Fullerton Walnut Growers' Ass'n v. Anderson-Barngrover Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 December 1908
• Docket Number: 1,533.
• Citation: 166 F. 443
• Parties: FULLERTON WALNUT GROWERS' ASS'N v. ANDERSON-BARNGROVER MFG. CO. [1]
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

166 F. 443

FULLERTON WALNUT GROWERS' ASS'N v. ANDERSON-BARNGROVER MFG. CO. ^[1]

No. 1,533.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

December 7, 1908

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

From a final decree in favor of the appellee against the appellant for $23,256.10, the profits adjudged to have been realized by the latter from infringing claim 2 of letters patent 663,069 issued to Daniel Farrell on December 4, 1900, covering a process for bleaching nuts, the present appeal is taken. The specifications and claims of the patent are as follows:

'Be it known that I, Daniel Farrell, a citizen of the United States, residing at San Jose, county of Santa Clara, state of California, have invented an improvement in process of bleaching nuts, and I hereby declare the following to be a full, clear, and exact description:

'My invention relates to an improvement in the art of bleaching nuts.

'It consists, essentially, in the preparation of solutions of chlorid of lime and sal-soda, which are mixed, and when employed for work a proportion of the solutions to be used is drawn off into a dipping vessel, and a sufficient proportion of acid is added to liberate the chlorin. The nuts are then immersed in the solution, and are afterwards rinsed in clean water, which is preferably slightly acidulated. Nuts-- such as almonds, walnuts, and similar nuts-- must present a bright and clean appearance in order to be marketable and of the highest value, and in spite of all precautions the shells of the nuts become discolored and dirty. Various devices have been employed for bleaching or cleansing the nuts. One has been by sprinkling or wetting them, and then placing them in a close room and applying the fumes of sulphur. In some cases the nuts have been rolled in sawdust which is impregnated with a solution of sulphurous acid. The objections to these methods are that the action upon the nuts is not uniform, that any nuts which happened to be slightly open became impregnated with sulphuric acid, and, further, the nuts subjected to this treatment are apt to become rancid within two or three months, and will not keep properly.

'In my process I use chlorid of lime and sal-soda. The chlorid of lime and the sal-soda are dissolved separately and afterwards mixed together, and the solution is then allowed to settle until the thick, white lime is at the bottom. The clear solution is then drawn off, and is in readiness for use. This combination of the two solutions appears to retain its effective bleaching qualities for a much longer time than the separate chlorin solution, and it is very much more effective in its results. No white deposit is left upon the nuts, and after bleaching is completed they show no trace whatever of the solution.

'When the work is to be done, a sufficient proportion of the combined solution is drawn into a dipping vessel of suitable capacity, and an amount of acid is added, which will liberate the chlorin gas.

'I have found that, while many acids might produce the result of liberating the gas, a safe acid for the purpose is acetic acid or vinegar, and of which I may use approximately 1 part to 20 of the solution. The nuts are then immersed coincidently with the addition of the acid, and thoroughly wetted with the solution, and the escaping chlorin gas will bleach them. After having been immersed for a sufficient length of time, the nuts are taken out and then rinsed in clean water, to which is preferably added a little vinegar to acidulate it, so that any of the alkali which may remain upon the surface of the nuts will unite with the acid and leave them in a clear condition. When thus treated and dried out, no trace of the solution can be found upon the surface of the nuts, which are brightened and cleaned to a surprising degree.

'Having thus described my invention, what I claim as new, and desire to secure by letters patent, is:

'(1) In the art of cleansing and bleaching nuts, the steps consisting in mixing a compound solution of chlorid of lime and sal-soda in a dipping vessel, adding a weak acid thereto, and immediately plunging the nuts into the solution and removing them, and finally washing them.

'(2) In the art of washing and bleaching nuts, the steps, consisting in mixing a compound solution of chlorid of lime and sal-soda in a dipping vessel, adding a weak acid thereto, whereby potentially effective chlorin is liberated, and plunging the nuts in an openwork basket into the solution, and immediately removing them.'

John S. Chapman and Ward Chapman, for appellant.

John H. Miller and Wm. K. White, for appellee.

Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.

GILBERT Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

The invention covered by the patent relates to the preparation of English walnuts for the market by bleaching their shells. The principal sources of these walnuts are Southern California and Southern France. From the evidence it appears that the French nuts are naturally clear and bright in appearance and require no bleaching, while a portion of the California product is discolored by black splotches, caused by rains, dews, fogs, sunburn, bacteria, or other causes, and unless bleached is unsalable, or can only be sold at a largely reduced price. Prior to the invention of the Farrell process, there was but one process used in California for bleaching the nuts, and that was the sulphur process. One method of this process was to place the nuts on superimposed trays, stacked in a dryhouse, and burn sulphur on the floor beneath them. Another method was to place the nuts in sawdust impregnated with sulphuric acid. Both methods were unsatisfactory. In the first, heat generated by the burning sulphur caused the nuts to expand and open, thus permitting the sulphur fumes to affect injuriously the kernels. In the second, the sulphuric acid at times penetrated the seams of the shells and injured the kernels. In addition to this, the bleaching by either method was not uniform. Daniel Farrell, the patentee, a walnut grower and an amateur chemist, made various experiments to discover a better process, and as the result thereof discovered one which proved highly satisfactory and successful, and went into almost instantaneous and universal use, and for which he obtained the letters patent.

The appellant earnestly contends that the process covered by the patent is devoid of any originality or invention, and that it was anticipated by prior patents, by prior printed publications, and by prior use. Considering first the prior patents and publications, we find that the first so relied upon is that of George Lunge, of date September 8, 1885, for an invention involving 'the application of chlorid of lime for bleaching and other purposes. ' It relates wholly to the bleaching of textile fabrics, and consists primarily in the use of chlorid of lime and acetic acid. The specifications state that hydrochloric, sulphuric, or oxalic acid, when used with chlorid of lime, causes the evolution of free chlorin, 'which acts too strongly upon the fabric, and is injurious both to the health of the workmen and the machin- ery.'

For this reason and others, the inventor uses acetic acid in connection with the chlorid of lime. His claim reads as follows:

'Increasing and hastening the action of chlorid of lime and saving the usual operation of souring after the bleaching without injuring the fiber in any way by the action of acetic or formic acid, as described.'

Clearly this is a process fundamentally different from that of the Farrell patent. In the reaction which occurs under the Lunge process no free chlorin is evolved. In that fact is to be found, in the opinion of the inventor, the principal value of the process, for he points out in his specification the well-known fact that, in bleaching textile fabrics, free chlorin is destructive of the fiber. In the Farrell process, on the other hand, the nascent chlorin which is evolved is the active agent which accomplishes almost instantaneously the desired bleaching. In addition to this, the Lunge process dispenses with one of the ingredients used by Farrell, and one essential to the reaction which his process involves, namely, sal-soda.

Reliance is especially placed upon Ironmonger's patent of date May 7, 1872, an invention relating to the cleaning and bleaching of the shells of peanuts. In that patent the process calls for the use of 100 gallons of water, in which are added 50 pounds of chlorid of lime and 12 1/2 pounds of sulphuric acid. In this solution the peanuts are to remain one hour, more or less, until they are sufficiently whitened. Then they are to be washed in clear water to remove the chlorin. It is obvious that the first step in the process has nothing to do with the bleaching further than to remove the dirt from the nuts. The bleaching process consists in the use of chlorid of lime and sulphuric acid in solution with water. The reaction which occurs is as follows:

'The acid unites with the calcium to form calcium sulphate. The hydrogen in the acid unites with the oxygen to form water, and the chlorin is released.'

A wholly different reaction takes place in the Farrell process. The acid is not added until after a reaction has taken place between the sal-soda and the chlorid of lime, whereby sodium chlorid and sodium hypochlorite have been produced. It is upon these products that the acid acts to release chlorin. The Ironmonger process, if applied to walnuts, would result in the deposit of calcium sulphate on the shells, involving further treatment for its removal, and would require an hour, more or less, for the bleaching operation, whereas in the Farrell process from 7 to 10 seconds is all that is required.

It is unnecessary to discuss in detail...