become dry it is ready for sale.

In the extended litigation over the acid process patents, the points
at issue related to the strength of the acid named in the various
specifications and also to the methods of applying steam. Prof.
Charles F. Chandler, called as an expert in one case, testified that
the effects of acids, such as sulphuric or hydrochloric, upon rubber
and rubber compounds, under varying strength and temperature, had been
known at a period antedating all the patents then the basis of suits
for infringement; also that their effect upon cotton and woolen
fabrics had been equally well known. They had the same effect upon
fibers, whether the latter were combined with rubber or not, but very
strong acids would affect the rubber injuriously. The line of defense
in this case was that "no invention was required in selecting the
strength of acid; only the common sense of the manufacturer, aided by
his skill and experience, was necessary to bring about the proper
results." In support of this a factory superintendent testified that
varied stocks required skill and judgment in their treatment and more
or less variation as to the strength of acid, temperature, etc.

As to the use of steam, Prof. Henry B. Cornwall, of Princeton College,
called as an expert in another case, testified that, having put to a
test the specifications in all the patents involved, he had found it
necessary in no case to inject live steam into the mixtures of acid
and rubber scrap in order to effect the decomposition and removal of
either woolen or cotton fiber. The use of the acids specified was
sufficient for this, and the various high temperatures called for were
not essential for the destruction of the fibers. He neglected to
mention, however, that the steam served an equally important purpose
in devulcanizing the rubber.