Skip to main content

Full text of "New Wrinkle, Inc. and William A. Waldie v. Robert C. Watson (D.C. Cir. 1952)"

See other formats


United States Court of Appeals 

for the 

District of Columbia Circuit 



TRANSCRIPT OF 
RECORD 






No. 11,403 

JOINT APPENDIX 


of Appeals 


UtriJph 


Fob the District op of 'Zppodi 

rzr 8 

. ^ ' *• . % • , v . * -■» . , . . . » «(,- - V 

C^fr/cf of Columbia. Circuit 


ROBERT C]| WATSON 


Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the District of Cdhunbia 











BKI 




INDEX 


PAGE 

Bill of Complaint For the Issuance of a Patent .... 2 A 

Answer to the Complaint .. 11A 

Stipulation .. 13 A 

Findings of Fact . 15 A 

Conclusions of Law. 17 A 

Judgment . 18 A 

Notice of Appeal.. 18 A 

Cost Bond On Appeal _ 18 A 

Designation of Contents of Record on Appeal. 22 A 

Plaintiff’s Statement of Points On Its Appeal_ 26 A 

Order. 28 A 

Stipulation . 29 A 

Stipulation . 29 A 

Order. 30 A 

Stipulation . 31A 

Order.— 32 A 

Proceedings . 33 A 

Opening Statement on Behalf of the Plaintiffs. 35 A 

Opening Statement on Behalf of the Defendant_ 48 A 

William Allshire Waldie - 54 A 

Direct Examination _ 54 A 

Direct Examination (Continued) . 69 A 

« 

Cross Examination . 87 A 

Redirect Examination . 94 A 

P’s X No. 1_ 96 A 

Petition-- 97 A 

Specifications _ 98 A 





























11 


INDEX (Continued) 


PAGE 

Oath___ 107 A 

Affidavit _ 129 A 

Supplemental Amendment . 132 A 

Affidavit . 135 A 

Affidavit ______ 137 A 

Supplemental Amendment . 139 A 

Advisory Action . 140 A 

Appeal____-—__ 145 A 

Examiner’s Statement . 151A 

The Rejection . 157 A 

The Appealed Claims . 162 A 

The Rejection . 165 A 

Examiner’s Statement --- 171 A 

Hearing . 171 A 

Petition to the Board of Appeals . 177 A 

The Claims . 178 A 

On Petition for Reconsideration . 182 A 

Notice of Civil Action Under Section 4915 R. S. 185 A 

Pltfs. Ex. #2 . 187 A 

Pltfs. Ex. #10 . 192 A 

Pltfs. Ex. #18 . 193 A 

Deft’s Ex. #1 . 194 A 

Deft’s Ex. #1—Paper D . 209 A 

Deft’s Exhibit # 1—Paper F . 215 A 

Examiner’s Statement . 215 A 

Deft’s Ex. #1—Paper G . 223 A 

Deft’s Ex. #1—Paper H ... 229 A 

On Petition for Reconsideration _ 229 A 































HttttpiJ States (Court at Appeals 

Foe the District of Columbia CrBcurr 


No. 11,403 


New Wrinkle, Inc., and William A. Waldie, 

Appellants, 


John A. Maezall, Commissioner of Patents, 

Appellee . 


Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia 


JOINT APPENDIX 



2 A 


97 


Filed Feb 13 1950 Harry M. Hull, Clerk 


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT 
OF COLUMBIA 


NEW WRINKLE, INC. and 
WILLIAM A. WALDIE, 

Dayton, Ohio, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JOHN A. MARZALL, COMMISSIONER 
OF PATENTS, Washington, D. C., 

Defendant 


Civil Action No. 696-’50 


Bill of Complaint 
For the Issuance of a Patent. 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT 
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: 

Plaintiffs bring this cause of action and state as fol¬ 
lows: 

1. Plaintiff, New Wrinkle, Inc., is a corporation organ¬ 
ized and existing under the law’s of the State of Ohio, 
having a place of business at No. 1771 Springfield Street, 
Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio; and plaintiff William 
A. Waldie is a citizen of the United States, residing at 
69 East Dixon Avenue, Dayton, Montgomery County, 
Ohio, and plaintiffs bring this suit jointly. 


3 A 


2. The defendant, John A. Marzall, is Commissioner 
of Patents of the United States, having his official resi¬ 
dence in the District of Columbia, and is sued in his 
official capacity as said Commissioner of Patents of the 
United States. 

98 3. This suit arises under the patent laws of the 

United States and this bill is filed in accordance 
with the provisions of Sec. 4915 of the Revised Statutes, 
Title 35, Sec. 63 U. S. C. A. 

4. That William A. Waldie, one of the plaintiffs, prior 
to March 12, 1946, was the true, original and first inventor 
of new and useful improvements in or relating to Wrinkle 
Finish, which were not known or used by others in this 
country before his invention or discovery thereof and 
were not patented or described in any printed publication 
in this or any foreign country before his invention or 
discovery thereof, or more than one year prior to his 
application for a patent hereinafter referred to, and were 
not in public use or on sale in this country for more than 
one year prior to said application, were not abandoned, 
and were not patented in any foreign country or an 
application filed by either of said plaintiffs or their legal 
representatives or assigns more than twelve months prior 
to the filing of said application, in the United States. 

5. That plaintiff William A. Waldie, being entitled to 
Letters Patent of the United States for said improve¬ 
ments in Wrinkle Finish under the provisions of the 
statutes of the United States and in accordance with the 
rules of practice of the United States Patent Office, filed 
an application for Letters Patent in due and proper form 
with the defendant, or his predecessor in office, as Com¬ 
missioner of Patents for said improvements. Said ap¬ 
plication complied with the statutes and rules in such 
cases made and provided and was filed in the United 
States Patent Office on March 12, 1946, and was given 



4 A 


Serial No. 653,933, all as will more fully and at 
yy large appear by said application or a duly certified 
copy thereof and the proceedings relating thereto 
had in the Patent Office, here in court to be produced 
by the plaintiffs. 

6. That said plaintiff, William A. Waldie, by a proper 
instrument in writing, executed by him and recorded in 
the records of the Transfers of Patents in the United 
States Patent Office, sold, assigned and transferred to 
New Wrinkle, Inc., the other plaintiff herein, the entire 
right, title, and interest in and to the invention disclosed 
in said application, Serial No. 653,933, and in and to the 
Letters Patent expected to issue thereon, whereby said 
New’ Wrinkle, Inc., became invested with and now’ owns 
the entire right, title, and interest in and to said inven¬ 
tion and the Letters Patent to issue therefor, and as will 
more fully and at large appear by said assignment or a 
duly certified copy thereof in court to be produced. 

7. That said application has been duly prosecuted in 
accordance with the law’s of the United States and the 
Pules of Practice of the United States Patent Office. 

8. That a patent on said application, including and 
embodying Claims 1 to 18 inclusive, of the original 
application, Claims 19 and 20 of proposed amendments 
of April 12, 1948, July 12, 1948, and July 21, 1948, and 
Claims 21 to 35 inclusive, of the proposed response to 
the advisory action of the Patent Office of July 29, 1948, 
have been refused by the Commissioner of Patents, the 
defendant herein. 

9. (a) That said application was passed upon by the 
Primary Examiner w T ho finally refused said claims num¬ 
bered 1 to 18 inclusive thereof in an action 

100 dated February 20, 1948, on the following grounds: 

Claim 1 as failing to point out the invention in 


5 A 


not reciting the proportion of drier present in the oil 
mixture. 

Claims 1 to 4 rejected as lacking invention over the 
patent of Flournoy, 1,752,164, March 25, 1930. 

Claim 7 as substantially fully met by Flournoy, supra. 

Claims 8 to 16 as unpatentable over Waldie, 2,344,189, 
March 14, 1944, together with Flournoy, supra, and for 
the additional reason that the particular finish was con¬ 
sidered by the Primary Examiner to be within the skill 
of those working in the art and using the teachings of 
the patents to Waldie, supra, and to Root 1,950,417, March 
13, 1934, and Root 1,883,408, October 18, 1932. 

Claims 5, 6, 17 and 18 as reading on the non-elected 
species. 

(b) By an Advisory Action dated July 29, 1948, said 
claims were again refused on the following grounds: 

Claims 1 to 4 as lacking invention over the patent to 
Flournoy, supra. 

Claim 7 was rejected as substantially met by Flournoy 
supra. 

Claims 8 to 16 were rejected as unpatentable over 
Waldia, supra together with Flournoy, supra. 

Claims 5, 6, 17 and 18 were rejected as reading on the 
non-elected species. 

Claims 19 and 20 were rejected as unpatentable over 
Flournoy. 

101 Claim 20 was further rejected as improper in 
defining a product by its process of preparation. 

10. (a) The Primary Examiner having considered 

applicant’s recitation of a reaction was new matter and 
did not see fit to enter the amendments filed after the 
final rejection, applicant, in order to overcome such ob¬ 
jection and at the same time enter the amendments per¬ 
missible, rewrote the claims and for the purpose of ap¬ 
peal an amendment was entered whereby all of the claims 
of record were cancelled and Claims 21 to 35 inclusive, 



6 A 


were added. Applicant’s amendment aforesaid of August 
24, 1948, cancelling all the claims of record and adding 
claims 21 to 35 inclusive, was duly entered for purposes 
of appeal. 

(b) The plaintiffs believed they were entitled to said 
Claims 21 to 35 inclusive, and took appeal to the Patent 
Office Board of Appeals from the action of the Patent 
Office hereinbefore set forth, said claims reading as fol¬ 
lows : 

21. As a new composition of matter, an oil mixture 
for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating composi¬ 
tion yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon 
drying, said oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons 
of a homogenous mixture of conjugated double-bonded 
oil and non-conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil in 
the ratio of from 1:1 to 1:3 and heated to a temperature 
of from 450° to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic drier. 

22. As a new composition of matter, an oil mixture 
for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating composi¬ 
tion yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon 
drying, said oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons 
of a homogeneous mixture of 3 parts by volume of con¬ 
jugated double-bonded oil and 5 parts by volume of non- 
conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil heated to a tem¬ 
perature of from 450° to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic 
drier. 

23. As a new composition of matter, an oil mixture for 
converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating composi¬ 
tion yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern 

102 upon drying, said oil mixture consisting of a 
homogeneous mixture of 20 gallons of non-conju¬ 
gated double-bonded linseed oil and 12 gallons of raw 
tung oil heated to at least 560° F., and 16 pounds of man¬ 
ganese acetate. 


24. As a new composition of matter, an oil mixture 
for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating composi¬ 
tion yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern npon 
drying, said oil mixture consisting of a homogeneous 
mixture of 20 gallons of non-conjugated double-bonded 
linseed oil and 12 gallons of oiticica oil heated to at 
least 500° F., and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

25. As a new composition of matter, an oil mixture 
for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating composi¬ 
tion yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon dry¬ 
ing, said oil mixture consisting of a homogeneous mixture 
of 20 gallons of non-conjugated double-bonded linseed 
oil and 12 gallons of dehydrated castor oil heated to at 
least 600° F., and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

26. A method for preparing an oil which is adapted 
to transform a short oil varnish into a wrinkle coating 
composition that dries to a worm-shaped segregated pat¬ 
tern, comprising mixing a conjugated double-bonded oil 
and a non-conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil in 
the proportion of from 1:1 to 1:3 and heating this 
mixture to at least the polymerization temperature of 
said conjugated double-bonded oil until homogeneous, and 
adding a metallic drier. 

27. The method of preparing an oil which is adapted 
to transform a short oil varnish into a wrinkle coating 
composition that dries to a worm-shaped segregated pat¬ 
tern, comprising mixing raw tung oil and varnish grade 
linseed oil in substantially the proportions of 3 parts by 
volume of the former oil to 5 parts by volume of the 
latter oil, heating the mixture to at least 560° F. until 
the mixture becomes homogeneous, and adding 16 pounds 
of manganese acetate thereto before the temperature of 
the mixture has dropped below 500° F., and then reheat¬ 
ing the mixture to 525° F. until it becomes homogeneous. 

28. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a var¬ 
nish and from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume per each part of 





8 A 


varnish of a homogeneous oil prepared by heating a mix¬ 
ture of conjugated double-bonded oil and non-conjugated 
double-bonded vegetable oil in the proportion of from 
1:1 to 1:3 to a temperature of from 450° F. to 650° F. 
and a metallic drier. 

29. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a var¬ 
nish and from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume per each part of 
varnish of a homogeneous oil mixture, said oil mixture 
consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons of a homogeneous mix¬ 
ture of conjugated double-bonded oil and non-conjugated 
double-bonded vegetable oil in the ratio of from 1:1 to 1:3 
and heated to a temperature of from 450° to 650° F. and 
1 pound of metallic drier. 

103 30. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a 

resin-containing short oil varnish and an oil mix¬ 
ture in the proportion of from 10 to 16 gallons of said 
oil mixture per 100 pounds of resin contained in said 
varnish, said oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons 
of a homogeneous mixture of conjugated double-bonded 
oil and non-conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil in the 
ratio of from 1:1 to 1:3 and heated to a temperature 
of from 450° to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic drier, 
and said composition having from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume 
of said oil mixture per each part by volume of said 
varnish. 

31. A wrinkle coating composition comprising 1 part 
by volume of a short oil varnish, coloring matter selected 
from the group consisting of dyes and pigments, and 
from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume of an oil mixture, said oil 
mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons of homogeneous 
mixture of conjugated double-bonded oil and non-conju¬ 
gated double-bonded vegetable oil in the ratio of from 
1:1 to 1:3 and heated to a temperature of from 450° 
to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic drier. 

32. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a short 
oil varnish, coloring matter selected from the group con- 



9 A 


sisting of dyes and pigments, and 10 to 16 gallons of 
an oil mixture per 100 pounds of resin contained in said 
varnish, said oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons 
of homogeneous mixture of conjugated double-bonded oil 
and non-conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil in the 
ratio of from 1:1 to 1:3 and heated to a temperature of 
from 450° to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic drier, and 
from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume of said oil mixture being 
used for each part by volume of said varnish. 

33. A wrinkle coating composition consisting of 7 

parts by volume of a short oil varnish; 6 parts by volume 
of a oil consisting of a homogeneous mixture of 20 gal¬ 
lons of varnish grade linseed oil and 12 gallons of raw 
tung oil heated to at least 560° F. and 16 pounds of 
manganese acetate, and 3 parts by volume of toluol. 

34. A wrinkle coating composition consisting of 7 

parts by volume of a short oil varnish and 4 parts by 

volume of an oil consisting of a homogenous mixture of 
20 gallons of varnish grade linseed oil and 12 gallons 
of citicica oil, said mixture being heated to at least 500° 
F., and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

35. A wrinkle coating composition consisting of 7 

parts by volume of a short oil varnish and 4 parts by 
volume of an oil consisting of a homogeneous mixture of 
20 gallons of varnish grade linseed oil and 12 gallons 
of dehydrated castor oil, said mixture being heated to 
at least 600° F., and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

11. Under date of March 3, 1949, the Primary Exam¬ 
iner filed a statement in response to said appeal 
104 to the Patent Office Board of Appeals in which he 
relied upon the following references: 

Waldie 2,344,189 Mar. 14, 1944 

Root 1,950,417 Mar. 13, 1934 

Flournoy et al 1,752,164 Mar. 25, 1930 




10 A 


and under which he relied in finally rejecting said afore¬ 
said claims. The Examiner rejected Claims 24, 25, 34 
and 35 as reading on the non-elected species; Claims 21 
to 23 as lacking invention over the patent to Flournoy; 
Claims 26 and 27 as unpatentable over Flournoy; and 
Claims 28 to 33 as unpatentable over Waldie, together 
with Flournoy, all of which more fully and at large will 
appear by certified copies of the file wrapper and con¬ 
tents of said Waldie, Serial No. 653,933 herein referred 
to on the trial hereof to be produced. 

12. That after arguments were duly made on said ap¬ 
peal and a brief filed on behalf of said applicant, the 
Patent Office Board of Appeals on November 23, 1949, 
affirmed the decision of the Examiner, on the grounds 
that Claims 21 to 23 inclusive, are unpatentable over 
Flournoy et al; Claims 26 and 27 as unpatentable over 
said reference; Claims 28 to 33 inclusive, are unpatent¬ 
able over Waldie in view of Flournoy et al; Claims 24, 
25, 34 and 35 stand rejected as failing to read on the 
elected species, the Board holding that said claims w’ere 
not before it for consideration on their merits. 

13. The plaintiffs aver that the decisions of the Pri¬ 
mary Examiner and of the Patent Office Board of Appeals 
were erroneous and contrary to the law and contrary to 

the fact and do, therefore, disagree with the de- 
105 cision of the Commissioner of Patents, acting 

through the Patent Office Board of Appeals, as to 
said claims 21 to 35 inclusive, and allege that the subject 
matter of said claims is new and patentable, and that 
these claims should be allowed and a patent therefor 
granted to the plaintiffs. But the Commissioner has re¬ 
fused and still refuses to grant Letters Patent upon the 
aforesaid claims. 

14. That the plaintiffs have taken no appeal to the 
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals from 


11A 


the aforesaid decisions of the Patent Office Board of 
Appeals and Commissioner of Patents. 

15. Wherefore plaintiffs bring this Bill of Complaint 
nnder and in accordance with the provisions and statotes 
(Sec. 4915 U. S. Rev. St.; Comp. Stats. 9460; U. S. C. A. 
Title 35, Sec. 63) in such cases made and provided, and 
pray: 

(a) That this Honorable Court may adjudge that the 
plaintiffs, New Wrinkle, Inc., and William A. Waldie, are 
entitled, according to law, to receive Letters Patent of 
the United States for said invention as specified in the 
aforesaid Claims 21 to 35 inclusive, of said application 
Serial No. 653,933. 

(b) That this Honorable Court may decree that the 
Commissioner of Patents be directed to allow the afore¬ 
said Claims 21 to 35 inclusive of said application Serial 
No. 653, 933 for Letters Patent of William A. Waldie, 
filed March 12, 1946. 

(c) For such other and further relief in the prem¬ 
ises as the nature of the case may require 

106 and as to the Honorable Court shall seem meet 
and proper. 

NEW WRINKLE, INC. AND 
WILLIAM A. WALDIE 

By /s/ Toulmin & Toulmin 
Attorneys 

• • • • 

107 Filed Feb 25 1950 Harry M. Hull, Clerk 

Answer to the Complaint 

To the Honorable the Judges of the United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia. 



12 A 


I, 2, 3, The defendant admits the allegations of para¬ 
graphs 1, 2 and 3 of complaint. 

4. He denies the allegations of paragraph 4. 

5. He denies that the plaintiff is entitled to Letters 
Patent as alledged in paragraph 5. He admits the re¬ 
maining allegations of that paragraph. 

6. 7. He admits the allegations of paragraphs 6 and 7. 

8. He denies that he has refused a patent as to claims 
19 and 20 on their merits. He admits the remaining 
allegations of paragraph 8. 

9. He admits the allegations of part (a) of para¬ 
graph 9. He admits the allegations of part (b) of para¬ 
graph 9 except the allegation that claims 19 and 20 
were rejected. He denies that allegation and states that 
the examiner’s remarks as to those claims were merely 

advisory. 

108 10. He is not informed except by the complaint 

as to the plaintiff’s motive in amending his appli¬ 
cation as referred to in paragraph 10. He admits the 
remaining allegations of that paragraph. 

II, 12. He admits the allegations of paragraphs 11 
and 12. 

13. He admits that he has refused and still refuses 
to grant Letters Patent as alleged in paragraph 13. He 
denies the remaining allegations of that paragraph. 

14. He admits the allegations of paragraph 14. 

15. Paragraph 15, being a prayer, no answer is made. 

FURTHER ANSWERING, defendant states that the 
claims set forth in the complaint are unpatentable to the 
plaintiffs for the reasons given and in view of the refer¬ 
ences cited in the statement of the examiner in answer 


13 A 


to the plaintiffs appeal and in the decisions of the board 
of appeals. Profert of copies of said statement, decisions 
and references is hereby made. 

/s/ E. L. Reynolds 

Solicitor, United States 
Patent Office 
Attorney for Defendant 

• fit 

109 Filed Aug 29 1951 Harry M. Hull, Clerk 

« 

Stipulation 

It is stipulated by and between Counsel for the parties, 
this Honorable Court consenting, that the record in the 
above-entitled case be corrected as follows: 

Page 8, line 3, change “ specie” to —species—; 

Page 10, last line, after “of” insert —from—; 

Page 10, last line, after “one” insert —to three—; 

Page 10, last line, change “part” to —parts—; 

Page 15, line 16, delete the comma and insert —by—; 
Page 24, line 16, after “He” insert —may not—; 

Page 24, line 16, change “heats” to —heat—; 

Page 27, line 18, change “packages” to —panels—; 
Page 31, next to last line, change “that” to —then—; 
Page 31, next to last line, change “invention” to 
—claims—; 

110 Page 31, next to last line, change “stated” to 
—properly worded—; 

Page 35, line 8, change “no” to —low—; 

Page 35, line 10, change “in order to” to —and then—; 
Page 36, line 13, change “unable” to —able—; 

Page 56, line 14, insert a comma after “reference” 
and delete “that”; 

Page 60, line 22, change “patch” to —batch—; 

Page 70, line 12, change “fluid” to —Flournoy—; 



Page 73, line 4, change “3” to —13—; 

Page 73, line 5, change “13” to —3—; 

Page 86, next to last line, change “patent” to 
—wrinkle—; 

Page 87, line 17, change “certainly” to —certain of—; 
Page 93, fourth line from bottom, change “effect” to 
—chance—. 

/s/ Toulmin & Toulmin 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Dayton, Ohio 
August 27, 1951 

/s/ E. L. Reynolds 

Attorneys for Defendant. 

Washington, D. C. 

August 29,1951. 

Consent hereto: 


Judge, United States District Court. 

* • • • 


132 Memorandum for the Clerk 

In Re: New Wrinkle, Inc. and William A. Waldie, v. 
John A. Marzall, Commissioner of Patents 

C. A. No. 696-50 

No invention. Judgment for the defendant. 

Counsel will prepare findings of fact and proper order. 


December 18, 1951 


McGuire, J. 




15 A 


111 Filed Jan 2 1952 Harry M. Hull, Clerk 

Findings of Fact 

1. This is an action under R. S. 4915 (U. S. C. title 
35, sec. 63) in which the plaintiffs, New Wrinkle, Inc. and 
WTlliam A. Waldie, sought to have the Court authorize 
the allowance of claims 21 to 35 of their application for 
patent Serial No. 653,933. 

2. The application in issue relates to the art of wirnkle 
coating compositions. The claims call for a composition 
comprising an oil to be added to varnish to impart 
wrrinkling qualities thereto, a method of making the oil 
composition, and a varnish coating composition containing 
the added oil. In compounding the oil, a conjugated 
double bonded oil, such as tung oil, and a non-conjugated 
double bonded oil, such as linseed oil, are heated to¬ 
gether to a temperature of 450° F. to 600° F. 

112 and a metallic drier is added. When the oil compo¬ 
sition is added to a short-oil varnish, the varnish 

acquires the property of affording a wrorm-shaped, segre¬ 
gated wrinkle pattern on the surface to which it is ap¬ 
plied. 

3. The Flournoy et al patent No. 1,752,164 describes 
a composition which affords a wrinkle finish on coated 
surfaces. The composition comprises tung oil, which is 
thickened by heating, mixed with linseed oil, which is 
similarlv thickened bv heating, and a metallic drier. The 
patent does not state whether the oils are heated to¬ 
gether. 

4. The Waldie patent No. 2,344,189 discloses that a 
wrinkle finish composition may be blended with a wrink¬ 
ling varnish to produce a wrinkle finish on drying. 

5. The Root patent No. 1,950,417 discloses wrinkle 
finish compositions embodying tung oil and linseed oil in 





16 A 


which the composition may be formed by mixing a wrink¬ 
ling oil composition, composed of wrinkling and non- 
wrinkling oils, and adding this composition to the re¬ 
mainder of the varnish ingredients. 

6. The Huff publication, “Scientific Methods of Var¬ 
nish Manufacture,” on page 122, discloses that linseed 
oil and tung oil may be copolymerized by heating the oils 
together to a temperature of 545° F. The gel time for 
the oil mixture is longer than when tung oil is polymer¬ 
ized without dilution by linseed oil. 

113 7. The Flournoy patent teaches that thickening, 

i. e. polymerization, of tung oil is essential to 
achieving a wrinkle finish in compositions containing tung 
oil. 

8. The Huff reference and the plaintiffs’ testimony 
establish that the difficulty in controlling the polymeriza¬ 
tion of tung oil was well-known to the art prior to the 
application. 

9. The Huff reference and the plaintiffs’ testimony 
establish that it vras known to the art prior to the 
application that dilution of the tung oil by linseed oil 
during the polymerization heating 'would afford control 
of the process. 

10. Modification of the Flournoy process to include 
co-bodying of the tung and linseed oils would be an ob¬ 
vious extension of the teaching of that patent in view 
of the prior art and would not amount to invention. 

11. Claims 21, 22, 23, 26 and 27 do not define inven¬ 
tion over the Flournoy patent. 

12. Claims 21 to 23 and 30 to 33 do not positively 
include the feature said to be critical, i. e. the cobodying 
of the oils. 


17 A 


13. Claims 28 to 33 add nothing inventive to the claims 
to the wrinkling oil composition, since the concept of add¬ 
ing a prepared wrinkling oil to a varnish to impart 
wrinkling properties to the varnish is tanght by 
114 the Waldie and Root patents. 

14. Claims 28 to 33 do not define invention over 
the Waldie or Root patents in view of Flournoy. 

15. Claims 24, 25, 34 and 35 are directed to non-elected 
species. 

16. The claims in issue do not define invention since 
the plantiff, William A. Waldie, achieved the worm- 
shaped, segregated wrinkle result through mere routine 
experimentation. 

17. Claims 21, 22, 23, 26, 27 and 28 to 33 are unpatent¬ 
able in view of the prior art 

18. Claims 24, 25, 34 and 35 are unpatentable as being 
directed to non-elected species. 

Conclusions of Law 

1. The plaintiffs are not entitled to a patent contain¬ 
ing any of claims 21 to 35 of application Serial No. 
653,933. 

2. The complaint should be dismissed as to all the 
claims involved. 

/s/ Matthew F. McGuire 
Judge 


• • • * 


January 2,1952 


18 A 


115 Filed Jan 2 1952 Harry M. Hull, Clerk 

Judgment 

This action came on to be heard at the April term 
and thereupon upon consideration thereof, it is this 2d 
day of January 1952 

ADJUDGED that the complaint be and it is hereby 
dismissed, with costs against the plaintiffs. 

/s/ Matthew F. McGuire 
Judge 

• • • • 

116 Filed Jan 30 1952 Harry M. Hull, Clerk 

Notice of Appeal 

Notice is hereby given that New Wrinkle, Inc. and 
William A. Waldie, Plaintiffs, hereby appeal to the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Co¬ 
lumbia from the Judgment entered in this action on the 
2nd day of January 1952. 

/s/ Toulmin & Toulmin 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

117 Filed Jan 31 1952 Harry M. Hull, Clerk 

Cost Bond On Appeal 

New Wrinkle, Inc. and William A. Waldie, appellants 
herein and Indemnity Insurance Company of North 
America, a corporation, organized and existing under the 
laws of the State of Pennsylvania, with its principal 
place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and 
duly authorized to transact a general surety business in 
the District of Columbia, surety, • appearing and submit- 



19 A 


ting to the jurisdiction of the Court, hereby undertake 
for themselves and each of them, their and each of their 
heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, 
to make good all taxable costs and charges, not exceeding 
the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars ($250) that the 
appellee may be put to or allowed if the appeal is dis¬ 
missed or the judgment affirmed, or such costs as the 
appellate court may award if the judgment is modi¬ 
fied. 

118 The said surety hereon hereby irrevocably ap¬ 
points the clerk of this Court as its agent upon 
whom any papers affecting its liability on this undertak¬ 
ing may be served. 

Signed, sealed, and delivered this 28th day of January, 
1952. 

NEW WRINKLE, INC. AND 
WILLIAM A. WALDIE 

By: /s/ Toulmin & Toulmin 
Their Attorneys 

INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY 
OF AMERICA 

By: /s/ M. P. Weis 
Attorney in Fact 

Surety and amount approved January 30, 1952. 

/s/ Burnita Shelton Matthews 

Judge 

Surety holds authority from Sec’y of Treas. to do 
business in D. C. and has a process agent therein. 

HARRY M. HULL, Clerk 
By: /s/ Ruth M. Duffey, Deputy Clerk 




20 A 


11S-A Filed Jan 30 1952 Harry M. Hull, Clerk 
POWER OF ATTORNEY 

INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY 
OF NORTH AMERICA 

PHILADELPHIA 

Know all men by these presents: That the INDEM¬ 
NITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMER¬ 
ICA, a corporation of the Commonwealth of Pennsyl¬ 
vania, having its principal office in the City of Philadel¬ 
phia, Pennsylvania, pursuant to the following By-Law, 
which was adopted by tfm Board of Directors of the said 
Company on July 12, 1920, to wit: 

‘‘Article XII, Section 1.—The President, or any Vice- 
President, shall have power and authority to appoint 
resident Vice-Presidents, resident Assistant Secretaries 
and Attorneys-in-fact and to authorize them to execute 
on behalf of the Company and attach the Seal of the 
Company thereto, bonds and undertakings, recognizances, 
contracts of indemnity and other writings obligatory in 
the nature thereof.” 

does hereby nominate, constitute and appoint M. P. Weis, 
of the City of Dayton, State of Ohio its true and lawful 
agent and attornev-in-fact, to make, execute, seal and 
deliver for and on its behalf, and as its act and deed any 
and all bonds and undertakings in penalties not exceeding 
one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) each in its 
business of guaranteeing the fidelity of persons holding 
places of public or private trust, and in the performance 
of contracts other than insurance policies, and executing 
and guaranteeing bonds or other undertakings not ex¬ 
ceeding one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) each 
as aforesaid, required or permitted in all actions or pro¬ 
ceedings or by law required or permitted. 



21A 


All such bonds and undertakings as aforesaid to be 
signed for the Company and the Seal of the Company 
attached thereto by the said M. P. Weis, individually. 
And the execution of such bonds or undertakings in pur¬ 
suance of these presents, shall be as binding upon said 
Company, as fully and amply, to all intents and purposes, 
as if they had been duly executed and acknowledged by 
the regularly elected officers of the Company at its office 
in Philadelphia, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in their 
own proper persons. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said C. S. Roberts, 
Vice-President, has hereunto subscribed his name and af¬ 
fixed the corporate seal of the said INDEMNITY IN¬ 
SURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA this 
13th day of June 1950. 

INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY 
OF NORTH AMERICA 

by-Illegible 

Vice-President. 


STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA ) 

COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA) 

ss. 

On this 13th day of June, A. D. 1950, before the sub¬ 
scriber, a Notary Public of the Commonwealth of Penn¬ 
sylvania, in and for the County of Philadelphia, duly 
commissioned and qualified, came C. S. Roberts, Vice- 
President of the INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY 
OF NORTH AMERICA to me personally known to be the 
individual and officer described in, and who executed the 
preceding instrument, and he acknowledged the execution 
of the same, and, being by me duly sworn, deposeth and 
saith, that he is the officer of the Company aforesaid, and 
that the seal affixed to the preceding instrument is the 


\ 



22 A 


corporate seal of said Company, and the said corporate 
seal and his signature as officer were duly affixed and 
subscribed to the said instrument by the authority and 
direction of the said corporation, and that By-Law, Ar¬ 
ticle XII, Section 1, adopted by the Board of Directors 
of said Company, referred to in the preceding instru¬ 
ment, is now in force. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 
hand and affixed my official seal at the City of Philadel¬ 
phia, the day and year first above written. 

Illegible 
Notary Public. 

My Commission expires at the end of next Session of 
Senate. 

Form No. 3 A SO 10M 2-8-50 Printed in U. S. A. 

• • • • 


118-B INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY 

OF NORTH AMERICA 

PHILADELPHIA 1 

I hereby certify that the Power of Attorney to which 
this is attached, issued to M. P. Weis of Dayton, Ohio, 
is in full force and effect as of the 2Sth day of January, 
1952. 

INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY 
OF NORTH AMERICA 

By: /s/ Wm. J. Schiff 

Assistant Secretary 

471 20M 6-2-48 Printed in U.S.A. 

• • • • 



23 A 


122 Filed Feb 16 1952 Harry M. Hull, Clerk 

Designation of Contents of Record on Appeal 

TO: THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES 
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT 
OF COLUMBIA: 

It is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and between 
counsel for the parties herein, that the Transcript of 
the Record in the above entitled cause to be filed in the 
Office of the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia under the appeal herein shall 
include in the said transcript the following pleadings, 
procedings, papers and exhibits to be contained in the 
Record on Appeal, to wit: 

1. Caption (usual form) 

2. Bill of complaint filed by the plaintiffs-appellants 

3. Answer to the bill of complaint filed by the defend¬ 
ant-appellee 

123 4. Typewritten transcript of the proceedings 
and evidence at the trial before the Honorable 

Judge McGuire 

5. The following original exhibits to be filed with the 
transcript 

(a) Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 1 to 18 inclusive 

(b) Defendant’s Exhibit 1, including items A to H 
inclusive thereof 

6. Stipulation filed August 29, 1951, correcting the 
aforementioned typewritten transcript of the proceedings 
and evidence 

7. Memorandum for the Clerk dated December 18, 
1951 

8. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered 
January 2, 1952 






24 A 


9. Judgment entered January 2, 1952 

10. Notice of Appeal of plaintiffs-appellants 

11. Cost Bond on Appeal and Power of Attorney for 
Surety attached thereto 

12. Notice from the Clerk of the United States Dis¬ 
trict Court for the District of Columbia advising of the 
filing of Notice of Appeal 

13. This stipulated Designation of the Contents of the 
Record 

14. Certificate of the Clerk of the United States Dis¬ 
trict Court for the District of Columbia as to the correct¬ 
ness of the transcript of the record in this cause 

15. Statement of Points to be relied on by appel¬ 
lant. 

124 16. Any further stipulation between the parties 

hereto concerning the record on this appeal or the 
time for the docketing thereof, and any and all orders of 
the Court with regard thereto. 

/s/ Toulmin & Toulmin 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs- 
Appellants 

By: /s/ F. E. Drummond 

836-39 Wyatt Bid 
Washington, D. C. 

Dayton, Ohio, 

February 9, 1952. 

/s/ E. L. Reynolds 

Solicitor, United States 
Patent Office 
Attorney for Defendant 

Washington, D. C., 

February 12, 1952. 



129 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) 


ss: 

I, HARRY M. HULL, Clerk of the United States Dis¬ 
trict Court for the District of Columbia, do hereby cer¬ 
tify the foregoing pages numbered 1 to 96, inclusive, to 
be the Reporter’s Official Transcript of Proceedings as 
hied in the case of NEW WRINKLE, INC., ET AL, 
Plaintiffs, vs. JOHN A. MARZALL, COMMISSIONER 
OF PATENTS, Defendant, Civil Action No. 696-50; and 
the foregoing pages numbered 97 to 128, inclusive, to be 
a true and correct transcript of the record, as the same 
remains upon file and of record in said Court, according 
to the designation filed by counsel in said case, execpt 
the following: 

The original exhibits as designated are not included in 
this transcript for the reason same are being transmitted 
to the Court of Appeals in original form pursuant tc an 
order of this Court dated February 26, 1952, and 

Items 7 and 12 of the Designation are not included in 
this transcript for the reason same are not found on file 
herein. 


IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto subscribe 
my name and affix the seal of said Court, at the City of 
Washington, in said District, this 25th day of March, 
1952. 

/s/ Harry M. Hull, 
Clerk. 

[Seal] 


26 A 


119 Filed Feb 16 1952 Harry M. Hall, Clerk 
Plamtiff’s Statement of Points On Its Appeal 

New Wrinkle, Inc. and William A. Waldie, Plaintiffs, 
hereby state that the foil owing are the points involved 
oh the appeal of the Judgment on the complaint herein: 

1. The District Court erred in finding that the Waldie 
patent number 2,344,189 discloses that a wrinkle finish 
composition may be blended with a wrinkle varnish. 

2. The District Court erred in finding that the Root 
patent number 1,950,417 discloses the forming of a com¬ 
position by mixing a wrinkling oil and a non-wrinkling 
oil and then adding this composition to the remainder of 

the varnish ingredients. 

120 3. The District Court erred in finding that the 
Huff publication “Scientific Methods of Varnish 

Manufacture”, on Page 22, discloses that linseed oil and 
tung oil may be co-polymerized, whereas the Huff publi¬ 
cation discloses a reduction of the time of polymerization 
of the tung oil by dilution with linseed oil. 

4. The District Court erred in finding that the Flour¬ 
noy patent teaches that thickening of tung oil is essential 
to achieving a wrinkle finish in compositions containing 
tung oil. 

5. The District Court erred in finding that it would 
not amount to invention to co-bodv a tung and a linseed 
oil over the disclosure of the Flournoy patent and that 
such co-bodying of tung and linseed oils would be an ob¬ 
vious extension of the teaching of that patent in view of 
the prior art. 

6. The District Court erred in finding that claims 21, 
22, 23, 26 and 27 do not define invention over the Flour¬ 
noy patent. 



27 A 


7. The District Court erred in finding that claims 21 
to 23, and 30 to 33, do not include the feature of co-body- 
ing of the tung and linseed oil. 

8. The District Court erred in finding that claims 28 
to 33 add nothing inventive to the claims to the wrinkling 
oil composition as the Court disregarded the change in 
the properties of the varnish that is occasioned by adding 
the wrinkling oil composition to the varnish. 

9. The District Court erred in finding that claims 28 
to 33 do not define invention over the Waldie or Root 
patents in view of Flournoy. 

10. The District Court erred in finding that the claims 
in issue do not define invention because of routine experi¬ 
mentation. 

121 11. The District Court erred in finding that 

claims 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, and 28 to 33 are unpatent¬ 
able in view of the prior art. 

12. The District Court erred in finding that claims 24 
and 25, 34 and 35 are unpatentable, being directed to 
non-elected species, as these claims are patentable upon 
finding of patentability of generic claims. 

13. The District Court erred in concluding that the 
Plaintiffs are not entitled to a patent containing any of 
claims 21 to 35 of the Waldie application, serial number 
653,933. 

14. The District Court erred in concluding that the 
Complaint should be dismissed as to all the claims in¬ 
volved. 

/s/ Toulmin & Toulmin 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 
By: /s/ F. E. Drummond 



28 A 


Dayton, Ohio, 

February 11, 1952. 

Receipt of a copy of the foregoing Statement of Points 
on appeal is hereby acknowledged this 12th day of Feb¬ 
ruary 1952. 

/s/ E. L. Reynolds 

Solicitor, United States 
Patent Office 
Attorney for Defendant 

"Washington, D. C., 

February 12 1952. 

• • • • 

125 Filed Feb 26 1952 Harry M. Hull, Clerk 

Order 

It is hereby ordered that the exhibits in the above-en¬ 
titled cause presented before the United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia, as designated, be 
transmitted in the original form to the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. 

/s/ Matthew F. McGuire 

Matthew F. McGuire, Judge 

A copy of the above Order has been received at the 
offices of E. L. Reynolds, Solicitor of the United States 
Patent Office, attorney for Defendant. 

/s/ E. L. Reynolds 

Solicitor, United States 
Patent Office 
Attorney for Defendant 

/s/ Toulmin & Toulmin 
By: /s/ F. E. Drummond 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 2/26/52 

Washington, D. C. 

February 19, 1952 




29 A 


• * * * 

126 Filed Mar 6 1952 Harry M. Hull, Clerk 

Stipulation 

It is stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for 
the parties in the above entitled cause, subject to the ap¬ 
proval of this Honorable Court, that the time within 
which the Plaintiff-Appellant may file the record on ap¬ 
peal and docket the appeal in this case pursuant to Rule 
73 (g) of the Rules of Civil Procedure may be and hereby 
is extended to and inclusive of April 29, 1952. 

TOULMIN AND TOULMIN 
By /s/ F. E. Drummond 

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant 

/s/ E. L. Reynolds 

Solicitor U. S. Patent Office, 

Attorney for Defendant-Appellee 

Approved this 6 day of March, 1952. 

/s/ Burnita Shelton Matthews 

Judge, District Court of the United States 
For the District of Columbia 

* * • * 


127 Filed Mar 18 1952 Harry M. Hull, Clerk 

Stipulation 

It is stipulated and agreed by and between counsel 
for the parties in the above entitled cause, subject to the 





30 A 


approval of this Honorable Court, that Plaintiffs Exhibit 
Sample of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 12 may be substituted for 
the damaged exhibit now on file. 

TOULMIN AND TOULMIN 

By: /s/ F. E. Drummond 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs- 
Appellants 

Dayton, Ohio 
March 18, 1952. 

/s/ E L. Reynolds 

Solicitor, United States 
Patent Office 
Attorney for Defendant 

Washington, D. C. 

March 18, 1952. 


• • • • 


128 Filed Mar 18 1952 Harry M. Hull, Clerk 

Order 

It is hereby ordered that in accordance with the Stipu¬ 
lation of the parties that Plaintiffs Exhibit Sample No. 
12 be and is hereby substituted for the damaged exhibit 
now on file. 

/s/ Bumita Shelton Matthews 

Judge, District Court of 
the United States for the 
District of Columbia 



31 A 


A copy of the above Order has been received at the 
offices of E. L. Reynolds, Solicitor of the United States 
Patent Office, attorney for Defendant 

/s/ E. L. Reynolds 

Solicitor, United States 
Patent Office 
Attorney for Defendant 

TOULMIN & TOULMIN 
By: /s/ F. E. Drummond 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

• • • • 

131 Filed Apr 25 1952 Harry M. Hull, Clerk 

Stipulation 

It is stipulated by and between counsel for the parties 
in the above entitled cause, subject to the approval of 
this Honorable Court, that Item Number 7 of the “Desig¬ 
nation of Contents of the Record on Appeal”, to wit, 
“Memorandum for the Clerk” dated December 18, 1951, 
photostatic copy of which is attached hereto, be and is 
hereby considered by the parties as a part of the Record 
for inclusion in the Record on Appeal. 

Dated— 

April 22,1952 

TOULMIN & TOULMIN 

By: /s/ F. E. Drummond 
Attorneys for Plaintiff- 
Appellant 

/s/ E. L. Reynolds 

Solicitor U. S. Patent 
Office, 

Attorney for Defendant- 
Appellee 






32 A 


Approved this 22 day of April, 1952. 


Judge, District Court of the 
United States For the District 
of Columbia 

• • • • 

130 Filed Apr 25 1952 Harry M. Hull, Clerk 

Order 

It is hereby ordered that the Item Number 7, and con¬ 
sisting of a “Memorandum for the Clerk” dated Decem¬ 
ber 18, 1951, a photostatic copy of which is attached to 
the accompanying Stipulation, dated April 22, 1952, be 
and hereby is considered a part of the Record for inclu¬ 
sion in the Record on Appeal. 

/s/ Walter M. Bastian 
Judge, District Court of 
the United States 

April 25,1952 

/s/ Toulmin & Toulmin 
By /s/ F. E. Drummond 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 
Washington, D. C. 

April 24 1952 

• •it 

Filed Feb 23 1952 Harry M. Hull, Clerk 

Washington, D. C. 

June 12, 1951 

The above-entitled cause came on for trial on the 
merits before THE HON. MATTHEW F. McGUIRE, 
United States District Judge, at 12:25 p.m. 



33 A 


APPEARANCES: 

On behalf of the plaintiffs: 

D. C. STALEY, Esq., of Toulmin & Toulmin, 308 West 
First Street, Dayton, Ohio. 

PHILIP SHERIDAN, Washington, D. C. 

On behalf of the defendant: 

S. WILLIAM COCHRAN, Attorney, United States 
Patent Office, Washington, D. C. 

• # • • 

3 Proceedings 

THE DEPUTY CLERK: New Wrinkle, Inc., vs. 
Marzall. 

MR. SHERIDAN: My name is Philip Sheridan. I 
'would like to move the admission, for the purpose of 
this suit, of Mr. Staley. He is a member of the Supreme 
Court of Ohio and also the United States Supreme Court. 

THE COURT: Your announcement of the fact that 
your name is Philip Sheridan is merely for the record, 
not for my information. 

MR. SHERIDAN: Thank you. 

MR. STALEY: Thank you, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Now, we have five minutes. Will that 
give you an opportunity to make your opening? 

MR. STALEY: No, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: I cannot control these situations, as 
you see. I would much rather have been trying a patent 
case than going through what I have been through this 
morning. 

MR. STALEY: Five minutes would not give us time 
to make any opening statement, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Then I will leave it this wav. If vou 

• * 

want to take advantage of the five minutes, all right; but 
if you do not, then we can adjourn and come back after 
lunch, and you can go right on. 



34 A 


MR. STALEY: I think, as a matter of orderly proce¬ 
dure, it would be preferable if we would adjourn 

4 and then let me put my opening statement in all 
at one time. 

THE COURT: I am sorry you have been brought into 
this situation, but I think it is important that you be ad¬ 
mitted pro liac vice. Mr. Sheridan has already done that; 
so at least we have made a start. 

MR. STALEY: Thank you very much. 

THE COURT: As I told you, we have a very peculiar 
jurisdiction here, as you can see. We try divorce cases 
and will cases and negligence cases, and we try patent 
cases, and we also elect members of the School Committee 
of the District of Columbia. 

MR. STALEY: So I understand. 

THE COURT: So we are having a meeting today, and 
we will not be through until two o’clock. Ordinarily, it 
would be one-fortv-five. 

MR. STALEY: Then, if we do not finish this after¬ 
noon, I presume we will continue until tomorrow" morn¬ 
ing: is that right? 

THE COURT: Yes. but T don’t see—ordinarily, cases 
which I am told may take two hours or three hours, sud¬ 
denly receive the light somewhere in the middle of them, 
and they don’t last as long as they were expected to last. 

MR. STALEY: That is very possible, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Of course, you have prepared your 
case, and vou know. We will go ahead on that basis. 

MR. STALEY: All right, sir. 

5 THE COURT: Sorry to have kept you here all 
morning. It could not be helped. 

(Whereupon, at 12:28 p. m., the noon recess was taken, 
to reconvene at 2:00 p.m. the same afternoon.) 






35 A 


Afternoon Session 

(The trial was resumed at 2:00 p.m.) 

MR. STALEY: If Your Honor please, at this time I 
will offer in evidence a certified copy of the file wrapper 
and contents of the application of William A. Waldie, 
Serial No. 653,933, and will ask the Clerk to identify it 
as Exhibit No. 1. 

THE COURT: It will be marked for identification 
and admitted in evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1. 
There is no objection? 

MR. COCHRAN: No objection. 

THE COURT: All right. 

(Certified file wrapper and contents, pending applica¬ 
tion of William A. Waldie, Serial No. 653,933, was marked 
as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1 and received in evidence.) 

Opening Statement on Behalf of the Plaintiffs 

MR. STALEY: May it please the Court, this action is 
brought here under Section 4915 of the Revised Statutes, 
after refusal of the Commissioner of Patents to 
6 issue a patent on the subject of the invention of 
the patent application of William A. Waldie. 

The application was duly prosecuted before the Patent 
Office and is brought here under the provisions of Section 
4915 for the reason of the necessity of proof as to the 
new and different nature of the invention over any of 
the art that is cited of record in the application. It is 
brought about by the incorrect concept of the invention 
as it is set forth in the decision of the Board of Appeals, 
and also in the statements of the Examiner during prose¬ 
cution of the application. 

The incorrect concept, as we see the issue here, is con¬ 
cerning that statement of the Board of Appeals, in that 
they were not convinced that there was any unobvious 







34 A 


MR. STALEY: I think, as a matter of orderly proce¬ 
dure, it would be preferable if we would adjourn 

4 and then let me put my opening statement in all 
at one time. 

THE COURT: I am sorry you have been brought into 
this situation, but I think it is important that you be ad¬ 
mitted pro liac vice. Mr. Sheridan has already done that; 
so at least we have made a start. 

MR. STALEY: Thank you very much. 

THE COURT: As I told you, we have a very peculiar 
jurisdiction here, as you can see. We try divorce cases 
and will cases and negligence cases, and we try patent 
cases, and we also elect members of the School Committee 
of the District of Columbia. 

MR. STALEY: So I understand. 

THE COURT: So we are having a meeting today, and 
we will not be through until two o’clock. Ordinarily, it 
would be one-forty-five. 

MR. STALEY: Then, if we do not finish this after¬ 
noon. I presume we will continue until tomorrow^ morn¬ 
ing: is that right? 

THE COURT: Yes. but I don’t see—ordinarily, cases 
which I am told may take two hours or three hours, sud¬ 
denly receive the light somewhere in the middle of them, 
and they don’t last as long as they were expected to last. 

MR. STALEY: That is very possible, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Of course, you have prepared your 
case, and you know. We will go ahead on that basis. 

MR. STALEY: All right, sir. 

5 THE COURT: Sorry to have kept you here all 
morning. Tt could not be helped. 

(Whereupon, at 12:28 p. m., the noon recess was taken, 
to reconvene at 2:00 p.m. the same afternoon.) 






35 A 


Afternoon Session 

(The trial was resumed at 2:00 p.m.) 

MR. STALEY: If Your Honor please, at this time I 
will offer in evidence a certified copy of the file wrapper 
and contents of the application of William A. Waldie, 
Serial No. 653,933, and will ask the Clerk to identify it 
as Exhibit No. 1. 

THE COURT: It will be marked for identification 
and admitted in evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1. 
There is no objection? 

MR. COCHRAN: No objection. 

THE COURT: All right. 

(Certified file wrapper and contents, pending applica¬ 
tion of William A. Waldie, Serial No. 653,933, was marked 
as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1 and received in evidence.) 

Opening Statement on Behalf of the Plaintiffs 

MR. STALEY: May it please the Court, this action is 
brought here under Section 4915 of the Revised Statutes, 
after refusal of the Commissioner of Patents to 
6 issue a patent on the subject of the invention of 
the patent application of William A. Waldie. 

The application was duly prosecuted before the Patent 
Office and is brought here under the provisions of Section 
4915 for the reason of the necessity of proof as to the 
new and different nature of the invention over any of 
the art that is cited of record in the application. It is 
brought about by the incorrect concept of the invention 
as it is set forth in the decision of the Board of Appeals, 
and also in the statements of the Examiner during prose¬ 
cution of the application. 

The incorrect concept, as we see the issue here, is con¬ 
cerning that statement of the Board of Appeals, in that 
they were not convinced that there was any unobvious 


36 A 


result that could be obtained by a mixing of China wood 
oil or tung oil with a linseed oil, and then heat-treating 
that mixture as a mixture, as distinguished from a sepa¬ 
rate treatment of the two oils by heat and then mixing 
the two oils after they became cool. 

THE COURT: Mixing a China wood oil or tung oil, 
did you say, t-u-n-g? 

MR. STALEY: T-u-n-g, tung. 

THE COURT: Mixing the tung oil with linseed oil, 
and then heating the two together? 

MR. STALEY: Heating both together. 

THE COURT: With the consequent result, the 
7 Patent Office said they could not see any distinc¬ 
tion between that process and heating them sepa¬ 
rately, and then mixing them. 

MR. STALEY: That is correct, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: All right. 

MR. STALEY: It is the difference in processing of 
the oil and the method by which that is processed, and 
the product of the coating composition in which the oil is 
used, that is the inventive concept of the applicant here. 

The answer admits certain allegations which may be 
well to refer to, to save time. In this regard, the answer 
admits the capacity of the plaintiffs and the residence of 
the parties, and the capacity of the Commissioner of Pat¬ 
ents, and that the action was brought under Section 4915 
of the Revised Statutes, Title 35, Section 63, U.S.C.A. 

The ownership of the application is admitted as being 
in New Wrinkle, Inc., and that the application involved 
here was duly filed and prosecuted in the Patent Office. 

After the final rejection of the claims by the Examiner 
of the Patent Office, the applicant rewrote the claims and 
resubmitted new Claims 21 to 35, inclusive, that are here 
before Your Honor today. These claims were passed 
upon by the Examiner and by the Patent Office Board of 
Appeals, and the answer admits the entry of the amend- 









37 A 


ment by which those claims were filed, and therefore that 
the claims are properly before this Court. 

8 This has to do with all of the claims, 21 to 35, 
inclusive, except Claims 24, 25, 34, and 35. Those 

four claims are what are termed special claims under the 
generic claims of the application. But in so far as the 
issues are involved here, these Claims 24, 25, 34, and 35 
will stand or fall with the evidence as we are to present 
it for the Court. 

The answer admits that the primary Examiner relies 
on only three prior art patents. They are: Waldie 
2,344,189, Root 1,950,417, and Flournev et al. 1,752,164. 
The Patent Office Board of Appeals, in its decision, relied 
upon the same patents; but in addition, they made refer¬ 
ence to a scientific publication, “Scientific Methods of 
Varnish Manufacture,” by Huff,— 

THE COURT: By whom; Huff? 

MR. STALEY: Huff, H-u-f-f—from the American 
Paint Journal, pages 122 to 124, inclusive. 

In the prosecution of the application for— 

THE COURT: What year? 

MR. STALEY: 1940. 

In the prosecution of the application, that same publi¬ 
cation was referred to, but the Examiner referred only to 
page 122. 

The Commissioner, of course, denies that the inventor, 
Waldie, is an inventor of any new and useful improve¬ 
ment in this art. 

9 THE COURT: Waldie 2,344,189, that was pre¬ 
viously cited as anticipatory, is that the same Wil¬ 
liam A. Waldie? 

MR. STALEY: That is the same William A. Waldie, 
Your Honor. 

The invention of the application relates to a specially 
prepared oil which, when it is added to a varnish com¬ 
position, will convert or change the characteristics of the 


38 A 


varnish composition to such an extent that a uniform and 
specific worm type of pattern will be produced in the 
wrinkle of the composition. 

We are dealing here wfith the preparation of wrinkle 
finishes, which Your Honor most likely has seen on many 
lamps and various metal objects. 

The invention also has to do with a method of pre¬ 
paring that oil, and with the varnish composition as a 
new’ product, by the incorporation of the oil, by which the 
varnish composition will produce a wrinkle type of finish 
of this specific w’orm type of pattern. 

When we are speaking of a wrorm type pattern, we 
mean one in winch the individual wrinkles of the wrinkle 
pattern are separate and independent from every other 
w T rinkle, as distinguished from continuous-length wrrinkles 
winch have been prevalent in the prior art, previous to 
the invention of Mr. Waldie. 

In this regard, the special oil of this invention 
10 is the critical factor in the production of the spe¬ 
cial type of worm type of wrinkle that we produce 
by the use of the oil in the wninkle composition. 

The inventor Waldie, as we see the matter, is the first 
in this art of wrinkle finishes to produce a specific worm 
type of pattern. There are other wrinkle finishes which 
have been produced in the past, and there are other spe¬ 
cific patterns that have been produced. 

As an example, Mr. Waldie himself has produced w’hat 
is known as a pine tree pattern. In other wrords, w’hen 
you look at the wrinkle finish, it looks like a young forest 
of pine trees. That is another form, and what w’e have 
here today is a special wrorm type of pattern that is pro¬ 
duced by the result of this invention. 

The claims that are before Your Honor are divided 
into three classifications: Claims 21 to 25. inclusive, are 
directed to the oil composition itself, or the oil per se; 
Claims 26 and 27 are directed to the method of preparing 
that oil; and Claims 28 to 35, inclusive, are directed to 




39 A 


the wrinkle coating composition comprising the oil and a 
varnish. 

The oil itself, as a new composition, consists of a mix- 
tnre of a conjugated, double-bonded oil, such as China 
wood oil or tung oil, with a non-conjugated, double-bonded 
oil such as linseed oil. These oils are present in the mix¬ 
ture of the oil which has been heated in the ratio of 

11 from one to three parts non-conjugated, double- 
bonded oil to one part conjugated, double-bonded 

oil. 

THE COURT: Not being skilled in the art, I have got 
to be familiarized with some terms I am completely in the 
dark with reference to, as we go along. 

MR. STALEY: I understand that, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: One of those is “conjugated.” 

MR. STALEY: A conjugated, double-bonded oil is 
one which is normally termed in the art as one which will 
produce a wrinkle when it is incorporated with a varnish. 

THE COURT: Yes, but I mean the use of the term 
“conjugated.” It has many meanings. It has a meaning 
in grammar. We refer to the conjugation of verbs, and 
it has other meanings, too,that we use. We use the word 
to express our meaning. 

Now, I w’ant to know what is the specific, essential 
meaning of the use of the term in this art. 

MR. STALEY: In this art, I think, Your Honor,—I 
am going to ask Mr. Waldie that specific question, so as 
to clarify it in Your Honor’s mind. 

THE COURT: All right. 

MR. STALEY: But from that standpoint, I can tell 
you that the conjugated oil is one in which the character¬ 
istic of the bonds in the oil have been changed. 

THE COL T RT: Is this China oil or tung oil, which you 
say is a specific kind of oil, in the sense that it is 

12 conjugated, then mixed with a linseed, any differ¬ 
ent from the ordinary type of China oil or tung oil 

that we are familiar with ? 






40 A 


MR. STALEY: No, Your Honor. China wood oil and 
tung oil that you are familiar with are the normal con¬ 
jugated, double-bonded oils, and linseed oil is of that gen¬ 
eral class which is termed a non-conjugated, double-bond¬ 
ed oil. 

THE COURT: The reason I asked you that question 
—and I hope you do not mind my asking you questions 
as we go along. 

MR. STALEY: Oh, no, not a bit. 

THE COURT: I have to orient myself to your presen¬ 
tation of the matter. 

I understood you to say that the critical aspect of the 
matter was the mixture pf China or tung oil of the con¬ 
jugated tvpe with linseed oil, which is un-conjugated. 

MR. STALEY: Correct. 

THE COURT: Then the application of heat, and then, 
as a consequence, the result of this wrinkle finish of the 
worm type. 

MR. STALEY: Correct, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: And it was rejected by the Patent 
Office because the Patent Office could see no distinction 
between the application of heat to China or tung oil of 
the type and character that you have indicated, and the 
linseed oil of the type and character that you have indi¬ 
cated, and then a mixture of the two. 

13 MR. STALEY: That is primarily our point be¬ 
fore Your Honor today, yes, sir. 

THE COURT: And Claims 26 and 27, the method of 
preparing: and 28 to 35, the wrinkle coating composition 
and its use with oil or varnish. 

MR. STALEY: That is essentially correct. The first 
group of claims, 24 to—21 to 25. 

THE COURT: And against those claims, all of the 
claims, including the specie claims, 24, 25, 34, and 35, the 
Patent Office has cited Mr. Waldie’s previous patent and 
the patent of Flournoy, and the patent of Root. 


41A 


MR. STALEY: That is correct, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: All right. 

MR. STALEY: In preparing this oil mixture,—to 
simplify the terms, I will refer to them as wrinkle oils 
and non-wrinkle oils—the mixture of the wrinkle type oil 
and the non-wrinkle type oil are heated together to a 
temperature of from 450 degrees to 600 degrees. At that 
point, a drier, which is preferably manganese acetate, is 
added into the oil mixture in the ratio of one pound of 
the drier to from one to three gallons of the oil mixture, 
which has been heated. 

THE COURT: Let me ask you, is that critical or is 
the mere mixture of the two oils after heating, or rather, 
the mixture of the two oils and then the heating,—that is 
the critical factor, isn’t it? 

14 MR. STALEY: That is the critical factor, to¬ 
gether with the addition of the drier at the time of 
the stopping of the heating and before the mixture has 
cooled down. Otherwise, the drier being added into the 
oil when cold, has a tendency to cloud the oil, rather than 
giving you a homogenous, clear solution. 

THE COURT: Let me ask you this question. What 
is the result of heating the conjugated oil first and lin¬ 
seed oil second, and then mixing them together? What 
do you get as a result of that? 

MR. STALEY: That, Your Honor, is a part of the 
proof that we intend to show you today in connection 
with the preparation of sample panels of wrinkle finishes, 
by which we can show you the exact result that is ob¬ 
tained by that type of method. 

THE COURT: Ho you get a wrinkle, worm type finish, 
as a consequence? 

MR. STALEY: No, you do not, Your Honor. The 
point there is that the Patent Office has combined the 
Waldie patent, w T hich is a patent on a wrinkle varnish, 
with the patent to Flournoy, which is one in which it is 




42 A 


our interpretation that the two oils are heated sepa¬ 
rately. 

Now, when you put the oils of the Flournoy type, as we 
will identify them here, with the wrinkle varnish of the 
Waldie patent, you reduce the wrinkle effect of the 

15 wrinkle varnish of the Waldie patent, and you do 
not produce any worm type pattern. 

THE COURT: Is it correct to assume that what you 
are stressing primarily is novelty of result? 

MR. STALEY: The effect is one of result, but the 
composition is the patentable mixture. 

THE COURT: Yes, I know that; but as part of your 
proof, I am assuming from what you said that you are 
going to show* that in the application of heat in the 
fashion in w’hich you say it should be applied, you get 
this particular, peculiar proof or result of w’orm type 
finish. 

MR. STALEY: Yes, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Which is to be desired, I presume. 

MR. STALEY: The final, the distinction between what 
Waldie does in his application and what the prior art 
does, and the combination of the prior art by the Patent 
Office can only be shown as a final result: that is, the end 
result. 

THE COURT: The end result is different from w’hat 
you propose to show’ here? 

MR. STALEY: The end result, according to the Wal¬ 
die application, is different from the end result which is 
accomplished bv the prior art. 

THE COURT: All right. 

MR. STALEY: I might point out at this time that the 
relative proportions of the wrinkle type oil to the 

16 non-wrinkle type oil in the oil composition is criti¬ 
cal within the ranges that we have set for it in the 

application, as is true of the addition of the mixed oil or, 
we’ll call it, the preparative Waldie oil, in the final var¬ 
nish composition. 




43 A 


So you can vary within the limits that you have within 
the terms of the specification, to accomplish the result 
that we desire here. But you go beyond those limits, and 
you go outside the—in other words, you do not get the 
result we get here. 

THE COURT: That temperature is critical, too? 

MR. STALEY: Temperature is critical to the extent 
that the heating of the oil is carried on at the polymeriza¬ 
tion or jelling temperature of the oil to effect a definite 
structure change in the oil itself. 

THE COURT: What do you mean by that? You mean 
a molecular change? 

MR. STALEY: There is a molecular change, which I 
am sure Mr. Waldie can give you a full and complete 
answer in reference to, on just what happens in that oil. 
That is one of the very specific questions that I wish to 
put to Mr. Waldie to get as a matter of expect testimony. 

THE COURT: Very well. 

MR. STALEY: As I have already said, there are 
various types of wrinkle finishes which are already in the 
art. We do not claim that Mr. Waldie is the in- 
17 ventor of a wrinkle type finish; but we do claim 
that he is the inventor of a specific type finish 
which has never been before in this art. 

It is, therefore, our position that the inventor has 
created a new oil, having a specific property, being able 
to produce this worm type pattern. We also claim that 
the new oil is obtained by a new method of preparation. 
Thirdly, we claim that the new coating composition ob¬ 
tained—that is, the mixture of the oil and a varnish—is 
a new thing in the art, because it possesses the property 
of being able to produce this wrinkle type of pattern. 

We propose to show that the oil that is produced ac¬ 
cording to the Flournoy patent of the prior art does not 
have the same properties as the oil produced according 
to the process of the Waldie application. 





44 A 


THE COURT: That is the reason why I asked the 
other question, the one I asked just a few minutes ago. 
That was also the reason why I asked the question with 
reference to heat. 

Let me go over and recapitulate with you, if I may, as 
I understood your statement. I understood you to say 
that the oils used are either China w^ood oil on the one side, 
or tung oil, which you call conjugated, by virtue of its 
peculiar properties, and linseed oil. 

MR. STALEY: Both oils are used in the composition, 
Your Honor. We use both China wood oil and linseed 
oil. 

THE COURT: Yes, I understand that. 

18 Then you mix them together. Then, by the ap¬ 
plication of heat,— 

MR. STALEY: While mixed. 

THE COURT: —while mixed, you get this peculiar 
product that gives this peculiar wrinkle, wrinkled worm 
type finish. 

MR. STALEY: That is correct, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: The Patent Office, so I understood you 
to say, by an examination of the Waldie and the Root 
and the Flournoy patents, concluded that you get no 
different result than if you applied heat to China or tung 
oil in the first instance, and then at the same time heat to 
linseed oil, and mixed them together. 

That is the critical difference between the so-called 
anticipated art and the new result which you say gives 
the result in the nature of the finish that you have ad¬ 
dressed me with reference to. 

MR. STALEY: That is a critical question, Your 
Honor. Right while we are on that point, I would like 
to refer Your Honor to the statement of the Examiner— 
you wdll find this statement on page 8 of the Examiner’s 
statement of the history of the case, our Exhibit 1. 

“It is the Examiner’s position that the patent to Flour¬ 
noy is inclusive of a process in which the tung oil — 99 


45 A 


THE COURT: Now, wait a minute. I haven’t 
19 got that, page 8. 

MR. STALEY: Excuse me. Page 8— 

THE COURT: Of what paragraph? 

MR. STALEY: Of the Examiner’s statement 
THE COURT: Yes, what paragraph? 

MR. STALEY: In the second paragraph. 

THE COURT: Oh, I see, the second paragraph, last 


sentence: 

“It is the Examiner’s position that the patent to 
Flournoy is inclusive of a process in which the tung oil 
and linseed oil are co-bodied.” 

MR. STALEY: Yes, that is a critical— 

THE COURT: That means mixed, doesn’t it? 

MR. STALEY: That is right, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: But in your case, it is different in the 
sense that you apply heat after mixing. 

MR. STALEY: That is correct. But the Patent Office 
is interpreting the Flournoy patent, which we say does 
not teach a co-bodying of the oil,— 

THE COURT: All right. 

MR. STALEY: They say it teaches a co-bodying of 
the oil. We say it does not; and it is that critical inter¬ 
pretation of the Flournoy patent that is really the turn¬ 
ing point, I believe, of this entire case. 

THE COURT: All right. 

20 MR. STALEY: Because if the Flournoy patent 
is interpreted as being such that you do not co¬ 
body the oils together, then Flournoy fails as an antici¬ 
pation. 

To that extent, I 'would also refer Your Honor to one 
other statement in that same statement of the Examiner, 
right above the one that I just gave you, on the same 
page 8 of the Examiner’s statement. 

THE COURT: Same paragraph? 

MR. STALEY: In the same paragraph, Your Honor, 
the second sentence. 


46 A 


THE COURT: “The Examiner is—” 

MR. STALEY: “The Examiner is unable to find any 
disclosure in the Flournoy patent which will support ap¬ 
plicant’s contention.” 

All right. Now, I might say right at this point, there 
is not one statement in the file wrapper history wherein 
the Patent Office, either the Examiner or the Board of 
Appeals, pointed out any page or any line in which they 
can say that their position of co-bodying of the oils in 
Flournoy is supported by that patent. 

And yet, the only thing that they go on is that the 
Examiner says that he is unable to find any disclosure 
which will support the applicant’s contention; and yet, he 
goes no further to point out wherein his own contention 
is supported in that Flournoy patent. 

21 THE COURT: All right. 

MR. STALEY: That, I think. Your Honor, is 
the really vital, critical question of this entire lawsuit. 

THE COURT: Then, this case could be shortened if 
counsel from the Patent Office agrees with you that we 
are to address ourselves merely to the critical aspect of 
the matter. 

MR. STALEY: I think it can be, Your Honor. Our 
entire proof we have here today is based upon our inter¬ 
pretation of the individual mixing of the oils to show 
that as a man skilled in the art would read Flournoy, he 
would not read it as indicating a co-bodying of the oils. 

Reading Flournoy in that interpretation, and following 
the patent strictly as to the literal meaning of the words 
in that patent, you cannot get the result of the worm type 
pattern that we get by the incorporation of the oil ac¬ 
cording to the Waldie application. 

THE COURT: All right. 

What does counsel for the Patent Office say with refer¬ 
ence to that? 

MR. COCHRAN: I think there is a little more to the 
case than just the interpretation of the Flournoy patent. 



47 A 


We have to consider here, too, how the invention is 
claimed. 

Do you want me to go ahead with my statement? Had 
you finished? 

THE COURT: I am very sorry. Had you finished? 
MR. STALEY: Just one other little thing I 

22 wanted to call to Your Honor’s attention. 

THE COURT: I am very sorry. Go ahead and 

finish. 

MR. STALEY: I thought Your Honor had one ques¬ 
tion he wanted to get answered by the Patent Office coun¬ 
sel. 

THE COURT: No. 

MR. STALEY: What we propose to do is to take the 
Examiner’s rejection, just as he’has applied it with Wal- 
die in view of Flourney, and to show to the Court by our 
samples that the combination of these patents does not 
produce the same result as the Waldie result. 

In that regard, I might point out one thing, and that is 
there are many decisions that hold that in chemistry there 
is no such thing as prevision. 

THE COURT: As what? 

MR. STALEY: As prevision. In other words, a man 
cannot arbitrarily take a teaching from one patent, com¬ 
bine it with the teaching of another patent, and say that 
you can expect a positive result from the combination of 
those two patents. 

In support of that statement, I would refer Your Honor 
to Corona Company vs. Dovan Corporation, 276 U. S. 
358, at pages 36S and 369; and United Chromium vs. 
International Silver Company, 53 F. 2d 390, at page 393. 
We further propose to show to Your Honor, in sup¬ 
port of this statement that there is no such thing 

23 as prevision and there is no such thing as being 
able to arbitrarily combine patents and project and 

know* the result that will occur, by showing samples to 
Your Honor of exactly the same material that are proc- 



48 A 


essed by two different methods, the difference being the 
manner in which they are heated only. 

In one instance, you will see that the materials, the 
coating composition, comes out as a smooth finish; and in 
the other instance, it comes out as a wrinkle finish. The 
only difference in the treatment has been in the treatment 
of heating, showing that exactly the same materials com¬ 
ing from a prior art patent cannot be used as an anticipa¬ 
tion of a change in processing, because the change in 
processing in itself is sufficient to change the net or end 
result that will be accomplished by that processing. 

I think that is all I have, Your Honor. 

Opening Statement on Behalf of the Defendant 

MR. COCHRAN: I think the issues have been fairly 
well covered here, Your Honor, as long as it is under¬ 
stood that the Flournoy patent does disclose the starting 
ingredients of the wrinkling oil composition. 

There is a definite disclosure of that, and I think it is 
admitted. It is also admitted that there is a heating of 
the ingredients, whether or not they are heated together. 
There is also the addition of a drier. 

So we have Flournoy disclosing the separate in- 
24 gredients of the wrinkling oil composition. 

Now, Flournoy does not—and I will state for the 
record—does not definitely— 

THE COURT: When was the Flournoy patent 
granted, do you know? What date? 

MR. COCHRAN: March 25, 1930. 

THE COURT: Didn’t T have one of these cases be¬ 
fore, involving China oil, tung oil, wrinkle finish? 

MR. CUCHRAN: Of course, that is an old ingredient 
in the paint art. 

THE COURT: I don’t know: T have had so many of 
these cases, T forget them. 

All right. 

MR. COCHRAN: The difference here, if any, is in 
this step of heating. That is the real crux of the case. 



49 A 


Flournoy does not definitely describe it. He may not heat 
these ingredients together, but he heats them to make 
them viscous. 

THE COURT: That is what you mean by co-bodying? 

MR. COCHRAN: Making it more viscous. It causes 
a reaction known as polymerization, where separate mole¬ 
cules of the material join one another to make larger 
molecules. 

THE COURT: That is by the application of heat? 
MR. COCHRAN: Yes. 

THE COURT: Therefore, you say that Flournoy 
teaches the mixture of one oil with the other in the appli¬ 
cation of heat? 

25 MR. COCHRAN: Yes. 

THE COURT: But not in the critical tempera¬ 
ture itself? 

MR. COCHRAN: I wouldn’t say with the application 
of heat. It teaches the mixture of the two oils that are 
involved in this process. 

We will assume for the moment that he teaches heating 
those oils separately before he mixes them. But our 
position is that even if that is the case, even if we take 
the plaintiffs’ construction of this reference, the feature 
in the first place is not definitely claimed in these claims. 

Certain of the claims, in fact most of them, do not 
specify that the mixture is heated. 

THE COURT: All right. 

MR. COCHRAN: That is one point I would like to 
emphasize. The claims do not bring that out. That is 
what they state their critical feature to be, and the 
claims do not state it. 

The second feature is that the claims are misdescrip- 
tive, in a sense. 

THE COURT: Suppose they stated what you say is 
the critical aspect of what the claims ought to indicate. 
Would novelty of result indicate invention, even though 
it is a crowded art? Would you grant the patent? 


50 A 


MR. COCHRAN: I think they would still have to es¬ 
tablish that there was novelty of result, and I do 

26 not think they have done it. 

THE COURT: I understood counsel to say that 
the result is a wrinkle finish of a worm type,—that is 
the term that he used—which is individual in the sense 
that it is an individual wrinkle, such as you might have 
on the forehead in a quizzical expression on a person’s 
face. Each one of the wrinkles is individual. One might 
be a little longer wrinkle and one shorter, but the result 
is individual. Isn’t that what you say? 

MR. STALEY: That is correct, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: In contradistinction to the ordinary 
wrinkle result. In other wrords, he says that his method 
produces a special wrinkle composition. Isn’t that right? 

MR. STALEY: That is correct, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Now*, if that is so, if you get an indi¬ 
vidualization of result with particular reference to the 
wrinkles, why hasn’t he got something, if he should change 
his claims to what you say the claims now are deficient in? 

MR. STALEY: Your Honor, I might mention at this 
point that this is an entirely new’ approach to this thing, 
that that has never been brought up. 

THE COt T RT: Well, that is w’hat you get over here 
usually, is new’ approaches. I don’t suppose counsel— 
w’ould he have an invention then, do you think? 

MR. COCHRAN: I think in the first place that 

27 is something that the Board ought to rule on be¬ 
fore I express an opinion on it. We do know that 

Flournoy says he has a w’rinkle composition. 

THE COURT: But do you know’ w’hether he has these 
individual w’orm type wrrinkles? 

MR. COCHRAN: He doesn’t say so. I don’t know 
whether he has or not. We don’t have in the record here 
w’hat w*e consider to be a fair experiment with the Flour¬ 
noy type of composition, to find out whether you get that 
result or not. 


51A 


THE COURT: Suppose I sent it back to the Patent 
Office to have that determined, and kept this matter in 
abeyance here. 

MR. COCHRAN: We don’t have any facilities for 
carrying out that type of experiment. 

THE COURT: I am assuming that what would happen 
would be that the plaintiff would go back in the Patent 
Office and show the novelty of result. 

MR. STALEY: We can show that today, Your Honor, 
with the series of panels we have prepared. 

I might add this point. There are affidavits which are 
in the file which, in effect, substantiate everything that 
we are to show to Your Honor today, and the Patent 
Office made no attempt to take exception to those affi¬ 
davits. 

THE COURT: You understand, I know you do, that 
counsel cannot bind the Patent Office. He is in the same 
situation as you are. It is a question of the Light 
28 Brigade. He is here for the defendant, and you 
are here to represent the plaintiff. 

MR. STALEY: That is correct. 

THE COURT: I am trying to look at it from the very 
practical point of view. If you have something that is 
new and novel from the standpoint of a wrinkle finish of 
an entirely different type and character than has been 
known in the art before, and if, as counsel says, the criti¬ 
cal aspect of the claim should be heat rather than the co- 
bodving of the oils themselves, the simplest thing would 
be to correct that in the claims and send that back to the 
Patent Office and get your patent. 

MR. STALEY: I would go so far as this, Your Honor. 
I can present our entire proof to counsel for the Patent 
Office and show him exactly what we propose to show to 
Your Honor today. 

THE COURT: Well, I don’t want to get counsel in¬ 
volved in this. I want to assume full responsibility my- 







52 A 


self, because after all, it is not his responsibility. We 
are merely discussing the matter in a very practical way, 
because after all, litigation is expensive, and it is usually 
long drawn out. 

My point is simply this. If what counsel says is true— 
and it appears to be so from what you said—in line -with 
my discussion with you, that heat is a very critical aspect 
of these claims,— 

29 MR. STALEY: Well, the heat isn’t the critical 
aspect so much as the thing of heating the oils as 

a mixture at one and the same time. That is the critical 
feature. 

THE COURT: In other words, he says that Flournoy 
teaches co-bodying of the oils, isn’t that your point? 

MR. COCHRAN: My point is that Flournoy does not 
necessarily teach that: but even if he does not, it does 
not make any difference; we don’t have an invention 
stated in these claims. 

THE COURT: You had better go ahead. Go ahead. 

MR. COCHRAN: Could I finish with mv statement? 
THE COURT: Yes. 

MR. COCHRAN: There were some other objections to 
the wording of the claims here. For example, some of 
these claims call for heating this mixture up to 560 
degrees and leaving it there in midair. In other words, 
the claim would require a hot composition in order to in— 

THE COURT: My whole point, again going back to 
what I said: I had several cases with the Patent Office 
in which this same question came up. I remember one 
of the cases involved a method of drilling for oil. If the 
only thing wrong with the claims is the matter of lan¬ 
guage, then that can be corrected by the use of proper lan¬ 
guage to express the thing claimed, if the thing claimed 
is inventive. 

If that is in the case, of course, then my function 

30 comes into play. But if it is not in the case, if the 
man has produced a finish of some type and char- 




53 A 


acter that is entirely different from any known in the art 
—and I gathered from what he said that he did—namely, 
this particular worm type of individual wrinkle, then the 
only thing left would be, from the practical point of view, 
to correct the claims to express just exactly what his 
monopoly is. 

MR. COCHRAN: That is perhaps true, and in a case 
where the only rejection of the claims was one of form, 
then perhaps that should be ironed out before it ever 
comes before the District Court. But I do have further 
objections to the claims here. 

This point of having w’rinkles that are worm shaped, 
in other words, that have finite dimensions and stop 
rather than continuing indefinitely, is not something that 
vras urged as a point of novelty in the Patent Office. 

What was urged there, and strenuously, was the fact 
that you could not get a homogenous mixture of tung oil 
and linseed oil if you heated it to the degree specified 
by the claims, unless you heated them together. They 
said it was impossible to make a mixture. And that was 
a result that was stated in an affidavit which described 
an experiment that was carried out, that appears in the 
file record. 

Our position is that that was not a fair experiment. 

There was no attempt there to make the Flour- 
31 nov disclosure work. If that is the sort of proof 
which will be presented in this case, it w’on’t over¬ 
come the Patent Office rejection. 

What I have said so far applies to the claims which 
are to the additive oil, the wrinkling oil itself, which is 
later added to a varnish to give it wrinkling properties. 

As to the combination claims, those that bring out the 
combination of varnish plus the wrinkling oil, the objec¬ 
tion there is that if you add a wrinkling oil to an ordi¬ 
nary varnish, the varnish retains its properties as var¬ 
nish, it takes on the properties of the wringling oil. In 


54 A 


other words, you have added “A” to “B,” and you get 
“A” plus “B.” 

Certainly, there is nothing unobvious about that. As 
was stated in an A. & P. case, two plus two equals four. 
You cannot say there is an invention. 

As to the bare idea of adding wrinkling oil to a var- 
rish, the Waldie patent is in the record to show that. 

So we feel that there is no invention here, and if there 
s one, it certainly has not been stated. 

THE COURT: My remarks, again I’ll say, were mere- 
t y addressed to the fact, if it is a fact, that there was 
invention but that it w~as not stated in the claims; you 
say there is no invention, and you are prepared to rest 
on that; is that so? 

MR. COCHRAN: With the proof that the Patent Of¬ 
fice had before it, then even if the claims were properly 
worded I don’t believe the Patent Office could have held 
there was invention. 

32 Do you get my point? Even if it were correctly 
stated in the claims, I don’t believe that the proof 
they had before then would have been sufficient to hold 
that it w^as an invention. 

MR. STALEY: Mr. Waldie, would you please take th* 
stand. 

Thereupon— 

William All shire Waldie 

was called as a witness on behalf of the applicants and, 
having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified 
as follow's: 

Direct Examination 
BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Will you state vour name, residence, occupation, and 
age? A William Allshire Waldie; residence, 87 Corona 
Avenue, Oakwood, Dayton 9, Ohio; occupation, technical 
director, New Wrinkle, Inc. 

Q Your age, Mr. Waldie? 

(Witness laughs.) 


55 A 


Q You are over fifty? A I am sixty-five years of 
age. 

Q Do you hold any degrees from any schools, Mr. 
Waldie? A I studied for three years at Lawrence Scien¬ 
tific School of Harvard University, took my Bachelor of 
Science degree from Harvard College in 1908, since which 
time I have been, since 1909, engaged in the paint and 
varnish business. 

33 Q How long have you been with Hew Wrinkle, 
Inc.? A I have been with New Wrinkle since 

1939, technical director. 

Q Have you had any general experience in the field of 
paints, varnishes, and coating compositions? A I have 
been in the paint and varnish field since 1909. 

THE COURT: Did you ever appear before me before? 
THE WITNESS: What was that? 

THE COURT: Did you ever appear before me before? 
THE WITNESS: I think so. 

THE COURT: I know you did. 

THE WITNESS: You nailed me as being from Dor¬ 
chester. 

MR. STALEY: Just about a month ago, before Your 
Honor on another case. 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Would you give your general experience in the 
field of coating compositions? A I have been superin¬ 
tendent for several plants. I have been technical direc¬ 
tor, also done service work. The companies I have been 
associated with have been the (Hidden Company, the Glid- 
den Varnish Company, Lilly Varnish Company, Sherwin 
Williams Company, John B. Carson Company of Chi¬ 
cago,— 

Q That is all since 1909? A Yes. 

34 Q Do you have any relationship to the William 
A. Waldie of the application? A I am the appli¬ 


cant. 




56 A 


Q Do you understand the Waldie application? A I 
do. 

Q What is the purpose of the invention of the Waldie 
application? A The purpose of this invention is to mix 
a short oil varnish with a special prepared oil to produce 
a wrinkle texture of the worm type. 

Q You used the term, “short oil varnish.” What do 
vou mean bv that? A A short oil varnish is a varnish 

v * 

that contains approximately twelve gallons of oil to the 
hundred pound of resin, ratio. 

Q With reference to the term, “short oil,” are there 
any other terms like that that are used In connection with 
varnishes? A We have medium oil and long oil. It all 
refers to the ratio of oil to resin. 

MR. STALEY: If Your Honor please, I have photo¬ 
static pages here of the National Paint Dictionary, pub¬ 
lished by Stewart Research Laboratory of Washington, 
D. C., in which the terms “short oil,” “medium oil,” and 
“long oil” varnishes have been identified by people in 
the trade for the National Paint Dictionary. I 
35 would like to offer in evidence these photostatic 
pages as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2. 

MR. COCHRAN: No objection. 

THE COURT: Very well. 

(Photostatic pages of dictionary definitions were marked 
as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 2 and received in evidence.) 
BY ME. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, how do you prepare the oil according 
to the Waldie application? A You take two oils with 
low viscosity, the linseed oil and the tung oil, China oil, 
heat it to about five hundred degrees and then add the 
drier. You can read it right from there: it would be 
better. 

Q What type of oil is China wood oil? A China 
wood oil is a conjugated, double-bonded oil. 

Q What do you mean by a conjugated, double-bonded 
oil? A The conjugated, double-bonded oil, in any oil 




57 A 


there is a CH grouping; and if these two CH’s are gath¬ 
ered together in the chain of oils, that will be the double 
bond bet'ween those tw r o. 

Q In other words, you change the molecular structure 
of the oil from— A Yes; instead of a straight chain, 
you have a discontinued chain. 

36 Q What is a linseed oil? A It is a noncon- 
jugated oil, to the extent that the CH groups are 

spread apart on the double bond. 

Q What, in general, is the effect of mixing a conju¬ 
gated, double-bonded oil and a nonconjugated, double- 
bonded oil under the Waldie application? A The uncon¬ 
jugated bond, such as the linseed oil, will stand up to 600 
degrees and increase the viscosity. The China wood oil, 
being a conjugated, double-bonded oil, would go to 540 
degrees, and if held there for any length of time, would 
polymerize and solidify to a breadlike consistency. 

Bv mixing the linseed oil and the China wood oil to- 
gether, I am able to carry it up to an extremely high 
heat. The polymerization of the China wood oil goes on. 
However, it is diluted by the linseed oil and gives you 
more control, and avoids the polymerization or solidifica¬ 
tion of the China wood oil. 

Q Mr. Waldie, will this prepared oil of the mixture 
of China w T ood oil and linseed oil, in and of itself, produce 
a wrinkle? A It does not. 

Q Mr. Waldie, I am handing you three panels, and 
ask you if you can identify those three metal panels, each 
of which has a reference number, 10617, on the rear face. 
A Panel marked 10617 was finished with prepared 

37 oil “A” of Serial 653,933, of the present applica¬ 
tion. 

Q Who made these panels, Mr. Waldie? A I made 
all of these test panels and liquids. 

Q When did you make them? A Within the past 
week or ten days. 



5S A 


Q For what purpose? A For the purpose of this 
trial. 

MB. STALEY: I ask the Clerk to mark the panels 
just identified by the witness as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3. 

THE CLERK: As 3, 4, and 5. 

MR. STALEY: Just 3. They are all the same. 

And I would offer those panels in evidence at this time. 

MR. COCHRAN: No objection. 

(Panel marked 10617 was marked as Plaintiffs’ Ex¬ 
hibit No. 3 and received in evidence.) 

MR. STALEY: May I have one back. 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q "What is the nature of the varnishes that you have 
disclosed in the Waldie patent application? A The var¬ 
nishes are non wrinkling varnishes. 

Q In general what do you mean by a nonwrinkling 
varnish? A A varnish that will not produce any texture 
or may act erratic in baking. 

Q Mr. Waldie, I hand you three panels which 
38 are numbered 10609 on the rear of the face of 
those panels, and ask if you can identify those. 
A The No. 10609 panels were finished with my No. 10595 
varnish, which is a laboratory cook of Serial 653,933 var¬ 
nish, varnish I. 

Q Who made those samples? A I made these panels. 

Q When did you make those? A Within the last 
week or ten days. 

Q For the purpose of this litigation? A For the 
purpose of this litigation. 

MR. STALEY: I will ask the Clerk to mark the panels 
identified as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4. 

(Panel marked 10609 was marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 
No. 4 and received in evidence.) 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, I also hand you three panels, on which 
there appears the number 10610 on the rear of the panels, 
and ask you if you can identify those. A The 10610 


59 A 


panels are finished with 10597 varnish, which in turn is a 
laboratory cook of varnish III, Serial 553,933 of the ap¬ 
plication* 

Q You speak of the serial; that is the Waldie appli¬ 
cation? A That is the one. 

39 MR. STALEY: I would ask the Clerk to mark 
this exhibit as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5; and I would 

also like to offer in evidence the exhibit at this time. 
MR. COCHRAN: No objection. 

(Panel marked 10610 was marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 
No. 5 and received in evidence.) 

MR. STALEY: Now, if I may have one sample of the 
exhibit please. 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, referring to Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 4 and 
5, that you have identified as being varnish I of the 
Waldie application, that being the Exhibit 4, and varnish 
number III of the application, being Exhibit 5, will you 
tell me what the difference is in those varnishes, if any? 
A No. ’609, Exhibit 4,— 

Q Mr. Waldie, will you please refer to the plaintiffs’ 
exhibit number on the front of the sample from here on 
out. A No. ’609, Exhibit 4, is varnish I of the Serial 
653,933. That is composed of the oil content as nine gal¬ 
lons of raw tung oil and one gallon of varnish linseed oil. 
It was processed by heating tung oil, 25 pounds of amberol 
resin, to 540 degrees, held for a string, and— 

THE COURT: What does that mean? 

THE WITNESS: String? It is a viscosity test, Your 
Honor, from the oil, that shows when the point is 

40 going to solidification. A (Continuing) —and 
checked with lead acetate, linseed oil and 75 pounds 

of amberol, then heated to 450 degrees for the resin solu¬ 
tion, cooled at 350 degrees, and then thinned. 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q I believe you just referred to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 
4— A That is correct. 


60 A 


Q —in your description. Would you also please tell 
me what Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5 is there? A That would 
be on the ’610, correct? 

(Exhibit handed to witness) 

A The ’610 panel, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 5, is finished 
with a 10597 varnish, which is varnish III of the serial. 
The varnish was composed of ten gallons of heat-bodied 
linseed oil, with 100 pounds of resin. The processing 
was as follows: oil and resin to 600 degrees for the resin 
solution: removed from the fire, cooled to 350 degrees, 
and thinned. 

Q In Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4, you have referred to that 
as being varnish I of the Waldie application. In the for¬ 
mulation of the varnish of the 'Waldie application, I note 
that it includes raw tung oil, nine gallons, and one gallon 
of linseed oil. I believe you have already stated that raw 
tung oil is a conjugated, double-bonded oil. A A con¬ 
jugated, double-bonded oil, correct. 

41 Q It is not a wrinkling oil? A No. It is when 
processed in the proper way, to convert it to a 
wrinkle. 

Q What is the effect of the tung oil in the varnish of 
varnish number I of the Waldie application? A Sim¬ 
ply to body and give a harder drying proposition than 
over the linseed oil. 

Q Is varnish number III of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5 con¬ 
sidered a wrinkling oil—considered a wrinkling varnish? 
A You will have to give me the panel test on that num¬ 
ber. 

(Exhibit handed to witness) 

A No, it is not. 

Q And why do you say that? A It contains, the oil 
is entirely linseed oil, a non-wrinkling oil, no tendency to 
wrinkle. 

Q Mr. Waldie, looking at varnish compositions I and 
III of the Waldie application, and considering their oil 
content, what type of varnish is this considered? A We 
consider that a short oil varnish. 




61 A 


Q Mr. Waldie, I hand you three panels on which there 
is the number 10611 on the back, and ask if you can iden¬ 
tify those panels. A Number 10611 panels were finished 
with composition I, Serial 653,933, by using the for- 

42 mula: 7 volumes of varnish I, 6 volumes of pre¬ 
pared oil “A” and 3 volumes of toluol. 

Q Who made those panels, Mr. Waldie? A I made 
them. 

Q When? A Within the past week or ten days. 

Q For the purpose of this litigation? A For the 
purpose of this litigation. 

MR. STALEY: Would the Clerk please mark this 
sample as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 6, and I would like to 
offer that in evidence at this time. 

MR. COCHRAN: No objection. 

THE COURT: It is received. 

(Panel marked 10611 was marked as Plaintiffs’ Ex¬ 
hibit No. 6 and received in evidence.) 

MR. STALEY: I would like to have just one of them, 
please. 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q In your last statement, Mr. Waldie, concerning 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6, you made the statement that it is 
made according to coating composition I of the Waldie 
application, and you referred to varnish I. What do you 
mean by varnish I as being in that coating composition? 
A Varnish I is a short oil varnish on a previous ex¬ 
hibit, varnish I of the serial. 

Q Varnish I of the serial; you mean varnish I 

43 of— A Varnish I of the Serial 653,933, in which 
the oil content is nine gallons of raw tung oil and 

one gallon of varnish linseed. 

THE COURT: Is that a short oil ? 

THE WITNESS: Pardon? 

THE COURT: Is that a short oil ? 

THE WITNESS: That is a short oil, yes, sir. 


62 A 


BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Inspecting that panel, Mr. Waldie, what type of a 
wrinkle pattern do you find on it? A That is a very 
good example of the worm type wrinkle. 

Q Can you say whether or not the varnish composition 
on Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 was made in exact accordance 
with the teaching of your patent application? A That 
was made in exactly the same way. 

Q I now hand you panels 'which are— 

T HE COURT: May I see Exhibit 6 again, please? 

MR. STALEY: Yes, Your Honor. 

If Your Honor please, we have a little magnifying 
glass which would be of some help if you wish to examine 
the individual wrinkles. 

THE COURT: Have you seen that? 

MR. COCHRAN: No, I have not. 

(Objects handed to Mr. Cochran) 

BY MR. STALEY: 

44 Q Mr. Waldie, I now hand you panels which 
are marked on the back 10612, and ask if you can 
identify those panels. A Panels 10612 were finished 
with composition VI of the Serial 653,933, using the for¬ 
mula: 7 volumes of varnish III, 4 volumes prepared oil 
“A”, one volume of toluol. 

Q When you refer to varnish III, do you mean var¬ 
nish III of the patent application? A Varnish III of 
the application. 

Q And prepared oil “A” is the oil of the Waldie 
application? A That is of the application. 

Q Who made those panels? A I made those panels 
within the last week or ten days. 

Q For the purpose of this litigation? A That is 
right. 

MR. STALEY: I will ask the Clerk to mark this ex¬ 
hibit as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7. 

(Panel marked 10612 was marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 
No. 7 and received in evidence.) 


63 A 


BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7, or can you tell 
me if Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7 is made in exact accordance 
with the teaching of the Waldie application? A That 
was made exactly according to the teaching of Wal- 

45 die, and it is an excellent example of the worm type 
wrinkle. 

Q Mr. Waldie, what is the difference— 

MR. STALEY: Do you have Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 
there, Mr. Clerk? 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, what is the difference in the coating 
compositions of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 and 7, if any? A 
Exhibit No. 6 is composition I of the Serial 653,933, and 
Exhibit 7 is composition YT. The essential difference 
between these two panels is that composition I contains 
in the varnish nine gallons of tung oil per hundred 
pounds of resin, whereas the varnish III contains—the 
nine gallons of tung oil has been replaced by nine gallons 
of linseed oil. 

Q In the art of wrinkle finishes, Mr. Waldie, is tung 
oil considered a wrinkling oil? A Tung oil is considered 
a wrinkling oil to the extent that it is of the conjugated, 
double-bonded type. However, unless that oil is processed 
to a certain extent by heat, it will have a tendency only to 
crystallize out and produce an effect like frosted glass. 
Therefore, it must be heated to produce the wrinkling 
characteristics of that oil. 

Q Mr. Waldie, I hand you some samples in glass 
tubes that have the number 10598, and ask if you 

46 can identify those samples. A 10598 is the pre¬ 
pared oil of Serial 653,933, which is composed of 

20 gallons of varnish linseed oil and 12 gallons of raw 
tung oil and 16 pounds of manganese acetate, that was 
processed as follows: Mixed oils were heated to 560 de¬ 
grees, removed from the fire, and the manganese acetate 
added slowly, but before the batch had cooled to 500 de- 


64 A 


grees. It was reheated to 525 degrees and then allowed 
to cool. 

Q Mr. Waldie, who prepared the oil samples that you 
have just referred to? A I prepared them. 

Q When did you do that? A Within the last week 
or ten days. 

Q For the purpose of this litigation? A For the 
purpose of this litigation. 

MR. STALEY: I ask that the Clerk mark these oil 
samples as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8,1 think it is. 

(Sample in glass tube marked 10598 was marked as 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. S and received in evidence.) 

THE COURT: I think we will suspend here for five 
minutes, to give the reporter and all of us a little respite. 

MR. STALEY: All right. 

(Brief recess) 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, the oil that has been identified as 
47 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 8, will you tell me whether 
or not that was made in exact accordance with the 
teaching of the Waldie application? A That was made 
in exactly the same procedure. 

Q Can you tell me whether or not the oil of this same 
batch that came out of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. S was used 
in the preparation of Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 6 and 7? A 
It came out exactly in the same fashion. 

Q Mr. Waldie, have you read the Waldie patent 
2,344,189? A I have. 

Q Do you understand what is in that patent? A * Yes, 
Ido. 

THE COURT: Well, if he doesn’t it is too late now. 
BY MR. STALEY: 

Q From your experience, can you say whether or not 
any of the varnishes disclosed in the Waldie Patent 
2,344,189 produced a worm type of pattern? A They 
would not. This patent is drawn entirely to a control 
of texture. 



65 A 


Q What general type of pattern does the varnish of 
the Waldie patent produce? A It would produce what 
we commonly call a uniform type wrinkle. 

Q Mr. Waldie, I hand you herewith three sample 
panels, on which the number 10613 appears on the 
4S rear face, and ask if you can identify those panels? 

A This is varnish—the 10613 panels were finished 
with varnish “A” of Patent No. 2,344,1S9. 

THE COURT: That is the Waldie patent? 

MR. STALEY: That is correct, Your Honor. 

A This is one of the standard varnishes made bv 
New Wrinkle, Inc., in production. 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q When did you make these panels, Mr. Waldie? A 
Within the last week or ten days, for this trial. 

MR. STALEY: I will ask the Clerk to mark these 
panels as Plaintiffs * Exhibit 9, and I would like to offer 
them in evidence at this time. 

MR. COCHRAN: No objection. 

(Panel marked 10613 was marked as Plaintiffs’ Ex¬ 
hibit No. 9 and received in evidence.) 

MR. STALEY: May T have one sample back. 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, have you made a careful inspection oi 
the panel, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9, and can you tell me if 
there is any indication of a worm type pattern on that 
panel? A There is no indication. We notice that the 
ridges here tend to be continuous and not broken up. 

Q Can you say whether or not the varnish composi¬ 
tion “A” of the Waldie Patent 2,344,189, of which 
49 I understand Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9 is an example, 
produces a uniform texture, and whether or not it 
repeats this pattern? A It does produce a uniform tex¬ 
ture. 

Q Do you ever get any other pattern from— A We 
do not. We do not. Otherwise, we would be in trouble 
commercially. That is the standard production with the 
New Wrinkle, Inc., factory. 






66 A 


Q It is a production varnish? A It is a standard 
production. I will identify that further. That is called, 
in our factory, WV-201 “L” Varnish. 

THE COURT: But you do get a wrinkle pattern? 

THE WITNESS: You do get a wrinkle pattern. 

THE COURT: Well, now, in Exhibits 7,— 

MR. STALEY: Exhibits 6 and 7 are the worm typo 
pattern, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: I know, but I haven’t got No. 6. 
Where is No. 6? 

MR. STALEY: Oh, don’t you have it? I have one 
here. 

THE COURT: Mr. Waldie, I am handing you Plain¬ 
tiffs’ Exhibits 6 and 7, both of which purport to be ex¬ 
ample of the worm type result, as a result of the use 
of the ingredients in your application. 

Now, my question is: Isn’t there a difference, however, 
in texture in those two exhibits, and are they uniform 
also? 

THE WITNESS: They are all uniform, Your 
50 Honor. There is a difference in degree, and that 
is due simply to the varnish type that has been 
used, mixed with the oil. 

THE COURT: You make the distinction that there 
is no difference in kind, but merely difference in de¬ 
gree? 

THE WITNESS: A different degree, yes. 

THE COURT: All right. 

MR. COCHRAN: That is, as between 6 and 7. 

THE COURT: Between 6 and 7. 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, with reference to Exhibits 6 and 7, 
can you give any reason for the difference in degree of 
the texture that is involved on those two panels? A No. 
6 is the one that contains the high amount of tung oil 
in the varnish; No. 7 is all linseed oil in the varnish. 
The tendency of the tung oil would be to quickly set; in 


67 A 


other words, it would not expand under the heat, whereas 
with the linseed oil in Exhibit 7, the expansion is greater, 
and that 'would produce a coarser texture than you would 
get with the tung oil. 

THE COURT: I take it there is no possibility of our 
finishing within a reasonable time. 

MR. STALEY: I believe it will take me at least an 
hour, Your Honor, to go through the remaining part of 
the testimony. 

THE COURT: Then, I think we ought to adjourn, be¬ 
cause there is no sense in staying another hour, 
51 when you have got tomorrow morning facing you, 
too. 

MR. STALEY: I think that is possibly right, Your 
Honor. 

THE COURT: As far as I am concerned, tomorrow 
morning is just like trying to bail out Chesapeake Bay 
here; we have always got new business. So suppose we 
do that; suppose we adjourn until tomorrow morning at 
ten o’clock, since we cannot finish this afternoon and you 
cannot go back to Dayton today. 

I assume you have no objections, either. 

MR. COCHRAN: I can get to Bethesda today all 
right. 

THE COURT: You can get to Bethesda all right. All 
right. 

MR. STALEY: I might say at this time, I believe 
the Clerk has been pasing all the exhibits up to Your 
Honor’s bench, and I do have one sample of each of the 
exhibits that I have prepared for the purpose of giving 
to counsel for the Patent Office. 

THE COURT: I usually take them in patent cases, 
particularly, because I want to follow the demonstration 
bv way of evidence as it goes along. 

MR. STALEY: Yes. 

THE COURT: But I am going to give these back to 
the Clerk now, because if I take them upstairs, I am liable 
to get them confused with something else. 



68 A 


MR. STALEY: I see, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: So I am going to give him the 

52 file, too, and the exhibits that have already been in¬ 
troduced in evidence. The only thing I will take 

is my own notes. 

MR. COCHRAN: I believe what he meant, Your 
Honor, was that the Clerk is handing up two samples of 
each exhibit. 

THE COURT: One is for you? 

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. 

THE COURT: But I am not going to take them up¬ 
stairs. I am going to let the Clerk look them up tonight, 
because if I take them upstairs, they are liable to get 
lost. 

THE CLERK: Your Honor, shall we keep them all 
together and then divide them, one for Mr. Cochran, at 
the finish of the trial? 

THE COURT: Keep them here until tomorrow morn¬ 
ing. 

(Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the trial was adjourned, to 
reconvene the following morning at 10:00 o’clock.) 

• * * • 

53 Washington, D. C. 

June 13, 1951 

The above-entitled matter came on for further hearing, 
before HON. MATTHEW F. McGUIRE, United States 
District Judge, at 10:00 a.m. 

APPEARANCES: 

On behalf of the plaintiffs: 

D. C. STALEY, Esq., 30S West 1st Street, 
Dayton, Ohio. 

On behalf of the defendant: 

S. WILLIAM COCHRAN, Esq., 

United States Patent Office. 


• • • • 





69 A 


55 Proceedings 

THE COURT: You may proceed. 

"Whereupon— 

William A. Waldie 

was called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs ana, 
having been previously sworn, was examined and testi¬ 
fied as follows: 

Direct Examination (Continued) 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, yesterday you testified that varnish 
“A” of the Waldie patent was a production varnish and 
that Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9 was made from varnish “A” of 
the Waldie patent. 

Now, I note that varnish “A” of the W'aldie patent 
refers to certain ratios of material used. Can you tell 
me whether or not in making Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9 you used 
any specific formulation of a varnish? A A direct for¬ 
mulation on that varnish. 

Q In that connection, Mr. Waldie, I hand you a sheet, 
at the top of which is marked “W.V. 201L” and ask if 
you can identify that. A “W.V. 201L” is the production 
name for the varnish of varnish “A” of Exhibit 9. This 
is an actual kettle-run formula of this particular varnish 
and is within the limits as specified in that Waldie 
patent. 

56 Q The Waldie patent? A 2,344,189. 

Q Mr. Waldie, who made up that sheet? A I 
had my stenographer copy that sheet from my production 
record book. 

MR. STALEY: I will ask the Clerk at this time to 
mark the sheet just identified by the witness as Plaintiffs’ 
Exhibit 10 and introduce the same in evidence at this 
time. 





70 A 


MR. COCHRAN: No objection. 

(Whereupon, the sheet entitled “W.V. 201L” was 
marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10 and was received in evi¬ 
dence.) 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, do you in your Waldie patent 2,344,1S9 
find any teaching whatever of a mixing of oils by them¬ 
selves and then heating those oils while they are mixed? 
A I do find no reference, these oils are run according 
to the formulation just turned over in which the resin is 
in with the oil at the start of the cook. 

Q In other words, the resin is in the oil at the time 
the cook is started? A That is correct. 

THE COURT: Let me ask you this question, if I may. 
I thought that yesterday you defined a short oil, which 
is an ingredient of your method. 

57 THE WITNESS: Correct. 

THE COURT: But a short oil, I understand, 
contains a large percentage of resin. Now, what is my 
conclusion from your answer just now given? 

THE WITNESS: The ratio of this oil in patent 
2,344,1S9 is wO gallons of oil per hundred pounds of 
resin, which would put it in the medium oil. 

THE CCJURT: It is not a short oil? 

THE WITNESS: Not a short oil. 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Is there any teaching in the Waldie patent 2,344,189 
of the adding of any prepared oil as an oil mixture or 
which has been heated to a varnish? A No. The only 
addition of the oil in those materials, in that particular 
varnish, is as a check to stop the polymerization of the 
China-wood oil. There is only enough resin in that oil 
at the initial cook to control the polymerization. 

Q But in the waldie patent the resin is always in the 
oil? A Yes. I correct that. The part of the resin— 
half the resin is in with all the tung oil at the start of 
the cook. That portion is then heated up to the polymeri- 


71A 


zation temperature between 500 and 540 of the tung oil 
and then checked with the balance of the resin, 
5S linseed oil and lead acetate. 

Q Mr. Waldie, have you read the Root patent, 
1,950,417? A Correct. 

Q Do you understand what that patent refers to? A 
Yes, I do. 

Q Can you tell me what the Root patent discloses? 
A The Root patent discloses entirely the use of blown 
oils in with the varnish, cooked. 

Q How does Root prepare his varnish? A The resin 
is first melted—that will have to be changed a little bit. 
I notice in the Root patent he is using a Congo resin in 
example 1, Congo resin in examples 2 and 3, Congo resin 
in example 6, Congo resin in example 7. 

The method of preparation of that series would be such 
that the Congo resin would have to be semi melted in 
order to drive off about 30 percent of the resin to become 
soluble in the addition of the oil. 

Tn the illustration, actually, of the method of that 
patent, I prefer to take example number 5. That formula 
is an amberol resin, which is comparatively—well, it is 
an artificial resin that melts at around 300 degrees. In 
that way you can melt that directly in the oil, and that 
varnish would be operated in somewhat the following 
manner. 

The amberol resin and applied linseed oil would 
59 be run up to a heat so that the amberol is melted 
in the oil. 

Now, on the question of blown wood oil, that cannot be 
added directly because above 500 that will have a ten¬ 
dency to flash and produce a fire prior to gelatinization. 
It should be, therefore, dissolved in part of the light 
naphtha and added to the mixture of amberol and blown 
linseed oil. 

The cobalt linoleate should also be dissolved in part of 




72 A 


the thinner, the toluol or the naphtha, and then added to 
the remainder of the batch. 

THE COURT: How about 4? They use amberol and 
cobalt linoleate and blown wood oil and no naphtha. 

THE WITNESS: That would be run according to 
the same nature. The main fact I want to bring out 
there is the tendency of the blown wood oil to gelatinize 
or produce a spontaneous combustion if added above 500 
degrees Fahrenheit. 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, do you find in the Root patent any 
teaching whatever of taking oils as a mixture and heat¬ 
ing them together to make any kind of a specially pre¬ 
pared oil? A I do not. 

Q Have you read the Root patent carefully in that 
regard? A I have. 

Q Can you tell me if there is any disclosure in the 
Root patent by which you would take a mixed oil 
60 which has been heated and then take that oil and 
add it to a varnish base? A I do not. These are 
all straight-run varnishes. By that I mean there is no 
outside mixing after the batch is made. 

Q Did you produce any sample of the varnish of the 
Root patent? A I have. 

Q Which sample did you make, Mr. Waldie? A Ex¬ 
ample 5, page 4, of the patent. 

Q And why did you select example 5 of the Root 
patent, 1,950,417, in preparing the varnish? A That is 
run from prepared oils entirely. That is blown oils. 

Q Does it have any relationship to the varnishes of 
the Waldie application? A That is a combination of 
linseed and wood oil. 

Q Mr. Waldie, I hand you three panels marked 10615 
on the rear face and ask you if you can identify those 
panels. A 10615 panels were finished with example 5, 
patent 1,950,417, Root, which does not give any directions 
for cooking. Therefore, I used my own varnish knowledge. 



73 A 


The laboratory batch of this is identified as number 
10601 and was made as follows: 12 y 2 ounces avoirdupois 
of amberol F7; 15 fluid ounces of blown linseed oil, heated 
to 550 degrees Fahrenheit to melt the resin. Batch 

61 removed from fire, allowed to cool to 350 degrees, 
and I added 10 fluid ounces of toluol. I mixed and 

practically dissolved 9 fluid ounces of blown wood oil 
and 12 fluid ounces of toluol and added that to the mix¬ 
ture. I made a further mix of 3/8 avoirdupois ounces of 
cobalt linoleate dissolved in 5 fluid ounces of VMP 
naphtha. 

The total amount of this then would correspond to 100 
pounds of amberol F 7, 15 gallons of blown linseed oil, 9 
gallons of blown wood oil, 22 gallons of toluol, 3 pounds 
of cobalt linoleate, and 5 gallons of VMP naphtha. 

Q And that follows the formulation set forth in ex¬ 
ample 5 of the Root patent ? A That totals to the cor¬ 
rect amounts of the Root patent. 

Q Who made these samples? A I made these 
samples, and I made the varnish. 

MR. STALEY: I would like the clerk to mark the 
sample just identified by the witness as Plaintiffs’ Ex¬ 
hibit 11 and offer those samples in evidence. 

MR. COCHRAN: No objection. 

(Whereupon, panel Number 10615 wras marked as Plain¬ 
tiffs’ Exhibit No. 11 and was received in evidence.) 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q What type of a wrinkle finish is on the sample, 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 11, Mr. Waldie? A Fine uniform 
texture, with no suggestion of any worm-type 

62 wrinkle. 

Q Can you tell me from your own knowledge 
whether the varnish of example 5 of the Root patent per¬ 
forms uniform results each time that you use that varnish 
with reference to the pattern of wrinkle that is formed? 
A It does—uniform producing. 

Q Would the varnish of the Root patent ever change 




74 A 


its characteristics to such an extent that it would pro¬ 
duce a worm-type pattern? A It would not. 

THE COURT: Is the application of your product con¬ 
fined to metals, or can it be used on wood, leather, and 
other articles? 

THE WITNESS: It can be used, Your Honor, but 
wood being a porous material you have to put an under¬ 
coat to it to stop suction porosity. That would be th( 
difference. 

Some types of wood you can apply directly to it, but 
you have to always be bothered with the tendency of the 
moisture to blister it. 

THE COURT: I note that Root says that his product, 
the wrinkling enamel, can be used—no, he did not say 
that. You said that. I am trying to find out what some¬ 
body said here could be used on leather. 

Yes, Root says it can be used on leather. He says, 
“ flexible articles, such as leather, paper, cloth, arti- 
63 ficial leather, rubber, etc.” 

THE WITNESS: Page 5? 

THE COURT: That is on the first page of the Root 
patent, starting at line 1: 

“This invention relates to that class of finishes known 
as wrinkle finishes, and more particularly is directed to 
compositions and methods which are adapted to produce 
wrinkle finishes on flexible articles, such as leather, paper, 
cloth, artificial leather, rubber, etc., and to articles carry¬ 
ing such finishes.” 

Now, my question is, is your product confined to 
metal articles such as those that have no porosity. 

THE WITNESS: Yes, it could be. 

THE COURT: Is it confined to those alone ? 

THE WITNESS: Yes, following the same teaching 
there. You will notice, Your Honor, too, that in Root, 
bottom of page 4, column 2, and page 5, it continues out 
that line of thought, following up with the sealer coat. 





75 A 


THE COURT: Can you use your product on leather? 
THE WITNESS: Yes. 

THE COURT: There is a certain amount of absorp* 
tion or porosity in leather, is there not? 

THE WITNESS: There is. Then we would have re¬ 
course to that cellulose lacquer. 

64 BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, following His Honor’s line ot 
thought, when you apply a wrinkle finish, regardless of 
whether it be of the type of the Waldie patent or the 
type of the Root patent, or the type of your own Waldie 
application, do you get any different type of pattern as 
a result of applying that varnish to, we will say, leather? 
A No, we would not get any different type of pattern 

Q In other words, the pattern remains the same? A 
Yes. 

Q Is that pattern a characteristic of the varnish it¬ 
self? A The pattern is dependent entirely on the formu¬ 
lation of the varnish. 

Q Can you give any reason why in the samples that 
we have introduced in evidence here today vre have used 
any pattern— 

THE COURT: I did not want to open that field up 
except I was curious as to whether or not the use of this 
product was limited to metals. 

MR. STALEY: I thought perhaps you had in mind 
some reason why we were introducing metal panels only. 

THE COURT: No. I have seen examples of this type 
of finish, but I never knew what it was. Mostly it 
has been confined to metals, boxes and things of that 
kind. 

65 THE WITNESS: I think it has its largest ap 
plication in that field, Your Honor. 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, have you read the Flournoy patent, 
1,752,164? A I have. 

Q Do you understand what that patent is? A I do. 





76 A 


Q Have you had any experience in reading and pos¬ 
sibly interpreting and understanding what patents say? 
A This patent depends entirely— 

MR. STALEY: Just a minute. Will you read the 
question, please? 

(Question read.) 

THE WITNESS: I do. That is part of my duty with 
the New Wrinkle Corporation, to keep abreast of all 
patent developments and the uses of different materials, 
with the view of furthering our licensee service. 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q And in that review do you read the patents? A I 
do. All the patents pertaining to varnishes and oils are 
supplied to me as soon as they are issued by our con¬ 
stituents. 

Q What is the nature of the Flournoy patent, Mr. 

Waldie? A The Flournoy patent is a combination 
66 of viscous linseed oil and viscous tung oil. 

Q How do they use the oils, the viscous tung 
oil and the viscous linseed oil, in the Flournoy patent? 
A They are mixed together without heat, and a drier 
added, and then a small amount of a suitable thinner, such 
as petroleum naphtha, for the purpose of ease of appli¬ 
cation. 

Q What kind of a product is involved in the Flournoy 
patent? A The product as just mentioned requires the 
use of an undercoat of viscous linseed oil. 

Q What is that undercoat of viscous linseed oil applied 
to in Flournoy? A That is applied to light materials 
as a filler coat. 

Q Am I to understand, then, that the Flournoy patent 
involves a two-coat proposition? A The Flournoy is a 
tw’o-coat proposition. 

Q Can you tell me from your experience in interpreting 
and reading patents just what Flournoy does with refer¬ 
ence to the China-wood oil and the linseed oil? A It 
produces viscosity in the China-wood oil by heating, and 
the same with the linseed oil. 


77 A 


Q Can you find anywhere in the Flournoy patent from 
your careful reading of it any interpretation or any 
language that would indicate to you, as one skilled 

67 in the art, that the China-wood oil and the linseed 
oil have been mixed together and then heated? A 

I do not. 

Q Why do you say that? A In the first place, I 
have to interpret this knowing about Flournoy and Per¬ 
icles D. George; and being old varnish hands, they would 
interpret and write that up the same as I would. 

When they speak of viscous linseed oil, they mean a 
linseed oil that would be bodied between the neighborhood 
of 500 to 600 degrees Fahrenheit, producing in the 
neighborhood of a viscosity on the Gardner-Holdt scale 
of approximately “Z”. 

The China-wood oil being of a different nature would 
not be bodied safely over 500 degrees, and it would have 
to be carefully watched; otherwise, it will coagulate. 

Therefore, the extreme body that you could get on the 
tung oil with safety would be approximately “W” on the 
Gardner-Holdt scale. 

Q Following your experience as one in the art in the 
handling of wrinkle finishes and oils, did you prepare any 
oil following the teaching of the Flournoy patent? A I 
prepared the viscous linseed oil and the viscous tung oil. 

Q What did you do with those oils after you 

68 prepared them? A I mixed them together accord¬ 
ing to the Flournoy patent. 

Q In the Flournoy patent I note that in column 1, 
line 45, he refers to the addition of a drier in the form of 
linoleate of lead, cobalt, or manganese. 

I ask you whether or not you added any drier to the oil 
that you prepared under the Flournoy patent. A Yes, I 
did. ' 

Q How much drier did you add to the oil? A Manga¬ 
nese linoleate was added in such proportion as to contain 





78 A 


the same amount of manganese metal as in the Waldie 
oil “A”, I believe it is. 

Q Is that the Waldie oil, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Number 
8, that you refer to? A I think it is. 

Q Is there any teaching in the Flournoy patent as to 
how much drier to add to the oil? A There is not. 

Q Why did you select that amount of drier? A To 
make a direct comparison of the W'aldie oil with the 
Flournoy oil. 

Q Mr. W r aldie, I hand you three tubes, on which ap¬ 
pears the number 10604, and ask if you can identify those 
tubes. A Number 10604 is the Flournoy oil under 

69 patent 1,752,164. 

This particular oil was made by me on the fol¬ 
lowing ratio: S avoirdupois ounces viscous linseed oil, 4 
avoirdupois ounces viscous China-wood oil, 4 avoirdupois 
ounces of manganese linoleate. 

MR. STALEY: I would ask the clerk to have these 
samples marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 12 and offer them 
in evidence at this time. 

MR. COCHRAN: No objection. 

(W’hereupon, tube number 10604 was marked as Plain¬ 
tiffs’ Exhibit No. 12 and was received in evidence.) 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, can you tell me whether or not there 
is any difference in the proportion of oils and driers used 
in your preparation of the oil of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Num¬ 
ber 12 and the oil of Plaintiffs’ Number 8? A Thev are 
practically identical, probably one or two percent varia¬ 
tion on the oil content. 

Q Is there any variation sufficient to have any effect 
on the result those oils will produce? A There is not. 

Q Mr. Waldie, I hand you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit S and 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 12 and ask if there is any difference 
in those oils and if so, if you will tell us what it is. A 
First, the predominant difference is the difference 

70 in the color. The flournoy oil— 

Q Before you go any further, may I ask if that 



79 A 


difference in color indicates any difference in the oils 
themselves. A No, I would not consider that at all. It 
is the quality of the outcome. 

The predominating difference of these two oils will be 
entirely in the viscosity. These are standard tubes, the 
same diameter, and the viscosity is judged entirely by the 
rise of the bubble in the tube. 

I turn these up, and you will notice that the Waldie oil 
bubble hits the top of the tube practically at the same 
time the Flournoy oil starts to leave the bottom of the 
tube. 

Roughly, I would say that the viscosity of the Flournoy 
oil is two to three times that of the Waldie oil. 

Q Mr. Waldie, in the final effect of those two oils in 
a varnish, what would you say would be the normal indi¬ 
cation to you, as one skilled in the art, as to the effect that 
you might expect from those oils when you put them into 
a varnish? A I would say that the Flournoy oil would 
be the most productive of a wrinkle texture due to the 
high viscosity. 

Q Mr. Waldie, I hand you three panels on which ap¬ 
pear the number 10616 and will ask if you can identify 
those panels. A 10616 panels are sprayed and baked 
with the Flournoy oil, patent 1,752,164. 

71 Q Is that the exact same oil that you have just 
been discussing? A That is correct, exactly the 

same. 

Q And is the oil which has been identified as Plaintiffs’ 
Exhibit 12? A Correct. 

Q Who made those panels? A I made those panels. 

Q When? A Within the last week or ten days. 

Q For the purpose of this litigation? A Correct. 

MR. STALEY: Please mark the samples identified by 
the witness as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 13, and I would like to 
offer them in evidence at this time. 

MR. COCHRAN: No objection. 

(Whereupon, panel number 10616 was marked as Plain¬ 
tiffs’ Exhibit No. 13 and was received in evidence.) 





SO A 


BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, on Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Number 13, what 
is the effect that you get by the application of the oil to 
that panel? A You get simply a high gloss film, no sign 
of any wrinkle. 

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I feel that I am 

72 at a disadvantage here, not being able to see some 
of these exhibits. 

THE COURT: I thought you had seen them right 
along. 

MR. COCHRAN: No, I have not had a chance to see 
them. 

THE COURT: I think Exhibit 6 is the one that Mr. 
Waldie relies upon as the perfect example of his result. 

MR. STALEY: Exhibits 6 and 7, both. 

THE COURT: Yes. Then Exhibit 9 is the result of 
the use of the method in the so-called Waldie patent. Is 
that right? 

MR. STALEY: That is correct. 

THE COURT: And the others relate to Flournoy and 
Root, and we are now discussing the Flournoy. So Ex¬ 
hibit 13 would be the result of the teaching of the Flour¬ 
noy patent. Is that correct? 

MR. STALEY: That is correct, Your Honor. 

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: I am very sorry that happened, Mr. 
Cochran. 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, I hand you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 3, 
which has been identified as the oil prepared according to 
the Waldie application, and ask you to compare that Ex¬ 
hibit 3 with Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 13, and ask you if you 
can tell me if there is any difference in the net result on 
those panels. A Exhibit Number 3 produces a smooth, 
gloss film, no suggestion of a wrinkle. 

73 Q How about Exhibit 13? A Exhibit 13 pro¬ 
duces a higher gloss film due to the higher viscosity, 





81A 


no suggestion of a wrinkle. Those pits that are in Exhibit 
13 are due to the incompatibility or insolubility of the 
mixed oil, whereas with the number 3 the heating to¬ 
gether produces that extreme miscibility. 

Q Mr. Waldie, having seen the result of the oil of 
the Waldie application and the oil as prepared under the 
Flournoy patent on Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 3 and 13, would 
you from your experience expect any different result from 
the use of those oils in a varnish? A I would expect the 
Flournoy oil, Exhibit Number 13, on account of the vis¬ 
cosity would produce a more powerful wrinkle than the 
Exhibit Number 3. 

Q Mr. Waldie, I hand you panels marked 10619 on 
the rear face and ask if you can identify those panels. A 
Number 10615 panels were finished with— 

Q Pardon me, I think you gave the incorrect number. 
A Number 10619 panels were finished with the mixture 
of Flournoy oil, patent 1,752,164, and varnish “A”, patent 
number 2,344,1S9, using the same proportions as shown in 
Serial Number 653,933, composition 1, which is: 7 volumes 
of varnish “A”, 6 volumes of Flournoy oil, 3 volumes of 
toluol. 

Q Who made those panels? A I made those 
74 panels. 

Q When? A In preparation for this trial. 

MR. STALEY: I will ask the clerk to mark the 
samples identified by the witness as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 14, 
and I would like to offer it in evidence. 

(Whereupon, panel number 10619 was marked as Plain¬ 
tiffs’ Exhibit No. 14 and was received in evidence.) 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, what has been the effect on Plaintiffs’ 
Exhibit 14 of the mixture of the oil of the Flournoy patent 
with the wrinkle varnish of the Waldie patent? A It 
shows more or less incompatibility, non-uniformity of any 
texture, a very faint suggestion of wrinkle but not that 
of a uniform-type wrinkle, not of a worm type. 





82 A 


Q Mr. Waldie, I hand you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9, which 
has been identified as the varnish “A” of the Waldie 
patent, 2,344,1S9, and ask you to compare this panel, 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9, with Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 14, and ask 
if there is any difference in effect. 

THE COURT: I might say to counsel that I am im¬ 
pressed with the result, with Exhibits 6 and 7, but the 
basic question, of course, still has not been cited as to 
whether or not it is invention over the cited references, as 
to whether or not one skilled in the art from the read¬ 
ing of Waldie and from a reading of Flournoy and 
75 Root and from a reading of the article cited, also, 
would possibly, by way of experimentation, conclude 
that this was the way to do it. 

That is the basic question here. Is it not? 

MR. STALEY: Yes, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: In other words, you will not have to 
go forward any further and belabor the comparison be¬ 
tween what was done by Root and between what was done 
by Flournoy. 

The product itself is convincing to me in the nature of 
its results. 

The only question left in the case is whether or not it 
is invention. 

MR. STALEY: I think basically Your Honor has, you 
might say, hit the nail on the head. 

THE COURT: I am convinced from an examination 
of these exhibits that there is a result of a very compelling 
character. 

Now, whether or not it is invention is a mixed question 
of fact and law. 

MR. STALEY: I believe you are correct. It is '■ 
matter of application of the law to the facts as to whether 
or not we have an invention. 

THE COURT: I am not trying to short circuit you 
in any way, but I am merely saying that that is the criti. 



83 A 


cal question. You do not have to have the witness 

76 delineate for my benefit the difference between, for 
example, Exhibit 9 under his own application and 

Exhibits 6 and 7 under his own patent, 6 and 7 in the 
application. The difference is perfectly plain. 

MR. STALEY: With that clarification from Your 
Honor, I believe I can somewhat shorten what I was 
going to say. 

THE COURT: I think your job is to indicate by 
memorandum later on the fact as you believe it to be a 
fact—I have not made up my mind—that you have come 
upon invention. 

MR. COCHRAN: I wonder if you would state again, 
Your Honor, what you said about the comparison of 6 
and 9. I did not quite get that. 

THE COURT: Number 9 is the Waldie patent which 
has been cited against the present application. Is not 
that right? 

MR. STALEY: That is correct, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: I said that there is a difference in 
result. In other words, I think that 6 and 7, the exhibits 
that relate to the product derived from the method dis¬ 
closed in the present application, are basically different 
from the other exhibits which relate to the patents cited 
and also different—not so much, but still at the same time 
different—from Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9, in the examination 
by me yesterday under the glass. 

Now, the applicant predicates his claim upon the result 
of a wrinkle, so to speak, of an entirely different character 
than heretofore known in the art. 

77 It is a wrinkle finish, but it is a wrinkle finish of 
the worm type which he says is individually differ¬ 
ent from anything in the art before. 

As a matter of fact, he also goes further and says that 
the individual worms, so to speak, in the result are indi¬ 
vidually different. 

Now, at a quick glance you do not see any great differ- 







84 A 


ence between 6 and 7 and 9, but under a glass and by 
the application of sense of touch there is a little differ¬ 
ence. However, under a glass it is very different. 

Does that answer your question? 

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, sir. 

MR. STALEY: I will withdraw the last question. 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, I hand you three panels that are 
marked 10G20 on the rear face and ask if you can identify 
these panels. A Number 10620 panels were finished with 
a mixture of varnish “A”, patent number 2,344,189, and 
the prepared oil “A” of Serial Number 653,933, using 
proportions as shown in said serial composition 1, which 
is: 7 volumes of varnish “A”, 6 volumes of prepared 
oil “A”, and 3 volumes of toluol. 

Q Who made these panels? A I made these panels, 
for this trial. 

MR. STALEY: I will ask the clerk to mark 
78 these panels as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 15, and I offer 
them in evidence. 

(Whereupon, panel number 10620 was marked as Plain¬ 
tiffs’ Exhibit No. 15 and was received in evidence.) 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q What type of pattern is produced on Plaintiffs’ Ex¬ 
hibit 15, Mr. Waldie? A The worm-type pattern. 

Q Can you tell me whether the varnish used in Plain¬ 
tiffs’ Exhibits 14 and 15 is the same varnish? I am 
speaking now of varnish only. A It is the same varnish 
used in both Exhibits 14 and 15. 

Q Is the only difference in the coating compositions 
of Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 14 and 15 in the oil that has been 
used? A The only variation is in the oil that has been 
used. 

Q Can you say from your experience in reading pat¬ 
ents, Mr. Waldie, whether or not you find disclosed in the 
Flournoy patent the specific method of heating of the 
China-wood oil and the linseed oil together, as disclosed 





85 A 


in the Waldie application? Do you find that specific 
method disclosed in the Flournoy patent? A I do not. 

Q Do you find in the Flournoy patent any teaching of 
adding a specially prepared oil, such as the oil of 

79 the Waldie application, to a varnish composition? 
A Flournoy does not require the addition of any 

oil—of any varnish or mention the addition of any 
varnish. 

Q Mr. Waldie, from your experience in the art, can 
you tell me whether there is any difference in effect which 
can result from, we will say, a difference in processing? 
A Considerable difference in effect, using the same iden¬ 
tical materials, will result. 

Q Mr. Waldie, I hand you panels marked 101-S on 
the rear and ask if you can identify those panels. A 
Panel 101-S is a production varnish made in the New 
Wrinkle plant and sold as a wrinkle varnish material. 

MR. STALEY: I will ask the Clerk to mark the 
panels as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 16 and offer them in evi¬ 
dence at this time. 

(Whereupon, panel number 101-S was marked as Plain¬ 
tiffs’ Exhibit No. 16 and was received in evidence.) 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, I hand you three panels marked 10600 
on the rear face and ask if you can identify those panels. 
A 10600 is a varnish I made myself, to be contrasted 
with the 101-S varnish, the different method of processing. 

MR. STALEY: I would ask the Clerk to mark the 
samples identified by the witness as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 17 
and offer them in evidence at this time. 

80 (Whereupon, panel number 10600 was marked as 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 17 and was received in 

evidence.) 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, I hand you three sheets on which there 
is the title “W. V. 101 S” and ask if you can identify 
those. A “W. V. 101 S” is a standard formulation made 






86 A 


under my direction in our production plant. It shows 
just how this material is put together and the method of 
logging the time of processing. 

Q Did you have these sheets typed from your produc¬ 
tion records for the purpose of this trial? A This was 
copied from my record books by my stenographer. 

MR. STALEY: I will ask the Clerk to mark these as 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Number 18 and offer them in evidence 
at this time. 

MR. COCHRAN: No objection. 

(Whereupon, sheet entitled “W. V. 101 S” was marked 
as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. IS and was received in evi¬ 
dence.) 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, is the formulation of the varnish of 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 18 the same varnish that was used on 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 16? A It is identicallv the same 
varnish. 

81 Q Can you tell me whether or not there is any 
change whatever in any of the constituents of the 
varnish of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 17 which would distinguish 
it in any way from Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 16? A The differ¬ 
ence is only in the method of processing. 

Q Then are the materials in those two varnishes iden¬ 
tical? A The materials are identical. 

Q What did you do with reference to Plaintiffs’ Ex¬ 
hibit 17, which is apparently a wrinkle finish whereas 
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 16 is relatively smooth, whereby on 
exactly the same materials you can obtain a wrinkle finish 
in one instance and a smooth finish in another? A In 
Exhibit 17 the varnish was processed as follows: YIV* 
avoirdupois ounces of amberol F7, 13V2 fluid ounces of 
raw tung oil, and l 1 /* fluid ounces of bodied linseed oil 
are heated to 500 degrees Fahrenheit, removed from the 
fire and checked with 5/8 ounces of lead acetate. The 
batch is then cooled to 400 degrees, and 10 fluid ounces of 
xylol added, plus 22 fluid ounces of toluol. 



87 A 


Q Is the only difference, then, between the two ex¬ 
hibits the method in which they are heated? A That is 
correct 

Q Mr. Waldie, I have just another question or two. 
When you add your prepared oil of the Waldie 
82 application to a varnish, does it make any differ¬ 
ence whether that varnish is a so-called wrinkle 
varnish or a so-called non-wrinkle varnish in obtaining 
the end result of the worm-type pattern, as disclosed in 
the Waldie application? A It does not. 

MR. STALEY: You may inquire. 

Cross Examination 
BY MR. COCHRAN: 

Q Mr. Waldie, I believe you testified that the primary 
purpose of the step of heating the oils together was 
to obtain better control of the polymerization. Was that 
correct? A Well, not necessarily entirely that. You get 
a better dispersion of the oil. Naturally there will be a 
tendency for the tung oil or conjugated oil to polymerize, 
but under that result it will not go to a solid condition. 

Q It is well known in the art that if you dilute tung 
oil with one of the other oils you can carry to a higher 
temperature without it jelling. That is well known in 
the art. Is it not? A That is correct. 

Q So we can assume that it is known in the art that 
the dilution of the tung oil with another oil while it is 
being heated will slow the polymerization and give 
S3 you better control? A Yes. 

Q If we assume, then, that you heat tung oil 
separately from the linseed oil and you carry that out 
very carefully, could you not arrive at the same end re¬ 
sult as you have here? A Absolutely not 

Q So you maintain you could not get a worm-shaped 
pattern with separate heating? A You will not get the 
same result. 







88 A 


Q What is your explanation for that? A I believe 
that there is actually a combination going on in the cook¬ 
ing of the oil, that is, the splitting of the glycerine content, 
whereas if you run the oils separate you have actually 
got a diluent. That is, your tung oil is diluted with lin¬ 
seed oil, or vice versa. 

Q Do you know, then, that something other than a 
separate polymerization of these two oils takes place? A 
I believe you have a combination. 

Q Is that disclosed in your application? A Yes. 

Q That is disclosed in your application? A It is 
right there. It is the end result. 

Q But not that explanation for it? A I hesitate to 
say direct explanation of it. 

Q Now, the essential difference between the end 
S4 result which you get with your process, as exempli¬ 
fied in Exhibits 6 and 7, as compared with the 
Waldie patent result, as exemplified in Exhibit 9, is that 
the wrinkles have finite dimensions, that they have an 
end rather than continuing indefinitely. Is that it? A 
Six and 7 are directly a worm-type wrinkle, while you 
can see that Number 9 is a continuous pattern. There is 
no spreading out through segmentation. 

THE COURT: You mean that 6 and 7 are individual¬ 
ized? 

THE WITNESS: Six and 7 are, but in 7 the worm 
type is spread out more than in Number 6; but in Exhibit 
Number 9 there is simply a slight modification, but it is a 
continuous wrinkle texture through there. 

BY MR. COCHRAN: 

Q By variations in your process could you produce 
wrinkles which would approximate in size the wrinkles 
which we see on Exhibit 9? A Variation I used in the 
actual processing. 

Q What I am getting at is, could you make the 
wrinkles of Exhibit 6 smaller, as they appear in Exhibit 
9? Could you make them of the size comparable with 


89 A 


that appearing in Exhibit 9? A The difference in the 
size between 6 and 9? 

Q Could you change 6 by changing the processes 
some way, to be smaller? A You could not change 

85 it. You could not change the generic pattern of 
Number 9 to any great extent. The only variation 

you can make in Number 9 will be in the case of a pig¬ 
mentation in which it would bring it down finer and 
finer, as disclosed in the patent Number 2,344,189. 

THE COURT: Whose patent is that? 

THE WITNESS: Waldie. That shows how to modify, 
bring down the texture finer. 

BY MR. COCHRAN: 

Q Could you make the texture finer in your applica¬ 
tion process by some such treatment? A Only you get 
the same generic pattern. I mean the worm type. But as 
far as finer goes, it would simply be done by putting in 
some other material of pigmentation. That is the only 
character you would get there. 

Q All right. That leads to the question I am getting 
at. If you did that and you had a worm-shaped wrinkle 
pattern, in which the wrinkles were of approximately the 
same size as Exhibit Number 9, and you held it off at eye 
distance, do you think you could tell the difference? 

MR. STALEY: Just a minute, Your Honor, I object 
to that because counsel has referred to Exhibit 9 as a 
worm-type pattern, which it is not. 

MR. COCHRAN: If I did, I am sorry. I meant 
wrinkle pattern. 

86 BY MR. COCHRAN: 

Q If you held it at eye distance, you could not 
tell the difference between a worm-shaped pattern and a 
wrinkle pattern. Could you? A Sure. One is straight 
segmentation. The wrinkle is almost continuous lines. 

Q You found it necessary to furnish a magnifying 
glass to tell the difference? A Not necessarily in all 
cases. 








90 A 


Q Referring to the Waldie patent, does that patent 
disclose the addition of a wrinkling oil, a prepared wrink¬ 
ling oil, to a varnish to impart wrinkling qualities'? A 
No. Those are all straight cooks on that. I mean by 
straight cooks in a straight process. 

Q May I refer you to page 1 of the specification of 
the patent, column 2, the second full paragraph. A 
Page 1? 

Q Page 1, column 2. A Yes. 

Q The second full paragraph. A That would be 
line 8? 

Q Line 8. Would you read the paragraph, please? 
Read it aloud, if you will. A That is to produce a 
wrinkle of a very fine texture. 

THE COURT: Am I looking at the same thing? 
87 You are talking about the Waldie patent? 

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. “Another object is to 
compound a wrinkle coating composition comprising a raw 
wrinkling oil which is adapted to be blended with a 
pigmented wrinkling varnish to produce a finish having a 
wrinkle pattern of very fine texture.” 

That begins with line S, the second column. 

BY MR. COCHRAN: 

Q Doesn’t that say that he is adding a prepared wrink¬ 
ling oil to a varnish? A It reads—that is correct. How¬ 
ever, that is not—unfortunately, it reads directly to that. 
That paragraph actually is added as a modification of a 
pigmented coating to kill off the gloss more than anything 
else. 

Q You are basing your claim of invention in this ap¬ 
plication primarily on the result, the wrorm-shaped pattern 
of wrinkle which you obtain. Certain of your claims do 
not even bring out that feature, do they? A I believe 
they do. 

MR. STALEY: I think, Your Honor, that while the 
witness can read a patent the matter of interpretation of 
claims is a matter of lawr rather than a matter of fact. 

MR. COCHRAN: I will pass that. 


91A 


BY MR. COCHRAN: 

Q Refering now to the Flournoy patent, I be- 
SS lieve you testified that there was no disclosure 
there of heating these ingredients together. 

Do you find any definite statement in that patent to 
the effect that they are not heated together? A I have 
to interpret that in the practical sense of the varnish 
trade. A varnish man, when he reads “mixing”, it means 
mixing or addition. If a varnish man is writing a formu¬ 
lation of that type he would say “heat.” 

Q However, he calls in the patent for a viscous lin¬ 
seed oil presumably rendered viscous by heat, and he 
describes the heating of the tung oil. Does he not? A 
You mean on the bottom paragraph of the column 1, 
heating tung oil? 

Q I am referring to page 1 of the specification. 

MR. STALEY: Mr. Waldie, counsel is referring to 
the Flournoy patent. 

MR. COCHRAN: Page 1 of the specification, column 
2, line 61. 

The sentence begins at line 61: “The China wood oil 
used in the composition above described is heat treated to 
give it such viscosity as to give the composition the 
characteristic that when employed as a coating”— 

THE COURT: I think you are going a little fast. We 
will take a fifteen-minute recess. 

(Short recess.) 

S9 THE COURT: Mr. Cochran. 

BY MR. COCHRAN: 

Q I am reading from the Flournoy patent: “The 
China wood oil used in the composition above described 
is heat treated to give it such viscosity as to give the 
composition the characteristic that when employed as a 
coating and treated as hereinafter described, it coagulates 
in drying to produce a uniform wrinkled surface compris¬ 
ing small ridges or ‘wrinkles’ closely adjacent to each 
other.” 









92 A 


Do you find in that statement or elsewhere in the patent 
any statement that the China-wood oil and the linseed oil 
are not heat treated together? A It is impossible to 
cook viscous linseed oil and viscous China-wood oil to¬ 
gether for the simple reason the slightest heating of the 
viscous China-wood oil would polymerize it irrespective of 
it being in the linseed oil. 

In other words, you have carried the polymerization so 
far that the slightest heat involved after that viscosity 
is obtained is going to be completely polymerized. 

THE COURT: By polymerization you do not mean 
the same thing as precipitation. Am I correct? 

THE WITNESS: No, that would be solidification, for 
instance, bread crumbly. 

BY MR. COCHRAN: 

Q In your answer you indicate that he is heat 
90 treating viscous China-wood oil. As a matter of 
fact, he is rendering the China-wood oil viscous 
by this heat treatment which he described. Is he not? A 
How is that? 

Q He is rendering the China-wood oil viscous by the 
heat treatment? A Heat treating separately. 

Q He is what? A Heat treating separately. Let me 
refer back, as an illustration of just what you are getting 
to. On the Root patent which was put in as an exhibit, 
I split the oils there in the addition. I had to supply my 
own cooking schedule. 

Now, that is why that comprised blown China-wood oil 
and blown linseed oil. I mixed those two oils together 
first and proceeded with a cook, and by the time I 
reached 500 degrees I had a gelatinous solid mass in the 
kettle. So therefore I had to change over. The minute 
I used the China-wood oil, adding directly to the melted 
mix, I got into trouble. I had to revert then to the 
solution method of putting the two materials together. 

That is just along the same lines of -what you are 
trying to drag out, I believe. 




93 A 


Q This is a very simple proposition. I am merely 
trying to show that the Flournoy patent does not definitely 
state that you cannot heat these two oils together. 

91 I do not find any statement of that in the Flour¬ 
noy patent. I thought I could bring out by your 

testimony that there is no such statement. 

I will not go any further in that line of questioning 
because I think the patent speaks for itself. A Let me 
read it again. 

MR. STALEY: Mr. Waldie, please do not volunteer. 

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran is dropping that line of 
inquiry. He says the patent speaks for itself, and so it 
will not do any good for you and Mr. Cochran to engage 
in a controversy, no matter how amicable it may be. 

I will have to read what you say and also read the 
patent. 

BY MR. COCHRAN: 

Q Now, you submitted an exhibit which purported to 
be an exemplification of the Flournoy oil, and I believe 
your testimony was that you prepared a viscous tung oil. 

Now, in preparing that tung oil did you experiment 
with a number of viscosities of tung oil? A Yes, I did. 
There were several different viscosities. The oil that I 
have used is the oil that I used in production batches in 
my plant, which is run, naturally, being a production 
batch, to the extreme safety point. I believe we have a 
sample of that particular oil. 

Q Now, I am not speaking of the starting prod- 

92 uct, the tung oil which you started with. 

You stated that you prepared a viscous tung oil. 
Now, did you prepare a number of tung oils of different 
viscosities? A From my past experience I knew how 
far I dared go, so I went to the extreme. 

Q The patent teaches that the degree of wrinkling 
is dependent upon the viscosity of the tung oil. Does it 
not? A That is correct. 





94 A 


Q You also testified that a difference in processing 
can make quite a difference in the final product? A That 
is correct. 

Q Do you feel by your experiments with the Flournoy 
patent that you have demonstrated that the patent is in¬ 
operative to produce definite wrinkles? A As far as pro¬ 
ducing a wrinkle from the Flournoy patent, that is based 
entirely on the two-coat feature that he mentions there. 

Q You did not submit any samples or exhibits here 
which indicated that the Flournoy patent would wrinkle 
to any extent at all, did you? A No, we have not sub¬ 
mitted any samples of that. 

MR. COCHRAN: That is all. 

MR. STALEY: If Your Honor please, may I ask a 
question or two of the witness? 

THE COURT: Yes. 

93 Redirect Examination 

BY MR. STALEY: 

Q Mr. Waldie, on cross-examination you were re¬ 
ferred to the second paragraph of the Waldie patent, 
2,344,189, in which there is a reference to the blending of 
a raw wrinkling oil with a pigmented wrinkling varnish. 

I ask you, what is the meaning of a raw wrinkling oil. 
A Raw wrinkling oil is an oil that has not received any 
heat treatment whatsoever. It is as obtained in com¬ 
merce. 

Q Also, you were asked with reference to the tung 
oil that was increased in its viscosity with reference to 
the Flournoy sample. 

You stated that you had gone to the extreme viscosity 
to wdiich you thought that tung oil could be carried, and I 
ask vou whv vou carried the viscositv of the tung oil to 
the point at which you felt it was the maximum viscosity. 
A The higher the viscosity of the tung oil, the more 
prone it will be to produce a wrinkle. 




95 A 


Q Then am I right in considering that by carrying 
this viscosity of the tung oil to its highest maxinram 
point you gave the Flournoy oil its best possible chance 
to produce wrinkle? A You are correct. 

MR. STALEY: That is all. 

94 THE COURT: Thank you very much. You are 
excused. 

(Witness excused.) 

MR. STALEY: If Your Honor please, I presume that 
you would like to have the case submitted on briefs. Am 
I right in that? 

THE COURT: That is right. 

MR. STALEY: Do you have any special time in which 
you would like us to file briefs? 

THE COURT: I will be going away by the 15th of 
July. If that period is too short for counsel, the matter 
will not be decided until I come back here in September. 

MR. STALEY: I understand the record will be de¬ 
layed somewhat. 

THE COURT: I do not suppose that time is of the 
essence in this matter. Is it? 

MR. STALEY: No, I would say not. 

THE COURT: If it is not, let me have the brief when 
you get ready, and that of course will necessitate that 
Mr. Cochran be given some period of time, also. 

I think that the whole question here is whether or not 
the production of a particular finish of the kind indicated 
in this particular case is invention within the skill of gen¬ 
tlemen like Mr. Waldie, and also whether or not the use 
of heat is critical and also the use of the particular pro¬ 
portions. That is number one. 

95 And then number two, the combination of Flour¬ 
noy and Waldie or Flournoy by itself or Waldie 

by itself. Is not that the point? 

MR. STALEY: I think you see the point, Your 
Honor, and those are the real issues that are involved. 

THE COURT: So take your time about it. 




96 A 


MR. STALEY: Your Honor, I understand we can get 
the record about the middle of July, and if I could have 
twenty days after receipt of the record in which to file by 
brief— 

THE COURT: Take all the time you want. 

MR. COCHRAN: Could we put it this way? Your 
vacation will end in September? 

THE COURT: Yes. 

AIR. COCHRAN: I will have my brief in before Sep¬ 
tember 1st. 

MR. STALEY: Your Honor, whatever we do we will 
have our briefs available for you when you return. Will 
that be satisfactory? 

THE COURT: ' That will be fine. 

MR. STALEY: I would like to say for the record that 
in the event I have missed introducing any exhibits in 
evidence I want to make a blanket offer of all Plaintiffs’ 
exhibits at this time. 

MR. COCHRAN: I would like to offer in evidence 
the Patent Office folder, which will constitute Exhibit 
1 . 

96 (Whereupon, the Patent Office folder was marked 

as Defendant’s Exhibit No. 1 and received in evi¬ 
dence.) 

THE COURT: Very well, gentlemen. 

(Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the trial was concluded.) 

• • • • 


Filed Mar 19 1952 Harry M. Hull, Clerk 
P’s X No. 1 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
United States Patent Office 
To all persons to whom these presents shall come, 

Greeting: 







97 A 


v 


THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the annexed is a true 
copy from the records of this office of the File Wrapper 
and Contents, in the matter of the 

Pending Application of William A. Waldie, 

Filed March 12, 1946, Serial Number 653,933, 

for 

Improvement in Wrinkle Finish. 

In Testimony Whereof I have hereunto set my hand 
and caused the seal of the Patent Office to be affixed at 
the City of Washington, this thirty-first day of May, , 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and 
fifty-one and of the Independence of the United States of 
America the one hundred and seventy-fifth. 

(SEAL) John A. Marzall 

Commissioner of Patents. 

Attest: 

/s/ C. W. Sutton 

Chief of Division. 

Mail Division Mar 12 1946 U. S. Patent Office 

TOULMIN & TOULMIN 
Attorneys-at-Law 


Our No. 4606 
Petition 

To the Commissioner of Patents: 

Your Petitioner William A. Waldie citizen of the United 
States, residing at Oakwood in the County of Montgom¬ 
ery and State of Ohio whose Post Office address is c/o 
New Wrinkle, Inc., 1771 Springfield Street, Dayton 3, 
Ohio prays that Letters-Patent may be granted to him 





98 A 


for the improvements in Wrinkle Finish as set forth in 
the annexed specification. 

And he hereby appoints TOULMIN & TOULMIN (the 
sole member of which is Harry Aubrey Toulmin, Jr.), 
Dayton, Ohio his attorneys, to prosecute this application, 
to make alterations and amendments therein, to receive 
the LETTERS-PATENT, to sign the drawings, and to 
transact all business in the Patent Office, connected there¬ 
with. This power of attorney is to extend and apply to 
all divisional applications, re-issue applications and for¬ 
eign applications to be filed on the invention covered by 
the foregoing application. 

/s/ William A. Waldie 


Specifications 
Our No. 4606 

To All WJiom It May Concern: 

Be It Known, That William A. W T aldie citizen of the 
United States, residing at Oakwood in the County of 
Montgomery and State of Ohio have invented certain new 
and nseful improvements in W r rinkle Finish of which the 
following is a specification, reference being had therein to 
the accompanying drawing: 

Waldie Application, 

Our Number 4606. 

This invention relates to a wrinkle coating composition, 
and in particular to a wrinkle coating composition which 
dries to a pattern that has worm-shaped segregated ele¬ 
vations, and to a method of making the composition. 

It is an object of this invention to provide a composi¬ 
tion which, when admixed with a short oil varnish of any 
kind, transforms said varnish into a composition that 






99 A 


dries to a coating having a specific pattern consisting of 
worm-shaped segregated configurations. 

This and other objects are accomplished by heating a 
mixture comprising conjugated double-bonded oil, non- 
con jugated double-bonded oil and metallic drier to a 
temperature which is at least as high as the polymeriza¬ 
tion temperature of the conjugated double-bonded oil and 
then mixing said “prepared oil” with a varnish. 

It w-as found that the best results are obtained with a 
prepared oil that contains, per 1 pound of metallic drier, 
1 to 3 gallons of an oil in which the ratio of wrinkling oil 
to non-wrinkling oil may vary from 1:3 to 1:1. 

The oil is preferably prepared by heating the oil mix¬ 
ture to at least the polymerization temperature of the 
conjugated double-bonded oil, which is to a temperature 
of from 450 to 650°F. More specifically, in the case of 
tung oil, the batch should be heated to at least 540°F., in 
the case of oitieica oil to at least 500°F. and in the case 
of dehydrated castor oil to at least 600°F. After a homo¬ 
geneous mixture has been obtained, heating is discon¬ 
tinued, and a metallic drier is added. If necessary for 
obtaining a homogeneous solution, the mixture may be 
subjected to a second heating step. 

In the following a few examples are given, illustrating 
a few so-called prepared oils, which have been used with 
satisfaction for the preparation of wrinkle finishes of the 
type described above. 


Prepared Oil A 

20 gallons Varnish Grade Linseed Oil 

12 gallons Raw Tung Oil 

16 pounds Manganese Acetate. 

The oils were mixed and heated to a temperature of 
approximately 560°F. After this temperature was 


100 A 


reached, the manganese acetate was added slowly, bnt 
before the batch had cooled dowm to 500 °F. Thereafter 
the mixture was heated to 525°F. and then allowed to 
cool. 

Prepared OH B 

20 gallons Varnish Grade Linseed Oil 

12 gallons Oiticica Oil 

16 pounds Manganese Acetate. 

The two oils were mixed and heated to 560°F. The 
batch was then removed from the fire and the metallic 
drier, manganese acetate, added, whereupon the mixture 
was heated to 600°F. until homogeneous. The mass was 
then allowed to cool. 


Prepared OH C 

20 gallons Varnish Grade Linseed Oil 

12 gallons Dehydrated Castor Oil 

16 pounds Manganese Acetate. 

The two oils were first mixed and heated to 600°F. 
When a homogeneous mixture was obtained the drier was 
added and the batch again heated to 560 °F. The homo¬ 
geneous mixture thus obtained was then allowed to cool to 
room temperature. 

The prepared oil is operative for all kinds of varnishes, 
but in particular for short oil varnishes which have an 
oil content of 10 to 16 gallons per 100 pounds of resin. 
In the following a few examples are given which illus¬ 
trate varnishes that have been found suitable for modifi¬ 
cation with my prepared oil for the purpose of converting 
it to a coating composition that yields surfaces of the de¬ 
scribed worm-shaped pattern type. 





101A 


Varnish I 


100 

pounds 

Amberol F7 (a rosin-modified 
phenol-formaldehyde resin) 

3.5 

pounds 

Lead Acetate 

9 

gallons 

Raw Tung Oil 

1 

gallon 

Linseed Oil (varnish grade) 

5 

gallons 

Xylol 

10 

gallons 

Toluol. 


This varnish was prepared by heating the tnng oil and 
25 pounds of the Amberol F 7 to 540°F. until a “string” 
is obtained. Thereupon the lead acetate, the linseed oil 
and the remaining 75 pounds of the resin are added, and 
the batch is then again heated to a temperature of ap¬ 
proximately 450°F. until the resin is homogeneously dis¬ 
persed in the mixture. The mass is then allowed to cool 
down to 350°F., and the xylol and toluol are then added. 
The viscosity of the varnish thus obtained was U. 


Varnish II 


100 pounds 
3.5 pounds 
10 gallons 
5 gallons 
10 gallons 


Amberol F7 
Lead Acetate 

Linseed Oil (varnish grade) 

Xylol 

Toluol. 


In this instance all of the resin and the linseed oil were 
heated to 600°F. until the resin vras dissolved; after this, 
heating was discontinued and the lead acetate added. 
After the mixture had cooled to 350°F., it was thinned 
with xylol and toluol. This varnish obtained had a vis¬ 
cosity of B. 

Varnish III 


100 pounds 
3.5 pounds 
10 gallons 
5 gallons 
10 gallons 


Amberol F7 

Lead Acetate 

Heat Bodied Linseed Oil 

Xylol 

Toluol. 



102 A 


The heat bodied linseed oil was prepared by heating 
varnish grade linseed oil to approximately 590 to 600°F. 
nntil a viscosity of about Z-4 wras obtained. The varnish 
III was prepared by the method described in connection 
with Example II. 

The final composition, which, upon drying, yields the 
coating of the worm-shaped segregated pattern, is ob¬ 
tained by adding from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume of the 
prepared oil to 1 part by volume of the varnish. In the 
following a few examples are given winch illustrate some 
of the numerous compositions operative for the purpose 
of my invention. 

Coating Composition 1 

7 parts by volume Varnish I 

6 parts by volume Prepared Oil A 

3 parts by volume Toluol 

Coating Composition 2 
by volume Varnish I 

by volume Prepared Oil A 

by volume Toluol 

Coating Composition 3 
by volume Varnish II 

by volume Prepared Oil A 

Coating Composition 4 

7 parts by volume Varnish II 

4 parts by volume Prepared Oil B 

Coating Composition 5 
7 parts by volume Varnish II 

4 parts by volume Prepared Oil C 

Coating Composition 6 
7 parts by volume Varnish III 

4 parts by volume Prepared Oil A 

1 part by volume Toluol. 


7 parts 
4 parts 

3 parts 

7 parts 

4 parts 


J 




103 A 


The prepared oil and the varnishes are preferably- 
mixed in their cold condition; however, if desired, they 
may be heated before or after mixture. 

The coating compositions are applied by any method 
customary in the art, such as by spraying, roll coating, 
by the doctor blade method, etc. The coatings may then 
be baked by any conventional method in a gas oven, an 
electric oven, by infra-red light or the like. A drying 
temperature of approximately 300°F. for a period of 
about one hour suffices in most cases. 

It was found that the height or depth of the worm¬ 
shaped patterns are greatly dependent upon the gauge of 
the metal used when applied to metallic surfaces; thus, 
the greater the gauge of the metal panel used, the higher 
became the elevations. 

It will be understood that oils other than those men¬ 
tioned in the examples may be used for the preparation 
of the prepared oil. Thus, other non-conjugated oils, 
such as soya bean oil may be partly or fully substituted 
for the linseed oil. Likewise, other conjugated double- 
bonded oils may be used instead of those name in the 
formulae; for example, a modified linseed oil which has 
been made fast-drying by removing therefrom the non- 
drving portions, in particular stearic and oleic acid gly¬ 
cerides, proved to be equally suitable for the product and 
process of my invention. Metallic driers other than man¬ 
ganese acetate are also operative with equal satisfaction; 
thus, cobalt acetate, lead acetate, manganese oxide, lead 
oxide, cobalt oxide and others have proven to be suitable. 

It will be also understood that resins other than Am- 
berol F T and varnishes other than those given by way 
of example in the above formulae may be used. Any 
varnishes based on oil soluble resins, such as phenol 
aldehyde resins, alkyd resins, run natural resins, etc. are 
susceptible to the modification according to my invention 
and thus suitable. 



104 A 


If desired, coloring matter, such as pigments or dyes, 
may be added to the product of my invention. 

In the accompanying drawing, a coating obtained with 
the example of “Coating Composition 2” is illustrated. 

In this drawing 

Figure 1 is a photograph in natural size of a panel on 
which a coating of composition according to formula 2 
has been baked; 

Figure 2 is an enlarged view of a part of the panel of 
Figure 1. 

In these figures, the reference numeral 3 designates the 
worm-shaped elevations which create a pattern of extra¬ 
ordinary beauty and excellent durability. It will be seen 
from these drawings, in particular from Figure 2, that 
the pattern consists of various straight or curved elon¬ 
gated elevations which are segiegated from each other. 

It will be understood that although there have been 
described herein certain specific embodiments of my in¬ 
vention, it is not intended thereby to have the invention 
limited or circumscribed by the specific details as to 
materials, proportions or conditions set forth, but that 
it is desired to comprehend such modifications as may 
come within the spirit of this disclosure and the scope of 
the appended claims. 

I CLAIM: 

1. As a new article of manufacture, an oil mixture 
for converting a varnish into a wrinkle composition yield¬ 
ing a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon drying, said 
oil mixture comprising a mixture of conjugated double- 
bonded oil, non-conjugated double-bonded oil and metallic 
drier. 

2. As a new article of manufacture, an oil mixture for 
converting a varnish into a wrinkle composition yielding 



105 A 


a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon drying, said oil 
mixture comprising per 1 pound of drier from 1 to 3 
gallons of oil consisting of non-wrinkling and wrinkling 
oils in the ratio of from 1:3 to 1:1. 

3. As a new article of manufacture, an oil mixture 
for converting a varnish into a wrinkle composition yield¬ 
ing a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon drying, said 
oil mixture comprising per 1 pound of metallic drier from 
1 to 3 gallons of oil consisting of approximately 3 parts 
by volume of conjugated double-bonded oil and 5 parts 
by volume of non-conjugated double-bonded oil. 

4. As a new article of manufacture, an oil mixture for 
converting varnishes into wrinkle compositions that dry 
to a worm-shaped segregated pattern, said oil mixture 
consisting of 20 gallons of linseed oil, 12 gallons of raw 
tung oil and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

5. As a new article of manufacture, an oil mixture 
for converting varnishes into wrinkle compositions that 
dry to a worm-shaped segregated pattern, said oil mix¬ 
ture consisting of 20 gallons of linseed oil, 12 gallons of 
oitieica oil and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

6. As a new article of manufacture, an oil mixture 
for converting varnishes into wrinkle compositions that 
dry to a worm-shaped segregated pattern, said oil mix¬ 
ture consisting of 20 gallons of linseed oil, 12 gallons of 
dehydrated castor oil and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

7. A method for preparing an oil which is adapted to 
transform a short oil varnish into a wrinkle coating com¬ 
position that dries to a worm-shaped segregated pattern, 
comprising mixing a conjugated double-bonded oil and a 
non-conjugated double-bonded oil and heating this mix¬ 
ture to at least the polymerization temperature of said 
conjugated double-bonded oil and adding a metallic drier 



106 A 


8. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a var¬ 
nish and an oil prepared from conjugated double-bonded 
oil, non-conjugated double-bonded oil and a metallic drier. 

9. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a varnish 
and an oil containing from 1 to 3 parts by volume of non¬ 
wrinkling oil per 1 part by volume of wrinkling oil. 

10. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a short 
oil varnish and an oil consisting of non-conjugated double- 
bonded oil, conjugated double-bonded oil and a metallic 
drier. 

11. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a short 
oil varnish and 10 to 16 gallons of an oil mixture per 
100 pounds of resin contained in said varnish, said oil 
mixture consisting of conjugated double-bonded oil, non- 
conjugated double-bonded oil and a metallic drier. 

12. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a var¬ 
nish, coloring matter and an oil mixture which contains 
from 1 to 3 parts by volume of non-wrinkling oil per 1 
part by volume of wrinkling oil. 

13. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a short 
oil varnish, coloring matter and an oil consisting of non- 
conjugated double-bonded oil, conjugated double-bonded 
oil and a metallic drier. 

14. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a short 
oil varnish, coloring matter, and 10 to 16 gallons of an 
oil mixture per 100 pounds of resin contained in said 
varnish, said oil mixture consisting of conjugated double- 
bonded oil, non-conjugated double-bonded oil and a me¬ 
tallic drier. 

15. A wrinkle coating composition consisting of 7 parts 
by volume of a short oil varnish; 6 parts by volume of 
an oil consisting of 20 gallons of linseed oil, 12 gallons of 
raw tung oil, and 16 pounds of manganese acetate; and 3 
parts by volume of toluol. 







107 A 


16. A wrinkle coating composition consisting of 7 parts 
by volume of a short oil varnish; 4 parts by volume of 
an oil mixture consisting of 20 gallons of linseed oil, 12 
gallons of raw tung oil, and 16 pounds of manganese 
acetate; and 3 parts by volume of toluol. 

17. A wrinkle coating composition consisting of 7 
parts by volume of a short oil varnish and 4 parts by 
volume of an oil consisting of 20 gallons of linseed oil, 12 
gallons of oiticica oil and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

18. A wrinkle coating composition consisting of 7 
parts by volume of a short oil varnish and 4 parts by 
volume of an oil consisting of 20 gallons of linseed oil, 
12 gallons of dehydrated castor oil and 16 pounds of 
manganese acetate. 

In Testimony Whereof, I affix my signature. 

/s/ William A. Waldie 


Oath 

Our No. 4606 

State of Ohio 

County of Montgomery, ss. 

William A. Waldie the above-named petitioner, being 
duly sworn, deposes and says that he is a citizen of the 
United States of America, and resident of Oakwood in 
the County of Montgomery and State of Ohio and that he 
verily believes himself to be the original, first and sole 
inventor of the improvement in Wrinkle Finish described 
and claimed in the annexed specification; that he does not 
know’ and does not believe that the same w’as ever known 
or used before his invention or discovery thereof; or 
patented or described in any printed publication in any 
country before his invention or discovery thereof; or 
more than one year prior to this application, or in public 



108 A 


use or on sale in the United States for more than one 
year prior to this application; that said invention had 
not been patented in any country foreign to the United 
States on an application filed by him or his legal repre¬ 
sentatives or assigns more than twelve months prior to 
this application; and that no application for patent on 
said improvement has been filed by him or his represen¬ 
tatives or assigns in any foreign country. 

/s/ William A. Waldie 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 7th day of 
March 1946. 

(Seal) Alvina C. Hopkins ‘nee’ Floyd 

Notary Public Montgomery County, Ohio 

My Commission expires Dec. 23, 1946. 


Acknowledgment should be made before a Notary Public, who 
must attach his seal. If, however, the oath is taken before a Jus¬ 
tice of the Peace, a certificate of the nearest Judge or Clerk of the 
Court, showing that said Justice is qualified must be attached. 








110 A 


U. S. Patent Office Sep 13 1946 Mailed 

Div. 64 Room 7600 Paper No. 3 

Address only 

The Commissioner of Patents, and not any official by name 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
United States Patent Office 
Washington 25, D. C. 

Please find below a communication from the EXAM¬ 
INER in charge of this application. 

/s/ Casper W. Ooms 

Commissioner of Patents. 

Applicant: William A. Waldie 

Ser. No. 653,933 

Filed March 12, 1946 

For Wrinkle Finish 

Toulmin & Toulmin 
Toulmin Bldg. 

Dayton, Ohio 

References made of record. 

Phillippi 1,STS,316 Sept. 20,1932 

Root 1,950,417 Mar. 13,1934 

Root 1,883,408 Oct. 18, 1932 

Drummond (British) 547,287 Aug. 21,1942 

(3 pages of spec, no dwg.) 

Claims 1 to 6, inclusive, are rejected as unduly broad 
in the use of the term comprising. The specification 
limits the “Prepared Oil” varnish only to three ingre¬ 
dients. 


106-221 
260-18 W.F. 
260-18 W.F. 
260-18 W.F. 


Ill A 


Claim 1, 8, 10, 13, 14 are rejected as unduly broad since 
it is quite evident that the proportions of the ingredients 
must be critical. 

Claim 2 is rejected as unduly broad in the term “drier”. 
Only metallic driers have been disclosed as applicable. 

Claims 2, and 12 are rejected as being indefinite in the 
recitation of “non-wrinkling and wrinkling oils”. 

Claims 1 and 3 and 7 to 14 are rejected as unduly broad 
since only vegetable drying oils are contemplated. 

Claim 7 is rejected as being drawn to the obvious man¬ 
ner of adding a drier to a mixture of bodied oils. 

Claims 8 to 18 are rejected as indefinite. The addition 
of large proportion of a composition that undoubtedly 
produces a wrinkle finish to wrinkle finish varnish would 
obviously produce a wrinkle finish. Compare Varnish I 
with the Examples disclosed in Patent No. 1,878,316. 

Claim 11 is rejected as being indefinite since the second 
line is ambiguous. 

Claims 1 and 10 are rejected as unpatentable over Phil- 
lippi. Phillippi discloses a composition comprising tung 
oil, linseed oil and resins. 

Claim 12 is rejected as indefinite in the recitation of 
“coloring” matter. 

Claims S to 14 are rejected as unpatentable over Root, 
1,950,417 who discloses a varnish (Formula 5, Page 4) 
comprising linseed oil, tung oil, driers, etc. The linseed 
oil is major oil ingredient. 

Since the generic claims have been rejected an election 
of species is required between: 

A. linseed and tung oils 

P>. linseed and oiticica oils 

C. linseed and dehydrated castor oils 


112 A 


Applicant is advised that his response to be complete 
under Order 3527 must include an election of species, or 
a statement that in his opinion all claims are in fact 
readable on a designated species, which applicant must 
identify, and that such statement will be construed as an 
election under the Order. 


No claim is allowed. 


ML :RR 


/s/ P. M. Nash 
Examiner 


Hon. Commissioner of Patents, 

Washington, D. C. 

In re: Waldie Application 

Serial No. 653,933 
Filed: March 12, 1946 
For: Wrinkle Finish 
Division 64 

Sir: 

Would you please supply us with the correct number 
of the Phillippi reference which was cited in an Office 
action dated September 13, 1946 in the application above 
identified. 

Respectfully, 

/s/ Toulmin & Toulmin 

U. S. PATENT OFFICE 
Paper No. 5 

All communications respecting this 
application should give the serial 
number, date of filing, and name of 
the applicant 





113 A 


Responsive to communictaion of November 15, 1946. 

The correct number of the Phillippi reference is 
1,878,316. 

The statutory period will terminate six months from 
the date of mailing of this letter. 

/s/ P. M. Nash 
Examiner 

ML :nks 

Mail Division Apr 24 1947 U. S. Patent Office 

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

In the application of William A. Waldie 
Serial No. 653,933 
Filed March 12, 1946 
For WRINKLE FINISH 
Div. 64 Room 7600 
Hon. Commissioner of Patents, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sir: 

Responsive to the Office letters of Sepember 13, 1946 
and November 22, 1946, the application is amended as 
follows: 

Claim 1, line 6, strike out the comma and insert in¬ 
stead—and—; line 7, before “oil”, insert—vegetable—; 
same line, after “oil”, insert—in the ratio of from 1:1 
to 1:3—. 

Claim 2, line 5, after “of”, insert—metallic—; line 6, 
strike out “wrinkling” and insert—conjugated double- 
bonded vegetable—; line 7, strike out “wrinkling”, and 
insert—conjugated double-bonded—; same line, strike out 
“1:3” and insert—3:1—•. 




114 A 


Claim 3, last line, before “oil”, insert—vegetable—. 

Claim 7, line 6, before “oil”, insert—vegetable—; same 
line, before “and” insert—in the proportion of from 1:1 
to 1:3—. 

Claim 8, line 2, after “from” insert—a mixture of—; 
line 3, substitute—and—for the comma; line 4, before 
“oil” insert—vegetable—; same line, after “oil”, insert— 
in the proportion of from 1:1 to 1:3—. 

Claim 9, line 3, strike out “wrinkling” and insert 
—conjugated double-bonded vegetable—; line 4, strike out 
“wrinkling” and insert —conjugated double-bonded—. 

Claim 10, line 3, after “of”, insert — a mixture of—; 
same line, before “oil”, insert —vegetable—; same line, 
substitute —and— for the comma; line 4, after “oil”, 
insert —in the proportion of from 1:1 to 3:1—. 

Claim 11, line 2, after “a”, insert —resin containing—; 
same line, after “and”, insert —an oil mixture in the pro¬ 
portion of from—; line 3, strike out “an” and insert 
—said—; last line, before “oil”, insert —vegetable—; 
same line, after “oil”, insert —in the proportion of from 
1:1 to 1:3—. 

Claim 12, line 2, after “matter”, insert —selected from 
the group consisting of dyes and pigments,—; line 4, 
strike out “wrinkling” and insert —conjugated double- 
bonded vegetable—; last line, strike out “wrinkling” and 
insert —conjugated double-bonded—. 

Claim 13, line 3, after “of”, insert —a mixture of—; 
same line, before “oil”, insert —vegetable—: same line, 
substitute —and— for the comma: last line, after “oil”, 
insert —in the proportion of from 1:1 to 3:1—. 

Claim 14, line 6, substitute —and— for the comma; 
same line, before “oil”, insert —vegetable—; same line, 
after “oil”, insert —in the proportion of from 1:1 to 
1:3—. 


115 A 


Remarks 

Claims 1 to 6 have been rejected as unduly broad in 
the term comprising, and the Examiner holds that the 
specification limits the “prepared oil” varnish only to 
three ingredients. This holding is erroneous since pig¬ 
ments, dyes and solvents, for instance, are mentioned in 
the specification as possible additional ingredients. It is 
therefore believed that the word comprising is proper and 
the request for limitation of the claims unjustified. Re¬ 
consideration of the claims in the broad scope as filed is 
therefore respectfully requested. 

Claims 1, 8, 10, 13 and 14 have been rejected as unduly 
broad because they do not recite the proportions of the 
ingredients. All of these claims have been amended, and 
they now recite the proportions of conjugated double- 
bonded oil to non-conjugated double-bonded oil. 

Claim 2 has been rejected as too broad with regard to 
the drier. This claim has been restricted to metallic 
drier. 

Claims 2 and 12 have been rejected as being indefinite 
in the terms non-wrinkling and wrinkling oils, these claims 
have been amended and they now refer to conjugated 
double-bonded and non-conjugated double-bonded oils. An 
error was also amended in Claim 2 with regard to the 
ratio of the two oils. 

Claims 1, 3 and 7 to 14 have been rejected as unduly 
broad with regard to the non-conjugated double-bonded 
oils; these oils have been limited to vegetable oils as 
suggested by the Examiner. 

Claim 7 has been rejected as being drawn to the ob¬ 
vious manner of adding a drier to a mixture of body oils. 
The addition of a drier is not being claimed per se in 
Claim 7, but Claim 7 rather is to cover the entire process. 
Claim 7 has been limited to the specific proportion of 


116 A 


wrinkling and non-wrinkling oils, and it is believed that 
the method of Claim 7 is entirely novel, the ingredients 
in the proportions specified being novel. Reconsideration 
of Claim 7 is therefore respectfully requested. 

Claims 8 to 18 have been rejected as indefinite, and 
the Examiner calls the applicant’s attention to varnish I 
of the Phillippi Patent No. 1,878,316. The Examiner 
furthermore states that the addition of large proportions 
of a composition producing a wrinkling finish to a wrinkle 
finish varnish would obviously produce a wrinkle finish. 
In the first place, the applicant is not claiming just a 
wrinkle finish, but he claims a wrinkle finish of a very 
specific pattern, namely one having a worm-shaped design. 
This specific result can only be obtained with a composi¬ 
tion composed as claimed in the application and in par¬ 
ticular with a composition in which the wrinkling oil 
content is not higher than that of the vegetable oil and 
not lower than one-third thereof. Phillippi has an en¬ 
tirely different proportion of wrinkling to non-wrinkling 
oils in his formulas, his proportion being 20 parts of 
wrinkling to 2-1/4 of non-wrinkling oil as compared with 
1 part of wrinkling to from 1 to 3 parts of non-wrinkling 
oil in applicant’s formulas. The discrepancy of the two 
ranges is certainly radical. Moreover, Phillippi adds a 
solid resin to his oil mixture and melts it in the oils, 
thereafter heats this mixture to 425° F. and then he adds 
the solvent. In contradistinction thereto, the applicant 
adds a short oil varnish to the oils which is a varnish 
that has a remarkable amount of oils mixed with the 
resin; this again is a critical distinction between the two 
formulas. Finally, while Phillippi heats his mixture after 
the resin has been added, the applicant prefers a cold 
mixture of the oils and the varnish (see page 6, first 
paragraph of the specification). It must therefore be ad¬ 
mitted that Phillippi neither discloses nor suggests the 
method or the formula forming the subject matter of the 
instant application. 







117 A 


Claim 11 which the Examiner considered ambiguous 
has been amended. 

Claims 1 and 10 have been rejected as unpatentable 
over Phillippi. It has been set forth above that Phillippi 
differs drastically from the applicant's invention and that 
no anticipation exists. 

Claim 12 -which has been rejected as indefinite with re¬ 
gard to the term coloring matter has been amended and 
is believed now to be definite. 

Claims 8 to 14 have furthermore been rejected as un¬ 
patentable over Root No. 1,950,417, and in particular on 
Formula 5 of Page 4. This formula disclosed by Root, 
does not contain any non-w’rinkling oil or non-conjugated 
double-bonded oil whatever, the pnly oils recited there 
being blown linseed oil and blown wood oil. Blown lin¬ 
seed oil, however, is a conjugated double-bonded oil; 
Formula 5, for this reason, cannot be considered anticipa¬ 
tory of the applicant's invention. Hov T ever, even if blown 
linseed oil were a non-conjugated double-bonded oil— 
wdiich it is not—Root’s formulas would still be outside 
the scope of applicant’s invention because 15 gallons of 
linseed oil are used there together with 9 gallons of wood 
oil. Thus, if blown linseed oil were a non-conjugated 
double-bonded oil, Root would disclose a ratio of 15 gal¬ 
lons of non-conjugated double-bonded oil and 9 gallons of 
conjugated double-bonded oil wdiich is not a proportion of 
from 1 to 3 per 1 as is claimed in the application. Root 
therefore is far from being anticipatory. 

The Examiner requested election of species, and the 
applicant hereby elects, pending allowance of a generic 
claim, to prosecute in this application the species directed 
to linseed and tung oils; the remaining claims are re¬ 
tained in the application under the provisions of Rule 42. 

It is submitted that all of the claims are now amended 
clearly and patentably distinguish from the art cited and 




118 A 


that they are in proper form; their allowance is therefore 
respectfully requested. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Toulmin & Toulmin 
Attorneys for Applicant. 

Dayton, Ohio. 

April 23, 1947 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
United States Patent Office 
Washington 
Paper No. 7 

All communications respecting this application should give 
the serial number, date of filing, and name of 
the applicant 

Mailed Aug 21 1947 

Applicant: William A. Waldie 

Ser. No. 653,933 

Filed March 12, 1946 

For WRINKLE FINISH 

Toulmin and Toulmin 
Toulmin Bldg. 

Dayton, Ohio 

Responsive to amendment filed April 24, 1947 

Additional references made of record: 

Waldie 2,344,189 March 14, 1944 106-228 

Flournoy et al 1,752,164 March 25, 1930 117-41 

Claims 1-3 are rejected as too broad in the use of the 
term “comprising.” The claims as recited are open to 




119 A 


the inclusion of additional ingredients for which applicant 
has not a disclosure. 

Claim 1 is rejected as failing to point out the invention 
in not reciting the proportion of drier used in the prepa¬ 
ration of the oil mixture. 

Claims 8-14 are rejected as failing to point out the in¬ 
vention in not reciting the relative proportions of the oil 
mixture and of the varnish present in the wrinkling com¬ 
position which applicant is claiming. The composition 
should be recited by the parts of ingredients present by 
the total parts of the composition, or the composition 
should be restricted by the use of the term “consisting 
of.” 

Claims 1-4 are rejected as lacking invention over the 
patent to Flournoy who discloses a composition for pro¬ 
ducing a wrinkled finish comprising two parts of viscuous 
linseed oil to one part of viscuous Chinawood oil, to 
which is added a metallic drier and a thinner. The oils 
are rendered viscuous by heat treating. The use of man¬ 
ganese acetate would not constitute invention, since the 
acetates are known for use with wrinkling compositions, as 
is shown in Root, 1,950,417, page 3, column 1, line 50. 

Claim 7 is rejected as substantially fully met by Flour¬ 
noy who shows the mixing of two parts of linseed oil with 
one part of tung oil, the heat treatment of these oils, and 
the subsequent addition of a metallic drier. 

Claims 8-16 are rejected as unpatentable over Waldie 
together with Flournoy. Waldie discloses a short oil 
wrinkling varnishes. Flournev discloses a wrinkling oil 
mixture comprising a major proportions of linseed oil, 
tung oil and a metallic drier. No invention is seen in the 
production of a wrinkle finish composition by combining a 
wrinkling oil composition with a wrinkling varnish. The 
production of a particular finish is considered to be 
within the skill of those competent in the art since Waldie 



120 A 


discloses the pattern of the finish as being affected by 
the viscosity of the wrinkling varnish, the addition of a 
wrinkling composition to a wrinkling varnish and Root 
discloses the influence of driers on the wrinkle pattern. 

Claims 5, 6, 17 and 18 are rejected as reading on the 
non-elected species. 

No claim is allowed. 

/s/ P. M. Nash 
Examiner. 

BWB/jrr 

U. S. Patent Office Received Nov 17 1947 Division 64 

Mail Division Nov 13 1947 U. S. Patent Office 

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

In the application of William A. Waldie 

Serial No. 653,933 Filed March 12, 1946 

For WRINKLE FINISH 
Div. 64 Room 7600 

Hon. Commissioner of Patents 

Washington 25, D. C. 

Sir: 

Responsive to the Office letter of August 21, 1947, the 
application is amended as follows: 

Claim 1, line 5, strike out “ comprising” and insert 
instead —consisting of—. 

Claims 2 and 3, line 5 of each, strike out “comprising” 
and insert instead —consisting of,—; same line, insert a 

comma after “drier”. 

Claims 4, 5 and 6, line 5 of each, after “of” (first 
occurrence) insert —non-conjugated double-bonded—. 





121A 


Claims 8, 9 and 10, line 2 of each, after “and” insert— 
from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume per each part of varnish 
of—. 

Claim 11, last line, strike out the period and add— 
and said composition having from 0.5 to 2 parts by 
volume of said oil mixture per each part by volume of 
said varnish.—. 

Claim 13, line 2, before “a” insert—I part by volume 
of—; same line, after “and” insert—from 0.5 to 2 parts 
by volume of—. 

Claim 14, last line, change the period to a comma and 
add—from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume of said oil mixture 
being used for each part by volume of said varnish.—. 

Remarks 

Claims 1 to 3 have been rejected as too broad in the 
use of the term “comprising”. These claims have been 
amended by substitution of “consisting of” for “com¬ 
prising”, and this objection has thereby been eliminated. 

Claim 1 has been rejected as failing to point out the 
invention and the Examiner requests that the proportion 
of drier be given therein. It is believed that this limita¬ 
tion is not necessary in view of the fact that the appli¬ 
cant’s process is broadly novel and that he is therefore 
entitled to broad protection thereof. JReconsideration of 
Claim 1 is therefore respectfully requested. 

Claims 8 to 14 have been rejected as failing to recite 
the proportions of oil and varnish. These claims have 
been amended and they now contain this limitation and 
thus are in proper form. 

Claims 1 to 4 have been rejected as lacking invention 
over the patent to Flournoy who discloses a composition 
consisting of two parts of viscous linseed oil, one part of 





122 A 


viscous china wood oil and a metallic drier. The Exam¬ 
iner rightly states that the oils are rendered viscous by 
heat treating. This however is in contradistinction to the 
applicant’s process according to which a non-conjugated 
double-bonded oil is used in connection wdth a wrinkling 
oil. It is known however that heat treatment produces 
double-conjugated bonds in linseed oil. Consequently 
Flournoy uses a mixture of two wrinkling oils whereas 
the applicant uses, in the case of linseed oil, a varnish 
grade linseed oil which is a non-conjugated double- 
bonded oil plus a wrinkling oil. All of the claims directed 
to linseed oil have been amended, and they now recite 
that the linseed oil is non-conjugated double-bonded. 
Thus it is believed that the Claims 1 to 4 are patentably 
distinct from the patent to Flournoy. 

The use of manganese acetate is not being claimed per 
se, but onlv in connection with the essential features of 
the invention proper. 

Claim 7, which has also been rejected as substantially 
fully met by Flournoy, is distinct from this reference for 
the same reasons as given in connection with the remarks 
on Claims 1 to 4. 

Claims 8 to 16 have been rejected as unpatentable over 
Waldie together with Flournoy. It is believed that this 
combination of references is improper in view of the fact 
that none of the patents suggest the application of the 
compounds disclosed there for compositions of the type 
disclosed in the other patent. Apart from this, however, 
even if the references are combined the compositions of 
this application are still not obtained because, as has been 
pointed out above, the patent to Flournoy does not dis¬ 
close a mixture based on non-wrinkling plus wrinkling 
oils. It is therefore believed that no anticipatory refer¬ 
ence, not even a synthetic one has been cited against 
Claims 8 to 16 and that they are therefore patentable. 



123 A 


It is submitted that all of the claims of record are 
clearly distinct from all of the references cited and in 
proper form, and favorable action is therefore respect¬ 
fully requested. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Toulmin & Toulmin 

Attorneys for Applicant 

Dayton, Ohio 
November 11, 1947 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

United States Patent Office 
Washington 

Paper No. 9 

All communications respecting this application should give 
the serial number, date of filing, and name of 
the applicant. 

Mailed Feb 20 1948 
Division: 64 

Applicant: William A. Waldie 
Ser. No. 653,933 

Mar. 12, 1946 

For WRINKLE FINISH 

Toulmin & Toulmin 
Toulmin Bldg. 

Dayton, Ohio 

This is in response to amendment filed November 13, 
1947. 

Claim 1 is again rejected as failing to point out the 
invention in not reciting the proportion of drier present 


124 A 


in the oil mixture. The use of driers in all proportions 
would not accomplish the desired result. 

Claims 1-4 are again rejected as lacking invention over 
the patent to Flournoy, for the reasons expressed of 
record in the last Office action. Applicant has argued 
that the linseed oil used by Flournoy would have been 
changed into a conjugated double-bonded oil by the heat 
treatment which rendered it viscous. It is pointed out 
that the oil composition disclosed and claimed by appli¬ 
cant is prepared by the heat treatment of the oils and the 
same effect produced by the heat treatment disclosed by 
Flournoy would necessarily be produced by applicant’s 
heat treatment of the oil mixture. 

Claim 7 is again rejected as substantially fully met by 
Flournoy who discloses the mixing of two parts of linseed 
oil with one part of tung oil, the heat treatment of these 
oils, and the subsequent addition of a metallic drier. 

The rejection of claims 8-16 as unpatentable over Wal- 
die together with Flournoy is repeated for the reasons 
expressed of record in the last Office action. Waldie has 
disclosed a short oil wringling varnish. Flournoy has dis¬ 
closed a wrinkling oil composition. No invention is seen 
in the production of a wrinkling composition by combining 
the wrinkling compositions disclosed by Waldie and by 
Flournoy. The particular finish is considered to be within 
the skill of those working in the art and using the teach¬ 
ings of the patents to Waldie and to Root, of record. 

Claims 5, 6, 17 and 18 are rejected as reading on the 
non-elected species. 

No claim is allovred. 

This action is now made Final. 


BWB :wc 


/s/ P. M. Nash 
Examiner. 







125 A 


U. S. PATENT OFFICE 

Received Apr 14 1948 Division 64 
Mail Division Apr 12 1948 U. S. Patent Office 

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

In the application of William A. Waldie 
Serial No. 653,933 
Filed March 12, 1946 

For WRINKLE FINISH 
Div. 64 

Hon. Commissioner of Patents 
Washington 25, D. C. 

Sir: 

Responsive to the Office letter of February 20, 1948, the 
application is amended as follows: 

Claim 1, line 5, strike out “a mixture” and insert 
instead—from 1 to 3 gallons of a reaction product ob¬ 
tained at a temperature of from 450° to 650° F.—; last 
line, after “and” insert—1 pound of—. 

Claims 2 and 3, line 6 of each, strike out “oil consist¬ 
ing” and insert instead—the reaction product formed—. 

Claims 4, 5 and 6, line 4 of each, after “consisting” 
insert—of the reaction product—; line 5 of each, after 
“oil” strike out the comma and insert instead—and—. 

Claim 7, line 8, after “oil” insert—whereby a reaction 
between said two oils takes place,—. 

Claim 8, line 2, after “from” strike out the amend¬ 
ment and insert instead—the heat reaction product of—. 



126 A 


Claim 9, line 2, after “containing’’ insert—the heat 
reaction product of—; line 3, strike out “per” and insert 
instead—and—. 

Claim 10, line 3, after “of” strike out the amendment 
and insert instead—the heat reaction product of—. 

Claim 11, line 4, after “of” insert—the heat reaction 
product of—; line 5, after “oil” strike out the comma 
and insert instead—and—. 

Claim 12, lines 2 to 3, strike out “an oil mixture which 
contains” and insert instead—the heat reaction product 
obtained—; line 4, strike out “per” and insert instead— 
and—. 

Claim 13, line 3, after “of” strike out the amendment 
and insert instead—the heat reaction product of—. 

Claim 14, line 5, after “of” insert—the heat reaction 
product of—. 

Claims 15 and 16, line 3 of each, after “of” (second 
occurrence) insert—the heat reaction product of—; line 
4 of each, after “linseed oil” strike out the comma and 
insert—and—; line 4 of Claim 15 and line 5 of Claim 16, 
before “16” strike out “and”; line 5 of each, after “ace¬ 
tate” strike out the semi-colon and insert a comma in¬ 
stead. 

Claims 17 and 18, line 3 of each, before “20” insert— 
the heat reaction product of—; line 4 of each, after “lin¬ 
seed oil” strike out the comma and insert instead—and—. 

Claims 1 through 6, line 1 of each, strike out “article 
of manufacture” and insert instead—composition of mat¬ 
ter—. 

Remarks 

Claim 1 has been rejected as failing to point out the 
proportion of the drier with regard to the oil mixture. 
This claim has been amended and is now free from this 
objection. 





127 A 


Claims 1 to 4 have been rejected as lacking invention 
over the patent to Flournoy, and the Examiner holds 
that the heat treatment given to the oils individually as 
carried out by Flournoy leads to the same results as does 
the heating of the oil mixture carried out by the appli¬ 
cant. This holding is erroneous. Whereas in Flournoy’s 
case the oils are individually bodied, the applicant obtains 
an interreaction of the oils during the heating step. The 
mixture in applicant’s case is heated approximately to the 
polymerization temperature of the conjugated double- 
bonded oil, a temperature which is not high enough to 
effect substantial polymerization of the non-conjugated 
oil. Moreover, the presence of the non-conjugated oil in¬ 
hibits excessive polymerization of the conjugated double- 
bonded oil. It seems that an interreaction takes place 
between the two oils and a product is obtained thereby 
which is utterly dissimilar from a mixture of individually 
bodied oils. If Chinawood oil alone, for instance, is 
heated to the temperatures used in applicant’s invention, 
it is converted to a solid. This proves that not the 
same reactions take place in both cases. 

The applicant has prepared an Affidavit which is being 
filed with this amendment and in which it is averred that 
the applicant’s “prepared oil” is different and behaves 
differently than a mixture of individually bodied oils 
as used by Flournoy. Flournoy’s oil mixture, when used 
with varnishes, does not produce a coating of a worm 
shaped pattern. This also is a definite indication for the 
difference between the two types of oils. It is respect¬ 
fully requested that the Examiner reconsider Claims 1 
to 4 in the light of these remarks and the Affidavit. 

The same remarks apply to the rejection of Claim 7 
which also is based on the patent to Flournoy. 

Claims 8 to 16 have been rejected as unpatentable over 
Waldie together with Flournoy. The prime value of 


12S A 


applicant’s invention consists of the possibility of trans¬ 
forming a non-wrinkling varnish into one that dries to 
a wrinkle texture coating by merely adding a specifically 
composed oil. Waldie, in his patent, exclusively uses var¬ 
nish compositions which are wrinkling per se and which 
contain conjugated double-bonded or so-called wrinkling 
oils. In contradistinction thereto, the applicant has given 
an example (varnish II) which is entirely free from con¬ 
jugated double-bonded oil and which is transformed by 
the addition of the “prepared oil” into a composition 
which dries to form a film that has a surface of a very 
specific wrinkle texture. This intention has also been 
brought out in the claims; for instance, Claim 1 recites 
“an oil mixture for converting a varnish into a wrinkle 
composition yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern 
upon drying”. This concept is thus not taught and not 
intended in the patent to Waldie. Moreover, Waldie does 
not use the prepared oil as set forth in the claims in 
the instant application. In fact, he does not add any 
other oil to the varnish disclosed in order to modify the 
varnish. 

Flournoy, it has been discussed above, does not deal 
with the prepared oil disclosed by the applicant and does 
not mention any addition of varnishes. Waldie deals with 
wrinkling varnishes but does not mention the addition of 
oil in order to modify his varnishes. Thus, none of the 
references cited contain the concept and solve the prob¬ 
lem with which the invention is concerned and their com¬ 
bination cannot possibly anticipate the invention. 

The Examiner’s attention is directed to the decision 
rendered by the Board of Appeals in ex parte Ward, 
35 U. S. P. Q. 538 where it was held that 

“Neither one nor all patents cited teach invention in¬ 
volved and defined in claims; patents neither disclose 
difficulty applicant has encountered nor teach how it is 







129 A 


overcome; combination is clearly new; if patents were to 
be combined no one w T ould know why they should be com¬ 
bined or whether result of applicant would be obtained; 
disclosure of present application is only one that teaches 
this; claims are allowed.” 

It seems that this decision is fully applicable to the 
instant case and that for the same reasons the claims 
should be allowed over the references. 

It is respectfully requested that the amendment be en¬ 
tered at least for the purpose of appeal. However, it is 
believed that the claims as now on record are clearly 
and patentably distinct from the references cited and 
therefore allowable. An advisory action is respectfully 
requested. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Toulmin & Toulmin 

Attorneys for Applicant 

Mail Division U. S. Patent Office Apr 12 1948 
U. S. Patent Office Received Apr 14 1948 Division 64 
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

In the application of 
William A. Waldie 

Serial No. 653,933 

Filed March 12, 1946 

WRINKLE FINISH 
Division 64 

Affidavit 

STATE OF OHIO 

COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY ss. 

William A. Waldie, being duly sworn according to law, 
deposes and says: 



130 A 


1. That he is the inventor of the invention contained 
in application Serial No. 653,933. 

2. That his process comprises the step of heating a 
mixture of conjugated double-bonded oil and non-conju- 
gated double-bonded oil to a temperature of from 450° 
to 650° F. 

3. That the product obtained by heating the mixture 
set forth under “2” is a liquid of relatively high viscosity, 
whereas Chinawood oil when heated alone under the same 
conditions solidifies. 

4. That tests have proved that a mixture of bodied 
linseed oil and bodied Chinawood oil, as taught by 
Flournoy, does not yield a composition which dries to 
a film having a worm-shaped wrinkle pattern even when 
such mixture is blended with the same varnishes as dis¬ 
closed in the application. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said William A. Waldie 
has affixed his signature this 10th day of April, 1948. 

/s/ William Allshire Waldie 

WITNESS: 

/s/ Georgia M. Wassum 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 10th 
day of April, 1948. 

/s/ Marietta J. Redelberger 
Notary Public 
Montgomery County, Ohio. 

SEAL 

My Commission expires June 7, 1948 


131A 


Mail Division U. S. Patent Office Jul 12 1948 

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

In the application of 
William A. Waldie 
Serial No. 653,933 
Filed March 12, 1946 

For WRINKLE FINISH 

Div. 64 

Hon. Commissioner of Patents 
Washington 25, D. C. 

Sir: 

The applicant wishes to thank the Examiner for the in¬ 
terview kindly granted to his counsel. It is understood 
that in said interview the Examiner declared that a 
supplemental amendment could only be admitted if at the 
same time of filing it, a showing be made confirming the 
applicant’s holding that the processes disclosed by the 
applicant and by Flournoy and the products obtained 
thereby are different. 

According to this request, two affidavits are being filed 
herewith, one made out by an expert chemist and the 
other one by the inventor himself, in which experiments 
are set forth which were carried out independently by 
the two affiants. 

These tests show clearly that linseed oil when admixed 
to chinawood oil controls the gellation of the latter and 
that a different reaction takes place in each case. 

Exhibits are also submitted with these affidavits which 
show the products obtained by the experiments. 

It is respectfully requested that favorable considera¬ 
tion be given to the showings made and that the sup¬ 
plemental amendment filed together with the affidavits be 






132 A 


entered. It is also respectfully requested that an advis¬ 
ory action be given to the applicant 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Toulmin & Toulmin 

Attorneys for Applicant 

Dayton, Ohio 

Mail Division U. S. Patent Office Jul 12 1948 

IT. S. Patent Office Division 64 received Jul 14 1948 

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

In re application of 
William A. Waldie 
Serial No. 653,933 
Filed: March 12, 1946 

For: WRINKLE FINISH 

Division 64 

Supplemental Amendment 

Hon. Commissioner of Patents 
Washington 25, D. C. 

Sir: 

Please amend this application as follows: 

Claim 4, line 4 cancel “of the reaction product” and 
substitute —of the reaction product after heating to at 
least 560° F.—. 

Claims 15 and 16, line 4 cancel “and” and substitute 
—the mixture of which oils have been reacted at a tem¬ 
perature of at least 560° F., and—. 

Add the following claims: 

—19. The method of preparing an oil wffiich is adopted 
to transform a short oil varnish into a wrinkle coating 
composition that dries to a worm-shaped segregated pat- 


133 A 


tern, comprising mixing tong oil and linseed oil in sub¬ 
stantially the proportions of 1 part of the former oil to 
two parts of the latter oil, heating the mixture to at least 
560° F. until the mixture becomes homogeneous, and add¬ 
ing a metallic drier thereto, whereby the temperature of 
the mixture drops, but not below 500° F, then reheating 
the mixture until the final mixture becomes homogeneous. 

20. A wrinkle coating composition prepared according 
to the process recited in claim 19. 

Remarks 

Applicant’s attorney acknowledges the courtesy of sev¬ 
eral interviews kindly granted by the Principal and As¬ 
sistant Examiners having charge of this application. At 
this intreview, the amendments to the claims were dis¬ 
cussed, and applicant’s attorney also discussed the sub¬ 
stance of claims 19 and 20. The newly presented claims 
have been submitted in order to more fully point out the 
important features of the present invention and particu¬ 
larly the elected species thereof. 

At the latest interview, exhibits of a wrinkle finish pre¬ 
pared in accordance with the present invention, and other 
exhibits prepared in accordance with the teaching of the 
Flournoy et al patent were submitted to the Examiners. 
These exhibits were prepared in accordance with the com¬ 
plete teaching of the Flournoy patent, and it was found 
that a product in accordance with the Flournoy et al 
patent was completely different from that produced by 
this applicant. 

Claim 19 to the process and claim 20 to the article 
prepared by the process disclosed the method and product 
which includes the mixture of tung oil and linseed oil in 
the proportion of 1 to 2 respectively, the range of the 
first heating step, namely 560° F. to 650° F, the cooling 
of the mixture to a temperature of not below 500° F. 
followed by the reheating of the mixture at 560° F. to 


134 A 


650° F. until the final mixture becomes homogenous. 
Examiners’ attention is called to applicant’s specification, 
page 2, second full paragraph. 

Applicant is filing herewith the specimens presented 
to the Examiners at the latest oral interview. 

In the reference to Flournoy each of the oils is sepa¬ 
rately heated, and nothing appraching the temperature 
recited in these claims is taught in this patent. In fact 
the patent teaching differs from the present invention in 
at least two important respects. First, the tung oil is not 
heated to its polymerization temperatare in Flournoy. 
Second, the mixture of the tung oil and the linseed oil 
is not heated to a temperature of at least 560° F. whereby 
a chemical reaction takes place in the mixture. It will be 
readily apparent to one skilled in this art that after the 
mixture has been heated to 560° F. and above, the heat¬ 
ing will be continued for a time until the mixture becomes 
homogeneous. As discussed at the interview, certainly 
one skilled in the art would readily appreciate wdien the 
mixture becomes homogeneous. Following this step the 
metallic drier, added to the mixture is not cooled below 
500° F. after which it is reheated until the mixture 
again becomes homogenous. These steps and the tem¬ 
perature are entirely lacking in the patent to Flournoy. 

The patents to Waldie and Root do not add anything 
to the teaching of the Flournoy patent, especially so far 
as the above novel steps are concerned. 

It is respectfully requested that the Examiner allow 
this application. In the event the Examiner still considers 
the claims unpatentable, it is respectfully requested that 
claims 4, 15 and 16 as amended and new claims 19 and 20 
be admitted for the purposes of appeal. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Toulmin & Toulmin 

Attorney for Applicant 


135 A 


Mail Division U. S. Patent Office Jnl 12 1948 

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

In the application of 
William A. Waldie 
Serial No. 653,933 
Filed March 12, 1946 

For WRINKLE FINISH 

Division 64 

Affidavit 

STATE OF OHIO 

COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY ss. 

William A. Waldie, being duly sworn according to law, 
deposes and says: 

1. That he is the originator of the invention contained 
in application Serial No. 653,933. 

2. That, according to the example given on page 3 
of the specification under the heading 4 4 Prepared Oil A,” 
20 gallons of varnish grade linseed oil are to be mixed 
with 12 gallons of raw tung oil and the mixture is then 
to be heated ot 560° F. whereupon 16 pounds of manga¬ 
nese acetate are to be slowly added, however fast enough 
to avoid cooling down below 500° F. After the drier is 
added, the mixture is to be heated once more to 525° 
F. and then allowed to cool. 

3. That, according to these directions summarized un¬ 
der 2, he mixed 20 fl. ozs. of varnish grade linseed oil 
and 12 fl. ozs. of raw’ chinawrood oil and heated this mix¬ 
ture to 560° F. for 20 minutes; that between this tem¬ 
perature and 500° F., he then slowly added 2 av. ozs. of 
manganese acetate, thereafter reheated the mixture to 
525° F. and immediately allowed it to cool. THE OIL 
OBTAINED IN THIS STEP IS EXHIBIT I. 





136 A 


4. That lie thoroughly studied the patent to Flournoy, 
the reference cited against his claims, in order to find 
out whether the applicant’s process is disclosed in said 
patent; that he found that, according to Flournoy, china- 
wood oil and linseed oil are heated separately and mixed 
thereafter, but that no directions whatever are given with 
regard to heating temperatures and times, nor about the 
viscosities of the treated oils. 

5. That, Flournoy lacking such directions for the heat¬ 
ing conditions, affiant used the temperature and time of 
the process of his application in order to get as close to 
his own process as possible and thus to make boi.li proc¬ 
esses comparable; that, for the same reason, when heating 
said two oils separately, he chose a quantity for each 
separate oil corresponding to the quantities of chinawood 
oil plus that of linseed oil used in the Experiment outlined 
above under 3 so that the heating time of 20 minutes is 
applied to the same amount of oil in all cases; and that 
accordingly he heated 32 fl. ozs. of varnish grade linseed 
oil to 560° F. for 20 minutes, which is EXHIBIT II, 
and that in a separate container he heated 32 fl. ozs. of 
raw chinawood oil also to 560° F., which, however, turned 
solid after 6 minutes as evidenced by EXHIBIT III. 

6. That 5/S of the heat treated linseed oil (Exhibit 
II) was poured to 3/S of the chinawood oil (Exhibit III) 
for the purpose of mixing the two oils, but that a homo¬ 
geneous mixture, as was obtained in the Experiment out¬ 
lined above under 3, could not be produced in this instance. 

Affiant further saith not. 

/s/ William A. Waldie 

SUBSCEIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 28th 
day of May, 194S. 

/s/ Charles R. Porter 

Notary Public 

My commission expires March 17, 1951. 


137 A 


Mail Division Jul 12 1949 U. S. Patent Office 

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

In the application of 
William A. Waldie 

Serial No. 653,933 Division 64 

Filed March 12, 1946 

For WRINKLE FINISH 

Affidavit 

STATE OF OHIO ) 

COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY) ss ‘ 

Israel Ira Deutsch, being duly sworn according to law, 
deposes and says: 

1. That he resides in Dayton, Ohio, and is employed 
by The Commonwealth Engineering Company, Dayton, 
Ohio, as a research chemist. 

2. That application Waldie Serial No. 653,933 and the 
patent to Flournoy No. 1,756,164 were turned over to him 
for the purpose of making a comparative study of both 
disclosures and also tests in order to examine whether 
both processes are identical or differ and yield different 
results. 

3. That, according to the example given on page 3 of 
the specification under the heading “Prepared Oil A,” 
(directed to the elected species) 20 gallons of varnish 
grade linseed oil are to be mixed with 12 gallons of raw 
tung oil and the mixture is then to be heated to 560° F. 
whereupon 16 pounds of manganese acetate are to be 
slowly added, however fast enough to avoid cooling down 
below 500° F. After the drier is added, the mixture is to 
be heated once more to 525° F. and then allowed to cool. 

4. That, according to these directions summarized un¬ 
der 3, he mixed 20 fl. ozs. of varnish grade linseed oil 



138 A 


and 12 fl. ozs. of raw chinawood oil and heated this mix¬ 
ture to 560° F. for 20 minutes; that between this tempera¬ 
ture and 500° F., he then slowly added 2 av. ozs. of man¬ 
ganese acetate, thereafter reheated the mixture to 525° 
F. and immediately allowed it to cool. THE OIL OB¬ 
TAINED IN THIS STEP IS EXHIBIT IV. 

5. That he thoroughly studied the patent to Flournoy, 
the reference cited against this application, in order to 
find out whether the applicant’s process is disclosed in 
said patent; that he found that, according to Flournoy, 
chinawood oil and linseed oil are heated separately and 
mixed thereafter, but that no directions whatever are 
given with regard to heating temperatures and times, nor 
about the viscosities of the treated oils. 

6. That, Flournoy lacking such directions for the heat¬ 
ing conditions, affiant used the temperature and time of 
the process of this application in order to get as close 
to the applicant’s process as possible and thus to make 
both tests comparable; that, for the same reason, when 
heating said two oils separately, he chose a quantity for 
each separate oil corresponding to the quantities of china¬ 
wood oil plus that of linseed oil used in the Experiment 
outlined above under 4 so that the heating time of 20 
minutes is applied to the same amount of oil in all cases; 
and that accordingly he heated 32 fl. ozs. of varnish grade 
linseed oil to 560° F. for 20 minutes, which is EXHIBIT 
V, and that in a separate container he heated 32 fl. ozs. of 
raw chinawood oil also to 560° F., which, however, turned 
solid after 6 minutes as evidenced by EXHIBIT VT. 

7. That 5/8 of the heat treated linseed oil (Exhibit V) 
was poured to 3/8 of the chinawood oil (Exhibit VI) for 
the purpose of mixing the two oils, but that a homoge¬ 
neous mixture, as was obtained in the Experiment outlined 
above under 4, could not be produced in this instance. 








139 A 


Affiant further saith not. 

Illegible 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 2Sth 
da}’ of May, 1948. 

/s/ Charles R. Porter 

Notary Public 

My commission expires March 17, 1951. 

Mail Division Jul 21 1948 U. S. Patent Office 

U. S. Patent Office Received July 23 1948 Division 64 

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

In re application of 
William A. Waldie 

Serial No. 653,933 Division 64 

Filed: March 12, 1946 

For: WRINKLE FINISH 


Supplemental Amendment 

Hon. Commissioner of Patents 
Washington, D. C. 

Sir: 

Please amend this application as follows: 

Claim 16, line 4, cancel the insertion made in the last 
supplemental amendment filed in this case. 

Line 5, cancel “and” first occurrence, and substitute 
therefor—the mixture of which oils have been reacted at 
a temperature of at least 560° F., and—. 

Remarks 

Applicant has amended claim 16 by inserting the phrase 
“the mixture of which oils have been reacted at a tempera¬ 
ture of at least 560° F., and” in line 5 instead of line 4 



140 A 


inasmuch as this insertion in the previous amendment 
was incorrect. 

Inasmuch as the claims now appear to be in proper 
form and clearly patentable over the references of rec¬ 
ord, applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner 
pass this case to issue. 

However, if the Examiner still considers the claims un¬ 
patentable, it is respectfully requested that claims 4, 
15, 10, 19, and 20 be admitted for purposes of appeal. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Toulinin & Toulmin 

Attorney for Applicant 

* ♦ * • 


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
United States Patent Office 
Washington 

Paper No. 14 Mailed Jul 29 1948 

Toulmin & Toulmin 
Toulmin Building 
Dayton, Ohio 

Division: 64 

Applicant: William A. Waldie 
Ser. No. 653,933 
Filed March 12, 1946 

For WRINKLE FINISH 

Advisory Action 

Responsive to proposed amendments of April 12, 1948, 
July 12, 194S and July 21, 1948. 

Additional reference made of record: 

Scientific Methods of Varnish Manufacture—Huff—Amer¬ 
ican Paint Journal Company—St. Louis, Mo., 1940 
Page 122 



141A 


The proposed amendments have been carefully consid¬ 
ered but because they do not place the case in condition 
for allowance they have not been entered. Applicant is 
further advised that the proposed amendments will not 
be entered for purposes of appeal since they are con¬ 
sidered to contain new matter in the recitation of the 
formation of a reaction product from the oil components, 
and since this question has not previously been before the 
Examiner during the prosecution of the case. The follow¬ 
ing advisory remarks are made without in any way with¬ 
drawing the final rejection. 

The recitation of the oil mixture as a reaction product 
and of the method of preparation of the oil mixture as 
involving the reaction of the oil components is considered 
to involve new matter since no basis is found in the dis¬ 
closure for the recitation of the product as being a re¬ 
action product and since no evidence has been presented to 
conclusively establish that the product is necessarily a 
reaction product. Attention is directed to the third para¬ 
graph on page two of applicant’s specification wherein the 
product is referred to as “a homogeneous mixture,” and 
to the examples on page 3 wherein the prepared oils are 
referred to as “mixtures.” 

The proposed amendment to claim 1 reciting the pro¬ 
portion of drier added to the oil mixture is noted. This 
amendment would be considered to overcome the rejection 
of claim 1 as failing to point out the invention as set 
out in the last Office action. However this amendment of 
the claim cannot be made since entry of the amendment of 
which it is a part has been refused. Accordingly the re¬ 
jection of claim 1 as failing to point out the invention in 
omitting the proportion of drier present in the oil mixture 
is repeated. 

Claims 1-4 are rejected as lacking invention over the 
patent to Flournoy. Flournoy discloses a liquid compo- 


142 A 


sition for producing a wrinkle finish comprising two parts 
of viscuous linseed oil to one part of viscuous Chinawood 
oil, to which there is added a metallic drier and a thinner. 
The oils are rendered viscous by heat treating. The use 
of manganese acetate as the specific drier would not in¬ 
volve invention since the acetates are known for use with 
wrinkling compositions as shown in Root, 1,950,417, page 
3, column 1, line 50. 

Claim 7 is rejected as substantially fully met by Flour¬ 
noy who shows the mixing of two parts of linseed oil 
with one part of tung oil, the heat treatment of these 
oils, and the subsequent addition of a metallic drier. 

Claims S-16 are rejected as unpatentable over Waldie 
together with Flournoy. Waldie discloses short oil wrink¬ 
ling varnishes. Flournoy discloses a wrinkling oil mix¬ 
ture having the composition recited by applicant. No 
invention is seen in combining the wrinkling compositions 
of Flournoy and of Waldie to produce wrinkling composi¬ 
tions such as are recited in claims S-16. The production 
of a particular finish is believed to be within the skill of 
those competent in the art, since Waldie discloses the 
effect of the varnish viscosity on the pattern of the finish 
and the addition of a wrinkling composition to a wrinkling 
varnish, and Root discloses the influence of driers on the 
wrinkle pattern. 

Claims 5, 6, 17 and IS are rejected as reading on the 
non-elected species. 

Claims 19 and 20 would be rejected as unpatentable 
over Flournoy. The use of the particular temperatures 
recited are not considered to be a patentable distinction 
over the patent to Flournoy. Irrespective of the tem¬ 
peratures used the final product is a homogeneous mixture 
of the oils. The use of a higher temperature will effect 
nothing more than the quicker achievement of a homogen¬ 
eous condition. The step of reheating after the addition 




143 A 


of the metallic drier is not considered a patentable modifi¬ 
cation since here again, the use of heat to obtain a homo¬ 
geneous mixture is believed to be an obvious expedient to 
one skilled in the art. No distinction is seen between the 
product obtained by the process of claim 19 and that dis¬ 
closed by Flournoy. 

Claim 20 would be further rejected as improper in de¬ 
fining a product by its process of preparation. This is an 
emergency type claim and is not permitted unless no other 
way exists in which the product may be defined. That 
such is not the present case is shown by claims 1-6. 

Applicant contends that in the process disclosed by 
Flournoy the oils are individually heat-treated and then 
combined. The Examiner is unable to find any disclosure 
in the Flournoy patent which will support applicant’s con¬ 
tention. Flournoy’s liquid composition comprises viscous 
linseed oil and viscous tung oil, and it is stated that the 
tung oil is rendered viscous by heat-treatment. It is the 
Examiner’s position that the patent to Flournoy is read¬ 
able upon a process in which the tung oil and linseed oil 
are co-bodied. 

Applicant further argues that the varnishes of Waldie 
are all wrinkling varnishes per se in contradistinction to 
his own varnishes as exemplified by Varnish II, wherein 
linseed oil is used. Attention is directed to the Root 
patent 1,950,417, page 2, column 1, lines 13-18, where 
linseed oil is disclosed as a wrinkling oil. 

The affidavits submitted have been carefully considered 
but are not considered to overcome the rejections as based 
upon the Flournoy patent for the reasons set forth as 
follows: The affidavit submitted with the proposed amend¬ 
ment of April 12 is unsupported by any data and cannot 
be given any weight. The affidavits submitted with the 
proposed amendment of July 12 are not considered con- 



144 A 


vincing because of the manner in which the tests involving 
the Flournoy patent were conducted. The test procedure 
recited in paragraph 4 of the Waldie affidavit and in 
paragraph 6 of the Deutsch affidavit was followed without 
a due regard for the object and results set forth in Flour¬ 
noy. Flournoy specifically states that his composition is 
a liquid composition. It would be obvious to anyone 
skilled in the arts involving fatty oils that Flournoy could 
not have intended a process in which tung oil was heated 
alone to a temperature of 560° F and held there. The 
art recognizes that tung oil would gel at this temperature. 
The text by Huff is cited as support for this statement. 
Table 19 shows that tung oil wdll gel in 7-8 minutes at 
545° F. No one skilled in the art and bearing in mind 
the fact that Flournoy produces a liquid composition would 
in following the process of Flournoy, heat tung oil sepa¬ 
rately to a temperature which the art recognizes will cause 
gelation of the oil. For this reason it is considered that 
the affidavits, embodying the method of treating tung oil 
set forth in the noted paragraphs, are not effective in 
overcoming the Flournoy patent. The Table 1, cited 
above, further discloses the recognized effect of the 
presence of linseed oil during the heat treatment of tung 
oil in inhibiting the gelation of the tung oil. Finally, the 
affidavits submitted are based on the premise that Flour¬ 
noy does not show the conjoint heat treatment of tung 
oil and linseed oil. The position of the Examiner in re¬ 
spect to this assumption has already been expressed and 
is, briefly, that there is no support in the Flournoy pat¬ 
ent for this assumption, and that the teaching of Flournoy 
is rather that the oils are to be conjointly heat bodied. 

No further amendment which does not put the case in 
condition for allowance will, in the absence of an appeal, 
be replied to or acknowledged by the Examiner within the 
statutory period. 






145 A 


The date for response to this Office action remains six 
months from the date of February 20, 1948. 

/s/ R. M. Nash 

Examiner 

BWB :ta 

Board of Appeals Aug 24 194S U. S. Patent Office 

Aug 20-48 32463 Check—15.00 Appeal No. 17814 

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

In the application of 
William A. Waldie 

Serial No. 653,933 Division 64 

Filed March 12, 1946 

For WRINKLE FINISH 

Appeal 

Hon. Commissioner of Patents 
Washington, D. C. 

Sir: 

Appeal is hereby taken from the final rejection of 
claims 1 to 18, inclusive, as set forth in the Office actions 
dated February 20, 1948, and July 29, 1948. The reasons 
for appeal are as follows: 

1. The Examiner erred in rejecting the claims on the 
art of record and for the reasons of record. 

2. The Examiner erred in not allowing the claims be¬ 
cause they are unpatentable over the art of record and for 
the reasons of record. 

3. The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as failing 
to point out the invention. 

4. The Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as lack¬ 
ing invention over the patent to Flournoy. 



146 A 


5. The Examiner erred in holding that the same effect 
is obtained when linseed oil and Chinawood oil are heat- 
treated separately and mixed thereafter and when they 
are conjointly heat-bodied. 

6. The Examiner erred in holding that the patent to 
Flournoy is readable on and teaches a process in which 
tang oil and linseed oil are conjointly heat-bodied. 

7. The Examiner erred in failing to recognize that the 
patent to Flournoy deals with the separate heating of 
linseed oil and of Chinawood oil. 

8. The Examiner erred in holding that by the combina¬ 
tion of Flournoy’s oil and Waldie’s short oil varnish, the 
product of the invention is obtained. 

9. The Examiner erred in holding that the recitation 
of a reaction and a reaction product between the two oils 
is new matter. 

10. The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20 as im¬ 
proper in defining a product by its process of prepara¬ 
tion. 

11. The Examiner erred in holding that linseed oil is 
a wrinkling oil as defined in the applicant’s specification. 

12. The Examiner erred as to matters of fact. 

13. The Examiner erred as to matters of law. 

A hearing is requested. 

The appeal fee of $15.00 is forwarded herewith. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Toulmin & Toulmin 

Attorneys for Applicant 

Dayton, Ohio 
August 16, 194S 

• • • • 




147 A 


U. S. Patent Office Received Aug 24 194S Division 64 

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

In the application of 
William A. Waldie 

Serial No. 653,933 Division 64 

Filed March 12, 1946 

For WRINKLE FINISH 

Hon. Commissioner of Patents 
Washington 25, D. C. 

Sir: 

Responsive to the advisory action given in the Office 
letter of July 29, 1948, paper No. 14, the application is 
amended as follows: 

Please cancel all of the claims of record and add the 
following rewritten claims: 

21. As a new composition of matter, an oil mixture 
for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating composi¬ 
tion yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon dry¬ 
ing, said oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons of 
a homogeneous mixture of conjugated double-bonded oil 
and non-conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil in the 
ratio of from 1:1 to 1:3 and heated to a temperature of 
from 450° to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic drier. 

22. As a new composition of matter, an oil mixture 
for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating composi¬ 
tion yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon dry¬ 
ing, said oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons of a 
homogeneous mixture of 3 parts by volume of conjugated 
double-bonded oil and 5 parts by volume of non-conjugated 
double-bonded vegetable oil heated to a temperature of 
from 450 to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic drier. 

23. As a new composition of matter, an oil mixture for 
converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating composition 


USA 


yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon drying, 
said oil mixture consisting of a homogeneous mixture of 
20 gallons of non-conjugated double-bonded linseed oil and 
12 gallons of raw tung oil heated to at least 560° F., and 
16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

24. As a new composition of matter, an oil mixture for 
converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating composition 
yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon drying, 
said oil mixture consisting of a homogeneous mixture of 
20 gallons of non-conjugated double-bonded linseed oil and 
12 gallons of oiticica oil heated to at least 500° F., and 
1G pounds of manganese acetate. 

25. As a new composition of matter, an oil mixture 
for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating composi¬ 
tion yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon dry¬ 
ing, said oil mixture consisting of a homogeneous mixture 
of 20 gallons of non-conjugated double-bonded linseed oil 
and 12 gallons of dehvdrated castor oil heated to at least 

CD m> 

600° F., and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

26. A method for preparing an oil which is adapted to 
transform a short oil varnish into a wrinkle coating com¬ 
position that dries to a worm-shaped segregated pattern, 
comprising mixing a conjugated double-bonded oil and a 
non-conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil in the propor¬ 
tion of from 1. :1 to 1:3 and heating this mixture to at 
least the polymerization temperature of said conjugated 
double-bonded oil until homogeneous, and adding a metal¬ 
lic drier. 

27. The method of preparing an oil which is adapted 
to transform a short oil varnish into a wrinkle coating 
composition that dries to a worm-shaped segregated pat¬ 
tern, comprising mixing raw tung oil and varnish grade 
linseed oil in substantially the proportions of 3 parts by 
volume of the former oil to 5 parts by volume of the 
latter oil, heating the mixture to at least 560° F. until 


149 A 


the mixture becomes homogeneous, and adding 16 pounds 
of manganese acetate thereto before the temperature of 
the mixture has dropped below 500° F., and then reheat- 
ing the mixture to 525° F. until it becomes homogeneous. 

2S. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a var¬ 
nish and from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume per each part of 
varnish of a homogeneous oil prepared by heating a mix¬ 
ture of conjugated double-bonded oil and non-conjugated 
double-bonded vegetable oil in the proportion of from 1:1 
to 1:3 to a temperature of from 450° F. to 650° F. and a 
metallic drier. 

29. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a var¬ 
nish and from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume per each part 
of varnish of a homogeneous oil mixture, said oil mixture 
consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons of a homogeneous mix¬ 
ture of conjugated double-bonded oil and non-conjugated 
double-bonded vegetable oil in the ratio of from 1:1 to 
1:3 and heated to a temperature of from 450° to 650° 
F. and 1 pound of metallic drier. 

30. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a resin- 
containing short oil varnish and an oil mixture in the 
proportion of from 10 to 16 gallons of said oil mixture 
per 100 pounds of resin contained in said varnish, said 
oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons of a homo¬ 
geneous mixture of conjugated double-bonded oil and non- 
conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil in the ratio of 
from 1:1 to 1:3 and heated to a temperature of from 
450° to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic drier, and said 
composition having from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume of 
said oil mixture per each part by volume of said varnish. 

31. A wrinkle coating composition comprising 1 part 
by volume of a short oil varnish, coloring matter selected 
from the group consisting of dyes and pigments, and 
from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume of an oil mixture, said oil 
mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons of a homogeneous 




150 A 


mixture of conjugated double-bonded oil and non-conju- 
gated double-bonded vegetable oil in the ratio of from 1:1 
to 1:3 and heated to a temperature of from 450° to 650° 
F. and 1 pound of metallic drier. 

32. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a short 
oil varnish, coloring matter selected from the group con¬ 
sisting of dyes and pigments, and 10 to 16 gallons of an 
oil mixture per 100 pounds of resin contained in said 
varnish, said oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gal¬ 
lons of a homogeneous mixture of conjugated double- 
bonded oil and non-conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil 
in the ratio of from 1:1 to 1:3 and heated to a tempera¬ 
ture of from 450° to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic 
drier, and from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume of said oil mix¬ 
ture being used for each part by volume of said varnish. 

33. A wrinkle coating composition consisting of 7 
parts by volume of a short oil varnish; 6 parts by volume 
of a oil consisting of a homogeneous mixture of 20 gal¬ 
lons of varnish grade linseed oil and 12 gallons of raw 
tung oil heated to at least 560° F. and 16 pounds of 
manganese acetate, and 3 parts by volume of toluol. 

34. A wrinkle coating composition consisting of 7 
parts by volume of a short oil varnish and 4 parts by 
volume of an oil consisting of a homogeneous mixture of 
20 gallons of varnish grade linseed oil and 12 gallons 
of oiticica oil, said mixture being heated to at least 500° 
F., and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

35. A wrinkle coating composition consisting of 7 parts 
by volume of a short oil varnish and 4 parts by volume of 
an oil consisting of a homogeneous mixture of 20 gallons 
of varnish grade linseed oil and 12 gallons of dehydrated 
castor oil, said mixture being heated to at least 600° F., 
and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 




151A 


Remarks 

It has been noted that the Examiner considers the 
recitation of a reaction new matter and therefore does 
not see fit to enter the amendments filed after the final 
rejection. In order to overcome this objection and at the 
same time enter the amendments permissible, the claims 
have been rewritten. In these claims any reference to a 
chemical reaction between the two oils has been omitted; 
the proportions of the ingredients, in particular of the 
drier, have been incorporated in these rewritten claims. 

It is respectfully requested that this amendment be 
entered for the purpose of appeal. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Toulmin & Toulmin, 

Attorneys for Applicant 

Dayton, Ohio 
August 16, 194S 

• •it 


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
United States Patent Office 
Washington 

Paper No. 17 Mailed Mar 3 1949 

Appeal No. 17,814 Before the Board of Appeals 

In re application of William A. Waldie 
Ser. No. 653,933 
Filed March 12, 1946 

For WRINKLE FINISH 

Messrs. Toulmin & Toulmin for Appellant. 

Examiner’s Statement 

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-18. 
The amendment of August 24, 1948, cancelling all the 




152 A 


claims of record and adding claims 21-35 has been entered 
for purposes of appeal. The Examiner’s statement on 
claims 21-35, all of the claims now in the case, is for¬ 
warded herewith. 

The claims are as follows: 

Claim 21 As a new composition of matter, an oil mix¬ 
ture for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating com¬ 
position yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon 
drying, said oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons 
of a homogeneous mixture of conjugated double-bonded 
oil and non-conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil in the 
ratio of from 1:1 to 1:3 and heated to a temperature of 
from 450° to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic drier. 

Claim 22 As a new composition of matter, an oil mix¬ 
ture for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating com¬ 
position yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon 
drying, said oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons 
of a homogeneous mixture of 3 parts by volume of con¬ 
jugated double-bonded oil and 5 parts by volume of non- 
conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil heated to a tem¬ 
perature of from 450 to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic 
drier. 

Claim 23 As a new composition of matter, an oil mix¬ 
ture for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating com¬ 
position yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon 
drying, said oil mixture consisting of a homogeneous mix¬ 
ture of 20 gallons of non-conjugated double-bonded linseed 
oil and 12 gallons of raw tung oil heated to at least 560° 
F., and 1G pounds of manganese acetate. 

Claim 24 As a new composition of matter, an oil mix¬ 
ture for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating com¬ 
position yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon 
drving, said oil mixture consisting of a homogeneous mix- 
ture of 20 gallons of non-conjugated double-bonded linseed 




153 A 


oil and 12 gallons of oiticica oil heated to at least 500° 
F., and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

Claim 25 As a new composition of matter, an oil 
mixture for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating 
composition yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern 
upon drying, said oil mixture consisting of a homogeneous 
mixture of 20 gallons of non-conjugated double-bonded lin¬ 
seed oil and 12 gallons of dehydrated castor oil heated to 
at least 600° F., and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

Claim 26 A method for preparing an oil which is 
adapted to transform a short oil varnish into a wrinkle 
coating composition that dries to a worm-shaped segre¬ 
gated pattern, comprising mixing a conjugated double- 
bonded oil and a non-conjugated double-bonded vegetable 
oil in the proportion of from 1:1 to 1:3 and heating this 
mixture to at least the polymerization temperature of said 
conjugated double-bonded oil until’ homogeneous, and add¬ 
ing a metallic drier. 

Claim 27 The method of preparing an oil which is 
adapted to transform a short oil varnish into a wrinkle 
coating composition that dries to a worm-shaped segre¬ 
gated pattern, comprising mixing raw tung oil and varnish 
grade linseed oil in substantially the proportions of 3 
parts by volume of the former oil to 5 parts by volume 
of the latter oil, heating the mixture to at least 560° F. 
until the mixture becomes homogeneous, and adding 16 
pounds of manganese acetate thereto before the tempera¬ 
ture of the mixture has dropped below 500° F., and then 
reheating the mixture to 525° F. until it becomes homo¬ 
geneous. 

Claim 2S A wrinkle coating composition comprising a 
varnish and from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume per each part 
of varnish of a homogeneous oil prepared by heating a 
mixture of conjugated double-bonded oil and non-conju¬ 
gated double-bonded vegetable oil in the proportion of 



154 A 


from 1:1 to 1:3 to a temperature of from 450° F. to 
650° F. and a metallic drier. 

Claim 29 A wrinkle coating composition comprising a 
varnish and from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume per each part 
of varnish of a homogeneous oil mixture, said oil mixture 
consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons of a homogeneous mixture 
of conjugated double-bonded oil and non-con jugated 
double-bonded vegetable oil in the ratio of from 1:1 to 
1:3 and heated to a temperature of from 450° to 650° F. 
and 1 pound of metallic drier. 

Claim 30 A wrinkle coating composition comprising a 
resin-containing short oil varnish and an oil mixture in 
the proportion of from 10 to 16 gallons of said oil mixture 
per 100 pounds of resin contained in said varnish, said 
oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons of a homo¬ 
geneous mixture of conjugated double-bonded oil and non- 
conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil in the ratio of 
from 1:1 to 1:3 and heated to a temperature of from 
450° to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic drier, and said 
composition having from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume of said 
oil mixture per each part by volume of said varnish. 

Claim 31 A wrinkle coating composition comprising 1 
part by volume of a short oil varnish, coloring matter 
selected from the group consisting of dyes and pigments, 
and from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume of an oil mixture, said 
oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons of a homo¬ 
geneous mixture of conjugated double-bonded oil and non- 
conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil in the ratio of 
from 1:1 to 1:3 and heated to a temperature of from 
450° to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic drier. 

Claim 32 A wrinkle coating composition comprising a 
short oil varnish, coloring matter selected from the group 
consisting of dyes and pigments, and 10 to 16 gallons of 
an oil mixture per 100 pounds of resin contained in said 
varnish, said oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons 
of a homogeneous mixture of conjugated double-bonded 



155 A 


oil and non-conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil in the 
ratio of from 1:1 to 1:3 and heated to a temperature of 
from 450° to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic drier, and 
from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume of said oil mixture being 
used for each part by volume of said varnish. 

Claim 33. A wrinkle coating composition consisting of 
7 parts by volume of a short oil varnish; 6 parts by vol¬ 
ume of a oil consisting of a homogeneous mixture of 20 
gallons of varnish grade linseed oil and 12 gallons of 
raw tung oil heated to at least 560° F. and 16 pounds of 
manganese acetate, and 3 parts by volume of toluol. 

Claim 34 A wrinkle coating composition consisting of 
7 parts by volume of a short oil varnish and 4 parts by 
volume of an oil consisting of a homogeneous mixture of 
20 gallons of varnish grade linseed oil and 12 gallons of 
oiticica oil, said mixture being heated to at least 500° F., 
and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

Claim 35 A wrinkle coating composition consisting of 
7 parts by volume of a short oil varnish and 4 parts by 
volume of an oil consisting of a homogeneous mixture of 
20 gallons of varnish grade linseed oil and 12 gallons of 
dehydrated castor oil, said mixture being heated to at 
least 600° F., and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

References relied on: 

Waldie 2,344,189 March 14, 1944 

Root 1,950,417 March 13, 1934 

Flournoy et al 1,752,164 March 25, 1930 

The Subject Matter 

The subject matter of the application relates to a 
wrinkle coating composition, capable of drying to a 'worm 
shaped segregated pattern, comprising a varnish based 
upon an oil soluble resin and an oil mixture which will 
convert the varnish into a wrinkle coating composition. 



156 A 


The oil additive consists of the homogeneous mixture pre¬ 
pared by heating one part of conjugated double-bonded oil 
with from one to three parts of non-conjugated double- 
bonded oil to a temperature of from 450° to 650° F, and 
then adding a metallic drier to the heated oil mixture. 

The References 

Waldie discloses a wrinkle coating composition compris¬ 
ing a short oil wrinkling varnish and a color pigment. The 
wrinkling varnish may be based upon oil soluble resins. 

Flournoy discloses a composition for producing a 
wrinkle finish comprising two parts of viscous linseed oil 
to one part of viscous Chinawood oil, to which there is 
added a metallic drier and a thinner. The oils are ren¬ 
dered viscous by heat treating. 

The Root patent relates to wrinkle finish compositions 
and discloses numerous materials that can be used in the 
preparation of wrinkle finishes as well as the effect of 
driers and treatment conditions upon the formation of 
wrinkle patterns. 


The Claims 

Claims 21 to 25 are drawn to the oil mixture to be used 
in converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating composition. 
Claims 21 and 22 are generic claims and differ in that 
claim 21 defines a ratio range over which the relative 
quantities of conjugated and non-conjugated double- 
bonded oils can vary. Claim 22 is limited to the use of 
specific relative proportions of the oils. Claims 23-25 are 
the species claims, and are drawn to the use of specific 
oils in the oil mixture. 

Claims 26 and 27 are drawn to a method of preparing 
the oil mixture used as a rinkle converting agent. 

Claim 26 recites broadly that the mixture of oils is 
heated to or above the polymerization temperature of the 





157 A 


conjugated double-bonded oil and a drier then added. 
Claim 27 sets out specific conditions of temperature in 
which the steps of the process are effected. 

Claims 2S-35 are drawn to wrinkle coating compositions 
comprising a varnish and an oil mixture effective to con¬ 
vert the varnish to a wrinkle coating composition. Claims 
2S-32 are generic. These claims differ in the degree of 
particularity in which the relative proportions of oil mix¬ 
ture and varnish are set out, in the limitation to a short 
oil varnish in claims 30-32, and in the inclusion of coloring 
matter in the compositions of claims 31 and 32. Claims 
33-35 are species claims drawm to the use of particular 
oils in the oil mixture. 

The Rejection 

Claims 24, 25, 34 and 35 are rejected as reading on the 
non-elected species. 

Claims 21-23 are rejected as lacking invention over the 
patent to Flournoy. Flournoy discloses a liquid composi¬ 
tion for producing a wrinkle finish comprising two parts 
of viscous linseed oil to one part of viscous Chinawood 
oil, and preferably a metallic drier. The composition may 
also include a thinner. It is stated that the Chinawood 
oil is rendered viscous by heat treatment, and that the 
Chinawood oil used in the liquid composition is such a 
heat-treated oil. The viscous linseed oil would likewise 
be produced by a heat treatment of the raw linseed oil. 
The use of manganese acetate as the metallic drier would 
not involve invention since the use of the acetates as 
driers in wrinkling compositions is old as shown by the 
patent to Root, 1,950,417, page 3, column 1, line 50. The 
particular proportions of metallic drier and oil mixture 
recited in these claims are not seen to distinguish over the 
teaching in Flournoy of the use of metallic driers with 
such an oil mixture as is recited by applicant. The ad- 





158 A 


justment of the relative proportions of drier and of oil 
mixture to produce the optimum results is considered to 
be a modification within the skill of those competent in 
the art. 

Claims 26 and 27 are rejected as unpatentable over 
Flournoy who discloses a process which comprises heat 
treating linseed oil and Chinawood oil within the propor¬ 
tions recited by applicant, and subsequently incorporating 
a metallic drier into the oil mixture. The use of the par¬ 
ticular temperatures recited is not considered to patent- 
ably distinguish over Flournoy. Irrespective of the final 
temperature used the final product is a homogeneous mix¬ 
ture of the oils. The step of reheating ^fter the addition 
of the metallic drier is not considered to be a patentable 
variation since the use of heat to obtain a more homoge¬ 
neous mixture would be an obvious expedient to one 
skilled in the art. 

Claims 28-33 are rejected as unpatentable over Waldie 
together with Flournoy. Waldie discloses short oil wrink¬ 
ling varnishes based upon oil-soluble resins which may 
be pigmented to provide a wrinkling enamel composition. 
Flournoy discloses a wrinkling composition comprising a 
mixture of heat-treated Chinawood oil and heat-treated 
linseed oil within the proportions recited by applicant, and 
a metallic drier. No invention is seen in combining the 
wrinkling composition disclosed by Flournoy with the 
wrinkling varnish disclosed by Waldie in order to produce 
thereby a wrinkle coating composition. No criticality is 
seen in the use of the particular proportions of varnish 
and oil mixture recited by applicant since no unexpected 
result is obtained thereby. A wrinkling oil composition 
has been added to a wrinkling varnish. It is obvious that 
the combination of such compositions in any proportions 
will result in a wrinkle coating composition. 



159 A 


The production of a particular finish as recited by ap¬ 
plicant is not seen to add any patentable matter to the 
rejected claims. The production of a particular finish 
is believed to be within the skill of those competent in the 
art, since Waldie discloses the effect of the varnish vis¬ 
cosity on the pattern of the finish and the addition of a 
wrinkling composition to a wrinkling varnish, and since 
Root discloses the influence of driers and the conditions 
of application and treatment on the wrinkle pattern which 
is formed. 

Applicant contends that in the process disclosed by 
Flournoy the oils are individually heat-treated and then 
combined. The Examiner is unable to find any disclosure 
in the Flournoy patent which will support applicant’s con¬ 
tention. Flournoy’s liquid composition comprises viscous 
linseed oil and viscous tung oil, and it is stated that the 
tung oil is rendered viscous by heat-treatment. It is the 
Examiner’s position that the patent to Flournoy is inclu¬ 
sive of a process in which the tung oil and linseed oil are 
co-bodied. 

Applicant argues that the combination of Flournoy 
with Waldie is not a valid combination since the varnishes 
of Waldie are all wrinkling varnishes per se in contradis¬ 
tinction to his own varnishes as exemplified by Varnish 
II, wherein varnish grade linseed oil is used. In other 
words, applicant argues that all of Waldie’s varnishes are 
based upon wrinkling oils whereas the varnishes he dis¬ 
closes include some which are based upon raw linseed oil, 
which applicant states to be a non-wrinkling oil. Attention 
is directed to the Root patent 1,950,417, page 2, column 1, 
lines 13-18, where raw linseed oil is clearly taught to be 
a wrinkling oil. Thus it is seen that the varnishes dis¬ 
closed by the Waldie patent and those disclosed by ap¬ 
plicant are substantially the same, being short oil var¬ 
nishes based upon oil soluble resins and such an oil as is 
referred to in the Root patent as a wrinkling oil. The 



160 A 


combination of Flournoy with Waldie is considered to be 
a valid combination and the rejection of claims 28-33 over 
these references is considered to be tenable. 

In conclusion it is submitted that the rejection of claims 
21-35 is sound and should be sustained. 

/s/ J. Greenwald 

BWB:ta Acting Examiner 

POL-38 Paper No. IS LW 

Address only The Commissioner of Patents 
Washington, D. C. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
United States Patent Office 
Washington 

March 23, 1949 

Sir: 

* .-Ji 

The case of William A. Waldie 
Appeal No: 17,S14 
Serial No: 653,933 

will be heard by the Board of Appeals on the 
9th day of November 1949 

The hearings will commence at 9:30 a. m. and as soon 
as the argument in one case is concluded, the succeeding 
case will be taken up. 

The time allowed for argument is thirty minutes. 

By special leave, obtained before the argument is com¬ 
menced, the time may be extended. 

Briefs must be filed TWENTY (20) DAYS before the 
day of hearing. (Rule 137, amended September 6, 1945.) 

Very truly yours, 

/s/ Lawrence C. Kingsland, 

Commissioner of Patents. 



161A 


Refer to APPEAL NUMBER 
To 

Toulmin & Toulmin 
Toulmin Bldg. 

Dayton, Ohio. 

Board of Appeals Oct 19 1949 U. S. Patent Office 

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS 

In re application of 
William A. Waldie 

Serial No. 653,933 Division 64 

Filed March 12, 1946 

For: WRINKLE FINISH 

Brief for the Applicant 

This is an appeal from the final decision of the Primary 
Examiner in Division 43, dated February 20, 1948. No 
claims are allowed in this application. 

Nature of Invention 

This invention is directed to a wrinkle coating compo¬ 
sition giving a new pattern best described as a worm 
shaped and segregated pattern. 

This new pattern is obtained by mixing a short oil 
varnish of non-wrinkling character and an oil mixture 
which will convert the varnish into a wrinkle coating com¬ 
position. 

The oil mixture which accomplishes this result is pre¬ 
pared by heat treating a mixture of 1 part of conjugated 
double-bonded oil and 1 to 3 parts of a non-conjugated 
double-bonded oil to a temperature of from 450° to 650° 
F. and then adding a metallic drier to the heated and 
reacted mixture. 


162 A 


The Appealed Claims 

A complete set of claims was entered after final re¬ 
jection. This complete set of claims is set forth in the 
Examiner’s Statement of March 3, 1949, as claims 21 to 
35, inclusive, and are as follows: 

21. As a new composition of matter, an oil mixture 
for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating composi¬ 
tion yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon dry¬ 
ing, said oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons of 
a homogeneous mixture of conjugated double-bonded oil 
and non-conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil in the 
ratio of from 1:1 to 1:3 and heated to a temperature of 
from 450° to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic drier. 

22. As a new composition of matter, an oil mixture 
for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating composi¬ 
tion yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon dry¬ 
ing, said oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons of 
a homogeneous mixture of 3 parts by volume of conjugated 
double-bonded oil and 5 parts by volume of non-conju¬ 
gated double-bonded vegetable oil heated to a temperature 
of from 450° to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic drier. 

23. As a new composition of matter, an oil mixture 
for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating composi¬ 
tion yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon dry¬ 
ing, said oil mixture consisting of a homogeneous mixture 
of 20 gallons of non-conjugated double-bonded linseed oil 
and 12 gallons of raw tung oil heated to at least 560° F., 
and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

24. As a new composition of matter, an oil mixture for 
converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating composition 
yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon drying, 
said oil mixture consisting of a homogeneous mixture of 
20 gallons of non-conjugated double-bonded linseed oil and 
12 gallons of oiticica oil heated to at least 500° F. and 
16 pounds of manganese acetate. 


163 A 


25. As a new composition of matter, an oil mixture 
for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating composi¬ 
tion yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon dry¬ 
ing, said oil mixture consisting of a homogeneous mixture 
of 20 gallons of non-conjugated double-bonded linseed oil 
and 12 gallons of dehydrated castor oil heated to at least 
600° F., and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

26. A method of preparing an oil which is adapted to 
transform a short oil varnish into a wrinkle coating com¬ 
position that dries to a worm-shaped segregated pattern, 
comprising mixing a conjugated double-bonded oil and a 
non-conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil in the pro¬ 
portion of from 1:1 to 1:3 and heating this mixture to at 
least the polymerization temperature of said conjugated 
double-bonded oil until homogeneous, and adding a metal¬ 
lic drier. 

27. The method of preparing an oil which is adapted 
to transform a short oil varnish into a wrinkle coating 
composition that dries to a worm-shaped segregated pat¬ 
tern, comprising mixing raw tung oil and varnish grade 
linseed oil in substantially the proportions of 3 parts by 
volume of the former oil to 5 parts by volume of the 
latter oil, heating the mixture to at least 560° F. until 
the mixture becomes homogeneous, and adding 16 pounds 
of manganese acetate thereto before the temperature of 
the mixture has dropped below 500° F., and then reheat¬ 
ing the mixture to 525° F. until it becomes homogeneous. 

2S. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a var¬ 
nish and from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume per each part of 
varnish of a homogeneous oil prepared by heating a mix¬ 
ture of conjugated double-bonded oil and non-conjugated 
double-bonded vegetable oil in the proportion of from 
1:1 to 1:3 to a temperature of from 450° F. to 650° F. 
and a metallic drier. 

29. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a var¬ 
nish and from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume per each part of 




164 A 


varnish of a homogeneous oil mixture, said oil mixture 
consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons of a homogeneous mix¬ 
ture of conjugated double-bonded oil and non-conjugated 
double-bonded vegetable oil in the ratio of from 1:1 to 
1:3 and heated to a temperature of from 450° to 650° F. 
and 1 pound of metallic drier. 

30. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a resin- 
containing short oil varnish and an oil mixture in the 
proportion of from 10 to 16 gallons of said oil mixture 
per 100 pounds of resin contained in said varnish, said 
oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons of a homo¬ 
geneous mixture of conjugated double-bonded oil and non- 
conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil in the ratio of 
from 1:1 to 1:3 and.heated to a temperature of from 450° 
to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic drier, and said compo¬ 
sition having from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume of said oil 
mixture per each part by volume of said varnish. 

31. A wrinkle coating composition comprising 1 part 
by volume of a short oil varnish, coloring matter selected 
from the group consisting of dyes and pigments, and 
from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume of an oil mixture, said oil 
mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons of a homoge¬ 
neous mixture of conjugated double-bonded oil and non- 
conjugated double bonded vegetable oil in the ratio of 
from 1:1 to 1:3 and heated to a tempertaure of from 
450° to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic drier. 

32. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a short 
oil varnish, coloring matter selected from the group con¬ 
sisting of dyes and pigments, and 10 to 16 gallons of an 
oil mixture per 100 pounds of resin contained in said 
varnish, said oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gal¬ 
lons of a homogeneous mixture of conjugated double- 
bonded oil and non-conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil 
in the ratio of from 1:1 to 1:3 and heated to a tempera¬ 
ture of from 450° F. to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic 
drier, and from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume of said oil mix¬ 
ture being used for each part by volume of said varnish. 



165 a 


33. A wrinkle coating composition consisting of 7 parts 
by volume of a short oil varnish; 6 parts by volume of an 
oil consisting of a homogeneous mixture of 20 gallons of 
varnish grade linseed oil and 12 gallons of raw tung oil 
heated to at least 560° F. and 16 pounds of manganese 
acetate, and 3 parts by volume of toluol. 

34. A wrinkle coating composition consisting of 7 parts 
by volume of a short oil varnish and 4 parts by volume 
of an oil consisting of a homogeneous mixture of 20 gal¬ 
lons of varnish grade linseed oil and 12 gallons of oiticica 
oil, said mixture being heated to at least 500° F., and 16 
pounds of manganese acetate. 

35. A wrinkle coating composition consisting of 7 
parts by volume of a short oil varnish and 4 parts by 
volume of an oil consisting of a homogeneous mixture of 
20 gallons of varnish grade linseed oil and 12 gallons of 
dehydrated castor oil, said mixture being heated to at 
least 600° F., and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

These claims all include ratio limitations which are crit¬ 
ical in obtaining the result and which in all ways meet 
formal requirements demanded by the Examiner. 

The Rejection 

Entry of revision of certain claims, such as old claim 
16, to define the product as a reaction product was re¬ 
fused on the ground that it was considered to involve new 
matter, since it is asserted that no basis is found for 
the recitation in the disclosure of the product as being a 
reaction product, and since no evidence has been pre¬ 
sented to conclusively establish that the product is a re¬ 
action product. 

This rejection was made in the face of presentation of 
evidence in the form of heat treated oils with a descrip¬ 
tion of their method of preparation and the description 
in the specification of the method preparation of appli¬ 
cant’s product. 


166 A 


It is well established patent law that the disclosure in¬ 
cludes whatever is explicitly shown and also what is fairly 
to be inferred from the disclosure. 

Further, disclosure of a technically correct explana¬ 
tion of the principles underlying the invention not being 
necessary to validity, applicant may insert claims based 
upon correct principles even though he did not under¬ 
stand them when he filed his application, provided an 
adequate background has been originally presented. 

In the instant application, the Examiner is attempting 
to straight jacket applicant to the exact wording originally 
in the application, despite the disclosure in the applica¬ 
tion of the exact method used in the preparation of three 
different oils set forth as prepared oils A. B and C, and 
despite the later submission of samples which show that 
some of the original assumptions must be wrong. 

These samples show that tung oil alone heated to the 
temperatures disclosed in applicant’s examples sets up 
to an almost insoluble gel. Obviously, under such cir¬ 
cumstances, heating a mixture of varnish grade linseed 
oil and raw tung oil to a temperature of 560° F. and 
obtaining a homogeneous oil which does not separate out 
any insoluble phase, it is inherent in the process that 
some reaction takes place, and rejection as new matter 
should be overruled, in order to avoid applicant being 
straight jacketed into submission of claims of the type 
now before the Board. 

Discussion of the Claims 

In regard to the claims before the Board, the rejection 
is based upon three references: Flournoy, Waldie and 
Boot. 

The rejection is based upon Flournoy alone or in com¬ 
bination with Waldie, with Root being cited merely to 
show that manganese acetate is known as a drier and 
linseed oil had been used in wrinkling compositions. 



167 A 


As regards Flournoy and Waldie, applicant cannot 
agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of these patents. 
This is particularly true in regard to Flournoy. If appli¬ 
cant is reading this patent correctly and the Examiner 
is in error, then the rejection falls regardless of the form 
of the claims. Accordingly, applicant wishes to dissect 
this patent first. 

Certain facts established by sources other than appli¬ 
cant must be borne in mind: 

1. Tung oil heated alone to temperatures in excess of 
500° F. quickly forms an almost insoluble gel. Sample 
submitted to the Examiner by applicant merely verifies 
the statements found in “Scientific Methods of Varnish 
Manufacture-Huff-American Paint Journal Company-St. 
Louis, Mo., 1940, page 122”, cited in the Advisory Action 
of July 29, 194S. 

2. Applicant heats mixtures of non-conjugated double- 
bonded oils (linseed) and conjugated (tung) to 560° F. 
and obtains a homogeneous solution. 

3. If tung oil alone is heat treated and remains an oil 
it follows the temperature must not have been in the 
above temperature range utilized in the treatment of ap¬ 
plicant’s mixture of oil. 

Flournoy impregnates fabric with a liquid material, the 
base of which is a viscous drying oil such as linseed oil. 
In col. 1, line 37, it is stated: 

“In order to give the product an attractive appearance, 
and incidentally further increasing the thickness of water 
proof material without, however, substantially affecting 
the flexibility, we apply to it a coating of a liquid compo¬ 
sition consisting of two parts viscous linseed oil and one 
part of China wood oil, preferably with the addition of a 
drier in the form of linoleate of lead, cobalt, or manga- 



16S A 


nese, and also preferably with approximately 15% by 
volume of a suitable thinner, such as petroleum naphtha.” 

Going further, col. 2, lines 61 to 66, read as follows: 

“The China wood oil used in the composition above 
described is heat treated to give it such viscosity * * 

This reference does not, as asserted by the Examiner, 
say that a mixture of linseed oil plus China wood oil to 
be used for a final coating is conjointly heat bodied. It 
specifically states that the China wood oil (used in the 
composition) is heat treated. 

Accordingly, Flournoy is not heat treating a mixture. 
Also, he is not heat treating any oils in applicant’s range, 
because in applicant’s range China wood oil treated alone 
turns to a gel, and Flournoy specifically teaches that he 
produces a viscous heat bodied oil. 

In view of the failure of the reference to substantiate 
the Examiner’s position, it is believed his rejection of 
claims 21 to 27 should be reversed. 

Claims 2S to 33 were rejected as unpatentable over 
Waldie in view of Flournoy. If applicant’s interpreta¬ 
tion of Flournoy is upheld, then there is no need for a 
discussion, because it never has been asserted that Waldie 
could be combined with anything but the Examiner’s 
interpretation of Flournoy to effect anticipation. 

Analyzing these patents further, however, as a combina¬ 
tion, Waldie in this application shows that a non-wrinkling 
varnish (one compounded with a non-conjugated oil such 
as linseed oil) can be converted to a wrinkling pattern 
not known heretofore. 

Varnish IT shows a formulation, depending upon var¬ 
nish grade linseed oil, which it is well known in the trade 
is not a wrinkling oil. 

Waldie patent 2,344,189 does not teach anything but 
how to prepare wrinkling varnishes. It obviously would 




169 A 


not be invention to add wrinkling oil to a wrinkling var¬ 
nish. But here the Examiner seeks to anticipate the in¬ 
vention of converting non-wrinkling compositions into 
wrinkling coatings by combining references, one of which 
shows wrinkling varnishes and a second reference show¬ 
ing a wrinkling oiL 

Clearly, a reference showing only wrinkling varnishes 
cannot be used for anticipatory purposes to teach some¬ 
thing which it does not show or even purport to teach. 

The Examiner is contradicted by the facts of wrinkling 
coatings and should be reversed as to this group of 
claims. 

Further, Root cannot teach that raw linseed oil is a 
wrinkling oil as asserted by the Examiner, because the 
use of raw linseed oil in anything but minor proportions 
is known in the wrinkle industry to be the surest way to 
destroy the wrinkling character of a wrinkle varnish. 

A look at page 2 of Root shows that the discussion says 
raw linseed oil is a drying oil (not a wrinkling oil). Dry¬ 
ing oils of non--wrinkling character can be used as com¬ 
ponents of wrinkling varnish, provided they are kept in 
small proportions. 

Reference to patent 1,883,408 of Root explains this situ¬ 
ation in the following language: 

page 2, column 2, line 106: 

“• * • admixtures of the non-wrinkling oils may be 
used so long as the amount of the latter is not sufficient to 
eliminate the desired wrinkle effect in the finish obtained.” 

Ex parte Ward, 35 USPQ, 538 under such circumstances 
is believed fully in point, wherein it was held that: 

“Neither one nor all patents cited teach invention in¬ 
volved and defined in claims; patents neither disclose dif¬ 
ficulty applicant has encountered nor teach how it is over¬ 
come; combination is clearly new; if patents were to be 


170 A 


combined no one would know why they should be combined 
or whether result of applicant would be obtained; dis¬ 
closure of present application is only one that teaches 
this; claims are allowed.” 

Summary 

The failure of the Examiner’s position to be tenable as 
regards his facts and his law makes it imperative that 
he be overruled as to the instant claims. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Toulmin & Toulmin 

Attorneys for Applicant 
By /s/ H. A. Toulmin, Jr. 

Springfield, Ohio 
October 10, 1949 


Paper No. 20 Mailed Nov 2 1949 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
United States Patent Office 
Washington 

In re application of William A. Waldie 

Ser. No. 653,933 
Filed March 12, 1946 

For WRINKLE FINISH 

Appeal No. 17,814 

Before the Board of Appeals 

Messrs. Toulmin and Toulmin for Appellant. 






171A 


Reply To Brief 
Exammer’s Statement 

Applicant’s discussion of the refusal to enter an amend¬ 
ment defining the product as a reaction product has been 
noted. Since the amendment has not been entered, and 
since no petition was taken from the refusal to enter the 
amendment, this matter is not seen to be properly before 
the Board, and no further comment is believed necessary. 

/s/ P. M. Nash 
Examiner, 
Division 64. 

BWB/mk 

Toulmin and Toulmin, 

Toulmin Building, 

Dayton, Ohio. 


Appeal No. 17,S14 
Hearing: 

Nov. 9, 1949 

Mailed Nov 23 1949 U. S. Patent Office 
Board of Appeals 

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 


BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS 


Ex parte William A. Waldie 


172 A 


Application for Patent filed March 12, 1946, Serial No. 
653,933. Wrinkle Finish. 


Messrs. Toulmin and Toulmin for Appellant. 


This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 to 
IS, inclusive. Simultaneously with the appeal, however, 
the appellant filed an amendment cancelling these claims 
and adding claims 21 to 35, inclusive, for the purpose of 
appeal. This amendment was entered and the appeal 
forwarded with reference to the latter claims. Of these 
claims, 21 and 2S are illustrative and read as follows: 

21. As a new composition of matter, an oil mixture for 
converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating composition 
yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon drying, 
said oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons of a 
homogeneous mixture of conjugated double-bonded oil and 
non-conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil in the ratio 
of from 1:1 to 1:3 and heated to a temperature of from 
450° to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic drier. 

28. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a varnish 
and from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume per each part of 
varnish of a homogeneous oil prepared by heating a mix¬ 
ture of conjugated double-bonded oil and non-conjugated 
double-bonded vegetable oil in the proportion of from 1:1 
to 1:3 to a temperature of from 450° F. to 650° F. and a 
metallic drier. 

The references relied upon are: 

Flournoy et al 1,752,164 Mar. 25, 1930 

Root * 1,950,417 Mar. 13, 1934 

Waldie 2,344,189 Mar. 14, 1944 

Scientific Methods of Varnish Manufacture—Huff— 
American Paint Journal Co.—St. Louis, Mo., 1940 Pages 
122-124. 


173 A 


Among the grounds for appeal are the following: 

“The Examiner erred in holding that the recitation of 
the reaction and a reaction product between the two oils 
is new matter. 

“The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20 as improper 
in defining a product by its process of preparation.” 

These grounds for appeal relate to the reasons given 
by the Examiner for refusing to enter amendments with 
reference to the finally rejected claims, 1 to 18, inclusive. 
We will not rule as to these grounds for appeal, because 
the question of the propriety of the Examiner’s refusal 
to enter amendments is not within our jurisdiction. 

The claims relate to a wrinkle coating composition, 
which produces a worm-shaped pattern. This composition 
is obtained by mixing a short oil varnish with an oil 
mixture which will convert the varnish into a wrinkle 
coating composition. This oil mixture is prepared by 
heat treating a mixture of one part of a conjugated 
double-bonded oil and one to three parts of a non- 
conjugated double-bonded oil to a temperature of 450° 
to 650° F. and then adding a metallic drier to the heated 
and reacted mixture. 

Claims 21 to 23, inclusive, stand rejected as unpatent¬ 
able over Flournoy et al. This patent discloses a liquid 
composition for producing a wrinkle finish comprising 
two parts of viscous linseed oil and one part of viscous 
China wood oil, and preferably a metallic drier. This 
composition may also include a thinner. With reference 
to the China wood oil, the following instructions appear 
in this patent: 

“The China wood oil used in the composition above 
described is heat treated to give it such viscosity as to 
give the composition the characteristic that when em¬ 
ployed as a coating and treated as hereinafter described, 
it coagulates in drying to produce a uniform wrinkle sur- 



174 A 


face comprising small ridges or ‘wrinkles’ closely adjacent 
to each other. The degree of viscosity of the oil necessary 
that the composition have the characteristic referred to, 
is not critical and a suitable degree may readily be ob¬ 
tained by test in carrying out our improved process.” 

We agree with the Examiner that the composition re¬ 
cited in claims 21 to 23, inclusive, fails to differ patent- 
ably from the composition disclosed in this patent because 
we are not convinced that any unobvious results are ob¬ 
tained by mixing the China wood oil with the linseed oil 
before heat-treating the same. 

We have given careful consideration to the affidavits 
filed in this case with reference to the practice disclosed 
in Flournoy et al, but we are of the opinion that they fail 
to establish that if the China wood oil is heat-treated to 
make the same viscous, as taught in Flournoy et al, be¬ 
fore it is added to the linseed oil, the mixture resulting 
from the addition of the China wood oil to the linseed oil 
would not be homogeneous and the desired wrinkling solu¬ 
tion would not be produced. It appears to us that in view 
of the fact that it is well recognized, as shown on pages 
122-124 of the Scientific Methods of Varnish Manufacture, 
that China wood oil gels rapidly when heated by itself at 
a temperature of about 560° F., it "would be obvious 
to use a lower temperature than 560° in heat treating 
this oil in order to make it viscous. In this connection, 
attention is directed to Fig. S on page 124 of Scientific 
Methods of Varnish Manufacture, where it is shown 
that at a temperature of 450° F., which is the lower 
limit of the temperature range specified in the broader 
claims, it takes as long as 60 minutes for the China 
wood oil to gel. In view of the disclosure in Fig. 8, 
mentioned above, it appears to us that China wood oil 
can be heat-treated within the temperature range dis¬ 
closed in the specification and recited in the broader 
claims without gelling it so rapidly as to make it im- 



175 A 


possible to mix it uniformly with the linseed oil. In 
view of these considerations, the affidavits fail to con¬ 
vince us that a competent chemist, desirous of success¬ 
fully operating the process disclosed in Flournoy et al, 
would not be able to do so without premixing the China 
wood oil with the linseed oil before subjecting the China 
wood oil to the bodying heat treatment. The Bullard Co. 
v. Coe, 64 USPQ 359. 

The rejection of claims 21 to 23, inclusive, as un¬ 
patentable over Flournoy et al will, therefore, be sus¬ 
tained. For similar reasons, we consider the rejection 
of claims 26 and 27 as unpatentable over this reference 
to be well founded, and will sustain the same. 

Claims 2S to 33, inclusive, stand rejected as unpatent¬ 
able over Waldie in view of Flournoy et al. Waldie shows 
that it is old to mix a wrinkling varnish with a wrinkling 
oil in order to produce a wrinkled coating composition. 
The Examiner holds that it would involve no invention 
in view of this disclosure to add the wrinkling oil of 
Flournoy et al to a wrinkling varnish in order to produce 
a wrinkled coating composition. The appellant argues 
i that in the present application, he: 

“. . . shows that a non-wrinkling varnish (one com¬ 
pounded with a non-conjugated oil such as linseed oil) 
can be converted to a wrinkling pattern not known here¬ 
tofore. 

“Varnish II shows a formulation, depending upon 
varnish grade linseed oil, which it is well known in the 
trade is not a wrinkling oil. 

“Waldie patent 2,344,189 does not teach anything but 
how to prepare wrinkling varnishes. It obviously would 
not be invention to add wrinkling oil to a wrinkling 
varnish. But here the Examiner seeks to anticipate 
the invention of converting non-wrinkling compositions 
into wrinkling coatings by combining references, one of 




176 A 


which shows wrinkling varnished and a second reference 
showing a wrinkling oil.” 

The difficulty with this argument is that none of the 
claims are limited to the use of a nonwrinkling varnish 
in the coating composition. As a matter of fact, wdiile 
the varnish disclosed in Example II may be of the non- 
wrinkling type, it is stated on page 1 of the specification 
that the wrinkling oil may be admixed with a short oil 
varnish of any kind. We are, therefore, of the opinion 
that claims 2S to 33, inclusive, are unpatentable over 
Waldie in view of Flournoy et al, and the rejection of 
these claims on this combination of references will, there¬ 
fore, be sustained. 

Claims 24, 25, 34 and 35 stand rejected as failing to 
read on the elected species. These claims are not before 
us for consideration on their merits. 

The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. 

In event of appeal, attention is directed to In re 
Boyce, 32 C.C.P.A. 718; 144 Fed. (2d) S96; 1944 C.D. 609; 
568 O.G. 56S; 63 U.S.P.Q. 80; in regard to specifically 
including in the appeal notice all grounds of rejection 
in the Examiner’s Statement not expressly overruled by 
the Board. 

/s/ F. J. Porter 

Examiner-in-Chief 
/s/ V. I. Kichard 

Examiner-in-Chief 
/s/ S. WolfFe 

Examiner-in-Chief 
Board of Appeals 

November 23, 1949 
Toulmin & Toulmin 
Toulmin Building 
Dayton, Ohio. 




177 A 


Board of Appeals Dec 28 1949 U. S. Patent Office 

Mail Division Dec 23 1949 U. S. Patent Office 

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS 

In re application of 
William A. Waldie 

Serial No. 653,933 Appeal No. 17,814 

Filed March 12, 1946 
For: WRINKLE FINISH 

PETITION TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS 
(UNDER RULE 196) 

Applicant requests reconsideration of the decision in 
the above identified application because of errors of fact. 
These errors are pertinent and bear directly on the pat¬ 
entability of applicant’s claims. 

The errors are: 

1. Interpretation of heating effects on China-wood oil 
with reference to the Flournoy patent and page 124 of 
Scientific Method of Varnish Manufacture; 

2. Interpretation of products covered by teaching of 
China-wood oil fatty acids in Waldie reference 2,344,189. 

Brief in support of this petition is submitted herewith. 

Brief 

This is a request for reconsideration of the decision of 
the Board of Appeals dated November 23, 1949 in appli¬ 
cant’s appeal from the final decision of the Primary Ex¬ 
aminer in Division 43, dated February 20, 1948. 

No claims were allowed in this application originally. 

All claims were rejected on appeal. 


178 A 


The Invention 

A wrinkle coating composition giving a new pattern 
best described as worm shaped. 

This new pattern is obtained by mixing a short oil 
varnish and a heat treated oil mixture capable of con¬ 
verting the varnish into a wrinkle coating composition. 

The Claims 

A complete set of claims was entered after final rejec¬ 
tion and set forth in applicant’s brief. 

Discussion of Board's Rejection 

The Board stated, on page 3, (the last 5 lines) and on 
page 4, (the first full paragraph): 

* * but we are of the opinion that they fail to estab¬ 
lish that if the China wood oil is heat treated to make 
the same viscous, as taught by Flournoy et al, before 
it is added to the linseed oil, the mixture resulting from 
the addition of the China wood oil to the linseed oil 
would not be homogeneous and the desired wrinkling solu¬ 
tion would not be produced. • • •” 

The Board states in other words by holding China wood 
oil at temperatures below applicant’s range for a period 
sufficient to obtain viscosity but short of gelling, a product 
will be obtained which will mix uniformly with the linseed 
oil and give the equivalent of applicant’s oil mixture. 

Low temperature heat treatment of raw China wood 
oil can never produce the equivalent of applicant’s oil 
because, as can be verified from such reference books as 
Krumbhaar and other authorities, such treatment causes 
the oil at the drying stage to have a milky appearance 
called frosting. Such oil upon examination shows opaque 
material which is crystalline in nature and which destroys 
the tenacity of the oil for any base. 

The nature of low heat treated China wood oil there¬ 
fore may be useful for Flournoy’s process, but does not 



179 A 


produce characteristics in a final product which makes the 
oil useful for applicant’s process, and therefore not an 
equivalent of applicant’s heat treated mixture of China 
wood oil and linseed oil. 

Thus, under neither the high treatment of China-wood 
oil (gel formed) nor the low heat treatment, can this 
reference be held to have anticipatory teaching or produce 
equivalent product. 

It is respectfully submitted, therefore, that the rejection 
of claims 21 to 23 should be withdrawn. 

Sustaining the rejection of the claims 28 to 33 on 
Waldie in view of the above Flournoy patent also is 
based upon a mistaken view of the materials involved in 
the Waldie patent. 

The Board’s statement is that Waldie shows that it 
is old to mix a wrinkling varnish with a wrinkling oil in 
order to produce a wrinkled coating composition. 

Waldie does not show the mixing of a wrinkling varnish 
with a wrinkling oil. Waldie shows a wrinkling varnish 
mixed with China wood oil fatty acids or linseed oil fatty 
acids or mixtures of the two. These fatty acid products 
are not oils. Linseed oil fatty acids are a liquid. China 
wood oil fatty acids are gellv like solids. These products 
do not wrinkle; in fact, these fatty acids are non-drying 
materials useful only in small quantities such as 2 to 5 
percent in coating compositions. 

Applicant wishes to point out that neither in their pure 
state nor in toluol or other solvent solutions do the China 
wood or linseed oil fatty acids wrinkle upon drying. 
These materials definitely are non-wrinkling. 

It is clearly in error therefore to state that Waldie 
2,344,1 S9 teaches addition of a wrinkling oil when the 
added material (fatty acids) are a non-drying non-wrink¬ 
ling additive. 


180 A 


The grounds for rejection here likewise should, there¬ 
fore, be withdrawn as based upon an error of fact. 

In view of the failure of the prior art to anticipate the 
invention, it is now pertinent to turn to a discussion of 
the specification disclosing the invention and the claims. 

Applicant’s specification discusses short oil varnishes. 
All three examples of short oil varnishes given by way 
of illustration are non-wrinkling in character. 

Example I illustrates a short oil varnish in whose com¬ 
position there is a major proportion of a wrinkling oil 
and a minor proportion of a non-wrinkling oil. Despite 
the jmedominance of wrinkling oil, this short oil varnish 
is non-wrinkling in character. 

This fact highlights the differences in the general char¬ 
acteristics of long and short oil varnishes. 

When China-wood oil is diluted with a raw linseed oil 
(varnish grade is akin to raw oil because only the break 
has been eliminated by chemical treatment) the quantity 
of wrinkling oil required to produce a wrinkling varnish 
rapidly increases. 

Also, the shorter the oil the lower is the tendency to 
wrinkle. Thus, without pre-treatment of the oil, China- 
wood oil of S gallons length has almost negligible wrink¬ 
ling character, and this is the only untreated oil which 
in short length gives any semblance of wrinkle. 

From the above it will be seen that the varnish of 
Example I, despite the predominance of China-wood oil, 
is still a short oil varnish of non-wrinkling character. 

Example IT having 10 gallons of linseed oil is a short 
oil varnish of non-wrinkling character. 

The same is true of Example III, 10 gallons of heat 
bodied linseed oil makes a short oil varnish of non-wrink¬ 
ling character. A minimum of about 14 gallons of blown 


181 A 


linseed oil is a representative quantity necessary in a 
varnish before that varnish composition will evidence 
wrinkling. 

Further, this invention of adding an oil mixture capable 
of converting a non-wrinkling varnish to a wrinkling com¬ 
position has no utility except in conjunction with non- 
wrinkling varnishes. If the varnish will wrinkle why add 
an oil mixture prepared at extra cost. Even such raw 
oils of non-wrinkling character as linseed oil could be 
added to a wrinkling varnish in fairly appreciable quan¬ 
tities before the wrinkling character of the composition 
were destroyed. 

In view of this it is with surprise that applicant views 
the meaning placed upon the statement: 

“• * * that the wrinkling oil may be admixed with a 
short oil varnish of any kind.” 

Applicant, and he believes the Examiner also, always 
had interpreted “of any kind” to refer to any kind of oil. 
The new interpretation, therefore, calls for reconsideration 
of the language of the claims, since “short oil varnishes” 
taken in the light of the specification is no longer being 
accorded the additional meaning of non-wrinkling. 

Heretofore it had always been believed that short oil 
varnishes were being accorded the secondary meaning of 
non-wrinkling in view of the specification and, therefore, 
the express language of non-wrinkling had not been 
deemed necessary. 

Applicant, therefore, in view of the failure of the prior 
art to be anticipatory, and in view of the new interpreta¬ 
tion placed upon the language of the specification, respect¬ 
fully requests that the Board recommend the introduction 
into all claims of the term “non-wrinkling” as a modifier 
for the language “short oil varnish.” 



182 A 


With this modification of the claims they would be 
subject to no misunderstanding and at the same time 
would be limited to the invention wherein the combination 
has utility. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Toulmin & Toulmin 
Attorneys for Applicant 
By /s/ H. A. Toulmin, Jr. 

Springfield, Ohio 
December 20, 1949 

Appeal No. 17,S14 MIM Paper No. 23 
U. S. Patent Office Board of Appeals Jan 30 1950 Mailed 
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 


BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS 


Ex parte William A. Waldie 


Application for Patent filed March 12, 1946, Serial No. 
653,933. Wrinkle Finish. 


Messrs. Toulmin and Toulmin for Appellant. 


On Petition for Reconsideration 

This is a petition for reconsideration of our decision 
of November 23, 1949, in which we affirmed the Examiner’s 
decision. 

The appellant alleges that we erred in holding that the 
affidavits: 





183 a 


. . fail to establish that if the China wood oil is heat 
treated to make the same viscous, as taught by Flournoy 
et al, before it is added to the linseed oil, the mixture 
resulting from the addition of the China wood oil to the 
linseed oil would not be homogeneous and the desired 
wrinkling solution would not be produced.” 
because, to quote him: 

“Low temperature heat treatment of raw China wood 
oil can never produce the equivalent of applicant’s oil 
because, as can be verified from such reference books as 
Krumbhaar and other authorities, such treatment causes 
the oil at the drying stage to have a milky appearance 
called frosting. Such oil upon examination shows opaque 
material which is crystalline in nature and which destroys 
the tenacity of the oil for any base.” 

'While we would consider the nebulous reference to 
“such reference books as Krumbhaar and other authori¬ 
ties” for verification of the allegation that “Low tempera¬ 
ture heat treatment of raw China wood oil can never pro¬ 
duce the equivalent of applicant’s oil” far from sufficient 
to establish this allegation under any conditions, we find 
it especially deficient in the present case, because the alle¬ 
gation is inconsistent with the teaching in Flournoy et al 
that raw China wood oil, which is of necessity treated at a 
low temperature in order to render it viscous, as pointed 
out in our decision, can be used for producing a wrinkle- 
finish composition. We are, therefore, not convinced that 
we erred in affirming the rejection of claims 21 to 23. 

As regards our affirmance of the rejection of claims 
28 to 33 on Waldie in view of Flournoy et al, the appel¬ 
lant argues that it is based upon a misconception of the 
Waldie reference. He contends that our statement that 
“Waldie shows that it is old to mix a wrinkling varnish 
with a wrinkling oil in order to produce a wrinkled coating 
composition” is in error, because, to quote him, “Waldie 



184 A 


does not show the mixing of a wrinkling varnish with a 
wrinkling oil.” We find no error in our description of the 
disclosure of Waldie. As a matter of fact, in describing 
Waldie, we have apparently merely paraphrased the fol¬ 
lowing description found in lines S to 12 of column 2 of 
page 1 of this patent: 

“Another object is to compound a wrinkle coating com¬ 
position comprising a raw wrinkling oil which is adapted 
to be blended with a pigmented wrinkling varnish to pro¬ 
duce a finish having a wrinkle pattern of very fine tex¬ 
ture.” 

The appellant also expresses surprise at the meaning 
which we placed upon the statement in the specification 
that “the wrinkling oil may be admixed with a short oil 
varnish of any kind.” In this connection, he argues that 
“Applicant, and he believes the Examiner also, always 
had interpreted ‘of any kind’ to refer to any kind of oil.” 
We fail to see how* this proves that we erred in interpret¬ 
ing the above statement to meau that the varnish may be 
of the wrinkling or of the nonwrinkling type, nor do we 
see how it proves that the term “short oil varnishes”, as 
used in the specification, is necessarily limited to non- 
wrinkling varnishes. The contention on page 10 of the 
petition to the effect that the invention has no utility ex¬ 
cept in conjunction with nonwrinkling varnishes because 
“If the varnish will wrinkle why add an oil mixture pre¬ 
pared at extra cost”, is sufficiently answered in the above 
excerpt from the appellant’s own patent, where it is 
shown to be common to add wrinkling oils to wrinkling 
varnishes to produce a finish having a wrinkled pattern. 
Anyway, the claims are broad enough to read on a process 
where the wrinkling oil is added to a wrinkling varnish 
and we are not disposed to recommend that the claims 
should be limited by introducing therein the term “non- 
wrinkling” as a modifier for the language “short oil var¬ 
nish”, as suggested by the appellant, because such an 


185 A 


amendment would raise new issues and would make it 
necessary to reopen the prosecution of this case before the 
Primary Examiner. 

We have considered all of the arguments presented in 
the Petition, but we are not convinced that we erred in 
affirming the Examiner’s decision. 

The petition has been considered, but is denied with re¬ 
spect to making any change in our decision. 

/s/ F. J. Porter 
Examiner-in-Chief 

/s/ V. I. Richard 

Examiner-in-Chief 

/s/ S. Wolffe 

Examiner-in-Chief 
Board of Appeals 

January 30, 1950 

Toulmin & Toulmin 
Toulmin Building 
Dayton, Ohio. 

• • « • 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

United States Patent Office 
Washington 

Re: Application of 
William A. AValdie 

Serial No. 653,933 

Filed Mar. 12, 1946 

For: Wrinkle Finish 

Notice of Civil, Action XJnder Section 4915 R. S. 

A civil action under Section 4915 R. S., entitled New 
Wrinkle, Inc. and William A. Waldie v. John A. Marzall, 
Commissioner of Patents, Civil Action No. 696-50, in- 


186 A 


volving this application was filed on February 13, 1950 
in the United States District Court for the District of 
Columbia. 


February 14, 1950 


/s/ E. L. Reynolds 

Solicitor. 


3/12/46 421 Briefed 

1946 

Contents 

1. Application—papers. 

2. Print—Apr. 4-46 

3. Rejection—Sep 13 1946 

4. Letter—Nov 15-46 

5. Letter—Nov 22 1946 

6. Amdt A—Apr 24, 1947 

7. Rejection—Aug 21 1947 

8. Amdt B—Nov 13-47 

9. Final rejection—Feb 20 1948 

10. Amdt C not ent—Apr. 12-48 

11. Letter & Aff—July 12-48 

12. Amdt D not ent—July 12-4S 

13. Amdt E not ent 2 affs—July 21-4S 

14. Advisory Action—Jul 29 1948 

15. Appeal No. 17S14—Aug. 20, 1948 

16. Amdt. F ent—Aug. 20-48 

17. Exam. Statement—Mar 3 1949 

18. Hearing—Nov. 9, 1949-A 

19. Brief—Oct. 18, 1949 

20. Reply to Brief—Nov 2 1949 

21. Decision by Board—Nov 23 1949 Affd 

22. Petition for Recons.—Dec. 23, 1949 

23. Decision by Board—Jan 30 1950—Denied 

24. Notice of Civil Action under 4915—Feb 14-50 





187 A 


Filed Mar 19 1952 Harry M. Hull, Clerk 
Pltfs. Ex. # 2 
THE 

NATIONAL PAINT DICTIONARY 

By 

JEFFREY R. STEWART, F.A.I.C. 
Chemical Engineer 
Assisted by 

Eugene F. Hickson, B. S., Ch. E. 

Chief of the Paint, Varnish and Lacquer 
Section of the National Bureau of Standards, 

U. S. Department of Commerce, 
and 

Raymond B. Seymour, Ph. D. 

Director of the Industrial Research Institute 
University of Chattanooga. 

A Handy Reference Volume Containing 
Definitions of Terms and Scientific Materials Used 
in the Paint and Allied Industries. 


200 Illustrations 
Price $7.50 


Third Edition 
January, 1948 


Published by the 
Stewart Research Laboratory 
P. 0. Box 173 
Benjamin Franklin Station 
Washington, D. C. 
U.S.A. 


188 A 


NATIONAL PAINT DICTIONARY 357 

LITHOL TONER: A family of red toner pigments, pre¬ 
pared by diazotizing 2-naphthylamine-sulfonic acid, 
and coupling with beta-naphthol. Precipitated as an 
insoluble sodium, barium, calcium, or other metal 
complex. 

LITHOPONE: A synthetic, white pigment produced by 
mixing solutions of barium sulfide and zinc sulfate 
which, when coprecipitated, form zinc sulfide and 
barium sulfate. It is then filtered, washed and dried. 
After heating, it is ground for use as a pigment. 
Lithopone is used mainly in flat wall paints and 
floor enamels. It is also sometimes used in exterior 
paints in combination w'ith other pigments. The 
quantities of zinc sulfide and barium sulfate are in 
approximately molecular ratio. 

LITHO VARNISH: A heat-bodied drying oil used in 
the manufacture of printing inks. “Litho” in this 
sense is a modified spelling or contraction of “litho¬ 
graphic. ’ ’ 

LIVERTNG: The progressive, irreversible increase in 
consistency of a pigment-vehicle combination which 
exemplifies itself as a rubbery or coagulated mass. 
Livering, in the majority of cases, arises from a 
chemical reaction of the vehicle and the solid dis¬ 
persed material, but it may also result from poly¬ 
merization of the vehicle. The irreversible character 
of the changes in the “livered” distinguishes it from 
thixotropic “build-up” which is reversible. 

LOBA: Half-hard manila, or manila loba, is the designa¬ 
tion of a fossil resin gathered from one to three 
months or more after tapping. The resin has be¬ 
come hard enough so that the pieces do not stick 
together as does the soft manila. It is scraped 


189 A 


free of surface impurities and graded according to 
size of piece, from A (over 4 centimeters) to D (less 
than 1 centimeter) and dust. The FAX pale nubs 
are cleaner and lighter than the DK or small dark 
chips, which are quite dirty, or the CNE which con¬ 
tains considerable crusty resin. Loba is an alcohol- 
soluble resin of the Manila type from the tree Agathis 
alba. 

LONG OIL ALKYD: An alkyd resin usually containing 
more than 60% oil as a modifying agent. 

LONG OIL VARNISH: An oleoresinous varnish rela¬ 
tively low in resin content and high in oil content. 
It usually contains more than 25 gallons of oil per 
100 pounds of resin. 

LOOSE EMULSION: An emulsion which can be easily 
broken. This is usually influenced by a slight change 
in the pH value (hydrogen ion concentration). 

372 NATIONAL PAINT DICTIONARY 

McILHINEY METHOD: A method for the detection 
and estimation of adulterants in shellac varnish. 

McMULLEN CABINET: A container for testing the 
corrosion resistance of finishes on metal. Coatings 
are tested by applying to panels and placing in a 
cabinet which contains vapors or a dilute aqueous 
solution of ammonium carbonate. 

McMULLEN SETTLING TEST: A test cycle devised 
by E. W. McMullen to accelerate the settling char¬ 
acteristics of paints and similar materials. According 
to this test, the amount and type of setting in five 
cycles of eight days at 120°F. and four days at -10°F., 
is equivalent to approximately two years of normal 
shelf storage. Thus the acceleration is of the ratio 
of twelve to one. 



190 A 


MEADOL: The trade name of a purified lignin fraction 
which is recovered from the black liquor of hardwood 
soda pulp. It is used to prepare lignin esters which 
is accomplished by reacting the lignin and the acid 
chloride in the presence of pyridine. Meadol is pro¬ 
duced by the Mead Corporation. 

MEDIUM: Also called “vehicle,” or “binder.” The 
liquid that is used to disperse a pigment in the pro¬ 
duction of paints or enamels. 

MEDIUM OIL ALKYD: An alkyd resin usually con¬ 
taining 45 to 55% oil as a modifying agent. 

MEDIUM OIL VARNISH: A varnish of medium resin 
content, usually containg from 10 to 25 gallons of 
oil per 100 pounds of resin. 

MEDIUM VALUE: A color approximately midway be¬ 
tween light and dark color, such as “Bluebird,” a 
medium blue. In England, the term “middle” is 
used in the same sense as “medium” is used in 
America. 

M. E. K.: An abbreviated expression frequently used 
in the Paint and Allied Industries which means 
“methvl ethvl ketone.” 

* V 

MELAMINE: CaN^NH^. A trimer of dicyanamide, 
an organic nitrogen compound made from “dicy.” 
Melamine has a specific gravity of 1.57 and a melt¬ 
ing point of 250° C. It is insoluble or difficultly 
soluble in most organic solvents, and is used in the 
synthesis of some resins. 

520 NATIONAL PAINT DICTIONARY 

SHINGLE STAIN: A kind of paint intended for ap¬ 
plication to exterior woodwork having rough surfaces 
such as wood shingles. It usually consists of pig¬ 
ments in a drying oil or varnish containing relatively 



191A 


high proportions of volatile thinner. .It is intended 
to penetrate into the surface of the wood and to 
provide color with little or no gloss. However, it 
is not expected to form a coating of appreciable 
thickness over the wood or to completely hide the 
grain and texture of the wood surface. Creosote 
shingle stains contain a substantial proportion of 
crude creosote or of refined creosote. 

SHIP BOTTOM PAINT: Paint especially designed for 
protecting the immersed portion of a boat from 
action of the water and the organisms it contains. 
It often contains various compounds of copper. There 
are two types of ship bottom paint. One is called 
anti-corrosive paint and is used to prevent the rust¬ 
ing of the steel hulls. The other is anti-fouling and 
is used to prevent the growth and attachment of bar¬ 
nacles which retard the speed of the ship. 

SHORT INK: A highly pigmented ink which is stiff 
and plastic and cannot be drawn out to a thread. 
It is an ink with poor flowing characteristics. 

SHORT OIL ALKYD: An alkyd resin usually contain¬ 
ing less than 45% oil as a modifier based on the 
weight (not volume). 

SHORT OIL VARNSH: A varnish relatively high in 
resin content, usually containing 12 V 2 gallons or less 
of oil per 100 pounds of resin. 

SHUGER FILM APPLICATOR: A device similar to 
but simpler in design than the Bradley Blade. It is 
used for securing films of predetermined thickness. 
In construction, it is merely a bent piece of stain¬ 
less steel in the shape of a “U.” The thickness of 
the paint or varnish film is governed by the milled 
opening or clearance. This device is made in sets 
of 6—ranging in size from 1 mil. to 30 mils. 


192 A 


SICCATIVE: A synonym for the term “drier.” The 
use of this term is discouraged, since it is somewhat 
obsolete. The term is frequently used in European 
technical publications but is only rarely used in the 
United States. 

SICILIAN GREEN: The trade name of a PTA toner 
produced by the Imperial Paper and Color Corpora¬ 
tion. 


Filed Mar 19 1952 Harry M. Hull, Clerk 

Pltfs. Ex. # 10 
W. V. 201L 


100 lbs Amberol F7 
7 ” Lead Acetate 
18 gals Raw Tung Oil 
2 ” Heat Bodied Linseed Oil 
10 ” Xylol 
24 ” Toluol 

Heat 50 lbs. Amberol F7 and 18 gals tung oil to 540° 
F. Probably will coast to 540°, if heat is cut off at 500°. 

Hold at 530-540° for a slight “string” off stirrer. 
Remove from fire, if not already off. 

Check immediately with the lead acetate, the remain¬ 
ing 50 lbs of amberol and the linseed oil. 

Heat back to 425°, while stirring, for the resin solution. 
Remove from fire. Allow to cool to 400° and add the 
Xylol and Toluol. 


193 A 


Filed Mar 19 1952 Harry M. Hull, Clerk 

Pltfs. Ex. # 18 

W. V. 101 S 


120 lbs. Amberol F7 Log: 

40^2 gallons Raw Tung (316 lbs.) 200°- 

On fire—to 500°— 300°- 

off. Hold 500-510° for string. 400°- 

Check with (slowly added) (foams) 450°- 

15 lbs. Lead Acetate 500°- 

180 lbs. Amberol F7 
4V2 gallons Bodied Linseed (35 lbs.) 
which cools batch to— 


Gain 410°—and hold for resin solution. 
Off Cool to 400°—. Thin with 
30 gallons Xylol 
65 gallons Toluol 




March 25, 1930. 


1,752,164 


194 A 

D. M. FLOURNOY FT AL 

PROCESS FOR ORNAMENTINO SURPACBS 
Filed July 28. 1927 



INVENTORS 

DM- Fi ouh vox 
P. D. GFOfiGE 




Patented Mar. 25, 1950 


195 A 


1,752,164 


UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 


DAVID X. FLOURNOY AND PERICLES D. GEORGE, OP ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 
PROCESS POR ORNAMENTING SURFACES 
Application Hied July 88, 1987. Serial No. 809,188. 


Our invention relates to a process for or¬ 
namenting surfaces, one particular applica¬ 
tion of the process being the manufacture of 
coated material for use in making water proof 
5 garments, coverings, and the like. Water 
proof textile material heretofore used, for 
example, in the manufacture of rain proof 
garments, has either had a rough, unattrac¬ 
tive surface or a smooth surface without pat- 
10 tern or design. In accordance with our in¬ 
vention or discovery we are enabled to make 
an ornamented water proof material by a 
process little if any more expensive than 
those heretofore employed in the manufac- 
15 ture of plain, smooth material. 

In its application to the manufacture of 
material for rain proof garments, our process 
comprises impregnating a woven fabric, 
preferably silk, with a liquid material, which 
*0 when coagulated or “dried” in a film is flex¬ 
ible; viscous linseed oil being an example 
of such liquid. Other drying oils such as 
soya bean oil, or Perilla oil may be used, eith¬ 
er alone or mixed with linseed oil, as the im- 
u pregnating liquid. In application this treat¬ 
ment comprises immersing the fabric in the 
liquid and then passing it Detween rollers, or 
other known means, to removo the surplus 
liauid and predetermine the thickness of the 


is then dried, preferably by application of 
heat, and the resultant product is a flexible 
sheet having the combined strength of the 


the raw oil) coagulates after being spread as 
a coating, it forms a wrinkled surface and 
that the cross sectional dimensions of the 
wrinkles varies somewhat with varying vis¬ 
cosity of the oil. Prior to our invention, 60 
however, this characteristic of China wood oil 
has had little, if any, practical value on ac¬ 
count of lack of knowledge as to how to con¬ 
trol the effect, nor had it been conceived 
that it could be employed to produce an or- 60 
namontal surface on a fabric. The China 
wood oil used in the composition above de¬ 
scribed is heat treated to give it such viscosity 
as to givo the composition the characteristic 
that when employed as a coating and treated 85 
as hereinafter described, it coagulates in dry¬ 
ing to produce a uniform wrinkled surface 
comprising small ridges or “wrinkles” close¬ 
ly adjacent to each other. The degree 
of viscosity of the oil necessary that the com- 70 
position have the characterised referred to, 
is not critical and a suitable degree may read¬ 
ily be obtained by test in carrying out our 
improved process. In the claims we have 
employed tne word “treated” to define China 7® 
wood oil having suitable viscosity for the 
purposes of our invention. 

Tne final coating iust described, is applied 
to the product resulting from the' first por¬ 
tion of the process above described, one suit- 80 


f • 1 nTWTTTf I 


i iliTO 470111:1 


Pr.KiWMUUl 


*5 but its surfaces are without figure or pattern 
and it is not of attractive appearance in a 
manufactured garment. In order to give the 

S roduct an attractive appearance, and inci- 
entally further increasing the thickness of 
40 water proof material without, however, sub¬ 
stantially affecting the flexibility, we apply 
to it a coating of a liquid composition con¬ 
sisting of two parts viscous linseed oil and 
one part of China wood oil, preferably with 
48 the addition of a drier in the form of linole- 
ate of lead, cobalt, or manganese, and also 
preferably with approximately 15% by vol¬ 
ume of a suitable thinner, such as petroleum 
naphtha. It is known that when viscous 
80 China wood oil, (produced by heat treating 


film. A suitable thickness to accomplish 85 
the desired result may readily be determined 
by experiment, it being noted here that it is 
possible to make this film both too thin and 
too thick to secure the preferred ornamental 
appearance hereinafter described, or any def- 80 
inite uniform pattern over all of the treated 
material. Promptly after applying to the 
material the second coating referred to, it 
is passed into an oven and subjected to a tem¬ 
perature of not less than 110° F. We have 8 « 
found that in a few minutes after being sub¬ 
jected to heat the outer film coagulates in 
tiny ridges in close proximity to each other 
ana over the entire surface, there being areas 
of substantially parallel ridges, other areas in 


^ 196 A 

2 1 . 768.164 


which the ridges aro in fan shape, and areas 
in which they are irregular. The accompany¬ 
ing drawing is intended to illustrate approxi¬ 
mately the lining of the surface as just de¬ 
scribed. It is characteristic that the entire 
surface presents the desired ornamental ef¬ 
fect, and that the lines or ridges aro substan¬ 
tially uniform in height and width. The silk 
being translucent, and the films resulting 
10 from the drying of both of the treating ma¬ 
terials being transparent or translucent, the 
light transmission and reflection combines 
with the physical conformation of the sur¬ 
face to produce a very pleasing visual effect. 
15 It will be noted that the process described 
does not involve any materials or treatment 
injurious to the base fabric or the application 
of any chemical reagents to the films in either 
their liquid op coagulated state. 

20 While we do not desire to be bound to any 
theory or explanation of the causes of the 
forming of the particular surface resulting 
from * ur process, wo believe that it is partly 
due to the adjustment of thickness of t ho SCC* 
26 ond film anti the immediate application of 
the proper degree of heat thereto, since we 
have found that the film will not produce the 
ornamental effect if the application of heat 
is delayed very long. This would indicate a 
*0 particular range of thicknesses of the second 
ilm applied and the prompt application of 
leat is what causes it to regularly form in fine 
ines or ridges of uniform size distributed 
entirely over the surface and thus makes the 
M process useful by reason of the controllabil¬ 
ity of the ornamental result. The desired 
ornamental appearance would not be secured 
on a silk fabric by omitting the first treat¬ 
ment herein described from which it appears 
40 to be essential that the surface to which the 
China wood oil composition is applied to be 
fairly smooth, or at least have more resist¬ 
ance to contraction than the silk fabric it¬ 
self. 

46 It will be understood that we do not intend 
that our invention be limited to the use of the 
particular substances herein described. Such 
other materials os may have similar charac¬ 
teristics to treated China wood oil with re- 
60 spect to the surface of a coagulated film 
thereof would of course be the equivalent of 
China wood oil for the broader purposes of 
our invention: likowise, since the result 
broadly desired from the employment of the 
66 second coating is a flexible wrinkled film and 
the wrinkling effect is produced by the China 
wood oil, the other coagulable oil used with 
it to form the second coating, may, in lieu of 
linseed oil be Perilla oil or other coagulable 
oils which may be caused to dry at a suitable 
rate and will give the dried film the suitable 
flexibility which it would not have if the sec¬ 
ond coating were composed solely or chiefly 
of China wood oil. 

Having fully described our invention, 


what we claim as new and desire to secure by 
Letters Patent of the United States is: 

*1. The process of producing an ornamental 
water proof cloth, which comprises impreg¬ 
nating woven silk fabric with a liquid com- 
position coagulable to form a flexible water 
proof material and applying to said’product 
after the composition nas been coagulated, a 
coating of a coagulable mixture containing 
treated China wood oil and promptly subject- 75 
ing said coating to heat. 

2 . The process of forming an ornamental 
water proof material adapted for use in cov¬ 
erings, wearing apparel, and the like, which 
comprises immersing silk fabric in a liquid so 
compound capable 01 forming a flexible film 
when. dried, passing the treated fabric 
through rolls, or other known means, to re¬ 
move the surplus liquid, drying the same, and 
then applying to the surface thereof a coat- 89 
ing of a coagulable liquid composition con¬ 
taining China wood oil and promptly subject¬ 
ing the material t/> heat to quickly coagulate 
the mixture, the China wood oil of the com¬ 
position being of such viscosity as to cause 00 
the surface 01 the coating to contract in dry¬ 
ing under said prompt application of heat 

to form a pattern whose dominating charac¬ 
teristic is a plurality of closely adjacent 
ridges of substantially uniform cross sec- #5 
tional area and uniformly distributed over 
the entire surface. 

3. The process of forming an ornamental 
water proof material adapted to use in cov¬ 
erings, wearing apparel, and the like, which 100 
comprises immersing silk fabric in a liquid 
compound capable of forming a flexible film 
when dried, passing the treated fabric 
through rolls, or other known means, to re¬ 
move the surplus liquid, drying the same, and 105 
then applying to the surface thereof a coat¬ 
ing of a mixture of one part treated China 
wood oil and two parts linseed oil, said mix¬ 
ture also containing linoleate of lead, or an 
equivalent drier, and petroleum naphtha, or 110 
equivalent thinner, and promptly subjecting 
the material to atmospheric air of a tempera¬ 
ture of at least 110° F. 

4. The process of ornamenting a fabric 
which comprises applying thereto a coating 115 
of a linuid capable of forming a smooth film 
when dried, applying to said coating when 
dry n coagulable liquid mixture comprising 
trated China wood oil and having the char¬ 
acteristic of such surface contraction in coag- 120 
ulating in heated atmospheric air as to form a 
ridged surface, and promptly subjecting said 
applied coating to heat. 

5. The process of forming ornamental 
water proof material adapted to use in cov- 125 
erings, wearing apparel and the like, which 
comprises immersing silk fabric in viscous 
linseed oil, removing the surplus liquid 
therefrom, drying the same, and then apply¬ 
ing to the surface of said dried coating a iso 


197 A 

1 , 753,104 


coagulable oil composition comprising treat¬ 
ed China wood oil, and promptly subjecting 
the material to atmospheric air of a tempera¬ 
ture of at least 110 degrees F. 

In testimony whereof, we hereunto affix our 
signatures, this 25 day of July, 1927. 

DAVID M. FLOURNOY. 

PERICLES D. GEORGE. 


10 


15 


20 


25 


SO 


35 


40 


45 


60 



198 A 


March 13, 1934. f. B. root 1,950,417 

WRINKLE FINISH FOR FLEXIBLE ARTICLES 
Filed April 17, 1929 






V//////////////M^^ 


Fig. Z. 



P ft A *1 K f>. ft 0 & \ 


Patented Mar. 13, 1934 1,950,417 

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

1,950,417 

WRINKLE FINI 8 II FOR FLEXIBLE ARTICLES 

Frank Brian Root, East Orange, N. J., assignor 
to Chadelold Chemical Company, New York, 

N. Y., a corporation of West Virginia 

Application April 17, 1929, Serial No. 355,939 

40 Claims. (CL 91—70) 


This invention relates to that class of finishes 
known as wrinkle finishes, and more particular¬ 
ly is directed to compositions and methods which 
are adapted to produce wrinkle finishes on flex- 
6 lble articles, such as leather, paper, cloth, arti¬ 
ficial leather, rubber, etc., and to articles carry¬ 
ing such finishes. 

Wrinkling finishes with which the present in¬ 
vention is concerned are quite distinct from any 
10 of the finishes known in the prior art. In that 
prior art, in the production of continuous fin¬ 
ishes, an attempt was made to produce as smooth 
a finish as possible. The so-called crackle fin¬ 
ishes need not concern us here for the reason 
15 that such finishes are discontinuous, a portion 
of an upper coat being broken, so that a lower 
coat Is visible to produce the crackle effect. The 
wrinkle finishes, on the other hand, are con¬ 
cerned with continuous finishes or coatings. 

20 One of the objects of the present invention is 
the production of wrinkle finishes on porous and 
pliable bases including leather, paper, cloth, arti¬ 
ficial leather, rubber, etc. 

In the production of such wrinkle finishes, a 
25 coating of selected composition is applied to the 
surface of the desired article, and the coated 
article Is then subjected to drying conditions un¬ 
der which wrinkling is developed. The follow¬ 
ing may be taken as a possible explanation of the 
80 wrinkling action, but it should be understood 
that in offering this explanation, the invention 
Is not limited thereby, nor by the theoretical 
considerations presented herein, since the com¬ 
positions and methods herein outlined result in 
35 a substantial and desirable wrinkle coating or 
finish, and are not limited in any manner by 
the theoretical considerations presented. I 
may offer by way of explanation, however, what 
appears to be the cause of such wrinkling ef- 
4 b feet. The wrinkling appears to be due to rapid 
oxidation of the surface of the applied film form¬ 
ing a skin over the less oxidized material on the 
interior of the film, the surface skin increasing 
in volume and expanding laterally, and the less 
45 oxld'zed material on the interior of the film be¬ 
ing of a lower viscosity, flows Into the folds pro¬ 
duced by expansion of the surface skin. The 
general effect is that of a level surface carrying 
ridges projecting therefrom and running over 
50 the surface. These ridges, while distributed 
throughout the surface, do not form a regular 
pattern. Nevertheless a finish of pleasing and 
attractive appearance is obtained. 

There is set forth below a more detailed de- 
55 scription of the compositions and methods utl- 
1 zed for the production of the articles included 
within the present Invention, but it should be 
understood that this more detailed description 
is given by way of explanation only, and not by 
so way of limitation, since various changes may be 


made therein by those skilled In the art with¬ 
out departing from the scope and spirit of this 
disclosure. 

In connection with that more detailed de¬ 
scription there is shown in the accompanying 55 
drawing in 

Figure 1 a plan view of a flexible base carrying 
the wrinkle finish of the present invention; in 

Figure 2 a cross section of the article of Fig¬ 
ure 1 enlarged to show the ridges in greater de- 70 
tall, the coating being applied directly to the 
base; and in 

Figure 3 a cross section enlarged to show the 
ridges In greater detail in which the wrinkle fin¬ 
ish coating is applied* over an intermediate coat- 75 
ing, the latter being applied directly to the por¬ 
ous base. 

In the production of wrinkle finishes upon 
porous pliable bases, certain considerations are 
noted. The finish must be flexible after it has 80 
been baked, and must retain that flexibility for 
a relatively long period of time. This flexi¬ 
bility may be secured by the use of a long oil 
wrinkling formula, that is a composition in which 
the oil content is relatively high. Desirably the 85 
composition should contain a large amount of a 
wrinkling oil, and in addition, in order to mod¬ 
ify the size and type of wrinkles, as well as to 
Increase the flexibility, it is advisable-to include 
a non-wrinkling oil, such as a slow drying oil, 90 
which, when dry, forms a flexible film of which 
soya bean oil is exemplary, or a non-drying oil 
such as castor or rape-seed oil. Plasticizers and 
flexlblllzers are also desirable ingredients for pro¬ 
ducing or increasing flexibility. 95 

When the material being treated is leather, or 
other material which might be adversely affected 
by undue heating, the finish should be capable 
of being baked at a low temperature, a temper¬ 
ature low enough to avoid any danger of damag- 100 
ing the leather or other material to which the 
finish has been applied. Compositions which bake 
at fairly low temperatures are obtainable by in¬ 
cluding relatively large quantities of a wrinkling 
oil in the formula. 105 

A wrinkling finish for use on leather, etc., must 
also be susceptible to hardening in a fairly short 
period of baking. This < esul ts in economy through 
increased produptlon, and also prevents injury 
of the leather, or other material, through long no 
heating. Quick hardening may be secured among 
other things by the use of a liberal amount of 
driers, especially a cobalt drier, such as cobalt 
linoleate. 

It is not safe generally to subject leather, pa- 115 
per, cloth, rubber, artificial leather, and similar 
materials to a high temperature for any length 
of time, since these substances have a tendency 
to deteriorate and to become brittle on pro¬ 
longed heating. Also thick porous such igo 



200 A 

2 1,000.417 


as plaster-board, plaster-castings, fiber-board, 
card-board, wood, etc. to which a baked finish Is 
applied are preferably finished by baking at the 
lowest temperature possible in order to avoid 
6 blistering. Air in the pores of the material ex¬ 
pands to such an extent as to push the still plas¬ 
tic finish away from the surface of the material. 

For producing the desired effect, compositions 
are chosen which, under proper drying or bak- 
10 lng conditions, give the particular effect denom¬ 
inated. The drying oils have proved to be de¬ 
sirable components of such wrinkle finish var¬ 
nishes or compositions. Among the drying oils, 
there may be noted for use for these purposes 
15 the more common materials such as blown lin¬ 
seed oil, raw Iins.'.d oil, perilla oil, China wood 
oil, blown China wood oil, and partially oxidized 
or preoxidized China wood oil. The oils vary 
in their rate of oxidation and their wrinkling 
go properties as is more fully described below. An 
investigation of the various drying oils that are 
available shows that the conditions under which 
these drying Oils give the best results vary with 
the particular drying oil being utilized. For ex- 
25 ample while excellent results may be obtained 
with raw China wood oil or with blown China 
wood oil, the best effects with perilla and linseed 
oils are obtained when these oils are used either 
in the form known as blown or oxidized oils. The 
40 present application Is particularly concerned with 
the utilization of the more common drying oils 
in the production of wrinkle finishes, but the 
other less commonly known drying oils that may 
be mentioned and may be similarly utilized in- 
45 elude chia, oiticica, walnut, poppy-seed, sun¬ 
flower, candle nut, lumbang, hempseed, fish, etc. 
The oils which may be used in the production of 
wrinkle finishes may be generically referred to 
as "wrinkling oils" to distinguish them from the 
40 large class of non-wrinkling oils including pri¬ 
marily the semi-drying and non-drying oils. In 
referring to the wrinkling oils with which the 
present invention Is particularly concerned for 
reasons set forth herein, oils like perilla and lin- 
45 seed which give best results in the production of 
wrinkle finishes when they are in the blown form 
are referred to as oils of the perilla-linseed type. 

An oil which like China wood oil gives excellent 
results in wrinkle finishes, whether blown or un- 
50 blown, is referred to hereinafter as an oil of the 
China wood type. 

The various oils differentiate themselves to 
some extent in their properties in the production 
of wrinkle finishes. For example, comparisons 
55 of four oils, namely blown China wood oil, un¬ 
treated China wood oil, blown perilla oil and 
blown linseed oil, show that the relative activity 
of these wrinkling oils in wrinkling finishes may 
be expressed in a series as fallows: Blown China 
CO wood oil 5: raw China wood bU ; blown perilla 
oil 8 ; and blown linseed oil 18. This series ex¬ 
presses the fact that the oils bearing the lowest 
numbers are the more powerful in their wrin¬ 
kling tendende&and consequently the order of the 
55 oils given above represents the wrinkling power 
of these oils in the specified compositions, blown 
China wood oil being the most powerful of the 
oils mentioned. 

Further comparison of the several oils in rela- 
70 Won to the resin content when such resin is of 
the wrinkling finish type to be further defined be¬ 
low shows that for the production of the best 
results with such oil-resin compositions there is 
a difference in oil-resin ratios depending on the 
75 type of oil used. For example with blown China 


wood oil the best appearance is obtained when 
the ratio of oils to resin is approximately from 
6 to 18 gallons of oil to 100 lbs. of resin. For 
blown perilla oils the best ratios are from 10 to 
30 gallons of oil to 100 lbs. of resin, while for blown 8 •> 
linseed oil the best ratios are from 14 to 35 gal¬ 
lons of oil to 100 lbs. of resin. For untreated 
China wood oil the ratio is approximately from 8 
to 25 gallons of oil to 100 lbs. of resin. These 
oil-resin ratios also illustrate a difference be- 85 
tween the action of the oil in the wrinkling finish 
composition. 

A further factor which illustrates differences 
between the several wrinkling oils is in connec¬ 
tion with the drying and baking operation. Oth- 90 
er factors being the same except for variations in 
the composition in the character of oil used, 
show that in the production of the best ef¬ 
fects in compositions utilizing wood oil (untreat¬ 
ed) the time is approximately ten per cent more 9 S 
than when blown China wood oil is used, while 
for blown perilla and blown linseed oil the bak¬ 
ing temperature should be from 20 to 25 per cent 
more than that used with blown China wood oil 
compositions. Unless otherwise indicated below ioo 
in further defining the present invention, it will 
be understood that when blown perilla and blown 
linseed oils and other blown oils of the perlila- 
llnseed type are referred to, these oils include 
oxidized oils and similar products although they 105 
may not be specifically mentioned at the particu¬ 
lar point under consideration. 

While specific drying oils are mentioned above, 
it is understood of course that mixtures of the 
various drying oils particularly in their blown or no 
oxidized condition may be utilized in the produc¬ 
tion of satisfactory wrinkle finishes, the range 
of proportions when mixtures of such oils are 
used being the arithmetical average of the ranges 
of the oils when used alone. And while a varnish 115 
or other composition to be used to produce a 
wrinkle finish must contain a substantial pro¬ 
portion of a wrinkling oil, admixtures of the non- 
wrinkling oils may be used so long as the amount 
of the latter is not sufficient to eliminate the de- 120 
sired wrinkle effect In the finish obtained. 

In general It may be stated that in such ad¬ 
mixtures the best effects are obtained if not less 
than half of the oil mixture is a wrinkling oil. 

For example two or more wrinkling oils and two 125 
or more non-wrinkling oils may be mixed and a 
varnish produced therefrom with the addition 
of the resins, driers and thinners. In such case 
the sum of the amounts of all the wrinkling oils 
should desirably be at least one-half of the total ^ 
oil mixture. Among the non-wrinkling oils there 
may be mentioned specifically soya bean oil, and 
other semi- add non-drying oils such as cotton 
seed, com, castor, rape-seed, rubber seed, olein, 
etc. Such non-wrinkling oils may be cither the 135 
raw oils or the blown or otherwise treated oils. 

Of the resins usable in the production of wrin¬ 
kle finishes, which resins may be denominated 
wrinkling finish resins, the following are noted: 
Congo, kauri, damar, Cumar, Pontianak, manlla, 145 
Zanzibar, eleml, mastic, phenol-formaldehyde 
resins particularly of the oil soluble variety, 
glycerol-phthalic condensation products particu¬ 
larly of the oil soluble variety, paracoumarone, 
Congo ester, rosin ester, and mixtures of these 
resins and resin esters. 

Certain substances exhibit a tendency to In¬ 
hibit the wrinkling effect. Among such sub¬ 
stances there may be mentioned pyroxylin, nitro¬ 
cellulose, gllsonlte, and rosin. These wrinkle 1&0 







201A 

1)950,417 


inhibiting substances should therefore not be 
used in any proportions In the composition which 
would prevent the desired development of wrin¬ 
kles In the finish. Such wrinkle Inhibiting sub- 
s stances when used in small amounts have a 
tendency to produce very fine wrinkles while In 
large amounts they may completely eliminate 
the wrinkling effect. Rosin, If used in large 
amount, also tends to produce irregularities In 
10 the size and In the Interval between wrinkles In 
the resulting finish. While rosin In any amount 
which adversely affects the wrinkling proper¬ 
ties should be avoided, rosin in limited amount. 
Is a desirable ingredient, since it acts to prevent 
15 the jellying or polymerization of the oil. 

Solvents or thinners are not a main factor 
since any moderately volatile solvent can be used. 
Preferably the major portion of the solvent or 
thinner should distil below about 325° P. The 
20 thinner used may be a mixture of several thin¬ 
ning components. The low boiling thinner evap¬ 
orates more quickly from the varnish or enamel 
film promotes the rapid formation of a surface 
skin, and during drying assists in maintaining 
25 a greater differential betweeh the degree of oxi¬ 
dation of the surface skin and the oil within the 
film. When the finish Is dried at elevated tem¬ 
peratures, the use of low boiling thinners also 
assists in eliminating any tendency toward sag- 
30 sing of the finish during the drying operation. 

The following are.Illustrative of the thinners 
and solvents that may be used: light naphtha, 
toluol, benzol, petroleum ether or llgroln (ben¬ 
zine), acetone, carbon tetrachloride, alcohol, 
8& chloroform, ethyl acetate, etc., and mixtures of 
these. To some extent, the character of the fin¬ 
ish may be varied by the quantity and character 
of the thinner used. Turpentine and other high- 
boiling thinners may also be used. More pro- 
40 noUnced wrinkles are produced with composi¬ 
tions containing the lower boiling thinners. 
These thinners and solvents do not produce the 
wrinkling effect, but their use Is for the purpose 
of permitting the spreading of the oil and resin 

49 composition on the surface, after which function 
the thinners and solvents evaporate. 

Driers and drier combinations are also an Im¬ 
portant element in the composition since the* 
wrinkled effect appears to be somewhat deter- 

50 mined by the rate of oxidation of the wrinkling 
oil. Such driers as cobalt acetate, red lead, man¬ 
ganese borate, lead linoleate, etc., used alone or 
in admixture with each other or with other driers 
are Illustrative. These driers primarily hasten 

s6 the hardening action. They also speed up the 
wrinkling somewhat. 

The following examples Illustrate compositions 
that may be utilized In the production of wrin¬ 
kling finishes on flexible or pliable materials: 

50 Pounds 

(1) Congo..100 

Rosin-- 5 

Red lead-- 1% 

Manganese borate. ft 

55 Cobalt linoleate.. 2 

Oallons 

China wool oil. 2ft 

Blown wood oil.- lift 

.. Blown soya bean oil..—.. 5 

70 Light naphtha........ 5 

Toluol.—... 20 

Formula 1 represents a 10 gallon varnish, 
which gives quite pronounced wrinkles, the size 
79 of which wrinkles can be modified by allowing 


the film to air-dry before it Is baked. It has 
been found that the size of wrinkles In these 
finishes may be modified by this expedient of 
air-drying prior to the baking operation. If the 
article Is placed in the oven Immediately after 80 
the wrinkling varnish or enamel has been applied, 
finer wrinkles are obtained than if the film Is 
allowed to air-dry before it Is placed in the oven. 

For example, after drying at room temperature 
for about an hour before being placed in the 86 
oven, much coarser wrinkles are obtained In the 
finish than if the article Is baked immediately 
after the film Is applied. 

Pounds 

(2) Congo... 100 00 

Rosin.. 6 

Red lead. 1% 

Manganese borate_ ft 

Cobalt linoleate_ 2 

„ ®5 

Oallons 

China wood oil.. 2ft 

Blown wood oil.. 0ft 

Blown soya bean oil. 5% 

Light naphtha. 5 jqO 

Toluol... 19 

This Is similar to Example 1 except for slight 
differences in the amount of blown wood oil and 
soya bean oil. The wrinkling effect obtained by ... 
baking the film Is of a fairly fine pattern the size 100 
of the wrinkles being capable of modification as 
to size by a short period of preliminary air¬ 
drying. 

The formulas given above can also be used as lin . 
a wrinkling finish that can be applied to sheet 110 
metal that is Intended for stamping and forming. 

The elasticity and hardness of the finish after 
baking are sufficient to withstand the effects of 
such operations. 

Pounds 116 

(3) Congo .. 100 

Litharge. 2 

Manganese oxide. ft 

Cobalt linoleate___ 5 

120 

Gallons 

China wood oil.. 2ft 

Blown wood oil. 15 ft 

Blown soya bean oil. 15 

Light naphtha.. 5 125 

Toluol__ 24 

The above varnish gives a particularly good 
wrinkled effect. It Is of the long-oil type and 
contains a large amount of non-wrinkling oil. 130 

Pounds 


Cobalt linoleate.... 


2 ft 

Blown wood oil_ 


Gallons 385 
....... 16 

Rape-seed oil.. 


. 10 

Toluol.. 


. 35 


This formula gives fine wrinkles and a flexible 140 
film. The color Is quite light due to the type 
of resin that Is used. This makes it useful as a 
clear wrinkle finish over colored stenciled or 
printed designs on paper, tin, etc. 

‘‘Amberol” is a name for synthetic resins 145 
from phenol formaldehyde and rosin or rosin 
ester. Many phenol formaldehyde materials 
produced without the rosin ester are not soluble 
In oils, but by including enough rosin or its 
glyceride in the compositions, an oil soluble prod-150 




































202 A 

4 1,000,417 


uct results. These resins are known by different 
names, such as “Amberol”, "Albertol” and 


“Bakesite”. 

Pounds 

8 (5) Amberol.-.- 100 

Cobalt llnoleate ..- 3 

Gallons 

Blown linseed oil.. 15 

n Blown wood oil.. 9 

Light naphtha.-.. 5 

Toluol.-. 22 


This formula illustrates the use of blown lin¬ 
seed oil and also denotes a composition that does 
15 not contain a non-wrinkling oil. The wrinkles 
are fairly coarse and quite uniform. 


Pounds 

(6) Congo_ — 100 

Rosin__ 5 

20 Red lead- 1% 

Manganese borate.---. % 

Cobalt acetate.. 2 

Gallons 

China wood oil.. 2'/ 2 

Blown wood oil- —. 6*6 

Blown linseed oil.... 3*6 

Rape-seed oil.— 1% 

Dibutyl phthalate. 1% 

IJght naphtha. 5 

JU Toluol. 22 


This composition gives well-defined and fair¬ 
ly course wrinkles, and illustrates the use of a 
non-volatile liquid, dlbutyl phthalate, in the pro- 
35 duction of a wrinkled coating. 


Pounds 

(7) Congo...40 

Amberol..- 60 

40 Lead llnoleate.. 5*6 

Manganese borate.- 1% 

Cobalt llnoleate.- 2 

Gallons 

China wood oil... 1 

45 Blown perilla oil... 12 

Blown wood oil.-.- 2*6 

Rape-seed oil. - 6 

Light naphtha. 5 

Toluol. 24 


The above is exemplary of a vam'sh contain¬ 
ing blown perilla oil and this formula gives a 
satisfactory wrinkled effect. 

In compounding these compositions, the foi¬ 
es ’owing method is given for the production of 
such a composit'on from Congo, ros'n, China 
wood oil, blown China wood oil, red lead, manga¬ 
nese borate, light naphtha and toluol. Th's 
method of compounding the materials is merely 
60 illustrative. The Congo is placed in a kettle 
and melted fairly close until very fluid. Th's 
will generally Involve a temperature of about 
600* F. The raw China wood oil is then added, 
and this will cool the mixture considerably. Im- 
w mediately the rosin is added, and this will pre¬ 
vent Jellying or polymerlzaton. The red lead 
is then added, and the temperature run back 
to approximately 565* The temperature of the 
70 mixture is allowed to drop to 520* F. and the 
1 blown China wood oil and manganese borate 
are added. Reduction in temperature to ap¬ 
proximate^ 520* at this point is desirable to 
avoid flashing of blown China wood oil. The 
76 admixture of materials at this point will reduce 


the temperature to about 480*. It is then heated 
to 510*. The temperature is then reduced to 
390*, and the thlnners, naphtha and toluol, 
added. 

As indicated above non-wrinkling oils may be 80 
utilized in the composition. Among the non¬ 
wrinkling oils available for these purposes there 
are mentioned raw soya bean oil, and other 
semi- or non-drying oils, such as cotton seed, 
corn, castor, rape-seed, rubber-seed, olein, eto. 80 
These oils may be used either as raw oils, or as 
boiled oils. 

In producing the Improved wrinkling finishes 
of this invention, it is advantageous to dry or 
bake the applied finish or varnish or enamel 80 
preferably at an elevated temperature, depend¬ 
ing on the type of article being treated. While 
for metals and other surfaces resistant to de¬ 
terioration by heat, temperatures as high as 450* 

F. and even higher may be utilized, for the fin- 00 
ishes here described, the temperatures used 
should des rably not rise above 225* F.; and tem¬ 
peratures from 160° to 200* F. include the range 
most suitable for employment both as to the ap¬ 
pearance of the finish thus obtained, and with 100 
reference to the effects of heat upon the base 
to which the finish is applied. Temperatures as 
low as 120* F. have also been utilized. At these 
elevated temperatures rapid oxidation of the sur¬ 
face of the applied film is promoted, and any 105 
tendency toward d ffuslon of oxidation products 
from the surface into the interior of the film is 
lessened. In general, it may be said that dry¬ 
ing at these elevated temperatures accentuates 
the wrinkling and assists in providing a harder 110 
finish. 

Wrinkling finishes should be baked for a suffi¬ 
cient length of time to produce a coating that is 
hard enough for the purposes In hand. For ex¬ 
ample when lacquers or other compositions con- 115 
talning solvents are to be applied upon the wrinkle 
finish serving as an under coat the baked finish 
should be hard enough to withstand the action of 
such solvents or lacquers. At 200* F. the coating 
is sufficiently hard for this purpose after about 2 120 
hours baking. With higher temperatures shorter 
periods of drying or baking may be utilized while 
at lower temperatures longer heating is gener¬ 
ally required. Thus at 225* F. about 1 V% hours Is 
sufficient time while at 150* F. about 4 hours bak- 125 
ing is required. The baking period is also some¬ 
what dependent on the type of composition used 
since wrinkling finish compositions containing 
wrinkling oils of the perllla-llnseed type require 
from 20 to 25 per cent longer heat treatment at iso 
the same temperature than do similar composi¬ 
tions utilizing blown wood oil. 

In addition to the higher oil content providing 
added flexibility so that the long-oil compositions 
are desirable for use in metal stamping or on 335 
leather, paper, cloth, rubber, eto., the higher oil 
content in the composition also results in wrinkling 
at lower temperatures which is also desirable with 
these flexible or pliable materials. As a general 
rule sufficient flexibility in the coating will be se- 140 
cured with an oil content of at least 18 gallons of 
oil to 100 lbs. of resin. This amount of oil may 
be made up of any proportion of wrinkling to non- 
wrlnkllng oil within the limits discussed above. 
However the stated amount of oil for securing 145 
flexibility may vary with other considerations, 
and that given is exemplary. 

While in many instances, the wrinkling finish 
may be applied directly to the surface of the 
leather, as illustrated in Figure 2 of the drawing, 160 































203 A 

1,050,417 


where the wrinkle finish coating B Is shown ap¬ 
plied directly to the base A, it has been found 
desirable, especially if the material is very po¬ 
rous to apply a coat of a flexible sizing to the ar- 
0 tide before the application of the wrinkling finish, 
this sizing acting as a sealer or homogenlzer to the 
surface. This is illustrated in Figure 3 of the 
drawing, where the base A is first provided with 
a sealing coat C, upon which is placed the wrinkle 
jq finish B. The use of a sealing coat is desirable In 
those cases where the porosity of the base is such 
that the wrinkling varnish or enamel would be 
absorbed to such an extent as to prevent or sub¬ 
stantially eliminate the wrinkling effect. Fur- 
15 thermore, material absorption of the composition 
by the base requires longer baking, since evapo¬ 
ration of the solvent and diffusion of the oxygen 
to the interior is hindered. 

As exemplary of such sealing or sizing coats, 
20 there may be used a flexible-long oil varnish, a 
highly plasticized nitrocellulose lacquer or any 
other material which adheres to the leather, etc., 
and dries to yield a smooth flexible coating to 
which the wrinkling flnsh may be applied. The 
o« following formula for a lacquer which is partlcu- 
larly applicable as a sealing coat is noted: 

Percent 


Nitrocellulose.-.—..10 

Heavy blown castor or rape-seed oil.15 

SO Dibutyl phthalate.1_ 5 

Solvent-—____70 


This lacquer is thinned to spraying consistency 
and applied to the leather. After drying for about 
— an hour the wrinkling composition is sprayed on 
and the leather, eto. baked. 

Another suitable sizing material is obtained by 
adding a large quantity of thinner, such as toluol 
to any wrinkling composition given above. An 
40 equal volume of thinner may be used for this 
purpose. The thinned material is then sprayed on 
the leather, and either baked or air-dried. The 
coating thus obtained is generally not heavy 
enough to wrinkle, and much is absorbed by the 
4 « surface, preventing absorption of the subsequent 
coat. 

It has been found desirable also to avoid the 
presence in the sealing coat over which a wrinkle 
finish is to be applied, of appreciable amounts of 
60 soluble wrinkle-lnhlbitlve materials, such as 
rosin or the other substances referred to above. 

There have been set forth above a number of 
considerations directed to the types of composi¬ 
tions and the baking temperatures which affect 

65 the character of the wrinkles produced in the 
finish. Other factors, however, are also found 
which afTect the character of the wrinkles pro¬ 
duced. For example the thickness of the applied 
film will result in differences in the finish. 

66 Thinner films give finer wrinkles and thicker films 
u coarser wrinkles. When spraying is used, spray 

nozzles giving coarse atomization give greater 
deposition of composition and consequently 
coarser wrinkles, while on the other hand spray 
£5 nozzles of finer atomization give thinner films 
with finer wrinkles. To illustrate the production 
of a layer which gives a satisfactory wrinkling 
effect, a gallon of the stated wrinkling composi¬ 
tions may be used to cover an area of about 260 
70 square feet. 

For the production of wrinkle finishes having 
a textured effect by the production of accentuated 
rugosities at certain points or areas in the finish 
the article to be treated may desirably be coated 
with a relatively heavy ooating of the desired 


composition and baked in an inclined position 
which inclined position may vary from a small 
angle to the horizontal to a vertical position. The 
incline of the surface of the article bearing the 
coating produces a flowing or movement of the 
wrinkle coating after it is applied and at or about 
the time when the baking commences and before 
the baking has caused the setting of the finish 
to take place to a point where such movement or 
flowing would be prevented. The effect of such 85 
treatment is to produce waves or areas of ac¬ 
centuated rugosities or wrinkles in the more regu¬ 
larly wrinkled finish. 

The flowing or movement of the wrinkle coating 
after it is applied which results in the accentuated ®0 
rugosities set forth above may be accomplished in 
othej - ways than merely by gravity due to the 
position of the work. For example air currents 
or other flowing methods may be used. 

When gang sprays are used to apply the com- Co 
position, at certain points the atomization may be 
made coarser to prckluce heavier or thicker layers 
at these points resulting in coarser wrinkles in 
such thicker layers. Accentuated rugosities dis¬ 
tributed in the more uniformly wrinkled finishes 100 
may be produced in this manner. 

The wrinkle finishes are characterized by an 
exceedingly Important property, namely their 
remarkable hiding quality. This term ‘hiding 
quality" is used in more or less the same mean- 105 
ing that the expression "covering quality" is used 
in the paint art. It is a remarkable thing for 
example that a single coat of unpigmented 
wrinkle finish may be applied to a bright metal 
surface and the resulting finish will completely 110 
mask the metal surface. Other pigmented com¬ 
positions generally require at least several coats 
in order to secure a comparable hiding effect. 

The baked or dried finishes of the present in¬ 
vention are particularly resistant to softening by 115 
lacquer compositions and particularly the sol¬ 
vents used in nitrocellulose lacquers. So that al¬ 
though the rugose surface of the wrinkle finish 
affords a very extensive area for the action of 
such solvents or lacquers the baking creates a 120 
resistance to such softening action. 

Consequently the wrinkle finishes and composi¬ 
tions used for producing such coatings are par¬ 
ticularly desirable as under coats where a wrinkle 
finish is desired and such finishes may then be 125 
given one or more coats of pyroxylin enamels, 
oil enamels, or baking Japans. When pigments 
are used in the wrinkle finish which have a tend¬ 
ency to change or to darken under the action 
of elevated temperatures, these finishes <nay be 130 
coated with pyroxylin lacquer compositions. 

Having thus set forth my invention, I claim: 

1. An article of manufacture comprising a flex¬ 

ible material carrying a flexlbllized wrinkle finish 
coating. jgf 

2. An article of manufacture comprising a flex¬ 
ible material carrying a wrinkle finish coating 
containing oils including a wrinkling oil and a 
wrinkle finish resin, the amount of oil being 
sufficient to give substantial flexibility to the izn 
coating. 

3. An article of manufacture comprising a flex¬ 
ible material carrying a sealing coating, and a 
superposed wrinkle finish coating. 

4. An article of manufacture comprising a flex- izx 
lble material carrying a flexlbllized baked wrinkle 
finish coating. 

5. An article of manufacture comprising a flex¬ 
ible material carrying a baked wrinkle finish 
coating containing oils including a wrinkling oQ iso 









204 A 

1.050.417 


and a wrinkle finish resin, the amount of oil 
being sufficient to give substantial flexibility to 
the coating. 

0. An article of manufacture comprising a flex- 
5 ible material carrying a sealing coating, and a 
superposed baked wrinkle finish coating. 

7. An article of manufacture comprising flex¬ 
ible sheet material carrying a wrinkle finish coat¬ 
ing containing oils including a wrinkling oil, and 

10 a wrinkle finish resin, the amount of oil being 
sufficient to give substantial flexibility to the 
coating. 

8 . An article of manufacture comprising flex¬ 
ible sheet material carrying a sealing coating, and 

15 a superposed baked wrinkle finish coating. 

9. An article of manufacture comprising flex¬ 
ible sheet material carrying a sealing coat com¬ 
prising a wrinkling oil and a wrinkle finish resin, 
and a superposed wrinkle finish coating. 

20 10. An article of manufacture comprising flex¬ 

ible sheet material carrying a sealing coat com¬ 
prising a flexible sizing, and a superposed wrinkle 
finish coating. 

11. An article of manufacture comprising flex- 
25 ible sheet material carrying a sealing coat com¬ 
prising a highly plasticized nitrocellulose lacquer, 
and a superposed wrinkle finish coating. 

13. The method of producing wrinkle finishes 
on flexible articles of manufacture which com- 
30 prises applying to said article a wrinkle finish 
coating, and baking said coating at a tempera¬ 
ture sufficient to produce the wrinkle finish, but 
below that at which the article would be deleteri- 
ously affected, 

35 13. The method of producing wrinkle finishes 

on flexible articles of manufacture which com¬ 
prises applying to said article a wrinkle finish 
coating containing oils Including a wrinkling oil 
and a wrinkle finish resin, the amount of oil be- 
40 ing sufficient to give substantial flexibility to the 
coating, and drying said coating at a tempera¬ 
ture sufficient to produce a wrinkle finish but be¬ 
low that at which the article would be deleteri- 
ously afTected. 

45 14. The method of producing wrinkle finishes 

on flexible articles of manufacture which com¬ 
prises applying to said article a sealing coat, dry¬ 
ing the same, applying a wrinkle finish coating, 
and drying the latter at a temperature suf- 
50 flclent to produce a wrinkling finish but below 
that at which the article would be deleterlously 
affected. 

15. The method of producing wrinkle finishes 
on articles of manufacture which comprises ap- 
55 plying to said article a wrinkle finish coating, 
air-drying said coating, and then baking the 
same. 

10. The method of producing wrinkle finishes 
on flexible sheet material which comprises ap- 

00 plying to said material a wrinkle finish coating 
and drying said coating at a temperature below 
that at which the material would be deleterlously 
affected, but high enough for a sufficient length 
of time to produce a wrinkle finish. 

05 17. The method of . producing wrinkle finishes 

on porous material which comprises applying to 
said material a wrinkle finish coating, and dry¬ 
ing said coating at a temperature sufficient to 
produce a wrinkle finish but below that at which 
- 0 blistering appears In the coated article. 

18. The method of producing wrinkle finishes 
on a flexible sheet material which comprises 
baking flexible material carrying a flexibillzed 
wrinkle finish coating at a temperature of from 
7B 100 to 200* P. 


19. A wrinkle finish composition for producing 
wrinkle finishes upon flexible articles, said com¬ 
position comprising a wrinkle oil and a wrinkle 
finish resin, drier and solvent, the proportions 

of the ingredients being sufficient to yield wrinkle 80 
finishes, and the amount of oil being sufficient to 
give substantial flexibility to the coating. 

20. A composition as set forth in claim 19, 
which includes a substantial proportion of a non¬ 
wrinkling oil. 

21. A coating composition comprising a wrin¬ 
kling oil, a non-wrinkling oil, a wrinkle finish 
resin, a drier and thinner In proportions to yield 
a wrinkle finish. 

22. An article of manufacture carrying a 90 
wrinkle finish coating produced with a composi¬ 
tion containing a wrinkling oil and a non-wrln- 
kling oil, the proportion of the latter being in¬ 
sufficient to prevent wrinkling of the composition. 

23. A coated material comprising a flexible 05 
base material, and a flexible coating thereon 
having a crinkled surface obtained without me¬ 
chanical embossing, said coating comprising heat 
treated China wood oil, a semi-drying oil and 

a suitable filler. 100 

24. A coated material comprising a fabric base 
material and a flexible coating thereon having 
a crinkled surface obtained without mechanical 
embossing, said coating comprising a heat treat¬ 
ed mixture of China wood oil, a semi-drying oil 105 
and a drier. 

25. A coated material comprising a woven base 
fabric and a flexible coating thereon having a 
crinkled surface obtained without mechanical 
embossing, 6 ald coating comprising a heat treat- 110 
ed mixture of substantially two parts of China 
wood oil to one part of a semi-drying oil and 

a drier. 

20. A coated material comprising a flexible base 
material and a flexible coating thereon having a 115 
wrinkled surface, said coating comprising a 
wrinkling oil, a semi-drying oil, and a suitable 
filler, in proportions to yield a flexible coating 
when dried on an article of manufacture. 

27. A coated material comprising a fabric base 120 

material and a flexible coating thereon having a 
wrinkled surface, said coating comprising a 
wrinkling oil, a semi-drying oil, and a drier, in 
proportions to yield a flexible wrinkle coating 
when dried on an article of manufacture. 125 

28. A coated material comprising a flexible base 
material and a flexible coating thereon having a 
wrinkled surface, said coating comprising a 
wrinkling oil, a non-drying oil and a suitable filler. 

29. A coated material comprising a fabric base 130 
material and a flexible coating thereon having 

a wrinkled surface, said coating comprising a 
wrinkling oil, a non-drying oil and a drier, in 
proportions to yield a flexible wrinkle coating 
when dried on an article of manufacture. 135 

30. A composition for producing wrinkle fin¬ 
ishes upon flexible articles, said composition com¬ 
prising a wrinkle oil, a semi-drying oil, and a 
wrinkle finish resin, drier and solvent, the pro¬ 
portions of the ingredients being sufficient to yield 140 
wrinkle finishes and the amount of oil being suffi¬ 
cient to give substantial flexibility to the coating. 

31. A wrinkle finish composition adapted to 
yield a flexible wrinkle finish when dried on ar¬ 
ticles of manufacture carrying the same, said 145 
composition comprising a heat-treated China 
wood oil, a semi-drying oil, and a suitable filler. 

32. A wrinkle finish composition adapted to 
yield a flexible wrinkle finish on articles of man¬ 
ufacture carrying the same, said composition 150 


205 A 


1,060,417 * 

comprising a heat-treated mixture of China wood to yield a plasticized flexible wrinkle coating when 
oil, semi-drying oil. and a drier. dried on a flexible article carrying the same. 

33. A wrinkle finish composition adapted to 37. A wrinkle finish composition adapted to 
yield a flexible wrinkle finish on articles of man- yield a flexible wrinkle finish on articles of man- 

5 ufacture carrying the same, said composition ufacture carrying the same, said composition 80 
comprising a wrinkling oil, a semi-drying oil, and comprising a wrinkling oil, and dibutyl phthalate, 
a suitable filler. in proportions to yield a plasticized flexible wrin- 

34. A wrinkle finish composition adapted to kle coating when dried on a flexible article carry- 
yield a flexible wrinkle finish on articles of man- ing the same. 

10 ufacture carrying the same, said composition 38. An article of manufacture carrying a wrln- 85 
comprising a wrinkling oil, a semi-drying oil, and kle finish coating of a wrinkling oil and a plas- 
a drier. ticizfer, in proportions yielding a flexible wrinkle 

35. A wrinkle finish composition adapted to finish coating. 

yield a flexible wrinkle finish on flexible articles. 39. An article of manufacture carrying a wrin- 

15 said composition containing a wrinkling oil and kle finish composition of a wrinkling oil, a non- 00 
a plasticizer, in proportions to yield a plasticized wrinkling oil, and a non-volatile organic liquid 
flexible wrinkle coating when dried on a flexible plasticizer, in proportions yielding a flexible 
article carrying the same. wrinkle finish coating. 

36. A wrinkle finish composition adapted to 40. A flexible article of manufacture carrying 

2o yield a flexible wrinkle finish on flexible articles a wrinkle finish composition of a wrinkling oil 95 
carrying the same, said composition containing a and dibutyl phthalate. in proportions yielding a 
wrinkling oil, a non-wrinkling oil, and a non- flexible wrinkle finish coating, 
volatile organic liquid plasticizer in proportions FRANK BRIAN ROOT, 


25 


100 


30 


105 


85 


110 


116 


120 


126 


180 


136 


140 


146 


M0 



Patented Mar. 14, 1944 


206 A 


2 , 344,189 


UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 


2,344,189 

WRINKLING ENAMEL AND METHOD OF 
MAKING 

Willltun A. Waldle, Dayton, Ohio, assignor to New 
Wrinkle, Ino., Dayton, Ohio, a corporation of 
Delaware 

No Drawing. Application May 3, 1939, 
Serial No. 271,591 

2 Claims. (Cl. 106—228) 


My Invention relates to coating compositions 
and more particularly to the method of mak¬ 
ing wrinkle drying enamels which can be used 
to produce different textural wrinkle patterns. 
The Invention Is applicable for producing wrink¬ 
ling enamel finishes without employing blown 
oils as a constituent, thereby materially reduc¬ 
ing the cost and improving the product. 

Crinkle finishes as heretofore made In the 
art have been compounded from so called 
"wrinkling oils" which oils comprise raw China- 
wood oil, blown drying oils, such as China-wood, 
linseed; Perllla, oltlclca, etc. Other paint and 
varnish oils of the so called "non-wrinkling" 
type, such as soya bean, chla, walnut, hempseed, 
lumbang, poppy seed, sunflower seed, safflower 
seed, castor, fish, etc., may be utilized. Large 
amounts of the non-WTlnkllng oils, however, 
cannot be used In the formulation of wrinkle 
finishes; otherwise the wrinkling of the finish 
on drying In inhibited. Prior to my Invention 
It has been necessary to use blown or pre-oxl- 
dlzed oils in compounding wrinkle finishes In 
order to obtain the most satisfactory results. 
This was particularly true where clear wrinkle 
varnishes of sprayable consistency were desired. 

The disadvantage of using blown oils lies in 
their Instability. This Instability results from the 
pre-oxldatlon of the oil which oxidation contin¬ 
ues in a progressive manner after termination of 
the blowing treatment. At the beginning of the 
treatment the oil Is soluble In the conventional 
petroleum or coal tar solvents but as oxidation 
progresses the oil becomes Increasingly less sol¬ 
uble until finally It precipitates out in a rub- 
ber-like mass. This renders the wrinkle com¬ 
position unfit for use. Wrinkle finish coating 
compositions comprising blown oil constituents, 
therefore, cannot be stored for any length of 
time before use. 

It has also been found that In using wrinkle 
coating compositions made with blown oils a 
wrinkle finish having very fine texture cannot 
be produced, the tendency being for the finish 
to form a coarse or heavy textural wrinkle pat¬ 
tern on drying. 

It Is an object of this invention to make a 
wrinkle finish enamel which Is stable on stor¬ 
ing and can be readily modified so as to pro¬ 
duce coarse, medium or fine textural wrinkle 
pattern. 

Another object of this invention Is to eliminate 
the necessity of using blown oils in making 
wrinkle finishes. 

Another object of this invention Is to provide 


a wrinkle enamel composition which Is compar¬ 
able to similar compositions made using blown 
oils. 

Another object Is to provide a pigmented 
wrinkle finish composition which can be blended 
with a wrinkling varnish so as to produce a light 
or heavy textural, wrinkle finish on drying. 

Another object is to compound a wrinkle coat¬ 
ing composition comprising a raw wrinkling oil 
which Is adapted to be blended with a pig¬ 
mented wrinkling varnish to produce a -finish 
having a wrinkle pattern of very fine texture. 

Another object Is to compound a pigmented 
wrinkle finish composition which may be mixed 
with drying oil fatty acld3 to produce the de¬ 
sired pattern or texture of wrinkle finish. 

Another object Is to produce a wrinkle drying 
enamel of sprayable consistency without the 
use of blown oils. 

Typical examples of wrinkle finish composi¬ 
tions comprising blown drying oils are: 

Example 1 


Resin (Congo, kauri, rosin, "Cumar" or 


. "Amberol") ... 

..pounds-. 

100 

Lead linoleate or acetate. 

-do_ 

2-3 

Cobalt acetate or linoleate... 

-do_ 

tt-% 

Blown tung oil.. 

..gallons.. 

8-10 

Petroleum naphtha.j. 

-do_ 

9-12 

Toluol or xylol. 

—do_ 

10-14 

Example 2 



Resin (Congo, kauri, rosin, "Cumar” or 


“Amberol”) .. 

.pounds.. 

100 

Litharge... 

...do- 

3V6-5 

Manganese linoleate or borate 

...do_ 

2-3 

Blown linseed oil. 

.gallons.. 

15-25 

Petroleum naphtha. 

...do_ 

8-12 

Toluol or xylol.. 

...do_ 

15-20 


In order to eliminate the use of blown oils 
as illustrated in the typical examples of wrinkle 
finishes given, the formula for producing a 
wrinkling varnish base of my invention Is as 
follows; Varnish. "A" 

Modified phenol aldehyde resin C‘Am- 

berol" or "Beckaclte”)___.pounds.. 100 

Lead acetate or linoleate.—.do_ 5-9 

Raw China-wood oil---.gallons..-, 15-25 

Bodied linseed oil...do_ 2-5 

8olvent naphtha.do..,— 8-10 

Toluol ...do_18-25 

In the foregoing varnish formula it will be un¬ 
derstood that various resins may be utilized in 
place of those mentioned. Resins which are suit- 


0 


10 


is 


20 


25 


30 


33 


40 


45 


50 


55 












Liquid drier "C" 


2 

able are kauri, dammar, Congo, "Cumar,” pon- 
tianak, Manila, Zanzibar, eleml, mastic, copal, 
sandarao and the like. Further other phenol 
formaldehyde resins of the roaln, fossil resin and 
eater gum modified type which are readily com¬ 
patible with the oil vehicle may be used. Also 
glycerol phthalio resins of the oil soluble type 
may be utilized, or mixtures of the above resins. 

Similarly other wrinkle oils such as raw 
oitlclca, poyok and equivalent oils may be sub¬ 
stituted for raw China-wood oil. The bodied 
linseed oil employed is the grade known in the 
trade as “vamiah linseed." This product com¬ 
prises linseed oil which has been processed by 
heat.treating the same between 575 to 800 de¬ 
grees F. until a desired degree of viscosity is ob¬ 
tained. 

The preferred method of making vamiah "A’’ 
la to heat all of the China-wood oil and approxi¬ 
mately Va to % of the realn together in a vessel 
to a temperature around MO degrees F. There¬ 
after the metallic drier, linseed oil and the re¬ 
mainder of the rain are added. When the resin 
la dissolved the varnish base can be cooled and 
thinned with the solvent or it can be heated 
longer to obtain a higher viscosity before thin¬ 
ning. 

I have discovered, however, that if the varnish 
base is cooled quickly after the second portion 
of rain is dissolved a clear wrinkle varnish can 
be made having Improved spraying and wrinkling 
properties. The essential step in making varnish 
“A” is the sudden chilling or cooling of the heat 
treated homogeneous mass at the end of the heat 
treatment. This may be done in any suitable 
manner such as by the application of cold water 
or by refrigeration. By this method of making 
the wrinkle finish composition a sprayable wrin¬ 
kle finish product is obtained comparable with 
that made with blown oils. The wrinkle finish 
product is also stable and can be stored. The 
heat treatment of the varnish may be varied be¬ 
tween a temperature range of 450 to 550 degrees 
F. but preferably the heating is conducted above 
500 degrees F. 

By maintaining the percentage amount of the 
total solids in the composition the same and 
heating the product for different lengths of time, 
I can regulate the viscosity of the varnish. The 
longer the varnish is heated the higher becomes 
its viscosity and correspondingly the shorter the 
period the lower the viscosity. This is true even 
though the amount of solvent or thinner added 
may be the same in both cases. 

In making a clear wrinkle varnish there is 
added to the above varnish "A” about 2 to 5 per 
cent of a liquid drier. A drier composition which 
has been found to be very satisfactory for this 
purpose is as follows: 

Liquid drier "A" 

Cobalt Unoleate solid.pounds.. 12-16 

China-wood oil fatty acids.do_ 8-10 

Toluol, xylol, petroleum naphtha or coal 

tar solvent..—gallons— 8-8 

Other examples of liquid driers which may be 
utilized are as follows: 

Liquid drier "B" 

Lead Unoleate__Pounds.. 5-10 

Cobalt acetate..—-do_ 2-6 

Linseed oil fatty acids.do- 2-5 

China-wood oil fatty adds-.do- 4-6 

Toluol, xylol, petroleum naphtha or coal 

tar solvent.gallons.. 6-5 


Lead Unoleate.pounds. _ 4-6 

Manganese borate.-.do-2-5 

Cobalt acetate---do-1-3 

Drying oil fatty acids (China-wood oU, Un¬ 
seed, etc.) ..-.do-5-8 

Toluol, xylol, petroleum naphtha or coal tar 
solvent_gallons.. 6-9 

For producing a wrinkle finish composition 
of the desired textural wrinkle pattern varnish 
"A" may be made having relatively low or high 
viscosity as determined .by the Oardner-Holdt 
standards for varnish. In general the higher the 
viscosity of the varnish “A" the coarser the tex¬ 
ture of the wrinkle finish. 

Where a finer textural pattern of a wrinkle 
finish is desired than can be obtained by the use 
of a low viscosity varnish, a varnish-like solution 
of drying oil fatty acids may be incorporated in 
varnish ‘‘A.’’ The following examples are typical: 

Varnish, "B” 


China-wood oil fatty acids.pounds. . 8-10 

Toluol or xylol.gallons. _ 1 

Varnish "C" 

Linseed oil fatty acids-pounds.. 2-5 

China-wood oil fatty acids..do_3-8 

Toluol or xylol.—..gallons.. 1 


By adding various proportions of varnish B 
or varnish C to a low viscosity wrinkle varnish 
base made according to varnish "A,” the texture 
or pattern of the wrinkle produced on drying 
Is modified. The higher the proportion of var¬ 
nish "B" or "C" added to varnish "A" the finer 
the texture of the wrinkle finish produced. 

To make a pigmented wrinkling enamel I may 
grind pigment into varnish "A" which varnish 
may be of either high or low viscosity depending 
upon the texture of the wrinkle finish. Owing, 
however, to the volatility of the solvent used in 
preparing varnish "A" It Is preferable to make a 
special grinding varnish for this purpose. A 
typical example is as foUows: 

Varnish "D" 

Modified phenol aldehyde resin 

"Amberol” or “Beckacite”)_pounds. - 100 

Lead acetate or Unoleate..do... 5-8 

Raw China-wood oil...gallons.. 15-20 

Bodied linseed oU____do... 2-5 

Toluol or xylol___•_do_ 8-12 

High-boiling petroleum naphtha_do... 35-50 

Varnish "D" is made in a like manner as var¬ 
nish "A" but in this instance I continue the heat 
treatment to obtain a heavy viscosity material. 
This varnish Is then mixed with the conventional 
paint pigments to make a paste of desired color 
and thereafter lt'ls passed through a paint mill 
to thoroughly disperse the pigment in the varnish 
vehicle. As an example of a pigmented paste a 
white paste formula Is as foUows: 

White paste 1 

Titanium oxide_pounds._ 8-10 

Varnish "D". gallons— 1 

A white'wrinkling enamel made with the above 
paste would have the following formula: 

White wrinkling enamel 

Paste 1- pounds_2-3 

Clear wrinkle varnish "A”—.gallons. _ i 

If varnish "A" Is of high viscosity the texture 


207 A 

2,844,180 




10 


15 


20 


25 


30 


35 


40 


45 


00 


ft 5 


A0 


05 


70 


75 

























208 A 


9,844,180 


3 


will be coarser than that obtained by using a 
varnish of low viscosity as heretofore explained. 
To obtain finer textural wrinkle finish patterns 
in the case of enamels, I add an Inert paste hav¬ 
ing a typical formula such as: 

Inert paste 2 

Asbestine _pounds._ 8-10 

Varnish “D"_gallons.. 1 

In place of asbestine it will be understood that 
other inert pigments may be utilized, for example 
silica, silex, whiting, "Surfex” (CaCOj), china 
clay, etc. Some of these pigments function much 
better than others and are more or less effective 
In producing the desired wrinkling enamel finish. 

After making the pigmented pastes 1 and 2, I 
add varying amounts of inert paste 2 to the 
enamel to obtain different wrinkle finish tex¬ 
tures. There is, however, a limit as to the 
amount of inert paste which can be incorporated 
before the film becomes perfectly smooth on dry¬ 
ing. The amount depends on the particular In¬ 
ert pigment used In making the paste. When a 
sufficient amount of paste has been incorporated 
in the enamel additions of the drying oil fatty 
acids of varnish “B” or “C" are made to vary 
the textural pattern of the wrinkle finish. In 
this way a wrinkle finish having a textural pat¬ 
tern so fine as to be practically invisible to the 
naked eye can be produced. 

In producing the Improved wrinkle finish of 
this Invention articles coated with the coating 
composition may be made to wrinkle by baking 
the coating at relatively low or high tempera¬ 
tures. For metallic and similar surfaces a tem¬ 
perature of 140 to 475 degrees F. may be em¬ 
ployed. For application of the coating on wood, 
paper and similar materials a somewhat lower 
temperature on the order of 125 to 150 degrees F. 
may be used. Ordinarily baking the finish at 
elevated temperatures accentuates the wrinkling 
and provides a harder finish. Where a highly 


elastic film is desired, the addition of small 
amounts of non-drying or semi-drying oils, such 
as castor oil, raw soya bean oil or similar mate¬ 
rials may be made. Plasticizers such as dibutyl- 
5 phthalate or dicresyl phosphate also may be uti¬ 
lized. 

It will be understood that I desire to compre¬ 
hend within my invention such modifications as 
come within the scope of the claims and the in- 
10 vention. 

Having thus fully described my invention, 
what I claim as new and desire to secure by 
Letters Patent is: 

1. A composition of matter adapted for use as 
13 a pigmented wrinkling enamel composition, com¬ 
prising resin, metallic drier, raw China-wood oil, 
boiled linseed oil and solvent thinner, said var¬ 
nish composition having incorporated therewith 
2 to 5 per cent of free vegetable drying oil fatty 

oq acids dissolved in solvent and having a pigmented 
paste including a color pigment and asbestine 
incorporated In the mixture to provide a wrinkle 
finish enamel which when applied as a coating 
film and dried produces a wrinkled textural pat- 
2 ,*, tern so fine ns to be practically invisible to the 
naked eye. 

2. In an improved method of making a compo¬ 
sition of matter, the steps of mixing one-fourth 
to three-fourths of resin with the total amount 

:l0 of China-wood oil, heating the mixture at a tem¬ 
perature of 450° to 550° F., adding thereafter a 
metallic drier, boiled linseed oil and the remain¬ 
der of the resin, dissolving the resin in the mix¬ 
ture, cooling the mixture quickly after the second 
33 portion of the resin has been added, thereafter 
adding thinner to produce a wrinkling varnish 
of the desired consistency, incorporating there¬ 
with 2 to 5 percent of free vegetable drying oil 
fatty acids dissolved in solvent, and then adding 
40 a pigmented paste including a color pigment and 
asbestine to provide an enamel which dried to a 
fine textural wrinkle finish. 

* WILLIAM A. WALDIE. 





209 A 


Deftfs Ex. j±l—Paper D 

122 SCIENTIFIC METHODS OF VARNISH MANUFACTURE 
tion of the tabulated results of such a test: 


Table 1 9 


Test Mixture Petroleum Ether Insoluble 


Diluting Oil 

Tung Oil 

Gel Time 
in Minutes 
(2) 545° F. 

Expected 
(Approximate 
Pure Eleo¬ 
stearic Tri¬ 
glyceride) 

Insoluble Gel 
Actually Found 

Soybean Oil 

0% 

100% 

7% 

70.6% 

70.6% 

5 

95 

8 

67.0 

66.6 

10 

90 

9 

63.5 

62.6 

20 

80 

14 

56.5 

56.5 

33 

67 

20 

47.3 

47.0 

50 

50 

37% 

35.3 

35.4 

67 

33 

400 

23.2 

23.0 

Linseed Oil 

5 

95 

8 

67.0 

69.6 

10 

90 

8% 

63.5 

63.4 

50 

50 

45 

* 35.2 

51.6 


From a comparison of the values given for the in¬ 
soluble portions expected with the portions actually fownd 
it is apparent that by usin gthe above described test the 
pure eleo stearic tri-glyceride content of a tung-soya mix¬ 
ture may be determined, while with a linseed-tung oil mix¬ 
ture the insoluble portion will amount to about one-half 
of the added linseed oil in addition to the eleostearic tri¬ 
glyceride content when the adulteration has been of only 
small proportions. A coordination of this test with re¬ 
fractive index and “gel time” values will enable very 
close calculation of the linseed oil content. Adulteration 
with perilla oil will show results which are close to those 
from adulteration by linseed oil. 

The heat-bodving and gelling properties which char¬ 
acterize tung oil are entirely due to its eleostearic glycer¬ 
ide content, and it is therefore important to maintain 






210 A 


careful control over incoming tung oil shipments, especially 
during periods when the oil is very costly, since a 5 per 
^ent difference of tung oil content will materially alter 
the heat-bodying qualities when the oil is used for varnish 
manufacture. 

In the group of oils containing “conjugated double 
bond” structures (such as tung oil) the differences be¬ 
tween the pure tri-glyceride type of molecule and the 
mixed glyceride type is aptly illustrated by a comparison 
of oiticica oil with tung oil. Whereas tung oil seems 
quite definitely to be of pure tri-glyceride type oiticica 
oil has been reported 10 to be of mixed glyceride type. 
The principal fatty acid found in oiticica oil is licanic 
acid (Table 2, Chapter VIII, No. 12), which differs from 
eleostearic acid only by the presence of an oxygen atom 
attached to the fourth carbon atom in the chain. At this 
same position eleostearic acid has two hydrogen atoms 
attached. Licanic acid otherwise has the same “molecular 
plan” as eleostearic, and would normally be expected to 
display practically the same polymerization speed. Oiti¬ 
cica oil does not, however, body quite as rapidly as tung 
oil. The observed differences in heat-bodying character¬ 
istics are at least partly attributable to the presence within 
its molecule of fatty acids which polymerize only slowdy 
or not at all, with the result that a substantial proportion 
of the oil molecules may have only two, or even only one 
fast polymerizing fatty acid group instead of the full 
quota of three as possessed by the tung oil molecule. 

Obviously a one-third or two-thirds reduction of poly- 

HEAT BODIED OILS AND TREATED VEHICLES 123 

merization capacity of some of the oil molecules will cause 
a reduction in bodying speed, or conversely, an increase 
in the time required for the oil to be bodied to a given 
viscosity. 












211A 


A comparison between the bodying speed of oiticica and 
lung oils, without the addition of other oils or of resins, 
has been made. 10 The reported results of this compari¬ 
son are presented in Table 2. 

From this table it is apparent that oiticica oil heated 
in an open kettle at a temperature of 450° F. will re¬ 
quire a longer time to acquire a given viscosity than does 
tung oil heated under the same conditions, but that oiti¬ 
cica oil heated 480-490° F. acquires a given viscosity in 
about the same total heating time as does tung oil heated 
at 450° F. 

The minimum gel time for a good grade of tung oil is 
found at a temperature of 655-660° F. and is of the order 
of about two and three-eighths minutes. Above that tem¬ 
perature tung oil displays a slightly retarded gelation 
rate due to the formation of acidic decomposition prod¬ 
ucts which retard the action, while the same sample of 
tung oil will gel - at 560° F. in about 7% minutes, and at 
540° F. in about 9 minutes. By comparison oiticica oil 
displays its most rapid gelation at 560° F., the time re¬ 
quired being about ~\ 6 V 2 minutes; at 540° F. the same 
sample gelled in 17 minutes. Above the temperature of 
560° F. oiticica oil gelation is considerably slower. These 
facts are more clearly brought out by inspection of a 
graphic representation of the gelation rates of tung and 
oiticica oils at various temperatures. This is shown by 
Figure 8. 

Correlation of values computed from this graph with 
values given by Table 1 discloses that the gel time of 
oiticica oil at 545° F. is approximately similar to that of 

124 SCIENTIFIC METHODS OF VARNISH MANUFACTURE 

a mixture comprising 25 per cent soybean oil and 75 per 
cent tung oil. This graph also clearly demonstrates that 






FIG. I 



INVENTOR 

WILLIAM A. WALOIE 
BY. 






213 A 


temperatures above 560° F. are undesirable during the 
manufacture of varnishes using oiticica oil. 

Both raw tung oil and raw oiticica oil will, when spread 
out in thin films, become converted to semi-solid, ‘ * cheesy,” 
frosted coatings. This transformation is caused partly 
by oxidation, as with the other drying oils, and partly as 
a result of rearrangements which occur within the mole¬ 
cule resulting in the formation of isomeric compounds, 
the isomeric substances thus formed being solid at normal 
temperatures instead of liquid. The formation of these 
isomeric substances appears to be accelerated by exposure 
to air and sunlight. 

The term “isomer” refers to molecular structures which 
have the same proportions and absolute quantities of con¬ 
stituent atoms, and therefore the same molecular weights, 
but which have slightly different physical structures as in¬ 
dicated by their “molecular plans.” 

When tung and oiticica oils are not suitably treated in 
a manner which will prevent the formation of these 
“cheesy” isomeric compounds the dried films from the 
products, which may be made subsequently, will exhibit a 
tendency to “gas check” even though the freshly dried film 
may be smooth and glossy and free of frosted appearance. 
This “gas checking” is the direct result of the formation 
of solid isomeric compounds; it occurs with varnishes 
which have not been rendered “gas proof” when there is 
nitrogen oxide present in the atmosphere to the extent of 
only 3 parts per million parts of air. Since this propor¬ 
tion of nitrogen oxide may be very readily formed in any 
room where an open flame may be occasionally burned, it 
is important to “gas proof” varnishes because there is no 
way by which to be certain that the dry varnish will not 
be subjected to these conditions during its service life. 


214 A 


Table 2 

Comparison of kettle-bodying of 150-gallon batches of tung and oiticica oil. 


(A) Tung Oil Bodied at 450° F. 


Time 


Viscosity 

Acid 

Temperature 

Specific 

Molecu 

Hours 

Minutes 

(Gardner-Holdt) 

Number 

Degrees F. 

Gravity 

Weigh 

0 

0 

I 

6.4 

75° 

0.939 

635 

■««« 

58 

I 

6.7 

200 

0.939 

642 

1 

13 

1 + 

6.6 


0.939 

660 

1 

28 

1 + 

6.5 

350 

0.939 

679 

1 

43 

K-L 

6.5 

390 

0.941 

694 

1 

5S 

P 

6.6 

425 

0.944 

726 

2 

13 

U- 

6.5 

440 

0.945 

780 

2 

23 

V-W 

6.5 

450 

0.950 

830 

2 

33 

X-Y 

6.6 

450 

0.952 

920 

2 

43 

Z 

6.8 

450 

0.955 

992 

2 

53 

z 2 

6.6 

450 

0.957 

1050 

3 

3 

z 4 

6.4 

450 

0.959 

1091 

3 

13 

Z 5 -Z e 

6.4 

450 

0.961 

1110 

3 

23 

Heavier than Litho No. 6 

6.6 

450 

0.962 

1632 



(345 poises) 

(Removed from fire) 




(B) Oiticica Oil Bodied at 480° 

F. to 490° F. 



0 

0 

Semi-solid 

4.9 

75° 

0.975 

695 

2 

13 

Semi-solid 

5.3 

275 

0.973 

705 

2 

23 

Semi-solid 

5.9 

305 

0.976 

710 

2 

33 

Semi-solid 

4.6 

360 

0.973 

725 

2 

43 

Semi-solid 

4.9 

400 

0.975 

748 

2 

53 

U-V 

5.1 

440 

0.975 

780 

3 

3 

X 

5.9 

460 


830 

3 

9 

Z 

6.4 

470 

0.983 

905 

3 

14 

z r z 2 

6.6 

480 

0.986 

1000 

3 

19 

z 3 -z 4 

6.7 

480 

0.986 

1080 

3 

24 

z 4 -z 5 

7.2 

480 

0.991 

1210 

3 

29 

Z 6 

7.5 

480 

0.994 

1355 

3 

51 

Heavier than Litho No. 6 

8.0 

400 


1605 


(358 poises) 


1 








215 A 


Deft’s Exhibit #1—Paper F 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 


UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

Washington 


Address only 

The Commissioner of Patents 
Washington 25, D. C. 


Paper No. 17 


All communications respecting 
this application should give the 
serial number, date of filing, 
name of the applicant, and 
appeal number. 

Mailed Mar 3 1949 

In re application of 
William A. Waldie 
Ser. No. 653,933 
Filed March 12,1946 
For WRINKLE FINISH 

Appeal No. 17,814 
Before the Board of Appeals 
Messrs. Toulmin & Toulmin for Appellant. 


Examiner’s Statement 


This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 
1-18. The amendment of August 24, 1948, cancelling all 
the claims of record and adding claims 21-35 has been 
entered for purposes of appeal. The Examiner’s state¬ 
ment on claims 21-35, all of the claims now in the case, 
is forwarded herewith. 

The claims are as follows: 

Claim. 21 As a new composition of matter, an oil mix¬ 
ture for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating com- 




216 A 


position yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon 
drying, said oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons 
of a homogeneous mixture of conjugated double-bonded 
oil and non-conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil in 
the ratio of from 1:1 to 1:3 and heated to a temperature 
of from 450° to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic drier. 

Claim 22 As a new composition of matter, an oil mix¬ 
ture for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating com¬ 
position yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon 
drying, said oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons 
of a homogeneous mixture of 3 parts by volume of con¬ 
jugated double-bonded oil and 5 parts by volume of non- 
conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil heated to a tem¬ 
perature of from 450 to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic 
drier. 

Claim 23 As a new composition of matter, an oil 
mixture for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating 
composition yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern 
upon drying, said oil mixture consisting of a homogeneous 
mixture of 20 gallons of non-conjugated double-bonded 
linseed oil and 12 gallons of raw tung oil heated to at 
least 560° F., and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

Claim 24 As a new composition of matter, an oil mix¬ 
ture for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating com¬ 
position yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon 
drying, said oil mixture consisting of a homogeneous mix¬ 
ture of 20 gallons of non-conjugated double-bonded linseed 
oil and 12 gallons of oiticica oil heated to at least 500° 
F., and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

Claim 25 As a new composition of matter, an oil mix¬ 
ture for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating com¬ 
position yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon 
drying, said oil mixture consisting of a homogeneous mix¬ 
ture of 20 gallons of non-conjugated double-bonded linseed 
oil and 12 gallons of dehydrated castor oil heated to at 
least 600° F., and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 



217 A 


Claim 26 A method for preparing an oil which is 
adapted to transform a short oil varnish into a wrinkle 
coating composition that dries to a worm-shaped segre¬ 
gated pattern, comprising mixing a conjugated double- 
bonded oil and a non-conjugated double-bonded vegetable 
oil in the proportion of from 1:1 to 1:3 and heating 
this mixture to at least the polymerization temperature 
of said conjugated double-bonded oil until homogeneous, 
and adding a metallic drier. 

Claim 27 The method of preparing an oil which is 
adapted to transform a short oil varnish into a wrinkle 
coating composition that dries to a worm-shaped segre¬ 
gated pattern, comprising mixing raw tung oil and var¬ 
nish grade linseed oil in substantially the proportions of 
3 parts by volume of the former oil to 5 parts by volume 
of the latter oil, heating the mixture to at least 560° F. 
until the mixture becomes homogeneous, and adding 16 
pounds of manganese acetate thereto before the tempera¬ 
ture of the mixture has dropped below 500° F., and then 
reheating the mixture to 525° F. until it becomes homoge¬ 
neous. 

Claim 28 A wrinkle coating composition comprising a 
varnish and from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume per each 
part of varnish of a homogeneous oil prepared by heat¬ 
ing a mixture of conjugated double-bonded oil and non- 
conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil in the proportion 
of from 1:1 to 1:3 to a temperature of from 450° F. to 
650° F. and a metallic drier. 

Claim 29 A wrinkle coating composition comprising a 
varnish and from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume per each part 
of varnish of a homogeneous oil mixture, said oil mixture 
consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons of a homogeneous mix¬ 
ture of conjugated double-bonded oil and non-conjugated 
double-bonded vegetable oil in the ratio of from 1:1 to 
1:3 and heated to a temperature of from 450° to 650° F. 
and 1 pound of metallic drier. 




218 A 


Claim 30 A wrinkle coating composition comprising a 
resin-containing short oil varnish and an oil mixture in 
the proportion of from 10 to 16 gallons of said oil mix¬ 
ture per 100 pounds of resin contained in said varnish, 
said oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons of a 
homogeneous mixture of conjugated double-bonded oil and 
non-conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil in the ratio 
of from 1:1 to 1:3 and heated to a temperature of from 
450° to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic drier, and said 
composition having from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume of said 
oil mixture per each part by volume of said varnish. 

Claim 31 A wrinkle coating composition comprising 1 
part by volume of a short oil varnish, coloring matter 
selected from the group consisting of dyes and pigments, 
and from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume of an oil mixture, said 
oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons of a homoge¬ 
neous mixture of conjugated double-bonded oil and non- 
conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil in the ratio of 
from 1:1 to 1:3 and heated to a temperature of from 
450° to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic drier. 

Claim 32 A wrinkle coating composition comprising a 
short oil varnish, coloring matter selected from the group 
consisting of dyes and pigments, and 10 to 16 gallons 
of an oil mixture per 100 pounds of resin contained in 
said varnish, said oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 
gallons of a homogeneous mixture of conjugated double- 
bonded oil and non-conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil 
in the ratio of from 1:1 to 1:3 and heated to a tempera¬ 
ture of from 450° to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic 
drier, and from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume of said oil mix¬ 
ture being used for each part by volume of said varnish. 

Claim 33 A wrinkle coating composition consisting of 
7 parts by volume of a short oil varnish; 6 parts by 
volume of a oil consisting of a homogeneous mixture of 
20 gallons of varnish grade linseed oil and 12 gallons 





219 A 


of raw tung oil heated to at least 560° F. and 16 pounds 
of manganese acetate, and 3 parts by volume of toluol. 

Claim 34 A wrinkle coating composition consisting of 
7 parts by volume of a short oil varnish and 4 parts by 
volume of an oil consisting of a homogeneous mixture of 
20 gallons of varnish grade linseed oil and 12 gallons 
of oiticica oil, said mixture being heated to at least 500° 
F., and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

Claim 35 A wrinkle coating composition consisting of 
7 parts by volume of a short oil varnish and 4 parts by 
volume of an oil consisting of a homogeneous mixture of 
20 gallons of varnish grade linseed oil and 12 gallons 
of dehydrated castor oil, said mixture being heated to 
at least 600° F., and 16 pounds of manganese acetate. 

References relied on: 

Waldie 2,344,189 March 14, 1944 

Root 1,950,417 March 13, 1934 

Flournoy et al 1,752,164 March 25, 1930 

The Subject Matter 

The subject matter of the application relates to a 
wrinkle coating composition, capable of drying to a worm 
shaped segregated pattern, comprising a varnish based 
upon an oil soluble resin and an oil mixture which will 
convert the varnish into a wrinkle coating composition. 
The oil additive consists of the homogeneous mixture pre¬ 
pared by heating one part of conjugated double-bonded 
oil with from one to three parts of non-conjugated 
double-bonded oil to a temperature of from 450° to 650° 
F, and then adding a metallic drier to the heated oil 
mixture. 





220 A 


The References 

Waldie discloses a wrinkle coating composition com¬ 
prising a short oil wrinkling varnish and a color pigment. 
The wrinkling varnish may be based npon oil soluble 
resins. 

Flournoy discloses a composition for producing a 
w'rinkle finish comprising two parts of viscous linseed oil 
to one part of viscous China wood oil, to which there is 
added a metallic drier and a thinner. The oils are ren¬ 
dered viscous by heat treating. 

The Root patent relates to wrinkle finish compositions 
and discloses numerous materials that can be used in the 
preparation of wrinkle finishes as well as the effect of 
driers and treatment conditions upon the formation of 
wrinkle patterns. 

The Claims 

Claims 21 to 25 are drawm to the oil mixture to be used 
in converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating composi¬ 
tion. Claims 21 and 22 are generic claims and differ in 
that claim 21 defines a ratio range over 'which the rela¬ 
tive quantities of conjugated and non-conjugated double- 
bonded oils can vary. Claim 22 is limited to the use of 
specific relative proportions of the oils. Claims 23-25 are 
the species claims, and are drawn to the use of specific 
oils in the oil mixture. 

Claims 26 and 27 are drawn to a method of preparing 
the oil mixture used as a wrinkle converting agent. 

Claim 26 recites broadly that the mixture of oils is 
heated to or above the polymerization temperature of 
the conjugated double-bonded oil and a drier then added. 
Claim 27 sets out specific conditions of temperature in 
which the steps of the process are effected. 








221A 


Claims 28-35 are drawn to wrinkle coating compositions 
comprising a varnish and an oil mixture effective to con¬ 
vert the varnish to a wrinkle coating composition. Claims 
28-32 are generic. These claims differ in the degree of 
particularity in which the relative proportions of oil mix¬ 
ture and varnish are set out, in the limitation to a short 
oil varnish in claims 30-32, and in the inclusion of color¬ 
ing matter in the compositions of claims 31 and 32. Claims 
33-35 are species claims drawn to the use of particular 
oils in the oil mixture. 

The Rejection 

Claims 24, 25, 34 and 35 are rejected as reading on the 
non-elected species. 

Claims 21-23 are rejected as lacking invention over the 
patent to Flournoy. Flournoy discloses a liquid composi¬ 
tion for producing a wrinkle finish comprising two parts 
of viscous linseed oil to one part of viscous China-wood 
oil, and preferably a metallic drier. The composition 
may also include a thinner. It is stated that the China- 
wood oil is rendered viscous by heat treatment, and that 
the Chinawood oil used in the liquid composition is such 
a heat-treated oil. The viscous linseed oil would likewise 
be produced by a heat treatment of the raw linseed oil. 
The use of manganese acetate as the metallic drier would 
not involve invention since the use of the acetates as 
driers in wrinkling compositions is old as shown by the 
patent to Root, 1,950,417, page 3, column 1, line 50. The 
particular proportions of metallic drier and oil mixture 
recited in these claims are not seen to distinguish over 
the teaching in Flournoy of the use of metallic driers 
with such an oil mixture as is recited by applicant. The 
adjustment of the relative proportions of drier and of oil 
mixture to produce the optimum results is considered to 
be a modification within the skill of those competent in 
the art. 





222 A 


Claims 26 and 27 are rejected as unpatentable over 
Flournoy who discloses a process which comprises heat 
treating linseed oil and Chinawrood oil within the propor¬ 
tions recited by applicant, and subsequently incorporating 
a metallic drier into the oil mixture. The use of the 
particular temperatures recited is not considered to pat- 
entably distinguish over Flournoy. Irrespective of the 
final temperature used the final product is a homogeneous 
mixture of the oils. The step of reheating after the 
addition of the metallic drier is not considered to be a 
patentable variation since the use of heat to obtain a 
more homogeneous mixture wrould be an obvious expe¬ 
dient to one skilled in the art. 

Claims 2S-33 are rejected as unpatentable over Waldie 
together with Flournoy. Waldie discloses short oil 
wrinkling varnishes based upon oil-soluble resins which 
may be pigmented to provide a wrinkling enamel com¬ 
position. Flournoy discloses a wrinkling composition com¬ 
prising a mixture of heat-treated Chinawood oil and heat- 
treated linseed oil within the proportions recited by ap¬ 
plicant, and a metallic drier. No invention is seen in 
combining the wrinkling composition disclosed by Flour¬ 
noy with the wrinkling varnish disclosed by Waldie in 
order to produce thereby a wrinkle coating composition. 
No criticality is seen in the use of the particular propor¬ 
tions of varnish and oil mixture recited by applicant 
since no unexpected result is obtained thereby. A wrink¬ 
ling oil composition has been added to a wrinkling var¬ 
nish. It is obvious that the combination of such composi¬ 
tions in any proportions will result in a wrinkle coating 
composition. 

The production of a particular finish as recited by ap¬ 
plicant is not seen to add any patentable matter to the 
rejected claims. The production of a particular finish is 
believed to be within the skill of those competent in the 
art, since Waldie discloses the effect of the varnish vis- 


223 A 


cosity on the pattern of the finish and the addition of a 
wrinkling composition to a wrinkling varnish, and since 
Root discloses the influence of driers and the conditions 
of application and treatment on the wrinkle pattern which 
is formed. 

Applicant contends that in the process disclosed by 
Flournoy the oils are individually heat-treated and then 
combined. The Examiner is unable to find any disclosure 
in the Flournoy patent which will support applicant’s 
contention. Flournoy’s liquid composition comprises vis¬ 
cous linseed oil and viscous tung oil, and it is stated that 
the tung oil is rendered viscous by heat-treatment. It is 
the Examiner’s position that the patent to Flournoy is 
inclusive of a process in which the tung oil and linseed 
oil are co-bodied. 

Applicant argues that the combination of Flournoy with 
Waldie is not a valid combination since the varnishes 
of Waldie are all wrinkling varnishes per se in contra¬ 
distinction to his own varnishes as exemplified by Varnish 
II, wherein varnish grade linseed oil is used. In other 
words, applicant argues that all of Waldie’s varnishes are 
based upon wrinkling oils whereas the varnishes he dis¬ 
closes include some which are based upon raw linseed oil, 
which applicant states to be a non-wrinkling oil. Atten¬ 
tion is directed to the Root patent 1,950,417, page 2, col¬ 
umn 1, lines 13-18. where raw linseed oil is clearly taught 
to be a wrinkling oil. Thus it is seen that the varnishes 
disclosed by the Waldie patent and those disclosed by 
applicant are substantially the same, being short oil var¬ 
nishes based upon oil soluble resins and such an oil as is 
referred to in the Root patent as a wrinkling oil. The 
combination of Flournoy with Waldie is considered to be 
a valid combination and the rejection of claims 28-33 over 
these references is considered to be tenable. 


224 A 


In conclusion it is submitted that the rejection of 
claims 21-35 is sound and should be sustained. 

/s/ J. Green wald 

Acting Examiner 

BWB:ta 

Deft’s Ex. #1—Paper G 
Mailed 

U. S. Patent Office Board of Appeals 

Appeal No. 17,814 
Hearing: Nov. 9, 1949 

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS 


Ex parte William A. Waldie 

Application for Patent filed March 12, 1946, Serial No. 
653,933. Wrinkle Finish. 


Messrs. Toulman and Toulman for Appellant. 


This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 
to 18, inclusive. Simultaneously -with the appeal, how¬ 
ever, the appellant filed an amendment cancelling these 
claims and adding claims 21 to 35, inclusive, for the pur¬ 
pose of appeal. This amendment was entered and the 
appeal forwarded with reference to the latter claims. Of 
these claims, 21 and 28 are illustrative and read as fol¬ 
low’s : 

21. As a new composition of matter, an oil mixture 
for converting a varnish into a wrinkle coating composi¬ 
tion yielding a worm-shaped segregated pattern upon dry¬ 
ing, said oil mixture consisting of from 1 to 3 gallons of 



225 A 


a homogeneous mixture of conjugated double-bonded oil 
and non-conjugated double-bonded vegetable oil in the 
ratio of from 1:1 to 1:3 and heated to a temperature of 
from 450° to 650° F. and 1 pound of metallic drier. 

28. A wrinkle coating composition comprising a var¬ 
nish and from 0.5 to 2 parts by volume per each part of 
varnish of a homogeneous oil prepared by heating a mix¬ 
ture of conjugated double-bonded oil and non-conjugated 
double-bonded vegetable oil in the proportion of from 1:1 
to 1:3 to a temperature of from 450° F. to 650° F. and a 
metallic drier. 

The references upon are: 

Flournoy et al 1,752,164 Mar. 25, 1930 

Root * 1,950,417 Mar. 13, 1934 

Waldie 2,344,1S9 Mar. 14, 1944 

Scientific Methods of Varnish Manufacture—Huff— 
American Paint Journal Co.—St. Louis, Mo., 1940. Pages 
122-124. 

Among the grounds for appeal are the following: 

“The Examiner erred in holding that the recitation of 
the reaction and a reaction product between the two oils 
is new matter. 

“The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20 as improper 
in defining a product by its process of preparation.’’ 

These grounds for appeal relate to the reasons given 
by the Examiner for refusing to enter amendments with 
reference to the finally rejected claims, 1 to 18, inclusive. 
We will not rule as to these grounds for appeal, because 
the question of the propriety of the Examiner’s refusal 
to enter amendments is not within our jurisdiction. 

The claims relate to a wrinkle coating composition, 
which produces a worm-shaped, pattern. This composi¬ 
tion is obtained by mixing a short oil varnish with an oil 







226 A 


mixture which will convert the varnish into a wrinkle 
coating composition. This oil mixture is prepared by heat 
treating a mixture of one part of a conjugated double- 
bonded oil and one to three parts of a non-conjugated 
double-bonded oil to a temperature of 450° to 650° F. 
and then adding a metallic drier to the heated and re¬ 
acted mixture. 

Claims 21 to 23, inclusive, stand rejected as unpatent¬ 
able over Flournoy et al. This patent discloses a liquid 
composition for producing a wrinkle finish comprising two 
parts of viscous linseed oil and one part of viscous China 
wood oil, and preferably a metallic drier. This composi¬ 
tion may also include a thinner. With reference to the 
China wood oil, the following instructions appear in this 
patent: 

“The China wood oil used in the composition above 
described is heat treated to give it such viscosity as to 
give the composition the characteristic that when em¬ 
ployed as a coating and treated as hereinafter described, 
it coagulates in drying to produce a uniform wrinkle sur¬ 
face comprising small ridges or ‘wrinkles’ closely ad¬ 
jacent to each other. The degree of viscosity of the oil 
necessary that the composition have the characteristic re¬ 
ferred to, is not critical and a suitable degree may readily 
be obtained by test in carrying out our improved proc¬ 
ess.” 

We agree with the Examiner that the composition re¬ 
cited in claims 21 to 23, inclusive, fails to differ patent- 
ablv from the composition disclosed in this patent because 
we are not convinced that any unobvious results are ob¬ 
tained by mixing the China wood oil with the linseed oil 
before heat-treating the same. 

We have given careful consideration to the affidavits 
filed in this case with reference to the practice disclosed 
in Flournoy et al, but we are of the opinion that they 




227 A 


fail to establish that if the China wood oil is heat-treated 
to make the same viscous, as taught in Flournoy et al, 
before it is added to the linseed oil, the mixture resulting 
from the addition of the China wood oil to the linseed oil 
would not be homogeneous and the desired wrinkling solu¬ 
tion would not be produced. It appears to us that in 
view of the fact that it is well recognized, as shown on 
pages 122-124 of the Scientific Methods of Varnish Manu¬ 
facture, that China wood oil gels rapidly when heated 
by itself at a temperature of about 560° F., it would be 
obvious to use a lower temperature than 560° in heat 
treating this oil in order to make it viscous. In this con¬ 
nection, attention is directed to Fig. 8 on page 124 of 
Scientific Methods of Varnish Manufacture, where it is 
shown that at a temperature of 450° F., which is the 
lower limit of the temperature range specified in the 
broader claims, it takes as long as 60 minutes for the 
China wood oil to gel. In view of the disclosure in Fig. 8, 
mentioned above, it appears to us that China wood oil can 
be heat-treated within the temperature range disclosed 
in the specification and recited in the broader claims 
without gelling it so rapidly as to make it impossible to 
mix it uniformly with the linseed oil. In view of these 
considerations, the affidavits fail to convince us that a 
competent chemist, desirous of successfully operating the 
process disclosed in Flournoy et al, would not be able to 
do so without premixing the China wood oil with the 
linseed oil before subjecting the China wood oil to the 
bodying heat treatment. The Bullard Co. v. Coe, 64 
ITSPQ 359. 

The rejection of claims 21 to 23, inclusive, as unpatent¬ 
able over Flournoy et al will, therefore, be sustained. 
For similar reasons, we consider the rejection of claims 
26 and 27 as unpatentable over this reference to be well 
founded, and will sustain the same. 




228 A 


Claims 28 to 33, inclusive, stand rejected as unpatent¬ 
able over Waldie in view of Flournoy et al. Waldie 
shows that it is old to mix a wrinkling varnish with a 
wrinkling oil in order to produce a wrinkled coating com¬ 
position. The Examiner holds that it would involve no 
invention in view of this disclosure to add the wrinkling 
oil of Flournoy et al to a wrinkling varnish in order to 
produce a wrinkled coating composition. The appellant 
argues that in the present application, he: 

. . shows that a non-wrinkling varnish (one com¬ 
pounded with a non-conjugated oil such as linseed oil) 
can be converted to a wrinkling pattern not known here¬ 
tofore. 

“Varnish II shows a formulation, depending upon var¬ 
nish grade linseed oil, which it is well known in the trade 
is not a wrinkling oil. 

“Waldie patent 2,344,189 does not teach anything but 
how to prepare wrinkling varnishes. It obviously would 
not be invention to add wrinkling oil to a wrinkling var¬ 
nish. But here the Examiner seeks to anticipate the in¬ 
vention of converting non-wrinkling compositions into 
wrinkling coatings by combining references, one of which 
shows wrinkling varnished and a second reference show¬ 
ing a wrinkling oil.” 

The difficulty with this argument is that none of the 
claims are limited to the use of a nonwrinkling varnish 
in the coating composition. As a matter of fact, while 
the varnish disclosed in Example II may be of the non¬ 
wrinkling type, it is stated on page 1 of the specification 
that the wrinkling oil may be admixed with a short oil 
varnish of any kind. We are, therefore, of the opinion 
that claims 28 to 33, inclusive, are unpatentable over 
Waldie in view of Flournoy et al, and the rejection of 
these claims on this combination of references will, there¬ 
fore, be sustained. 


229 A 


Claims 24, 25, 34 and 35 stand rejected as failing to 
read on the elected species. These claims are not before 
us for consideration on their merits. 

The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. 

In event of appeal, attention is directed to In re Boyce, 
32 C.C.P.A. 718; 144 Fed. (2d) 896; 1944 C.D. 609; 568 
O.G. 568 ; 63 U.S.P.Q. 80; in regard to specifically includ¬ 
ing in the appeal notice all grounds of rejection in the 
Examiner’s Statement not expressly overruled by the 
Board. 

/s/ F. J. Porter 

Examiner-in-Chief 

/s/ V. I. Richard 

Examiner-in-Chief 

/s/ S. Wolffe 

Examiner-in-Chief 
Board of Appeals 

November 23, 1949 

Toulmin & Toulmin 

Toulmin Building 

Dayton, Ohio. 







230 A 


Deft’s Ex. f±l—Paper H 

U. S. Patent Office Board of Appeals 

Jan 30 1950 Mailed 
Appeal No. 17,814 

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 


BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS 


Ex parte William A. Waldie 


Application for Patent filed March 12, 1946, Serial No 
653,933. Wrinkle Finish. 


Messrs. Toulmin and Toulmin for Appellant. 


On Petition for Reconsideration 

This is a petition for reconsideration of our decision 
of November 23, 1949, in which we affirmed the Exam¬ 
iner’s decision. 

The appellant alleges that we erred in holding that the 
affidavits: 

“. . . fail to establish that if the China wood oil is 
heat treated to make the same viscous, as taught by 
Flournoy et al, before it is added to the linseed oil, the 
mixture resulting from the addition of the China wmod 
oil to the linseed oil would not be homogeneous and the 
desired wrinkling solution would not be produced.” 
because, to quote him: 


231A 


“Low temperature heat treatment of raw China wood 
oil can never produce the equivalent of applicant’s oil 
because, as can be verified from such reference books as 
Krumbhaar and other authorities, such treatment causes 
the oil at the drying stage to have a milky appearance 
called frosting. Such oil upon examination shows opaque 
material which is crystalline in nature and which destroys 
the tenacity of the oil for any base.” 

While we would consider the nebulous reference to 
“such reference books as Krumbhaar and other authori¬ 
ties” for verification of the allegation that “Low tempera¬ 
ture heat treatment of raw China wood oil can never 
produce the equivalent of applicant’s oil” far from suffi¬ 
cient to establish this allegation under any conditions, we 
find it especially deficient in the present case, because 
the allegation is inconsistent with the teaching in Flour¬ 
noy et al that raw r China wood oil, which is of necessity 
treated at a low temperature in order to render it viscous, 
as pointed out in our decision, can be used for producing 
a wrinkle-finish composition. We are, therefore, not con¬ 
vinced that we erred in affirming the rejection of claims 
21 to 23. 

As regards our affirmance of the rejection of claims 28 
to 33 on Waldie in view of Flournoy et al, the appellant 
argues that it is based upon a misconception of the 
Waldie reference. He contends that our statement that 
“Waldie shows that it is old to mix a wrinkling varnish 
with a wrinkling oil in order to produce a wrinkled coat¬ 
ing composition” is in error, because, to quote him, “Wal¬ 
die does not show the mixing of a wrinkling varnish with 
a wrinkling oil.” We find no error in our description of 
the disclosure of Waldie. As a matter of fact, in de¬ 
scribing Waldie, we have apparently merely paraphrased 
the following description found in lines 8 to 12 of column 
2 of page 1 of this patent: 





232 A 


“Another object is to compound a wrinkle coating com¬ 
position comprising a raw wrinkling oil which is adapted 
to be blended with a pigmented wrinkling varnish to 
produce a finish having a wrinkle pattern of very fine 
texture.” 

The appellant also expresses surprise at the meaning 
which we placed upon the statement in the specification 
that “the wrinkling oil may be admixed with a short oil 
varnish of any kind.” In this connection, he argues that 
“Applicant, and he believes the Examiner also, always 
had interpreted ‘of any kind’ to refer to any kind of oil.” 
We fail to see how this proves that we erred in interpret¬ 
ing the above statement to mean that the varnish may be 
of the wrinkling or of the nonwrinkling type, nor do we 
see how it proves that the term “short oil varnishes”, as 
used in the specification, is necessarily limited to non¬ 
wrinkling varnishes. The contention on page 10 of the 
petition to the effect that the invention has no utility ex¬ 
cept in conjunction with nonwrinkling varnishes because 
“If the varnish will wrrinkle why add an oil mixture pre¬ 
pared at extra cost”, is sufficiently answered in the above 
excerpt from the appellant’s own patent, where it is 
shown to be common to add wrinkling oils to wrinkling 
varnishes to produce a finish having a wrinkled pattern. 
Anyway, the claims are broad enough to read on a proc¬ 
ess where the wrinkling oil is added to a wrinkling var¬ 
nish and wre are not disposed to recommend that the 
claims should be limited by introducing therein the term 
“nonwrinkling” as a modifier for the language “short oil 
varnish”, as suggested by the appellant, because such an 
amendment would raise new issues and would make it 
necessary to reopen the prosecution of this case before 
the Primary Examiner. 

We have considered all of the arguments presented in 
the Petition, but we are not convinced that we erred in 
affirming the Examiner’s decision. 



233 A 


The petition has been considered, bnt is denied "with 
respect to making any change in onr decision. 

/s/ F. J. Porter 

Examiner-in-Chief 

/s/ V. L Richard 

Examiner-in-Chief 

/s/ S. Wolffe 

Examiner-in-Chief 
Board of Appeals 

January 30, 1950 

Tonlmin & Tonlmin 
Tonlmin Building 
Dayton, Ohio. 





cr 

.■ inr •••'- 

ft. of -Cjf iutM& Jt**?; 


New Wbinkle, Inc., and William ti 

App 


EOBERT C.) WATSON 


Commissioner of Patents 


Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia 


H. A. Toulmin, Jb. 

F. E. Drummond 
B. J. Hanlon, Jb. 

Toulmin Building 
Dayton, Ohio 
Attorneys for Appellants 


Of Counsel 

Toulmin & Toulmin 















No. 11,403 


STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED 

With regard to the novel worm-type segregated con¬ 
figuration attained by the practice of this invention, the 
District Court said (App. 82A): 

“The product itself is convincing to me in the na¬ 
ture of its results.” 

With regard to the step of the heating of a mixture 
of oils to form a homogeneous composition useful in at¬ 
taining the result, counsel for appellee said (App. 48A): 

“The difference here, if any, is in this step of 
heating. That is the real crux of the case. Flournoy 
does not definitely describe it. ...” 1 

Thus the questions are presented: 

(1) Is it patentable invention to provide a new method 
of placing together old materials, which develop new char¬ 
acteristics when mixed together, when that new method 
contributes to a new result of wrinkling from a non¬ 
wrinkling oil and a non-wrinkling varnish; and when the 
primary art on the point does not describe the crucial 
step? 

(2) Is it patentable invention to provide by a new 
method a new oil composition, non-wrinkling in itself, 
capable, when added to a non-wrinkling varnish, of im¬ 
parting wrinkling characteristics to that varnish? 

(3) Is it patentable invention to provide a new coat¬ 
ing composition which produces a coating characterized 
by a novel surface configuration, visibly showing a differ¬ 
ent result from all previous wrinkle finishes, i.e., a worm 
type vrrinkle? 


1 Emphasis ours unless otherwise stated. 




11 


ANSWER 

There is invention where the essential feature of the 
contribution is not found in the art as admitted by the 
appellee. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that 
the method and the composition are novel in converting 
a non-wrinkling varnish into a wrinkling varnish by using 
a non-wrinkling composition; and by securing a novel 
result designated “worm” type wrinkle. At each step 
there is novelty and at each step there is inventive sub¬ 
ject matter. 



INDEX 


Jurisdictional Statement .... 

Statement of the Case . 

The Invention . 

The Claims . 

Statement of Points . 

Summary of Argument _ 

Argument .. 


PAGE 

1 

3 

4 
6 
7 

. 11 
. 13 


Table of Cases 

Aeration Processes, Inc. v. Lange, et al., 196 F. (2d) 

981 (8 C.A.) .13, 19, 25 

Ex parte Bucy, 51 USPQ, 533, 534, (Patent Office 

Board of Appeals)_ 22 

Burgess Batterv Co. v. Coe, Commissioner of Pat¬ 
ents, 34 F. Supp. 377-8 (USDC D.C.) . 22 

Corona v. Dovan, 276 U.S. 358, 368-9 .13, 19, 24, 25 

Donner v. Sheer, 64 F (2d) 217 (8 C.A.)_13,19, 24 

General Electric Co. v. Laco-Philips Co., 233 Fed. 

96, 103 (2 C.A.) . 23 

Loom Company v. Higgins 105 U.S. 580, 591 . 19 

Naylor v. Alsop, 168 Fed. 911 (8 C.A.) .13, 24 

Skellv Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 31 F(2d) 

427, 431 (3 C.A.) . 17 

Switzer et al. v. Marzall Comr. Pats., decided March 

2 and 16, 1951, 89 USPQ, 20. 17 

Switzer et al. v. Marzall, Commissioner of Patents, 

94 F. Supp. 52, 53, 54 (USDC DC, 1951) . 19 

United Chromium, Inc. v. International Silver Co., 53 
F. (2d) 390, 393 (DC DConn.)_ 23 

Statutes 

U.S.C.A. Title 28, Sec. 1291. 2 

U.S.C.A. Title 35, Sec. 63 4915 Revised Statutes. 2 
























Hntteb States (Emtrt of Appeals 

Fob the District of Columbia Cebcuit 


No. 11,403 


New Wrinkle, Inc., and William A. Waldie, 

Appellants, 


vs. 

John A. Marzall, Commissioner of Patents 

Appellee. 


Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia 


BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS 
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT 

1. Appellant, New Wrinkle, Inc., is a corporation or¬ 
ganized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio, 
having a place of business at No. 1771 Springfield Street, 
Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio; and appellant, Wil¬ 
liam A. Waldie is a citizen of the United States, residing 
at 69 East Dixon Avenue, Dayton, Montgomery County, 
Ohio, bring this appeal jointly from a decision of the 
United States District Court for the District of Colum¬ 
bia. 

2. Appellee, John A. Marzall, is Commissioner of 
Patents of the United States, having his official residence 



2 


in ihe District of Columbia, and is sued in his official 
capacity as said Commissioner of Patents of the United 
States. 

3. This appeal arises under U.S.C.A. Title 28, Section 
1291. 

4. Suit was brought in the United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia by the filing of a 
Bill of Complaint for the issuance of a patent (App. 
2A) in accordance with the provisions of Section 4915 
of the Revised Statutes, Title 35, Section 63 USCA. 
Plaintiffs-appellants in the action below prayed that the 
court adjudge that the plaintiffs-appellants are entitled 
to receive Letters Patent of the United States for the 
invention specified in claims 21-35 of the application of 
William Waldie, Serial No. 653,933; and prayed that the 
court decree that the Commissioner of Patents be di¬ 
rected to allow the aforesaid claims and issue a patent 
to the plaintiffs-appellants. 

The answer (App. 12A) of the defendant-appellee ad¬ 
mitted the corporate capacity of the plaintiff-appellant. 
New Wrinkle, Inc., the residence of the parties, that the 
suit was brought jointly, the capacity of the Commis¬ 
sioner of Patents, that the suit was brought under Sec¬ 
tion 4915 of the Revised Statutes, that title to the Waldie 
application No. 653,933 is New Wrinkle, Inc., and that 
the application had been duly prosecuted before the 
tribunals of the United States Patent Office; that claims 
21-35, after a Final rejection by the Patent Office Exam¬ 
iner (PX-1, Paper No. 9, App. 123A) were entered in 
the case and carried to appeal in the Patent Office Board 
of Appeals; that the Patent Office Board of Appeals con¬ 
firmed the decision of the Examiner; and that the pat¬ 
ent has been refused by the Commissioner of Patents. 

5. The judgment of the District Court (App. 18A) 
dated January 2, 1952, directed that the complaint be 




3 


dismissed as to all the claims involved. Findings of 
fact and conclusions of law (App. 15A, IGA, 17A) were 
filed in support of the judgment. 

G. Notice of appeal to this Honorable Court was filed 
January 30, 1952 (App. 18A) from the said judgment, 
and a copy of the Statement of Points (App. 26A, 27A), 
dated February 11, 1952, was served on appellee on Feb¬ 
ruary 12, 1952. (App. 28A). 

7. By stipulation of the parties the transcript of the 
record on appeal, together with the contents, has been 
filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and includes a 
designation of the contents of the record on appeal (App. 
23A^ 24A). 


STATEMENT OF CASE 

The invention relates to the field of wrinkle coating 
compositions; more specifically the invention relates to 
a prepared oil composition, a method of producing the 
oil composition and to a wrinkle coating composition 
which incorporates the oil of invention. The particular 
features of this invention are (a) that the wrinkle coating 
composition having the oil incorporated therein dries to 
a pattern having worm-shaped segregated elevations (App. 
98-99/PX G and 7); and (b) that the oil composition may 
be added to a varnish which does not have wrinkling 
characteristics to supply this feature thereto (App. 98A, 
99 A). 

Wrinkling coating compositions are well known finish¬ 
ing materials (App. 43A) in general usage and have 
as important functions: 

(1) the protection of underlying surfaces from 
corrosion, wear, abrasive action, etc., and 

(2) the presentation of a distinctive visual ef¬ 
fect. 



4 


The compositions have been employed to coat metal, wood, 
cloth, paper, etc. (App. 74A, 75A). 

These known wrinkle compositions may be termed var¬ 
nishes; the term varnish also includes other compositions 
which are non-wrinkling. Whether the varnish be of a 
wrinkling or a non-wrinkling characteristic, it normally 
includes a resin, a solvent, some oil and a metallic drier. 
Such varnishes when applied to a surface in a thin 
coat, harden to form a film. These varnishes are also 
frequently referred to by their oil length, that is, there 
are short oil varnishes, medium oil varnishes and long 
oil varnishes (App. 57A); these terms refer to the quan¬ 
tity of oil in gallons per hundred pounds of resin in 
the varnish. A short oil varnish, for example, may con¬ 
tain 1214 gallons of oil per hundred pounds of resin 
(App. 191A/PX-2). 

The Invention 

A particular feature of this invention is that these var¬ 
nishes, whether they be wrinkling or non-wrinkling, may 
be converted to a wrinkling varnish which yields, upon 
application to a surface and drying, a specific type of 
wrinkle pattern—which pattern is in itself new, that is, a 
worm-type segregated pattern (App. 98A, 99A). This re¬ 
sult is achieved by adding to a varnish and particularly 
a short-oil varnish the prepared oil composition of in¬ 
vention (App. 99A). 

The new prepared oil composition is a homogeneous 
liquid and consists of three ingredients—a double bonded 
conjugated oil, a double bonded non-conjugated oil and a 
metallic drier. A double bonded conjugated oil is an 
oil in which the molecule of the oil has a pair of adjacent 
carbon atoms having double bonds attached thereto; in 
contrast a non-conjugated double bonded oil is one which 
has the double bonds of the molecule less closely asso¬ 
ciated (App. 56A, 57A). Thus, tung oil and oiticica oil 





5 


contain conjugated double bonds and when heat treated 
are commonly termed wrinkling oils (App. GOA); linseed 
oil on the other hand is a non-conjugated oil and is com¬ 
monly referred to as non-wrinkling (App. 60A). 

The metallic drier of the oil composition is a catalytic 
material which functions to improve the drying properties 
of the oils; organic salts such as the acetate of cobalt, 
manganese and lead serve this purpose. 

In the preparation of the oil composition of invention 
a conjugated double bonded oil and a non-conjugated 
double bonded oil in the volume ratio of 1:1 to 1:3 are 
heated together to a temperature which is at least that 
of the polymerization temperature of the conjugated 
double bonded oil, that is between 450° F. and 650° F.; 
this heating takes place until the two oils form a homog¬ 
eneous composition; the heating is then stopped and a 
drier is added in a small amount and, if necessary, a 
second heating may be effected to render the composition 
free of any cloudiness which may have occurred upon 
drier addition (App. 99A). 

If the conjugated double bonded oil of the mixture of 
oils is tung oil the heating should take place at a tem¬ 
perature of at least 540° F.; if oiticica oil, at a tempera¬ 
ture of at least 500° F.; and if dehydrated castor oil at a 
temperature of at least 600° F. At these temperatures 
some polymerization (App. 57A), that is, a joining of the 
separate molecules occurs, the resultant physical effect of 
which is to render the composition more viscous. Thus 
these oils, the conjugated and the non-conjugated, are 
co-bodied (App. 45A). 

The heated viscous oil composition then has added to 
it a metallic drier such as manganese acetate; this addi¬ 
tion may occasion some cloudiness, and reheating of the 
oil composition may take place to remove the same and 
secure homogeneity (App. 99A). The resultant oil com- 



6 


position (PX-3) is then a homogeneous mixture and it 
is to be noted that this prepared oil composition of itself 
does not produce wrinking when applied to a surface 
(App. 57A). 

To achieve the coating composition of invention the 
oil composition just described is added to a varnish of 
either wrinkling or non-wrinkling characteristics; for ex¬ 
ample, the oil composition is added to a short-oil varnish 
in the ratio of .05 to 2 parts by volume of oil to each 
part of varnish (App. 102A). The coating composition 
resulting from this addition of oil to the varnish quite 
unexpectedly, when applied to a surface and dried, will 
produce a coating having the above noted segregated 
worm-type wrinkles (PX-6, 7). This pattern consists of 
short segregated elevations upon the surface of the coat¬ 
ing and it is this pattern which characterizes the wrinkle 
coating compositions of this invention. 

It is to be particularly noted that the oil composition is 
effective to produce wrinkling varnish compositions by 
simple addition to non-wrinkling varnish compositions. 
That is, without any process step other than the mixing of 
the non-wrinkling oil composition with the non-wrinkling 
varnish a composition capable of producing a specific 
wrinkle pattern is attained (App. 102A). 

THE CLAIMS 

The claims of this Waldie application are 21-35 and 
are divided into three groups: 

(1) Claims 21 to 35 are directed to the oil composi¬ 
tion as a new article of manufacture for use in converting 
a varnish, and particularly a short oil varnish, into one 
capable of producing the worm-shaped wrinkle pattern. 

(2) Claims 26 and 27 are drawn to the method of 
preparing the oil composition. 



7 


(3) Claims 28 to 35 are directed to wrinkle coating 
composition comprising a varnish, and particularly a 
short oil varnish, and the specific oil composition of the 
application. 

Claims 23, 24, 25, 33, 34 and 35 are specie claims under 
the generic claims. 

The rejection of the claims by the District Court was 
without opinion. 

STATEMENT OF POINTS 
Point 1 

The District Court erred (App. 15A) in finding that 
the Waldie patent number 2,344,189 discloses that a 
wrinkle finish composition may be blended with a wrink¬ 
ling varnish to produce a wrinkle finish on drying. 

The Court erred (a) in considering that the combina¬ 
tion of a wrinkle finish composition with a wrinkling 
varnish is pertinent to this case; and (b) in disregarding 
the nature of the compositions in the Waldie patent. 

Point 2 

The District Court erred (App. 15A) in finding that the 
Root patent number 1,950,417 discloses the forming of a 
composition by mixing a wrinkling oil and a non-wrinkling 
oil and then adding this composition to the remainder of 
the varnish ingredients. 

The Root patent 1,950,417, to the contrary, teaches only 
the formation of a wrinkle coating composition by the 
addition of oils and solvents to a fluid resin and the 
cooking of all ingredients together. 


8 


Point 3 

The District Court erred in finding that the Huff publi¬ 
cation “Scientific Methods of Varnish Manufacture”, on 
Page 22, discloses that linseed oil and tung oil may be 
co-polymerized, whereas the Huff publication discloses a 
reduction of the time of polymerization of the tung oil by 
dilution with linseed oil. It does not teach that the oil 
and tung oil may be co-polymerized as oils which is neces¬ 
sary if the product of the heating is to be useful; it teaches 
only that the oils may be gelled if necessary to a specific 
temperature for a specific length of time. 

Point 4 

The District Court erred in finding that the Flournoy 
patent teaches that thickening of tung oil is essential 
to achieving a wrinkle finish in compositions containing 
tung oil. 

The Court disregarded the fact that tung oil in the raw 
state, that is without thickening, may be present in a 
wrinkling composition if the wrinkling characteristic is 
imparted by other oils having wrinkling properties. 

Point 5 

The District Court erred in finding that it would not 
amount to invention to co-body a tung and a linseed oil 
over the disclosure of the Flournoy patent and that such 
co-bodying of tung and linseed oils would be an obvious 
extension of the teaching of that patent in view of the 
prior art. 

The Court erred since the prior art does not disclose 
an oil composition co-bodied from a mixture of oils and 
does not even suggest that an oil so bodied would serve 
a useful purpose or would have a capacity to attain a new 
result. Accordingly there is no pertinent prior art which 





9 


may be combined with Flournoy to provide the required 
teaching. 

Point 6 

The District Court erred in finding that claims 21, 22, 
23, 26 and 27 do not define invention over the Flournoy 
patent. 

The Court erred in disregarding the limitation of 
claims 21, 22 and 23, which limitation is an “oil mixture 
* • * heated to a temperature of from 450 to 650° F.” 

The Court erred with regard to claims 26 and 27 in 
disregarding the limitations which state “comprising 
mixing a conjugated double bonded oil and a non-conju- 
gated double bonded vegetable oil * * * and heating the 
mixture.” 

These limitations are critical to this invention and not 
shown or suggested by Flournoy. 

Point 7 

The District Court erred in finding that claims 21 to 
23, and 30 to 33, do not include the feature of co-bodying 
of the tung and linseed oil. 

The Court erred in disregarding the limitation in claims 
21 to 23 and 30 to 33, which limtation relates to the heat¬ 
ing of the mixture of oils to a temperature of 450 to 650° 

F., for the heating referred to effects the co-bodying of 
the oils. 

Point 8 

The District Court erred in finding that claims 28 to 
33 add nothing inventive to the claims to the wrinkling 
oil composition as the Court disregarded the change in 
the properties of the varnish that is occasioned by adding 
the wrinkling oil composition to the varnish. 





10 


The Court erred in disregarding the change in character 
of the wrinkle attained by the addition of the non-wrink¬ 
ling oil composition of applicant to a varnish. Applicant 
attains a new worm-type segregated wrinkle not hitherto 
known by the addition of the oil to the varnish, which 
accomplishment is clearly a criterion of invention. 

Point 9 

The District Court erred in finding that claims 28 to 
33 do not define invention over the Waldie or Root pat¬ 
ents in view of Flournoy. 

The Court erred by disregarding the limitation of 
claims 28 to 33, which limitation relates to a homogeneous 
oil prepared by heating a mixture of oils and which limi¬ 
tation is not found in the Waldie, Root or Flournoy pat¬ 
ents. 

Point 10 

The District Court erred in finding that the claims in 
issue do not define invention because of routine experi¬ 
mentation. 

The Court disregarded the fact that there are no teach¬ 
ings of the fundamental concept of the invention which 
would guide a routineer to permit the accomplishment of 
the present invention. The new Patent Code in effect 
January, 1953 (Title 35, TT.S.C. § 103, 1952), distinctly 
reaffirms the law: 

“Patentability shall not be negatived by the man¬ 
ner in which the invention was made.” 

Point 11 

The District Court erred in finding that claims 21, 22, 
23, 26, 27, and 28 to 33 are unpatentable in view of the 
prior art. 


11 


The Court erred in disregarding the fact that the essen¬ 
tial features of this invention are not shown or suggested 
by the prior art and in disregarding the new results at¬ 
tainable with this invention. 

Point 12 

The District Court erred in finding that claims 24 and 
25, 34 and 35 are unpatentable, being directed to non- 
elected species, as these claims are patentable upon find¬ 
ing of patentability of generic claims. 

Point 13 

The District Court erred in concluding that the Plain¬ 
tiffs are not entitled to a patent containing any of claims 
21 to 35 of the Waldie Application, serial number 653,933. 

Point 14 

The District Court erred in concluding that the Com¬ 
plaint should be dismissed as to all the claims involved. 

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 

The Invention Consists of Mixing a Non-Wrinkling Oil 
Composition to a Non-Wrinkling Varnish to Convert the 
Combination of Non-Wrinkling Elements Into: 

(a) a wrinkling finish; and 

(b) a new pattern of wrinkle called here a “worm” 
wrinkle, i.e., a new result from a new combination 
admittedly not shown by the art. 

The critical steps of the inventive process are the mix¬ 
ing of a conjugated double bonded oil with a non-conju- 
gated double bonded oil, and the heating of these mixed 
oils to the polymerization temperature of the conjugated 
double bonded oil; this mode of procedure leads to a 


12 


co-bodying of the oils and results in a homogeneous mix¬ 
ture (App. 3SA). The homogeneity of the oil composition 
is retained when the metallic drier is added. (App. 
99A). 

The references do not teach the process set forth above. 
Flournoy, which is the closest approach of the art, does 
not show it as conceded by appellee (App. 48A). 

The process, that of the heating of the mixed oils, con¬ 
tributes to a high degree of dispersion of the oils (App. 
S7A). The application of heat to the mixed oils also 
may contribute to a reaction between the oils as the testi¬ 
mony of the witness Waldie indicated. (App. 88A) 

The most concrete distinction between the oil of Flour¬ 
noy and that of the invention, however, is observed when 
the respective oils are each separately mixed with the 
same varnish. (App. 84A) Thus, the oil composition of 
this invention when mixed with a varnish of the Waldie 
patent and applied to a base, yielded the worm-type seg¬ 
regated pattern (PX 15). The oil of Flournoy when mixed 
with the same Waldie varnish deadened the wrinkling 
power of the varnish (PX 14; App. 81 A). 

Further the new oil composition has the capability of 
transforming non-wrinkling varnishes to wrinkling var¬ 
nishes when merely added thereto (App. 84A). Nowhere 
in the art of record is there a suggestion by which the 
procedure of Flournoy could be modified to that concept 
of this invention. In fact the contrary is true for the re¬ 
maining art teaches only the formation of varnishes by 
heating the resin with the oil. Thus prior to this inven¬ 
tion there has been no suggestion that an oil composition 
may be added to a non-wrinkling varnish to convert the 
same to a wrinkling varnish. 

The claims of the application are each clearly limited 
to a mixture of the oils which has been heated in the 


13 


maimer set forth above. Appropriate language covering 
this point exists in each claim. 

It is accordingly submitted that where a new step is 
taken in an art, particularly in a close art such as that 
under consideration, and that new step unexpectedly leads 
to new results, specifically (a) a new pattern, and (b) the 
conversion of a non-wrinkling varnish to a wrinkling var¬ 
nish by the agency of a non-wrinkling oil, that the cri¬ 
terion of invention is established. It is further submitted 
that the Courts have consistently so held 

Corona v. Dovan, 276 U. S. 358, 368-9 (Mr. Chief 
Justice Taft); Naylor v. Alsop, 168 Fed. 911 (8 C.A.); 
Downer v. Sheer, 64 F. (2d) 217 (8 C.A.); Aeration 
Processes, Inc. v. Lange, et al, 196 F. (2d) 981 (8 
C.A.). 

The novelty of this new step is indicated by the fact 
that the appellee could not find it disclosed in the prior 
art. (App. 48A). 

ARGUMENT 

The primary facts upon which invention is predicated in 
this case are: 

1) The production of a novel oil composition by the 
mixing together of a non-conjugated double bonded oil 
and a conjugated double bonded oil, and thereafter heat¬ 
ing the mixture at the polymerization temperature of the 
conjugated double bonded oil to obtain a homogeneous 
oil composition; 

2) The novel oil composition will when simply added 
thereto convert non-wrinkling varnishes to wrinkling var¬ 
nishes; 

3) The novel oil composition when mixed with var¬ 
nish and applied in the normal manner results in a coat¬ 
ing having a unique worm-shaped type segregated pat¬ 
tern. 




14 


The holding of the District Court of lack of invention 
on the grounds that the present practice is an obvious 
extension of the teachings of Flournoy et al patent No. 
1,752,104 in view of the prior art is considered the most 
pertinent. This matter, Point 5, will accordingly be dis¬ 
cussed first. 

The Flournoy reference, as conceded by counsel for ap¬ 
pellee, does not teach the step of mixing the oils and then 
heating them to co-body them (App. 48A). 

Accordingly it is pertinent to consider what prior art 
is relied upon in order that one skilled in the art might 
find such a teaching which would permit an extension of 
Flournoy. 

The reference on the prior art applied against the ap- 
lication in addition to Flournoy are: 

Waldie Patent No. 2,344,189 

Root Patent No. 1,950,417 

Huff—A publication entitled “Scientific Methods of 
Varnish Manufacture” 

Considering first the teachings of the Waldie patent, 
it has been found (Point 1) by the court that the Waldie 
patent discloses that a wrinkle finish composition may be 
blended with a wrinkle varnish to produce a wrinkle 
coating on drying. This statement, in substantially the 
same terms, is found in the statement of the objectives 
of the Waldie patent and must be read in the light of 
the disclosure of Waldie to determine the meaning of 
the term “wrinkle finish composition” and “wrinkling 
varnish” as used therein. In Waldie the “wrinkling var¬ 
nish” is prepared by heating the resin and oil together 
(App. 70A), that is, it is prepared by heating the resin 
of the varnish and the oil of the varnish together to 
attain the wrinkling composition. The “wrinkle finish 
composition” is apparently varnish “D” of that patent 
which is stated to be produced in like manner as the 


15 


wrinkling varnish set forth above, the only difference 
being in the volatility of the solvents employed. The 
solvents of this latter varnish are less volatile, but the 
cooking exactly the same. Accordingly there is no dis¬ 
closure here of any teaching save that of the addition of 
a varnish to a varnish. If the enamel of Waldie be con¬ 
sidered as the “wrinkle finish composition” this too is 
predicated upon the combination of the two varnishes men¬ 
tioned above, the only difference being the addition of a 
pigment to one of the varnishes to provide an enamel. 
Consequently there is no teaching here which may be 
added to Flournoy. 

The liquid driers of the Waldie patent may not be 
considered “wrinkle finish compositions” to be added to 
the varnish since they are merely modifiers of the texture 
present in small amount (2-5%) and are not oils but are 
acids. Accordingly there is no teaching here of Waldie 
which may be applied to Flournoy to lead to the concept 
of mixing oils and then co-bodving them with heat. 

It may now* also be stated that the finding (Point 1) 
with reference to the Waldie patent is not pertinent to 
this invention since the oil of the invention is of itself 
non-wrinkling and it may be added to a non-wrinkling 
varnish to exhibit its peculiar characteristic of producing 
a wrinkling varnish of specified pattern (PX 6, 7), 
whereas in the finding the composition and the varnish 
are each indicated to be wrinkling in nature. 

Referring now to the Root patent 1,950,417 in the 
search for a teaching which may be applied in the exten¬ 
sion of Flournoy, Root teaches only varnishes in which 
the resin and oils are cooked together (App. 71A) to at¬ 
tain the wrinkling composition which results in a coating 
of a continuous pattern. There is no mixing of the var¬ 
nish with any oil composition or anything else after the 
varnish is made (App. 72A). While Root may refer to 




lb 


mixtures of oils, these oils are not co-bodied, but are in the 

cook with the resin at the time. This is in contrast to 
the process of this invention wherein the oil composition 
containing only oils and a metallic drier may be merely 
added to a non-wrinkling varnish to produce the varnish 
having the noted worm-type segregated pattern. Ac¬ 
cordingly, there is no teaching in Root which may be 
applied in extension of Flournoy. 

It is now convenient to refer to the finding, (Point 2), 
which erroneously stated that the Root patent 1,950,417 
discloses wrinkle finish compositions embodying tung oil 
and linseed oil in which the composition may be formed 
by mixing a wrinkling oil composition, composed of 
wrinkling and non-wrinkling oils, and adding this com¬ 
position to the remainder of the varnish ingredients. Root 
clearly requires that the ingredients be cooked together 
and the finding of fact fails to so state. Accordingly the 
finding is misleading for clearly such cooking process is 
not related in any way to a procedure in which oil and 
varnish are merely mixed. 

The third reference to the Huff publication is concerned 
solely with determining the gelatinizing temperature of 
mixtures of tung oil and other oils, such as soya bean and 
linseed. The purpose of the tests of the Huff publication 
was to determine the point at which the oil mixture gelled. 
To carry out this purpose a gel and not an oil mixture 
had to be produced. There is no suggestion in the Huff 
reference of mixing the oils and heating them to produce 
a homogeneous oil composition. Accordingly, as set out 
under Point 3, Huff does not teach that oils may be co¬ 
polymerized as oils, but only (a) that oils may be gelled 
if held at a specific temperature for a specific length of 
time, and (b) that as the percentage of linseed oil, for 
example, increases in a linseed-tung oil mixture that the 
gelling time increases at a given temperature. There is 
nothing in this reference to suggest mixing the oils and 



17 


then heating them to attain a homogeneous oil composi¬ 
tion, nor is there a suggestion that such a composition 
would have any beneficial property whatsoever. Accord¬ 
ingly there is nothing in Huff which may be applied to 
Flournoy to extend the teachings thereof. 

Thus, each of the references set out in the art has been 
considered and no teaching is brought forth which would 
in any way suggest that the mixing of the oils and the 
heating of that would lead to a composition having new 
properties capable of attaining a new result in a varnish. 

Accordingly, the holding that the prior art supplies a 
teaching which would be applicable to extend the Flour¬ 
noy teaching to render this invention “obvious” is error, 
unsupported by the record. Appellant’s view in this re¬ 
spect is sustained by the District Court for the District 
of Columbia in Switzer et al. v. Marzcdl, Comr. Pats., 
decided March 2 and 16, 1951, 89 TJSPQ, 20, wherein the 
Court quoted from Shelly Oil Co. v. Universal OH Prod¬ 
ucts Co., 31 F.(2d) 427, 431 (3 C.A.), as follows: 

“* • • Inferences as distinguished from disclosures, 
especially when drawn in the light of after events, 
cannot be accepted as a basis of anticipation. 

“A patent relied upon as an anticipation must it¬ 
self speak. Its specification must give in substance 
the same knowledge and the same directions as the 
specification of the patent in suit. Otto v. Linford, 
46 L.T. (N.S.) 35, 44. It is not enough to prove that 
a method or apparatus described in an earlier speci¬ 
fication can be made to produce this or that result. 
Flour Oxidizing Co. v. Carr & Co., 35 R.P.C., 457. A 
singularly sensible test of the rule of anticipation is 
given in British Thomson-Houston Co. v. Metropoli¬ 
tan Vickers Electrical Co., 45 R.P.C., 22 by asking 
the question—‘Would a man who was grappling with 
the problem solved by the patent attacked, and having 
no knowledge of that patent, if he had had the al¬ 
leged anticipation in his hand, have said: “That 
gives me what I wish?”’” 


18 


In the present case it is clear that the references do 
not speak an anticipation of any kind nor it cannot be 
said that one skilled in the art reading the references in 
this case could say “this gives me what I wish.” 

The composition of matter claims, that is, the claims to 
the oil mixture, 21, 22, 23, and the method claims relating 
to the preparation of the oil mixture, 26, 27, have been 
found to “not define invention over the Flournoy patent” 
(App. 16A, Fact II). As indicated under Point 6 each 
of the oil composition claims 21, 22, 23 contain language 
stating the oil mixture to be “heated to a temperature 
of from 450 to 650° F.” and claims 26, 27 contain simi¬ 
lar limitations, claim 26 stating, for example: 

“* # • comprising mixing conjugated double-bonded 
oil and a non-conjugated double bonded vegetable oil 
in the proportion of from 1:1 to 1:3 and heating this 
mixture to at least the polymerization temperature of 

said conjugated double bonded oil until homogeneous 

• • •» ~ •, 

. . i 

As has already been noted such limitations are critical 
to the invention and are not taught by Flournoy in any 
sense. 

Also with regard to Flournoy it is to be noted that a 
further distinction exists since the claims express a par¬ 
ticular ratio between the oil composition and the metallic 
drier and such ratio is not found in Flournoy for this ref¬ 
erence does not set forth any proportion of drier at all. 

The finding (App. 16A, 11) that claims 21-23 and 30-33 
do not positively include the co-bodying feature is like¬ 
wise error since each of these claims contain a limitation 
relating to the heating of the mixture of oils at a tem¬ 
perature of 450-650° F., which heating effects the co¬ 
bodying of the oils, as has already been clearly brought 
out hereinbefore. Since the claims thus clearly state 
that the mixture is heated and to a temperature of from 
450-650° F., which range includes the polymerization tern- 





19 


perature of the conjugated double bonded oils involved, it 
is submitted that the error is apparent on its face. 

The finding (App. 17A, 13) to which Point 8 relates, 
wherein the Court found that claims 28-33 add nothing 
inventive to the claims of the wrinkling oil composition 
itself is not tenable. It has already been brought out that 
when the oil composition of the invention, which is of 
itself non-wrinklin g , is added to a varnish of either the 
wrinkling or non-wrinkling type, that a definite kind of 
wrinkle pattern results, to-wit, the worm-shaped segre¬ 
gated pattern. 

This is a result which is clearly unexpected and it has 
long been held that such an unexpected result is a cri¬ 
terion of invention. 

Corona v. Dovan, 276 TJ. S. 358, 368-9; Dormer v. 
Sheer, 64 F. (2d) 217 (8 C.A.); Aeration Processes, 
Inc. v. Lange et al, 196 F. (2d) 981 (8 C.A.). 

Ever since Loom Company v. Higgins, 105 U. S. 580, 
591, the Courts have held: 

. . if a new combination and arrangement of 
known elements produce a new and beneficial result, 
never attained before, it is evidence of invention. 

V 

• • • 

This proposition was sustained in the recent case of 
Switzer et al v. Marzall, Commissioner of Patents, 94 F. 
Supp. 52, 53, 54 (TTSDC DC, 1951), in which the Court 
stated: 

“I find that the plaintiff’s process, while utilizing 
certain materials and processes made known by prior 
patents, attains a new result, namely, daylight fluores¬ 
cent fabrics, . . . and that therefore plaintiff is en¬ 
titled to a patent.” 

Accordingly, the finding in this connection is without 
merit. 






20 


The furlher finding (App. 17A) to which Point 9 re¬ 
lates, that claims 28-33 do not define invention over Waldie 
or Root patents in view of Flournoy is clearly error 
also. 

Neither the Waldie patent 2,344,189 nor Root 1,950,417, 
the basic patents in this finding, heat a mixture of oils to 
the polymerization temperature to form a homogeneous 
oil composition, and the claims defining this invention 
contain the limitation of such a homogeneous oil composi¬ 
tion. 

Further these basic references do not consist of a var¬ 
nish and oil composition as required by these claims, but 
in fact, as already noted, the varnish is formed with oil 
and resin by heating the same together and no addition 
whatsoever is made to the wrinkle varnish after heating 
in these references. 

Thus since Flournoy does not teach adding his oil to 
anything but a base, no one skilled in the art or other¬ 
wise would have any reason to add the Flournoy oil to 
the varnish of a basic reference to define the composi¬ 
tion set forth by the claims. 

It is also to be noted that there is no teaching anywhere 
as to how a combination of the basic references with 
Flournoy would be effective; in fact, as is clearly demon¬ 
strated by Plaintiffs Exhibit 14, the result attained by 
the addition of a Flournoy oil to a non-wrinkling varnish 
would not yield the wrinkle pattern of applicants. 

It is to be noted in this connection that in the prepara¬ 
tion of Plaintiffs Exhibit 14 the Floumov oil, as testified 
to by the witness Waldie on re-direct (App. 94A), was 
made as viscous as possible to give it every chance to 
wrinkle, but when combined with a non-wrinkling varnish 
the wrinkling properties of the combination were substan¬ 
tially nil. 




21 


Accordingly it is pointed out that in this finding the 
prime point of the invention has not been understood or 
has been ignored and the finding is accordingly untenable. 

The further finding (App. 17A, Point 10) that the 
claims in issue do not define invention because of routine 
expermentation is without foundation. There is no law 
which permits the refusal of a patent because the inven¬ 
tion results from experimentation, for if this were the case 
invention would be stifled. Accordingly the question is 
can the acts of the inventor be considered “routine”. 

In the present case this holding is clearly without merit 
for: (1st) it was necessary for the inventor to compound 
the oil. If this step were to be considered a fortunate 
factor, it is to be noted that it was necessary (2nd) for 
the inventor to find a use for the compounded oil. 

Clearly there is no teaching in the art that such an oil, 
which is of itself a non-wrinkling oil, may be compounded 
with a non-wrinkling varnish by merely mixing the two 
to produce a composition which will wrinkle. 

Therefore what teaching would lead the inventor to 
add the oil to a varnish without cooking it in? It was 
finally necessary for the inventor to apply the composi¬ 
tion so produced and to secure the novel worm-shape pat¬ 
tern, and what teaching of the art would lead the inventor 
to apply such a composition without heating it? 

This sequence of inventive steps might not have been 
discovered for years had it not been for the inventor’s 
training in the field, diligence of observation and inventive 
facultv. It is clear that invention is not to be refuted bv 
characterizing such efforts as mere experimentation. 

The new Patent Codification Act, Title 35, U.S.C. § 103, 
(1952), says: 

“Patentability shall not be negatived by the man¬ 
ner in which the invention was made.” 




22 


And the Journal of the Patent Office Society (August, 
1952, Yol. XXXIV, No. S, p. 5SS) comments on this sec¬ 
tion as follows: 

“It is immaterial whether it [the invention] re¬ 
sulted from long toil or from a flash of genius.” 

In this connection the attention of the Court is respect¬ 
fully directed to the decision of the District Court of the 
United States in Burgess Battery Co. v. Coe, Commis¬ 
sioner of Patents, 34 F. Supp. 377-S (USDC D.C.), in 
which it is stated: 

“ # • * If making use of known constructions in 
such combination and arrangement as produce new 
and useful results is not to be considered as inven¬ 
tion, then it is not to be thought that there will be 
such continued effort and experimentation as was 
sought to be encouraged by the provisions of the Con¬ 
stitution and patent laws of our country • * 

Accordingly the finding 16 is clearly untenable. 

The finding (App. 17A-17) to which Point 11 relates, 
that claims 21-23, 26, 27 and 28-33 are unpatentable in 
view of the prior art is similarly without merit 

The art has been discussed and it has been shown that 
the teachings thereof do not lead to: (1) the step of heat¬ 
ing a mixture of a non-conjugated double bonded oil and 
a conjugated double bonded oil to the polymerization point 
of the conjugated double bonded oil to form an oil com¬ 
position which of itself does not have wrinkling proper¬ 
ties; and (2) the combination of this prepared oil with a 
varnish, which varnish itself may be non-wrinkling, to 
produce a composition having the capability of yielding a 
definite wrinkle pattern. Patentability clearly may be 
predicted upon such a combination of facts. 

Thus, as was held in Ex parte Buoy, 51 USPQ, 533, 534, 
(Patent Office Board of Appeals), the patentability of 







23 


claims may be predicated upon pre-mixing, and it was 
therein stated: 

“. . . None of the references teaches that pre¬ 
mixing of a resin and wax into a homogeneous melt 
before adding the other ingredients has any effect on 
the moisture proof characteristics of the coating ma¬ 
terial. ... If the product is improved we see no 
reason for refusing claims to the product for the 
reasons given by the examiner.” 

Similarly, in the present case, an improved product, a 
new product and a useful product has been attained. 

The only question then is: did the efforts of Waldie 
amount to invention? 

The contention is that it most surely did, for Waldie 
reversed the trend of the art by merely mixing an oil 
composition, non-wrinkling in itself, with a non-wrinkling 
varnish, to secure the composition which produced the 
novel, worm-shaped segregated wrinkle. 

Up to that time it was customary to cook the oils and 
the resins together, but it was this novel step employed 
by Waldie which provided the visual indication that a 
new oil composition and a new wrinkling varnish compo¬ 
sition had been produced. Clearly such could not be fore¬ 
cast by anything in the prior art. 

In this latter connection it is to be noted that the law 
with respect to chemical patents is well settled and as 
was said in General Electric Co. v. Laco-Philips Co., 233 
Fed. 96, 103 (2 C.A.): 

“Chemistry is essentially an experimental science, 
and chemical prevision is as impossible today, in 
spite of the accumulation of the great knowledge, as 
it was in former times. . . .”. 

Similarly, in United Chromium, Inc. v. International 
Silver Co., 53 F. (2d) 390, 393 (DC DConn.), the court 
states as follows: 



24 


“* • * But, inasmuch as a chemical action is in¬ 
volved here, analogy does not go a long way, because, 

while one can predict with confidence in mechanics in 
some instances, and in some cases where mathematics 
can be applied, in chemistry one almost entirely fails; 
In chemistry one cannot anticipate a result. A result 
may be obtained only by experiment.” 

THERE IS NO PREVISION 
IN CHEMISTRY. 

Mr. Chief Justice Taft in Corona v. Dovan, 276 U. S. 
358, 3GS-9, said: 

“. . . The catalytic action of an accelerator cannot 
be forecast by its chemical composition for such ac¬ 
tion is not understood and is not known except by 
actual test.” 

The Eighth Circuit Court in sustaining the Donner 
patent on depilating agents, in Donner v. Sheer, 64 F. 
(2d) 217, said: 

. . He was the first to perceive that certain col¬ 
loids or colloid-like substances were capable of acting 
as a vehicle to hold the depilating agents in stable 
suspension and thus to produce a more satisfactory 
depilatorv than anv yet offered to the public.” (p. 
223) 

In Naylor v. Ahoy, 16S Fed. 911 (S C.A.), it was held 
that there is no such thing as prevision in chemistry as 
contrasted with mechanics. 

“It should also be borne in mind in considering 
this subject that reasoning by analogy in a complex 
field like chemistry is very much more restricted than 
in a simple field like mechanics. This distinction has 
been frequently recognized by the Courts.” (p. 919) 

By coincidence, a Judge of that Court who sat in 
Naylor v. Ahop, later Mr. Justice Van Devanter, sat in 
the Corona v. Dovan case in which Mr. Chief Justice 
Taft, on behalf of a unanimous Court, held that it was a 



25 


patentable discovery to make a change of ingredients in 
a process that improves the result and such a substitution 
entitled the inventor to any other advantages flowing from 
the substitution. Corona v. Dovan, 276 U. S. 358, 368-9. 

And in Aeration Processes, Inc. v. Lange et al, 196 F. 
(2d) 981 (8 C.A.), it said: 

. . He chose the nitrous oxide by the kind of 
intuition which is inventive genius in the field of 
chemistry where there is no pre-vision and only ac¬ 
tual test is demonstrative. Corona Cord Tire Co. v. 
Dovan Chemical Co., 276 U. S. 358, 48 S.Ct. 380, 72 
L.Ed. 610; Naylor v. Alsop Process Co., 8 Cir., 168 
F. 911. This is a ‘chemical case’ notwithstanding 
that practical inertness of the chemical instead of 
radical change in it was desired and attained in the 
process, and Getz was the original inventor of the 
process for making commercial whipped cream by the 
use of the particular chemical. 

“The court erred in holding his process patent in¬ 
valid.” (p. 984) 

It is accordingly submitted that with the established re¬ 
sults before it and with the law so clearly set forth, it 
was error for the court to hold the above mentioned claims 
unpatentable over the prior art. 

The finding (App. 17A-18) to which Point 12 relates, 
refers to the non-elected species claims and these will be 
sustained or will fall with the generic claims, and accord¬ 
ingly no specific discussion of these claims is considered 
necessary. 

In view of the foregoing it is submitted to be clear error 
for the court to have held in Points 13 and 14 that the 
plaintiffs were not entitled to a patent containing any 
of claims 21-35 of the Waldie application, Serial No. 
653,933, and it was also error to dismiss the complaint. 
The foregoing clearly establishes that there is a funda¬ 
mental difference in this close art, that a new and bene¬ 
ficial result has been attained by the practice of this in- 



26 


vention, and accordingly a patent should be granted cover¬ 
ing claims 21-35, inclusive. 

CONCLUSION 

It is, therefore, submitted that under the facts and 
under the law herein stated this Court should reverse the 
decision of the District Court and direct that the Com¬ 
missioner of Patents should issue a patent on claims 
21-35, inclusive, of the Waldie application, Serial No. 
653,933. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Toulmin & Toulmin 
Attorneys for Appellants 

H. A. Toulmin, Jr. 

F. E. Drummond 
D. J. Hanlon, Jr. 

Of Counsel 









BRIEF FOR APPELLEE 


United States Court of Appeals 
District of Columbia Circuit , 

^ it wL C C7 

£istrr 

Appeal No. 11403 - 


<r 

' / 



New Wrinkle, Inc., and William A. Waldie, 

Appellants 


v. 

ROBERT c? WATSON 

J t » gy - A. - MAR aA faL , Commissioner of Patents, 

Appellee 


Appeal from the Judgment of the United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia Circuit 


E. L. Reynolds, , 

Solicitor, United States Patent Office, 
Attorney for Appellee. 

S. W. Cochran 
Of Counsel 









Appeal No. 11403 

STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED 

The appellee disagrees with the Statement of Ques¬ 
tions Presented which appears in the Brief for Appel¬ 
lants. In the opinion of the appellee, the question is 
whether the claims in the appellants’ application for 
patent set forth a product and a process which involve 
invention and thus could be issued in a patent under 
the provisions of R. S. 4886 (35 U.S.C. 31). 




INDEX 


Introduction _ 

Appellants’ Application _ 

The Flournoy et al. Reference_ 

The Root Reference_ 

The Waldie Patent_ 

The Huff Publication _ 

Summary of Argument - 

Argument _ 

Claims 21, 22, 23, 26 and 27 are Unpatentable over Flournoy et al. 
Claims 28 to 33 are Not Inventive over Waldie or Root in view of 

Flournoy et al._ 

The Novelty of the Worm-Type Wrinkle Result is not Conclusive 

of Invention- 

Conclusion - 

Authorities Cited: 

Nixon et al. v. Marzall, 87 U. S. App. D. C. 415- 

W. A. Scholters Chemische Fabrieken v. Coe, 76 U. S. App. D. C. 
313_ 

Statutes: 


35 U.S.C. 63 
































United States Court of Appeals 
District of Columbia Circuit 


Appeal No. 11403 


New Wrinkle, Inc., and William A. Waldee, 

Appellants 

v. 

John A. Marzall, Commissioner of Patents, 

Appellee 


Appeal from the Judgment of the United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia Circuit 


BRIEF FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS 


INTRODUCTION 

This is an appeal from the judgment of the United 
States District Court for the District of Columbia 
(App. 18 A) dismissing the complaint (App. 2 A) 
in an action under B. S. 4915 (U.S.C. Title 35, section 
63) in which the appellants, New Wrinkle, Inc. and 
William A. Waldie, sought to have the Court author¬ 
ize the issuance of a patent on their application Serial 
No. 653,933 (App. 97 A). The refusal of the patent 





9 


by the Patent Office and the District Court was based 
upon lack of invention over prior disclosures in the 
same field. 

APPELLANTS' APPLICATION 

The subject matter of the application in issue is a 
varnish, which upon drying exhibits a wrinkle-type 
pattern, the specific nature of which is shown in the 
application drawing (App. 212 A). The applicant 
claims to have developed an oil mixture which is 
adapted to be added to a normal short oil varnish to 
impart wrinkling properties thereto. The additive 
consists of a homogeneous mixture prepared by heat¬ 
ing one part of conjugated double-bonded oil (tung 
oil) with from one to three parts of non-conjugated 
double-bonded oil (linseed oil) to a temperature of 
from 450° F. to 650° F. and then adding a metallic 
drier to the heated mixture. 

THE FLOURNOY ET AL REFERENCE 

The patent to Flournoy et al No. 1,752,164 (App. 
194 A) discloses a wrinkle forming coating composi¬ 
tion consisting of one part of heat treated china wood 
oil (tung oil), two parts of viscous (heat treated) lin¬ 
seed oil, a metallic drier, and suitable thinner. The 
composition is said to form a wrinkle finish when 
coated upon fabric previously treated with a thick oil, 
such as linseed oil. 

THE ROOT REFERENCE 

The patent to Root No. 1,950,417 (App. 198 A) is 
directed to wrinkle finish compositions for flexible 
articles. The patent describes the various oils useful 





3 


as “wrinkling” oils for incorporation in varnishes, 
china wood oil or tung oil being mentioned as par¬ 
ticularly effective (App. 200 A, lines 54 to 68). The 
patent also states that the oil constituents of the var¬ 
nish can include a mixture of wrinkling oils and non¬ 
wrinkling oils which can be added to the other varnish 
constituents to form a varnish (App. 200 A, lines 125 
to 128). 

THE WALDIE PATENT 

The Waldie patent No. 2,344,189 (App. 206 A) deals 
with wrinkling enamels utilizing both tung oil and 
linseed oil as ingredients. The patent includes as one 
of its objects “to provide a pigmented wrinkle finish 
composition which can be blended with a wrinkling 
varnish so as to produce a light or heavy textural 
wrinkle finish on drying.” 

THE HUFF PUBLICATION 

The extract from the book “Scientific Methods of 
Varnish Manufacture” by Huff (App. 209 A) 
describes in some detail the tendency of tung oil to 
thicken and gel speedily when subjected to heat treat¬ 
ment (gel time 2% minutes at 655-660° F., App. 211 A, 
third paragraph). The chart and the explanation 
below on page 209 A of the appendix show under the 
title “Linseed Oil” that mixing linseed oil with the 
tung oil will increase the gel time when the mixture is 
heated at 545°. Increasing the linseed oil proportion 
has the effect of increasing the time that it takes for 
a gel to form at a given temperature. 










4 


SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 

1. The claims present two issues, viz., whether it 
was invention to produce the oil additive compo¬ 
sition and whether there was invention in adding 
the oil composition to a prepared varnish. 

2. Claims 21, 22, 23, 26 and 27 define over Flournoy 
et al, if at all, in the feature of co-bodying the 
oils. 

3. The workers in the art had at their disposal facts 
which pointed to co-bodying as an obvious modi¬ 
fication of Flournov et al. 

4. Claims 21, 22 and 23 do not definitely call for 
co-polymerization of the oils. 

5. Claims 28 to 33 do not involve invention since it 
is old to add wrinkling oil to varnish ingredients 
and whether the oil is added to a prepared var¬ 
nish is a matter of choice leading to no un¬ 
expected results. 

6. The Waldie patent suggests the addition of a 
wrinkling oil to a prepared varnish. 

7. Claims 30 to 33 are not definitely limited to heat¬ 
ing the mixture of oils. 

8. The alleged novelty of the worm-type wrinkle is 
not conclusive of invention as a matter of law. 

ARGUMENT 

The appellants seek relief in this proceeding on the 
basis of claims of three types. Claims 21 to 25 are 
directed to a composition adapted to be added to a 




o 


varnish. Claims 26 and 27 call for a method of pro¬ 
ducing the additive oil. Claims 28 to 35 are directed 
to a varnish incorporating the additive oil. Claims 
24, 25, 34 and 35 need not be considered on their merits 
since they are directed to species which the appellants 
have elected not to prosecute if no generic claim is 
found allowable. 

Accordingly, the claims are of such a nature as to 
present two issues: 

1. Was it invention to produce the oil additive 
(claims 21, 22, 23, 26 and 27); and 

2. Whether or not invention is found in the additive, 
was there invention in the concept of adding an 
oil of this type to a prepared varnish (claims 28 
to 33) to impart wrinkling properties thereto? 

Claims 21, 22, 23, 26 and 27 Are Unpatentable Over 

Flournoy et al. 

Claims 21, 22, 23, 26 and 27, directed to the additive 
oil and its method of manufacture, were held by the 
District Court not to define invention over the 
Flournoy et al patent. As noted above, the ingredients 
specified by Flournoy et al for their composition (one 
part tung oil, two parts linseed oil and a drier) are 
the same as those specified in the claims. Thus, the 
claims define over the reference, if at all, in the method 
of combining the ingredients. 

The appellants contend that their process differs 
from Flournoy et al in that the patentees thicken their 
two oils by heat separately, i.e., before they are mixed 
to form the composition. On the other hand, the 





6 


appellants mix the oils before heat treatment, and thus 
co-body them. This is said to lead to unexpected 
results and amount to invention. 

As noted above, the Flournoy et al process includes 
thickening of both of the oils (tung and linseed) by 
heat treatment. Although there is no statement in the 
patent contrary to the appellants’ view that Flournoy 
et al contemplated separate heating, by the same token, 
there is no indication that heat treatment of the oils 
to yet her would be improper for Flournoy et al’s 
purpose. 

Accordingly, it can be concluded that heating of the 
oil mixture to effect simultaneous thickening of the 
two oils would be compatible with the Flournoy et al 
disclosure, a fact which the appellants do not deny. 
Whether or not modification of the Flournoy et al 
process to include co-bodying would amount to inven¬ 
tion would depend upon the obviousness of such a step, 
in view of the storehouse of knowledge available to the 
art at the time. 

In embarking on his endeavor to produce an additive 
which could impart wrinkling properties to a varnish, 
the applicant here must be presumed to have had cer¬ 
tain facts at his disposal which, it is believed, indicate 
that his procedure was an obvious one. 

First, he knew that tung oil was a powerful wrinkle 
producing agent, and that it had to be heat thickened 
to impart the wrinkling property (see Flournoy et al, 
App. 195 A, lines 49 to 55). 

Secondly, he knew that the polymerization or 
thickening of tung oil was difficult to control in order 


7 


to prevent gelling (see Finding of Fact No. 8, App. 
16 A, not disputed by the appellants in their appeal). 

Thirdly, he knew that the thickening process could 
be controlled by diluting the tung oil with linseed oil, 
for heat treatment together (see Finding of Fact No. 
9, App. 16 A, not disputed in this appeal). The 
appellant’s contention that the Huff publication does 
not disclose the co-polymerization of the two oils is not 
understood. At any rate, the reference showing, as 
interpreted by the District Court, merely substantiated 
the applicant’s own testimony: 

Q. So we can assume that it is known in the art that 
the dilution of tung oil with another oil while 
it is being heated will slow the polymerization 
and give you better control? 

A. Yes. 

(App. 87 A). 

In review, therefore, the applicant had these facts at 
his disposal: 

1. Tung oil was a powerful wrinkle producing 
agent. 

2. Thickening of the oil was necessary to achieve 
the wrinkling effect. 

3. Difficulty was experienced in controlling the 
thickening of tung oil. 

4. Control of the thickening process was furnished 
by heating the tung oil while admixed with 
another oil, such as linseed oil. 






8 


Considered in its proper relationship to the prior 
art knowledge, therefore, it seems obvious that the 
applicant’s contribution came about by mere routine 
experiment. The desirability of refining the Flournoy 
et al process to include co-bodying of the oils to achieve 
better control of the heating process was plainly 
indicated, in the light of common knowledge in the art. 

Claims 21, 22, 23, 26 and 27 do not, therefore, define 
invention over Flournoy et al on the ground that the 
only deviation therefrom was an obvious improvement 
of the reference process. 

Claims 21, 22 and 23 were held unpatentable over 
Flournoy et al on an additional ground, viz., that they 
failed to definitely include the features said to be dis¬ 
tinguishing and critical, i.e., co-bodying of the oils. 
Claim 21 calls for “said oil mixture consisting of ... . 
and heated to a temperature of . . . .” There is no 
indication in the claim that if the term “heated” 
applies to the “mixture” or to either one of the oils, 
or both separately. Claims 22 and 23 are even more 
misleading since claim 22 may be so read as to indicate 

that onlv the linseed oil is heated, while claim 23 asso- 
% • 

ciates the verb “heated” with the tung oil ingredient. 
Finding of Fact No. 12 is amply supported by the 
wording of the claims. 

Claims 28 io 33 Are Noi Inventive Over Waldie or Root in 

View of Flournoy et al. 

Claims 28 to 33 are directed to a wrinkle varnish and 
represent the composition thereof after the wrinkling 
oil of claims 21 to 23 has been added thereto. Thus 
they may be considered combination claims, with the 



9 


additive as a sub comb mat ion thereof. It is strenuously 
urged by the appellants that the concept of adding a 
composition to a varnish to impart thereto the 
property of wrinkling is novel and inventive and that 
the District Court was clearly wrong in finding the 
claims unpatentable. 

However, it is believed that the evidence manifestly 
supports the lower court’s conclusion. The prior art 
(the Flournoy et al, Root and Waldie patents) shows 
that the best known and most powerful wrinkle pro¬ 
ducing agent was tung oil. It was conventional 
practice to add tung oil, either alone or mixed with 
other oils, to standard varnish ingredients to make a 
wrinkling composition. This is shown both in the 
Waldie and Root patents which describe, as preferred 
procedures, the inclusion of tung oil as the “wrinkling 
oil” in varnish compositions. 

The appellants maintain, however, that neither 
Waldie or Root discloses the addition of a wrinkling oil 
to an already prepared varnish, that is, after the 
varnish cooking operation. Even assuming this to be 
so, the appellants have not established that this varia¬ 
tion over the art is anything more than a matter of 
choice. The tung oil, according to the prior art, is 
effective if placed in the varnish prior to cooking. In 
the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and there 
is none, it should be equally effective if added after the 
varnish is prepared. The appellants have not proved 
that this variation of the prior art procedure is either 
imaginative or required more than ordinary skill. 

Moreover, the appellants’ contention that the art 
furnishes no suggestion for the addition of wrinkling 









10 


oil composition to a prepared varnish does not accord 
with the facts. One of the stated objects of the Waldie 
patent disclosure is to provide a “wrinkle finish com¬ 
position which can be blended with a wrinkling 
varnish.” 

The appellants contend that the stated object is not 
borne out by the specific Waldie disclosure but, even 
so, the clear statement in the quoted passage alone 
should have been sufficient to furnish the required 
suggestion for endeavor by the worker in the field. 

Accordingly, it is submitted that the concept of 
adding a wrinkling oil to a prepared varnish was not 
only an obvious deviation from the conventional 
practice, but was suggested by the prior art. The 
appellants urge no synergistic action between the 
specific ingredients of the added oil and the varnish 
constituents. 

It is believed that the evidence supports the holding 
that claims 28 to 33 are unpatentable over either 
Waldie or Root in view of Flournoy et al. 

It is further pointed out that claims 30, 31, 32 and 
33 are subject to the same objection as claims 21 to 23, 
i.e., they do not positively state that the mixture of oils 
is subjected to the heat treatment. Since the ' 
appellants agree that this feature is critical and 
essential to the success of their product, it should be 
included in the claims in clear, definite terms. Claims 
30, 31, 32 and 33 leave it open to interpretation 
whether either one or both of the oils is heated, and for 
that reason are objectionable. 





11 


The Novelty of the Worm-Type Wrinkle Result Is Not 
Conclusive of Invention 

While it is not understood that the appellants are 
willing to stand alone on the result of their contribu¬ 
tion as spelling out invention, they do rely heavily 
thereon and cite certain decisions in which novelty of 
result played a part. Each of these authorities it is 
believed, however, included a novel and inventive 
process as a background for the product and on that 
basis are distinguishable from the facts at hand. 

A new, beneficial product arrived at by a routine 
process involving nothing more than the skill of the 
art, does not, of course, spell out invention and exten¬ 
sive citation of authorities on the point is unnecessary. 
Certain cases, however, include particularly apt 
language, such as Nixon et al v. Marzall, 87 U. S. App. 
D. C. 415: 

“We do not question that the variations initiated 
by Nixon had the very desirable effect of eliminat¬ 
ing the fines and of making the manufacturing 
process more commercially acceptable. But we 
nevertheless are faced with the basic develop¬ 
ments prior to his entry into the field. These con¬ 
tained all the essentials.-it must appear that 

the claims presented as the basis for a patent are 
the product of creative talent.” 

In an earlier case, W. A. Scholters Chemische 
Fabrieken v. Coe, 76 U. S. App. D. C. 313, the follow¬ 
ing appears: 

“The appellant urges that analogical reasoning 
cannot be relied on in the field of chemistry but 




12 


only experiment. It is true that analogical 
reasoning is more restricted in chemistry than in 

the field of mechanics. -But from the facts 

that prevision is not certain in chemistry, that 
progress in the chemical art is reached largely 
through experiment, and that patents are often 
upheld where the inventor stumbles upon a dis¬ 
covery . ... it does not follow that every new and 
useful result accomplished by experiment is 

patentable .the use of the solution in (the 

prior art) patents would at least suggest experi¬ 
mentation with that particular bleaching agent 
?? 


The law is clear therefore that the question of in¬ 
vention must be divorced from, and considered 
independently of, any improved results achieved. 

CONCLUSION 

It is submitted that the decision of the lower court is 
amply supported by the record, that the appellants 
have been unable to point out any obvious error there¬ 
in, and the decision should, therefore, be affirmed. 

Respectfully submitted, 

E. L. Reynolds, 

Solicitor, United States Patent Office, 
Attorney for Appellee. 

S. W. Cochran 
Of Counsel 

December 1952 

☆ u.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTINC OFFICE 1952-23 2579/p.O. 752 






Appeal No. 11,403 

REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS 


llmtrii Bin tea (Cmirt nf Appeals 

For the District of Columbia Circuit 


New Wrinkle, Inc., and William A. Waldie, 

Appellants, j 

BOBSHT C.. WATSON v * 

j 

- At^aiwwjuL, Commissioner of Patents, 
Appellee 


Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia 

i 


i 


H. A. Toulmin, Jr. 

F. E. Drummond 
D. J. Hanlon, Jr. 

Toulmin Building, 

Dayton, Ohio. 

Attorneys for Appellants. 

Of Counsel 

Toulmin & Toulmin 


Wilson - Epes Printing Co. - RE 7-6003 - Washington 1. D. C. 










INDEX 


PAGE 

Admissions as to Flournoy et al in the District 
Court .----- 1 

Heating Step is also Novel. 3 

Combination of references.-. 5 

This leaves only counsel for Commissioner to draw 
inferences from the disclosures with no support 
in the disclosures. 6 

Patent Codification Act: Title 35 U.S.C. §102. 6 

Argument about the Terminology of the Claims. 7 

Invention . 8 

Is it Invention to Provide Worm Wrinkle?. 9 

Cases Cited 

Corona v. Dovan, 276 U.S. 358, 368-9. 9 

Graver Mfg. Co. v. Linde Co., 339 U.S. 605, 609. 5 

Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue Co., 277 U.S. 

245 . 8 

Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 555. 5, 8 

Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 31 F. 

('2d) 427 (C.A. 3). 6 

Williams Mfg. Co. v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 316 
U.S. 364^ 367-8.. 


5 

























•Htttfeii States ffimtrl of Appeals 

Foe the Distbict of Columbia Circuit 


Appeal No. 11,403 


New Wrinkle, Inc., and William A. Waldie, 

Appellants, 

v. 

John A. Marzall, Commissioner of Patents, 

Appellee 


Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the District of Colombia 


REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS 


The Commissioner’s brief overlooks the position he took 
at the trial in the District Court and the admissions that 
his counsel made under cross-examination by the Learned 
District Judge . 

Admissions as to Flournoy 
et al in the District Court. 

On the issue of whether Flournoy produces the novel 
result of the Waldie application before this Court, the 






2 


District Court asked counsel for the Commissioner the 
following as to the worm wrinkle being a new product: 

“THE COURT: But do you know whether he 
(Flournoy) has these individual worm type wrinkles? 

MR. COCHRAN: He (Flournoy) doesn’t say so. 
I don’t know -whether he has or not . . .” (p. 50A) 

On pages 80A to 86A the -witness Waldie produced ap¬ 
pellants’ exhibits 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. The net re¬ 
sult wras that none of the prior art samples including 
Flournoy, produced the new worm wrinkle. 

Counsel for the Patent Office admitted (p. 50A) “I 
don’t know- whether he (Flournoy) has or not,” referring 
to the individual worm-type wrinkles. The testimony and 
exhibits unrebutted of the appellants showed that Flour¬ 
noy could not get a worm-type wrinkle. 

The District Court said on this subject: 

“. . . When the oil composition is added to a 
short-oil varnish, the varnish acquires the property 
of affording a worm-shaped, segregated wrinkle pat¬ 
tern on the surface to which it is applied.” (p. 15A) 

No prior art patent shows this result as is conceded— 
the findings do not credit anyone but applicant with this 
new result. 

In short, we have this: counsel for the Commissioner- 
appellee admitted that the main reference, Flournoy, does 
not illustrate or claim the worm-type wrinkle, the new 
form of wrinkle. 

Waldie’s panels and testimony show that Flournoy did 
not have it. 

The claim of the appellants is that the applicant wras 
the first to provide a mixture of tung oil and linseed 
oil which was subsequently heat treated as a mixture as 
distinguished from a separate treatment of the two oils 



3 


by heating and then mixing the two oils after they be¬ 
came cool. 

This particular joint mixing and then heat treating 
produced the worm wrinkle novel result. 

The District Court found the worm wrinkle was the 
result of routine experimentation. That is no longer 
ground for defeating a patent. The new Patent Code 
says: ‘‘Patentability shall not be negatived by the man¬ 
ner in which the invention is made.” Title 35 U.S.C. 
§ 103. 

Heating Step is 
Also Novel. 

Now let us see what counsel for the appellant admitted 
in the District Court. 

“MR COCHRAN: The difference here, if any, is 
in this step of heating. That is the real crux of the 
case. Flournoy does not definitely describe it. . . .” 
(p. 48A, 49A) 

And upon the pressure of questions by the Court, coun¬ 
sel for the Commissioner admitted: 

“THE COURT: Therefore, you say that Flournoy 
teaches the mixture of one oil with die other in the 
application of heat? 

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. 

THE COURT: But not in the critical temperature 
itself? 

MR. COCHRAN: I wouldn’t say with the applica¬ 
tion of heat. It teaches the mixture of the two oils 
that are involved in this process.” (p. 49A) 

And again he admitted: 

“THE COURT: In other words, he says that 
Flournoy teaches co-bodying of the oils, isn’t that 
vour point? 

MR. COCHRAN: My point is that Flournoy does 
not necessarily teach that; but even if he does not, it 













4 


does not make any difference; we don’t have an in¬ 
vention stated in these claims.” (p. 52A) 

From the foregoing we can conclude that it is admitted 
that Flournoy does not teach the essence of the mixing 
of the oils and then heating them to co-body them to 
produce the novel “worm-type” wrinkle result. 

Appellee’s counsel in his brief makes a half-hearted ef¬ 
fort to get over this admission when he tries to read into 
Flournoy what is not there: 

“. . . Although there is no statement in the patent 
contrary to the appellants’ view that Flournoy et al 
contemplated separate heating, by the same token, 
there is no indication that heat treatment of the oils 
together would be improper for Flournoy et al’s pur¬ 
pose.” (p. 6) 

We need not cite authority to this Court that you can¬ 
not anticipate “by assumption” what might have been in 
the mind of a patentee when he did not state it in his 
patent. No anticipation has ever been placed on that 
basis in any United States Court. 

In other words, Waldie did two things which are ad¬ 
mitted not to be in the anticipating record: 

(1) He mixed tw^o oils (not varnishes) and then 
heated them to co-body them instead of doing this 
separately; and 

(2) He thereby produced a novel result in a 
worm-type wrinkle. 

This Court will find that there is nothing in this record 
to anticipate these two novel features. Counsel for the 
appellee admits there is no teaching of joint mixing and 
then heatiDg in Flournoy or any other reference, (p. 
49 A) 

Counsel for the appellants admit that no worm-type 
wrinkle w~as produced by any reference, (p. 50A) 



5 


Combination of references. 

The attempt to anticipate by combining the Flournoy 
patent, which is admitted is insufficient in itself, with two 
other insufficient patents and a publication, that is, the 
Root patent, the Waldie patent and the Huff publication, 
is contrary to law where the end result is new. Seymour 
v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 555. 

“Consideration must be given to the purpose for which 
an ingredient is used in a patent, the qualities it has when 
combined with the other ingredients, and the function 
which it is intended to perform.” Graver Mfg. Co. v. 

Linde Co., 339 U.S. 605, 609; Williams Mfg. Co. v. United 
Shoe Mach. Corp., 316 U.S. 364, 367-8. 

In the Waldie patent No. 2,344,189, the only teaching 
is of the addition of a varnish to a varnish. There is no 
teaching of mixing two oils and then heating them to 
co-body them with heat. 

The Root patent teaches only varnishes in which resins 
and oils are cooked together. 

In both the Waldie and Root cases the resulting wrink¬ 
ling is in a continuous pattern and not the disconnected 
worm-type wrinkle. In Root there is no mixing of the 
varnish with any oil composition or anything else after 
the varnish is made. In Root the oils are not co-bodied, 
but are cooked with the resin at the same time. 

In the appellants’ invention before this Court the in¬ 
vention lies in mixing two oils, heating them to co-body 
them and then being able to merely add these co-bodied 
oils to a non-wrinkling varnish to produce the new worm- 
type, segregated pattern. 

In the Huff reference there is no suggestion of mixing 
oils and heating them to produce a homogeneous compo¬ 
sition. There is no teaching of co-bodying or co-polymeri¬ 
zation. 





6 


This leaves only counsel for Commissioner to draw in¬ 
ferences from the disclosures with no support in the dis¬ 
closures. 

We understand it to be a settled rule that “inferences 
as distinguished from disclosures especially when drawn 
in the light of after events, cannot be accepted as the 
basis of anticipation.” Shelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil 
Products Co., 31 F. (2d) 427 (C.A. 3). 

If this were not the rule, there would be no accurate 
way to determine anticipation for every man’s inference 
would be personal and different; and his selfish interest 
would lead him to read into anything, anything he might 
want to believe. No such standard of anticipation has 
ever been approved in the United States. 

Patent Codification Act: 

Title 35 U.S.C. § 102. 

The new Patent Code now applying to this case in the 
above section specifically states that to anticipate a patent 
you must show that “the invention was patented or de¬ 
scribed in a printed publication in this or a foreign 
country.” Commissioner’s counsel admits that he cannot 
find in Flournoy the two basic elements of the applicant’s 
invention, that is, premixing of oil followed by heating; 
and, then, adding to a varnish to produce the novel re¬ 
sult of the worm-type wrinkle. 

We submit that answers the question of anticipation. It 
also answers the question of invention. 

We further direct your attention to the fact that it is 
now the law under the new Code, Title 35 U.S.C. § 100,* 
to hold that it is invention if you discover a new use of a 
known process or a composition of matter, manufacture 
or material 


* Sec. 100(b): “The term ‘process’ means process, art or method, 
and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, 
composition of matter, or material.” 



7 


In this case, we have, if the inferences of counsel for 
the Commissioner are accepted, a new worm-type wrinkle 
which gives a new use for what he infers is an old process 
in Flournoy although he cannot find the teaching of it. 
If his inferences are to be accepted contrary to law, the 
appellee can still prevail because, under this new 
statute, the discovery of a new T use of a prior patented 
composition or process producing a new result, is inven¬ 
tion. 

Argument About the 
Terminology of the Claims. 

Commissioner’s brief for the appellee frequently refers 
to its objection of the terminology and draftsmanship of 
the claims. That is an issue for Patent Office disposition 
a.r>d having closed that issue before the Primary Exam¬ 
iner this Court should not be called upon to now listen to 
the complaints of the Commissioner about the phraseology 
of the claims because if there is invention here and 
novelty and utility, then this Court has the power to 
direct that the Commissioner grant a suitable patent on 
this new invention pursuant to the statute. 

Justice would hardly be done by following the com¬ 
plaints at this late date of the administrative agency that 
the mere phraseology did not meet its metaphysical sense 
of fitness. 

The Learned District Court below wuth good common 
sense made this observation to such a technical suggestion 
and we respectfully commend it to this Court. He said: 

“THE COURT: I am trying to look at it from the 
very practical point of view. If you have something 
that is new and novel from the standpoint of a 
wrinkle finish of an entirely different type and char¬ 
acter than has been known in the art before, and if, 
as counsel says, the critical aspect of the claim 
should be heat rather than the co-bodying of the oils 
themselves, the simplest thing would be to correct 





8 


that in the claims and send that back to the Patent 
Office and get your patent.” (p. 51A) 

Invention 

Appellee’s brief is curious in that it says it disagrees 
with the statement of the questions presented by the 
appellants and believes the real question is wiiether the 
claims of the appellants for the product and process 
involve invention. 

Will the Court turn to our three statements of ques¬ 
tions presented and you will note that each one of them 
proposes the question of whether what Woldie has done 
is patentable invention. 

One who produces a new' result, or a new* product, is 
an inventor; and both the new' product and process can 
be covered. Sewall v. Jones, 91 U.S. 171. 

One w r ho invents a new' use for old materials and proc¬ 
esses is an inventor. Title 35 U.S.C. § 101(b) Patent 
Code (1952). 

One w'ho provides a new step in a process using dif¬ 
ferent materials with different timing of treatment is an 
inventor. Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue Co., 
277 U.S. 245. 

One who uses two oils by mixing them and then heats 
them to secure a w'orm wrinkle which cannot be secured 
by independently heating the oils and then mixing them 
or cannot be secured by merely mixing varnishes or cannot 
be secured by cooking resins with oils or varnishes, even 
though the elements are old, is an inventor. Seymour v. 
Osborne, 11 W^all. 516, 555. 

It is significant that when the oil of Flournoy was mixed 
with the same Waldie varnish the power to wrinkle was 
deadened and the wrinkling did not take place. (PX 
App. 81A) 



9 


It is significant that the new composition of the appli¬ 
cant has the unchallenged capability of transforming 
non-wrinkling varnishes to wrinkling varnishes, (p. ft*A) 

It is significant that prior to this invention there has 
been no suggestion pointed out by the appellee that an oil 
composition may be added to a non-wrinkling varnish to 
convert it to a wrinkling varnish. 

The new step unexpectedly leads to new results, that is 
the co-bodying of the oils to produce a new pattern an d 
to effect a conversion of a non-wrinkling varnish to a 
wrinkling varnish through the agency of a non-wrinkling 
oil. Corona v. Dovan, 276 U.S. 358, 368-9. 

The mere citation by the appellee of the fact that cer¬ 
tain individual elements, other them the wormAype wrinkle 
and the co-bodying of the oil after premizing, are found 
in the prior art is proof of invention rather than other¬ 
wise, because with these factors available to all inventors 
no one thought of producing by the simple expedient of 
mixing oils a/nd then co-bodying them, how to produce a 
worm wrinkle. 

Is It Invention to Provide 
Worm Wr inkl e? 

The whole object of these varnishes is to provide a 
novel decorative appearance to hide the irregularities of 
the underlying metal by applying a single coat of this 
paint which, when heated in baking, will make this deco¬ 
rative surface. 

This being the object of this industry, the discovery of 
a new finish is a matter of major importance and is in¬ 
vention. 

We call attention again to the Patent Office Codification 
Act, Title 35 U.S.C. § 103, on the question raised by the 






10 


appellee that this accomplishment of Waldie was merely 
the result of a routine experiment 

That objection is now obsolete. The manner in w’hich 
an invention is made is no longer a criterion of either 
patentability or lack of it. The statute says: 

. . Patentability shall not be negatived by the 
manner in which the invention was made.” (Sec. 
103) 

We, therefore, submit to this Court that the inventor, 
Waldie, having made an advance over his own patent and 
that of Root and others, is entitled to have his invention 
protected and he cannot be denied that right under the 
law because some official of the Patent Office would like 
to use his inferences to reconstruct the prior art or does 
not like the way he arrived at his invention or does not 
think that a new* use is patentable. 

Congress has spoken to the contrary in affirmation of 
the old law and in distinctly holding what is the new pat¬ 
ent law. 


Respectfully submitted, 

Toulmin & Toulmin 
Attorneys for Appellants 

H. A. Toulmin, Jr. 

F. E. Drummond 
D. J. Hanlon, Jr. 

Of Coiansel 


Imfrin States (Emtrt of Appeals 

Fob the Distbict of CoLxragg^e^J&es?? Court of Appeals 

Fer if :j 

- District of Columbia C.rzu.t 

No. 11,403 p|^jj A? D 3 j £53 

New Wrinkle, Inc., and William A. Wau>ee,Clee;< 

Appellants, 

v. 

Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents, 

Appellee. 


PETITION FOR REHEARING 

To the Honorable Judges of the United Stales Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: 

The appellants hereby respectfully petition the Court 
for rehearing of its decision and opinion of March 19, 
1953, affirming the judgment of the Court below upon the 
following grounds. 

I 

STATEMENT 

That the appellee has recognized that the Patent Codi¬ 
fication Act, Title 35, U.S.C. (1952) is an entirely new 
Act and not merely a codification of existing statutes 
prior to the effective date of the Patent Codification Act 
by issuing complete new rules for the administration of 
the Act by the United States Patent Office dated January 






9 


1, 1953, a copy of which new rules is submitted with this 
Petition for Rehearing for the convenience of this Court. 

The Journal of the Patent Office Society, Volume 34, 
Number 8, of August, 1952, a copy of which is attached 
hereto for the convenience of this Court, recognizes that 
the Patent Codification Act is an entirely new and differ¬ 
ent Act.* 

The hearings before Congress, and not an isolated col¬ 
loquy between Senators, show that the features of the 
Act upon which the appellants’ relied were entirely new 
features not found in the previous statute, i.e., a new 
standard of invention not found in prior statutes. 

II 

PATENT OFFICE RECOGNIZES PATENT CODIFICA¬ 
TION HAS NEW FEATURES 

We respectfully take the liberty of urging the Court to 
review its decision in the above entitled case No. 11,403 
on which it bases its decision, among other things, upon 
a partial colloquy by the Senators Wiley, Saltonstall and 
McCarran containing a statement that there was no dif¬ 
ference between the old and new law, as so quoted by 
this Court in a foot note.to its opinion on page 3, and as 
noted on page 4 of the companion appeal No. 11,475. 

This colloquy is not supported by the Congressional 
hearings of three to four years nor by the comparison 
of the old statutes with the new Act. If it had been, 
there would be no necessity for the recognition by the 
appellee of these changes by issuing completely new 

* New features of this Act are also set forth in an article en¬ 
titled “The New Patent Statute: Congress Revitalizes The Patent 
System” by Carl B. Lutz of Pittsburgh Bar Association appearing 
in The Journal of American Bar Association March 1953, volume 
39 pages 209 to 211. 



3 


rules. There is also the recognition of these changes in 
the semi-official Journal of the Patent Office Society as 
to the admittedly new features of this Act, and an an¬ 
alysis of the Act supporting these changes. 

If the Patent Office is wrong in its position under its 
new rules that this Act has many new features, then it 
is to the public interest to review and reaffirm, upon re¬ 
hearing, the correct interpretation of this Act. 

Therefore, your petitioner respectfully prays for a re¬ 
hearing on this issue in view of its grave public import¬ 
ance. If all that the House of Kepresentatives of the 
Congress accomplished in three or four years work on this 
subject together with a distinguished group of leaders 
of the Bar and industry testifying as to need of changes 
in the prior Patent Laws and on which testimony changes 
were made in the existing statutes as admitted and shown 
in the hearings and in the report on the bill, was a mere 
codification of existing laws, then such a simple procedure 
would seem not to justify such expenditure of time and 
effort by the Congress. 

It seems difficult to conceive that the distinguished mem¬ 
bers of Congress of both Houses should have spent that 
amount of time to merely codify the existing statutes, in 
view of the extensive hearings and the resulting changes 
in the law. The Act itself, as heretofore pointed out in 
this case and in the record of the hearings on the bill and 
the Congressional report on it, show to the contrary. 

The issue involved in this cause and its companion ap¬ 
peal are of grave moment to the nation. We, therefore, 
very respectfully take the liberty of requesting by this 
petition a rehearing on the subject at which time there 
can be fuller briefing, and argument if desired, of a more 
exhaustive nature than the short brief requested by the 
Court at the hearing of this cause. 




4 


CONCLUSION 

We would, therefore, petition for this rehearing so 
that there will be a very full discussion of the subject 
based on more exhaustive explanation in an opinion by 
this Court, as we desire to file a Petition for Certiorari 
to the Supreme Court of the United States after this 
Court has heard us by brief and argument on a rehear¬ 
ing, if this Court does not agree with us. 

Respectfully submitted, 


Attorneys for Appellants 

H. A. Toulmin, Jr. 

F. E. Drummond 
D. J. Hanlon, Jr. 

Of Covmsel: 


CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL 

Pursuant to Rule 26, I hereby certify that this Petition 
for Rehearing is presented in good faith and not for 
delay.