6. The patent in suit, No. 2,797,091, was issued to Irwin L.
Fife on June 25, 1957, and was later assigned to the plaintiff
Fife Manufacturing Company.
7. The plaintiff asserts validity and infringement of the Fife
Patent No. 2,797,091, dated June 25, 1957.
8. Plaintiff relies for infringement upon claims 4, 10, 11 and
12 of the Fife Patent No. 2,797,091.
9. Application for patent was filed on April 28, 1950;
amendment thereto was filed December 10, 1953; and a continuation
in part was filed on August 5, 1955, which resulted in the
issuance of Patent No. 2,797,091 to Irwin L. Fife on June 25,
10. Superficially, the patent may be described as follows: The
subject matter of the patent involves an improvement in web
shifting apparatus having guide rollers over which the web
travels. The ends of the guide rollers are secured to movable
support members, which slide with respect to angularly mounted
base plates, which are bolted in a fixed position. The base
plates have guide rods on which the support members slide.
Bearings or support members are pivotally mounted to the
followers and receive the roller shafts. The rollers move along a
pre-determined path and are guided along that path by means of an
external power source or actuator, which is controlled in its
movement by impulses received from a feeler or guide mechanism
which is mounted so as to contact the edge of the web to be
guided. The guide roller movement is a simultaneous lateral and
swivel movement, which effects a canting or cambering to correct
misalignment of the web.
11. The prior art taught the use of feeler mechanisms acting in
conjunction with external power sources, which in turn activate
the movement of the guide rollers in effecting corrections for
web guiding apparatus.
12. The prior art discloses lateral movements, swivel movements
and combinations of lateral and swivel movements of web guide
13. The prior art does not disclose a web guide roller carrying
mechanism comparable to the Fife web guide roller carrying
14. The patented device in suit teaches the use of a feeler
mechanism operating in conjunction with an external power source
to activate web guide rollers mounted on a unique type of web
guide roller carrying mechanism, which distinguishes the patent
in suit from the prior art, and limited to such, the patent is
patentable over the prior art.
15. The Fife Patent No. 2,797,091 is a patentable invention and
the patent was properly issued by the Patent Office.
16. The combination of a feeler mechanism acting in conjunction
with an external power source, which in turn operates web guide
rollers which move laterally or swivel, or which move both
laterally and swivel, is not in and of itself patentable over the
17. The accused device consists of web guide rollers mounted on
arms, which permit both lateral and swivel movement, is copied
after and is comparable to Patent No. 2,387,036, issued to John
F. Morse on October 16, 1945.
18. The combination of the web guide rollers in the mounting
utilized in the accused device in conjunction with an external
power source and a feeler or guide mechanism is not comparable to
the patent in suit.
19. There is not complete identity in means, operation and
result between the Fife patent in suit and the accused device.
20. The accused device is not the equivalent of the patented
device in suit.
21. The accused device does not infringe the patent in suit.
22. Costs should be assessed against the plaintiff on the
complaint and the answer and against the defendant on the
counterclaim and the answer to the counterclaim.
Conclusions of Law.
1. Jurisdiction in this cause is founded on the patent laws of
the United States, Title 28, U.S.C.A. § 1338(a).
2. The Court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject
3. Claims 4, 10, 11 and 12 of plaintiff's patent in suit are
4. The accused device does not infringe claims 4, 10, 11 and 12
of the plaintiff's patent in suit.
5. Judgment should be entered for the defendant and against the
plaintiff on the complaint.
6. Judgment should be entered for the plaintiff and against the
defendant on the defendant's counterclaim.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.