Opinion ID: 405101
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Accused Machine

Text: 49 23. The accused machine was the subject of proposals to Scott Paper Company on January 13 and March 10, 1977, the order being given on September 22, 1977. Defendant had not built a rewinder before, although four of the five accused machine designers-Leanna, Jorgenson, Nehring, and Terp-were former employees of plaintiff. 50 24. The defendant's initial proposal of January 13, 1977, for the automatic cutoff and transfer read: 51 As each winding roll reaches the predetermined count, the web is cut off and transferred to a new, empty core. Cut-off and transfer is effected by the Cut-off Knife and Transfer Brush Assembly, contained within the Main Bedroll. The Cut-off Knife and Transfer Brushes are withdrawn inside the Main Bedroll during normal running. When the desired count is reached, the Cut-off Knife comes out of the Bedroll at high speed, cutting the web. The Transfer Brushes, mounted behind the Knife brush the web on to the new core-shaft for the start of the next roll. Cut-off position is adjustable. (Trial Exhibit No. 35) 52 This was a literal description of the unacceptable prior art mechanism, so in the defendant's subsequent quotation of March 10, 1977, this was altered to read as follows: 53 As each winding roll reaches the predetermined count, the vacuum held web is cut off and transferred to a new, empty core. Cut off and transfer is accomplished by a cut-off knife contained within a cut-off roll, and a web transfer assembly contained within a vacuum regulated main bedroll. The cut-off knife is withdrawn inside of the cut-off roll and the web transfer assembly is withdrawn inside of the vacuum regulated main bedroll during normal running. Just prior to when the desired count is reached, the vacuum is applied thus holding the trailing portion of the web to the bedroll and the cut-off knife then is actuated out of cut-off roll and inserted into a groove in the vacuum regulated main bedroll thus severing the web. The leading edge continues to be wound on the finished roll. The trailing web edge (held by vacuum) is brought around to transfer location where the web transfer assembly located inside the main bedroll protrudes outward, thus transferring the vacuum-held web to the new core shaft for start of next roll. The cut-off knife and web transfer assembly is then cam returned to their original position. Vacuum on-off positions are adjustable. (Trial Exhibit No. 36) 54 This followed the disclosure of the Christman patent which also utilized vacuum or suction. This idea was also dropped, the defendant turning instead to the patented construction. 55 25. The defendant's machine for Scott-Oconto Falls was delivered with a mechanical transfer system utilizing pads that came out of the bedroll to press the sheet onto the core. The movable element for cutting and impaling was placed in the cooperating cutoff roll, however, rather than in the bedroll which is where it is located in the patented machine. 56 26. In the patented machine, a pivot shaft 62 carries both the pins 56 and a knife mechanism 51 consisting of two spaced apart blades to suspend the web for puncture by a knife 64 on the cooperating chopper roll 49. The pins 56 impale the web by acting against an element 67 on the chopper roll. So the one pivoting movement of the shaft 62 sequentially severs and impales the web. (See Figure 4 in Appendix A-4.) 57 27. In the accused machine, a pivot shaft 42 on the cooperating cutoff roll carries a knife 33 and a web impalement pusher bar 36. (See Appendix C-1) The knife 33 punctures the web suspended over the slot 31-just as in the patented machine, the only difference being that in the plaintiff's machine, the suspended web does not move out to meet a knife in the cooperating roll, and in the accused machine the knife on the cooperating roll moves in to effect rupture. The same reversal applies to impalement. In the patented machine, the pivot shaft moves the pins out to engage an element on the cooperating roll. In the defendant's version, the pivot shaft moves the impalement pusher bar 36 in to impale the web on the pins 32. 58 28. According to Scott's finishing engineer, Raymond Tabar, who was knowledgeable about both machines, it made no difference whether the knife was mounted in one roll or the other. He also testified that it made no difference whether the pins came out to impale the web or the web was pushed onto the pins. 59 29. In its responses to requests for admission of fact, defendant admitted that all of the mechanical elements of the claim were present in its machine except that the pin means was not extensibly mounted. 60 30. The description of the entire element reads: 61 (D) pin means extensibly mounted on said roll for maintaining a web portion spaced from said edge in contact with said roll   . (Patent Reissue No. 28,353, Column 12, lines 36-39.) 62 So where the pin means is mounted is not important per se but only to achieve the objective of the recited clause, viz., for maintaining a web portion. The Court finds that this is achieved in a substantially equivalent manner in defendant's machine as in the machine of the patent-in-suit. 63 31. The Court also finds that according to the United States patent laws, an element expressed as a means is to be construed to cover equivalents. See 35 U.S.C. § 112 which provides in pertinent part as follows: 64 An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. (Emphasis supplied.) 65 Inasmuch as the Court has found the defendant's pin means to be the full mechanical equivalent of that of the patent, all of the elements of claim 1 are present in the defendant's machine, and the claim is infringed. 66 32. Claim 4 of the patent calls for the following mechanical elements: 67 (a) a frame, 68 (b) a roll rotatably supported on said frame, 69 (c) means for rotating said roll,(d) means for feeding a web onto said roll for travel therewith while in partial wrapping engagement with said roll, 70 (e) the roll having a longitudinally extending slot in the surface thereof, 71 (f) said roll carrying a knife extendable out of said slot for cutting engagement with said web, 72 (g) turret means rotatably supported on said frame, 73 (h) a plurality of mandrels mounted on said turret means, 74 (i) means for rotating said turret means to move said mandrels sequentially through an orbital path, 75 (j) said turret means being positioned on said frame relative to said roll to provide a segment of said orbital path in close proximity to the surface of said roll, 76 (k) means on said frame for maintaining a severed web against said surface, 77 (l) a pusher mounted in said roll for extension out of said slot to overcome said maintaining means, said pusher being mounted rearwardly of said knife in the direction of roll rotation, and 78 (m) means for extending said pusher, said extending means being operative to extend said pusher at a time when said slot is aligned with said path segment; 79 and defendant has admitted the presence in the accused machine of all elements except those designated (f) and (l). The issue is whether these elements or their equivalents are present. 80 33. Item (f) specifies that the bedroll has a knife in a slot. The presence of the slot has been admitted, this being the element designed 31 in defendant's drawings. Provided within that slot, or at least at the edge of the groove in the defendant's bedroll, is an element 34 which is called a cutting bar. The bar 34 helps suspend the web for engagement by a cooperating element 33 on the cutoff roll, the element 33 being called the knife. (See Appendix C-1.) In the patent the knife mechanism 51 is ineffective to cut the web without the cooperation of the knife 64 on the chopper roll 49. (See Figure 4 in Appendix A-4.) Likewise, defendant's cutoff roll knife 33 would be ineffective without the cutting bar 34. In both cases a pair of elements are required for cutting, one in the bedroll and one in the cooperating roll. Which element is termed the knife is unimportant. The Court finds that the bedroll of defendant's machine does indeed have a knife in its slot. 81 34. As to item (l), this requires that the pusher be mounted rearwardly of said knife in the direction of roll rotation. (Patent Reissue No. 28,353, Column 13, lines 22-23.) What this reflects is that the pad 55 trails behind the knife mechanism 51 as clearly illustrated in Figure 21 (see Appendix A-6) of the patent-in-suit. This is for the purpose of enabling the pusher to sweep through the pins 56 and press the web leading edge portion against the mandrel to be wound. This is the precise location and function of defendant's pads 38 (see Appendix C-1) so there is literal readability as well as identity of means, operation, and result. Defendant contends that the claim is avoided because the actual mounting, i.e., the pivot shaft 40 which carries the pusher pads, is forward of the knife, whereas the pivot shaft 72 in the patent-in-suit is rearward of the knife. This elevates form over substance inasmuch as the location of the pivot shaft is irrelevant, the claim referring to the location of the pusher to serve its intended function. Furthermore, reading the written language of the claim in conjunction with viewing the diagrams, a fair conclusion is that the pusher does not include the shaft on which it is mounted. Because there is literal readability as well as identity of means, function, and result, the Court finds claim 4 to be infringed. 82 35. Claim 5 of the patent is dependent on claim 4 and specifies in addition that the 83    extending means comprises cam followers for the extending of said knife, and pusher only during one predetermined roll revolution out of a plurality of revolutions constituting a winding cycle, said extending means further comprising means for positively locking said cam means during the remainder of said winding cycle. (Patent Reissue No. 28,353, Column 13, lines 27-33.)The extending means referred to is the means for sequentially extending said knife and pusher so the corresponding mechanisms for these two elements will be considered separately. 84 36. According to the patent-in-suit, a cycle of cutoff and transfer is initiated by a counting mechanism energizing the solenoid 116 to shift the solenoid armature 117. This also shifts the cam follower 121 (see Figure 3 in Appendix A-3) into alignment with the trip cam 89 associated with the knife mechanism 51. The engagement of the follower 121 with the cam 89 pivot shaft 81 (as can be seen from a comparison of Figures 15 and 16 in Appendix A-5) so that the cam follower 91 can ride on the inner surface 92a of cam 92 (Figure 2 in Appendix A-2). The pivoting of shaft 81 disengages the trip latch 80, and the spring arm 74 is rotated under the urging of spring 77 to place cam follower 93 in contact with the exterior surface 92b of cam 92. The motion of the cam follower 93 causes the pivot shaft 62 to pivot to the knife actuating position where the knife mechanism 51 is extended. The knife continues to be in a condition to cut until it is locked out of the cutting mode by cam action. This is performed by the cam portion 92e which is engaged by the cam follower 91, serving to pivot the shaft 81 and relatch the trip latch 80, thereby locking the pivot shaft 62 and hence the knife mechanism 51 out of the cutting mode for the remainder of the winding cycle. 85 37. The counterpart timing mechanism in the accused machine for extending the knife 33 is located in the cutoff roll. This the Court finds to be a full equivalent, particularly in view of the fact that the claim calls for extending means. See 35 U.S.C. § 112. Again, the cycle is initiated by the energization of a solenoid, as at 51. This moves movable cam 50 to a position where a cam follower 47 on actuating arm 46 engages the cam 50 to rotate the rock shaft 42 to extend the knife 33. In doing this the rock shaft 42 moves a detent cam arm 53 to move a bell crank 55 against the urging of spring 57. The knife continues to be in a condition to cut until it is locked out of the cutting mode by cam action. This is performed by the fixed cam 49 which is engaged by the cam follower 47 serving to pivot the rock shaft 42 and hence the detent cam arm 53 to lock the position, thereby locking the pivot shaft 42 and hence the knife 33 out of the cutting mode for the remainder of the winding cycle. (See Figure 11 in Appendix C-2.) 86 38. From this description, the Court finds that both the machine of the patent and the defendant's machine have cam followers as at 121, 91, 47, respectively. (See Figure 1 on Appendix A-1 and Appendix C-3.) These followers perform identical functions in extending the knife only during one predetermined revolution out of a plurality of revolutions constituting a winding cycle. As to the means for positively locking the cam means (sic) during the remainder of said winding cycle (Patent Reissue No. 28,353, Column 13, lines 32-33)-the cam means referring to the cam followers-in the patent, the trip latch 80 is operative to lock the shaft 62 (see Figure 15 in Appendix A-5), while in the defendant's machine the detent cam arm 53 provides the same locking function (see Figure 11 in Appendix C-2). 87 39. As far as the pusher is concerned, in the patented machine a counterpart set of trip latch 95 and cam follower 111 (see Figure 2 in Appendix A-2 and Figure 15 in Appendix A-5) operate in the fashion just described relative to the knife to extend and lock the same. In the defendant's machine a second solenoid 84 is employed to initiate pusher action (see Figure 11 in Appendix C-2) as compared with a single solenoid 116 for actuating both the knife and pushers in the patent (see Figure 3 in Appendix A-3). Duplication of elements with no change in function does not avoid infringement. The energization of solenoid 84 permits movement of control lever 74 to place cam follower 82 against cam 83 (see Figure 11 in Appendix C-2). This controls the degree of emergence of the pusher 38. The pushers continue to be in the extended condition until they are locked out of this mode by cam action. This is performed by the cam 83 which is engaged by the follower 82 serving to pivot the pivot shaft 40 and control lever 74 and hence latching arm 79 to locked position. (See Figure 12 in Appendix C-2 and Appendix C-3.) This permits extension of the latch bolt 73, thereby locking the pivot shaft 40 and hence the pushers 38 out of the transfer mode for the remainder of the winding cycle. (See Appendix C-3.) Although certain of the members in the plaintiff's machine are of somewhat different form, they perform the same operation to achieve the same result. Claim 5 is therefore infringed. 88 40. Claim 13 of the patent calls for performing the following steps: 89 (a) advancing a web in synchronism with a supporting roll, 90 (b) transversely severing said web to provide a folded free leading edge, 91 (c) positioning a core-equipped mandrel in the path of the leading edge of said web, and 92 (d) said web, rearwardly of said leading edge being maintained against said supporting roll and thereafter urged outwardly from said roll against mandrel. 93 Defendant admits the presence of all but step (b). 94 41. The justification urged by defendant in support of its denial of step (b) is that it does not provide a folded free leading edge of the character specified in the patent. Based on the Tabar testimony, the Court finds that there is an incipient fold of the character contemplated by the patent, and that with minor modification the accused machine can be made to produce a leading edge of exactly the character specified in the patent. Inasmuch as imperfect practice of the patent or failure to utilize all the advantages thereof does not avoid infringement, claim 13 is infringed by the operation of defendant's machine. 95 42. Plaintiff has placed the required statutory notice on all machines manufactured and sold by it under the patent, and has given written notice to defendant of defendant's alleged infringement. 96 43. Defendant made and sold the accused machine with full knowledge of plaintiff's patent and without having obtained an opinion of counsel relative to infringement as to changes made only to avoid the patent with no corresponding change in function. Defendant is therefore an intentional infringer subject to the award of increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 97 1. This court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, and venue is proper. 98 2. Title 35 U.S.C. § 282 provides: A patent shall be presumed valid.    The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity. This burden is a heavy one, and proof of patent invalidity must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Malsbary Manufacturing Company v. Ald, Incorporated, 447 F.2d 809, 812 (7th Cir. 1971); Ortman v. Maass, 391 F.2d 677, 681 (7th Cir. 1968); Walt Disney Productions v. Fred A. Niles Communications Center, Inc., 369 F.2d 230, 234 (7th Cir. 1966). 99 3. There is strong public interest in establishing the validity or invalidity of a patent. Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, 670, 89 S.Ct. 1902, 1911, 23 L.Ed.2d 610 (1969). 100 Where the prior art relied upon for purposes of establishing patent invalidity was actually considered by the Patent Office, the presumption of validity is strengthened. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation v. American Hospital Supply Corporation, 534 F.2d 89, 93-94 (7th Cir. 1976); Tracor, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, 519 F.2d 1288, 1306 (7th Cir. 1975); Ellipse Corporation v. Ford Motor Company, 452 F.2d 163, 170 (7th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 948, 92 S.Ct. 2041, 32 L.Ed.2d 337 (1972); LaSalle Street Press, Inc. v. McCormick and Henderson, Inc., 445 F.2d 84, 93 (7th Cir. 1971); TSC Industries, Inc. v. International Harvester Company, 406 F.2d 53, 57 (7th Cir. 1968); Lewyt Corporation v. Health-Mor, Inc., 181 F.2d 855, 857 (7th Cir. 1950). 101 5. With respect to the question of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the scope and content of the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be determined. The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art must also be resolved. Against this background the question of obviousness or nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter is decided. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17, 86 S.Ct. 684, 693, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966). The usual way of determining the level of ordinary skill in a particular art is by referring to the subjective reaction of a person thoroughly familiar with the particular art and, if possible, one who practiced the art at the crucial time in question. Malsbary Manufacturing Company v. Ald, Inc., 447 F.2d 809, 811 (7th Cir. 1971). 102 6. Secondary tests are also applicable to give light to the circumstances surrounding the patented subject matter and have relevancy to the determination of obviousness or nonobviousness of such subject matter. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 86 S.Ct. 684, 693-694, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966). These tests include: 103 (a) Did the patented invention fulfill a long-felt need in the industry to which it applied? Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation v. American Hospital Supply Corporation, supra, 534 F.2d at 93; Rex Chainbelt, Inc. v. General Kinematics Corporation, 363 F.2d 336, 337 (7th Cir. 1966). 104 (b) Did the patented invention meet with substantial success upon its introduction to the market? Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation v. American Hospital Supply Corporation, supra, 534 F.2d at 93; Continental Can Company, Inc. v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, 362 F.2d 123, 124 (7th Cir. 1966). 105 (c) Did the accused infringer recognize that the invention was truly meritorious? AMP Incorporated v. Molex Products Company, 329 F.Supp. 1364, 1371 (N.D.Ill.1971). 106 The imitation of the patented invention by defendant is conclusive evidence of what it thinks of the patent in suit and is persuasive of what the rest of the world ought to think. Anderson Company v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 165 F.Supp. 611, 623 (N.D.Ill.1958), modified, 265 F.2d 755 (7th Cir. 1959). See also Copease Manufacturing Company v. American Photocopy Equipment Co., 298 F.2d 772, 781 (7th Cir. 1961); Ric-Wil Co. v. E. B. Kaiser Co., 179 F.2d 401, 404 (7th Cir. 1950), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 958, 70 S.Ct. 981, 94 L.Ed. 1369 (1950); Charles Peckat Mfg. Co. v. Jacobs, 178 F.2d 794, 801 (7th Cir. 1949). 107 7. The patent in suit, Patent Reissue No. 28,353, is good and valid in law, and the asserted claims thereof, namely, claims 1, 4, 5, and 13 of the patent, are valid and enforceable. 108 8. To establish infringement of a product patent, the patent owner must demonstrate that the alleged infringer has made, used, or sold the product coming within the scope of the claimed inventions. Reese v. Elkhart Welding & Boiler Works, Inc., 447 F.2d 517, 527 (7th Cir. 1971), and University of Illinois Foundation v. Block Drug Co., 133 F.Supp. 580, 584 (E.D.Ill.1955), aff'd, 241 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 354 U.S. 922, 77 S.Ct. 1382, 1 L.Ed.2d 1437 (1957). 109 9. The test of infringement is whether the device claimed in the patent and the alleged infringing device perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way and accomplish substantially the same result. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605, 70 S.Ct. 854, 94 L.Ed. 1097 (1950); Ortman v. Maass, 391 F.2d 677, 682 (7th Cir. 1968). 110 10. An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 35 U.S.C. § 112. 111 11. An infringement is not avoided by a mere reversal or transposition of parts, or a mere change in form without change in function. Hunt v. Armour & Co., 185 F.2d 722, 728 (7th Cir. 1950). 112 12. That the accused machine operates less efficiently or fails to realize all the advantages of the invention does not avoid infringement. Panther Pumps & Equipment Company, Inc. v. Hydrocraft, Inc., 566 F.2d 8, 20 (7th Cir. 1977); Admiral Corporation v. Zenith Radio Corporation, 296 F.2d 708, 717 (10th Cir. 1961). 113 13. Outright and forthright duplication is a dull and very rare type of infringement. To prohibit no other would place the inventor at the mercy of verbalism and would be subordinating substance to form. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605, 608, 70 S.Ct. 854, 856, 94 L.Ed. 1097 (1950). 114 14. Patent Reissue No. 28,353 is good and valid in the law, and claims 1, 4, 5, and 13 thereof have been infringed by the defendant by the making and selling of a rewinder to Scott Paper Company at Oconto Falls, Wisconsin.