Since Pitts incurred the debt to petitioner before the probate court adjudged him to be the heir, the transaction comes clearly within the invalidation of § 7. Petitioner contends that even though Pitts incurred the debt to him before the probate court decreed heirship, power to mortgage the land is authorized by § 6 which removed restrictions on land inherited by an heir having a certificate of competency which Pitts did have at the time of the mortgage transaction. But this result would render meaningless the sentence we have quoted from § 7 and disregard the purpose of § 7 as authoritatively stated in the Senate Report proposing the legislation. The object of §7, according to the Senate Committee, was that "no land or money inherited shall be subject to any prior indebtedness." S. Rep. No. 127, 62d Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2. Since the sentence dealing with the invalidation is preceded by one which gives full protection against debts incurred prior to the issuance of a certificate of competency, the second sentence would have no function whatever unless it be construed to render unenforceable any claims. against inherited property arising at any time before it was "turned over" to an heir. And this brings us to the final argument.

It is urged that § 7 is inapplicable because Mamie's land was never "turned over" to Pitts but came to him automatically on the death of his wife. The basis of this argument is that, inasmuch as Mamie was an incompetent, her estate was not subject to any claims against her and therefore necessarily would come to her heir unburdened. But § 7, in speaking of turning over lands to an heir, was surely not concerned with the mysteries of scisin. It dealt with the practicalities of ascertaining ownership through inheritance by appropriate proceedings. To that end § 3 of the Act of 1912 conferred probate jurisdiction upon

the state courts. In re Thompson's Estate, 179 Okla. 240, 65 P.2d 442. The statute, that is, had in mind the judicial process of ascertaining the heir and the completion of that process by court action whereby the land was "turned over" to the ascertained heir. And so here, when the Oklahoma court decreed that Pitts was Mamie's heir, the land in the sensible use of the phrase "turned over" was turned over to Pitts.

Other arguments have not been overlooked but they need not be separately considered.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON dissents.

Affirmed.

DOW CHEMICAL CO. v. HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO.

NO. 50. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.

*

Argued February 6, 1945.-Decided March 5, 1945.

1. To resolve a conflict between Circuit Courts of Appeals as to the validity of a patent, this Court will determine independently the factual issue of validity. P. 322.

2. Grebe and Sanford Patent No. 1,877,504, Claims 1, 5, 7, 8 and 9, for a method of treating deep wells to increase production, held invalid for want of invention. Pp. 324, 331.

In the described process there was no patentable invention in any of the following claims or any combination thereof: (1) addition of an inhibiting agent to the hydrochloric acid solution to prevent corrosion; (2) use of a dilute rather than a concentrated hydrochloric acid solution; (3) use of the ordinary pump tube instead of a specially protected supply pipe to introduce the acid into the well. 3. The application of an old process to a new and analogous use lacks the very essence of an invention. P. 327.

*Together with No. 61, Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Dow Chemical Co., also on certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

4. The mere addition of water to dilute a known chemical solution does not entitle one to a patent monopoly, at least unless a definite dilution point or range is discovered corresponding to a physical phenomenon. P. 329.

5. The mere substitution of equivalents which do substantially the same thing in the same way, even though better results may be produced, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent. P. 330. 6. That a claimed invention filled a long felt want and has been a commercial success is relevant only when the question of invention is otherwise in doubt. P. 330.

139 F.2d 473, affirmed.

CERTIORARI, 322 U. S. 719, on cross-petitions by a patent owner (petitioner in No. 50) and an alleged infringer (cross-petitioner in No. 61), to review the affirmance of a decree holding invalid certain claims of a patent and dismissing the complaint in a suit for infringement.

Messrs. Bernard A. Schroeder and Charles J. Merriam, with whom Messrs. Russell Wiles, Wilber Owen, Calvin A. Campbell and Don L. Conner were on the brief, for the Dow Chemical Co.

Mr. Leonard S. Lyon, with whom Messrs. Frederick S. Lyon and Earl Babcock were on the brief, for the Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY delivered the opinion of the Court.

In issue here is the validity of United States Patent No. 1,877,504, relating to "the treatment of deep wells, such as oil, gas, brine or water wells, to increase the output therefrom," issued to John J. Grebe and Ross T. Sanford on September 12, 1932.

Petitioner, the owner of the patent, brought this suit against respondent for alleged infringement. Both the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held the patent invalid for want of invention and denied relief. 139 F. 2d

473. Previously the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, in reversing the judgment of the District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, had held the patent valid and infringed in a suit brought by petitioner against another party. Dow Chemical Co. v. Williams Bros. Well Treating Corp., 81 F. 2d 495, cert. denied, 298 U. S. 690. The conflicting views of the appellate courts concerning the validity of the same patent led us to grant certiorari in this case, 322 U. S. 719, and oblige us to decide independently the factual issue of validity. Universal Oil Co. v. Globe Co., 322 U. S. 471, 473.

The stated object of the Grebe-Sanford patent is "to counteract some preventable natural causes for the decline of yield of a well" where the well has been drilled into a limestone or other calcareous formation. As oil is pumped from a well, the underground flow to the well decreases and the yield declines until pumping is no longer profitable. Yet it is known that when that point is reached there often remains embedded in the rock formation a great deal of oil unrecoverable by ordinary processes. Many methods have been suggested to recover this hidden oil. The forcing of water or gas into the rock formation, the heating of the surrounding rock and the use of explosives have all been proposed but found wanting in one way or another.

Eventually, however, the idea was conceived of using acid to dissolve the limestone, thus opening channels through which the oil could flow into the well. This idea first appears to have been developed in United States. Patent No. 556,669, issued on March 17, 1896, to Herman Frasch, with a half interest being assigned to John W. Van Dyke. The essence of this patent was the introduction into the oil well of a large solution of hydrochloric acid under pressure, with fresh water being added later to force the acid further into the limestone. Frasch recommended the use of commercial hydrochloric acid containing from 30% to 40% by weight of the acid gas

HC1; he further recommended that the acid remain in the well for twelve hours. A suitably arranged packer was to be used to confine the acid to the lower or oilyielding portion of the well hole.

Frasch also recognized that the hydrochloric acid was likely to corrode the metal well equipment. Hence the patent suggested that the regular well tubing be removed and that an enameled or lead-lined pipe be inserted to conduct the acid down into the well, "or it may be otherwise made proof against corrosion." An additional suggestion was that an alkaline liquid be introduced to neutralize the acid after it had performed its function.

Frasch's method proved successful in disintegrating limestone rock and increasing the flow of oil. The record shows that at least fourteen commercial wells near Lima, Ohio, were treated with this process in 1895 and 1896, resulting in substantial production increases in most instances. Wide publicity was given to these operations. But despite this success, Frasch and Van Dyke soon discontinued their work along these lines. The reasons for this abandonment are not clearly disclosed by the record. Respondent suggests personal reasons on the part of Frasch and Van Dyke and claims that the relatively undeveloped oil industry at that time had little use for such an invention. Petitioner, however, contends that Frasch's method was so cumbersome and expensive that it was commercially impracticable; 1 such is also the reason advanced by the court in the Williams Bros. case, 81 F.2d at 496.

1

1 Petitioner argues that (1) Frasch used concentrated acid that was so corrosive as to compel the use of the costly and cumbersome expedient of removing the ordinary well tube and inserting a special acid supply pipe; (2) concentrated acid being less effective than diluted acid in reacting on the limestone rock, the production increases achieved by Frasch were too small to justify the expense of the treatment; and (3) viscous spent acid was difficult to remove under the Frasch method from the pores of the rock and hence blocked or lessened the flow of oil to the well hole.