by the zeolites, it will be rehardened by the lime and magnesia it takes from this salt solution, unless it be removed. The apparatus is constructed so that there are no traps or pockets in which tt e salt solution containing this lime and magnesia can collect, and from which it is not washed.
By the use of the apparatus in suit, for the first time, zero water has been produced. Theretofore, in the art, water softening consisted solely of the use of a precipitation apparatus which did not produce soft water. Men deeply interested in the art have been turning their inventive minds toward this problem for half a century. The appellee was the first to produce the result. We think that both the structure and the result obtained are new. Unless it has been anticipated by what the prior art disclosed,, the appellee is entitled to the protection o: its patent.
Very substantial testimony was given by a chemist of one of the largest sugar manufacturers, who was thoroughly familiar with the industry in all its branches, and who stated that zeolites or base exchange silicates have never been used in sugar refining. It appears clearly that the experiments of these German chemists failed. Another witness testified tlsat he was familiar with zeolite installations which had been made in Germany by the appellee. His testimony is to the effect that zeolites have never been commercially employed in the sugar industry for purifying sugar juices. It also appears that, when Rumpler attempted to use zeolites, he filtered upward. This failure in the sugar art did not point the way to success in the softening water art. A reference to the investigation fails to show any commrcial utility made of zeolites in the water softening art.
The chief of the foreign publications relied on is the report in the Centralblatt of Feldhoff’s lecture before a meeting of sugar technologists, in -which he described the first zeolite water softening apparatus built by Riedel & Co. Here, too, it is clearly established that the apparatus described by Feldhoff was a failure, and was abandoned, and a successful apparatus was not built until two years later (1909). Describing an experiment which failed cannot be said to anticipate a patent for a later successful apparatus. In the apparatus described in the Centralblatt, the hard water runs upwardly into the gravel, through the bed of zeolites and through the layer of excelsior provided. It then flows out through a nozzle and a horizontal pipe, which is connected with this nozzle and is controlled by a two-way valve. The water which issues from the apparatus flows out from one of the branches of this pipe, and the other is used for the disposal of the spent salt solution. In regenerating, the two-way cock of the hard water pipe is closed, and the salt solution is allowed to flow upwardly through the bed and oat through the nozzle.
Riedel’s chief chemist recognized its failure. Not only was it a failure, but the builders did not know why, and to determine the reasons a thorough physical and chemical examination was made. It was discovered that the excelsior layer between the two plates became rotten, and the bed of zeolite was divided into horizontal layers about six or
Dr. Siedler, Riedel’s chief chemist, delivered a lecture on artificial zeolites before the London Congress of Applied Chemistry in May, IS 09. It is argued tha.t this was a prior publication. The apparatus of the patent in suit was not constructed until the fall of 1909, and at the time Siedler delivered this lecture he did not know how zeolites cculd be practically used for softening water. His knowledge on this
In 1906 Cans applied for the German patent 197,311. This patent covers the invention made in artificial zeolites. It deals with the precipitation system of softening water, but is devoted to the method of manufacturing zeolites. The patent fails to anticipate the patent in suit. It was the same inventive mind at work. When he applied for his German patent, lie did not disclose the subject-matter of the patent in suit, because it was three years later when he disclosed his present inventive thought and applied for the patent in suit. He does not describe the same idea of means in the same stage of development as that which his later invention embodies. A reading of the statement of the German patent fails to disclose a description of a complete and operative art or instrument ready for immediate employment by the public. Westinghouse v. Great Northern, 88 Fed. 258, 31 C. C. A. 525. Gans applied and was granted patents in the United States, Nos. 943,535 and 960,887. They are process patents. They do not disclose an apparatus, and cannot be relied upon as anticipations. The first of these patents was filed February 18, 1907, and reissued October 13, 1911, three months after the application of the patent in suit.
Patents Nos. 632,091 and 519,565 were granted to Bommarius, and are now relied upon to support the defense of noninvention. The chief features of the first patent are the slitted tube structure at the bottom of the filter, with pot and pipes for feéding alum, and a stirrer located immediately above the slitted tubes; but the evidence indicates d early that the alum pot structure would be useless in a zeolite water sc ftener. It would not hold enough salt solution for regenerating purposes. It feeds the alum into the water ,to be filtered, and it is constructed to feed it in very minute quantities. The slitted tube construction would provide a trap at the filter bottom for the spent salt solution. In a zeolite water softener, suda impurities as pass the filter collect at the top of the bed, and not at the bottom, and therefore the stirrer is located in the wrong place to be of value in a zeolite water softener. To use it as a water softener, it would be necessary to discard the features which Bommarius regarded as important, and then would require the substitution of zeolite for the sand bed, and connections for introducing regenerating salt solution and taking care of the spent salt solution.
In the latter patent, the chief feature is the revolving screen, which is designed to break up the filtering material and the “germs” during back-washing. • Filtering material mentioned in the patent, such as ssnd, cannot be used, because it would fall through the openings in tire revolving screen and choke the pipe. Solid filtering material could not be used, because the screen could not break it up, and in this the stirrer screen is located at the extreme bottom of the filter bed. The revolving screen was found to be inoperative and discarded, and later was provided with a horizontal stirrer differently located; but, as so located, it would not be of advantage to the zeolite water softener. We tl'ink tliat what was disclosed by these patents did not anticipate the appellee’s invention.
As we have pointed out, from a somewhat exhaustive examination of what was submitted below on the question of anticipation, it was apparent that appellants’ apparatus was not constructed from either the description set forth in the various publications or from that which is indicated by the prior art. The appellants’ construction has a bed of zeolite resting on a layer of gravel, and this in turn rests on a concrete filling. There is a free space above the zeolite, which permits water to be introduced and the zeolites to arrange themselves with a layer of fine zeolite at the top, thus providing an even distribution of water throughout the bed. The water is first filtered by a filter located outside the casing, instead of within it, and it then enters through a pipe at the top of the apparatus, which flows downward through the zeolite bed. The water is soft, and then flows through the nozzle secured to a nest of pipes imbedded it) the concrete filling. A tank is located above the apparatus, and the salt solution enters through the hard water pipe. '1'lie hard water is shut off during regeneration. The salt solution flows downwardly through the bed of zeolite, and is discharged through a pipe. When regeneration is complete, the salt solution laden with lime and magnesia, and the washed water is carried away from the casing through the nozzles into the pipes at the bottom. The exit pipe-are attached to the casing on a level with the cement bottom. Tims claims 1 and 5 of the patent in suit are infringed.
This invention has been used by power plants, laundries, tanneries, canneries, and various other manufacturers. It is a great advance in the art of softening -water. Its savings to manufacturers has been enormous. It is a new and widely used apparatus in a useful art. It is that class of inventive thought which it was the intention of Congress to protect as a valuable contribution to a useful art. The inventor is entitled to his reward, and the appellee to its protection.
Decree affirmed.