“Method according to claim 16, characterised in that the log (R) is made to roll over a surface (65) along which said slit (63) is disposed, by such an extent as to allow the application of the glue and the rewinding of the outer end (L) around the log (R).”
“when Lord Hoffmann speaks about the claim covering ways of delivering the goods which owe nothing to the teaching of the patent ..., he is talking about a claim which is not supported by the specification since it claims ... an obvious desideratum. He is not talking about a case in which there are ways of arriving at a device within the claim which themselves involved invention.”
“The 562 Patent was published in 1975 … . It describes a tail sealer. Figure 3 shows nearly everything one needs to know: The rolls (1) are, if one takes the other figures literally, of the order of the dimensions of a kitchen roll. They are not 2-3 metre long logs. The direction of travel of the rolls is right to left. At the end of the inclined surface (13) are two rollers (3) and (4) between which there is a gap described as a ‘valley’. When a roll arrives on the rollers (3) and (4) it is rotated in an anticlockwise direction. As the end of the tail is rotated past the roller (3), an air nozzle (5) blows the tail downwards and towards roller 4. This tail is detected by a photoeye. Glue is then applied through nozzles (9) ‘to one or both of the terminal 1' hanging down into the valley and of the peripheral position of the sheet roll on which the terminal 1'is to be superposed.’ The glue dispenser extends the whole way across the width of the roll. It is described in the following way: ‘the nozzles 9 are housed in a chamber 12 having a slit 11 elongated in the sheet width direction of the sheet roll so as to allow the glue liquid to spray out through the slit 11 to lessen the spray width of the glue liquid, thereby preventing the glue liquid to adhere to additional place’ The depicted spraying device ‘may be substituted by a roller, or a wire or bar which can be raised from within a glue tank’. This is the sentence relied on for the proposition, which I have rejected, that glue bars or wires were part of the common general knowledge. The specification says that: ‘It is expedient to bring the rotation of the roll to a stop during the operation of the gluing device’. It is common ground that this would be taken by the skilled person to indicate that it is preferable to stop the rolls, although both that mode of operation and one in which the roll is rotating on its own axis are disclosed. Once the log has been glued the tail can be stuck down by spinning rolls (3) and (4). Alternatively, the tail can be stuck down as the roll rolls out of the valley under the influence of ‘roll out device 10’, which is, in any case, the means for getting the roll out of the valley. Whichever way the device of the 562 Patent is operated, it does not in my judgment anticipate claim 16 of 929. Claim 16 requires ‘rolling said log, with the outer end being unwound therefrom, over a slit’. Whilst the roll in the 562 Patent may be rolled off the slit with the outer end unwound, it is not in that condition when it is rolled onto or over the valley.”
“Firstly, the 562 Patent is a compact design. The decision to elongate it by the addition of a downstream gluing station involves a rejection of that purpose. Secondly, deprived of the glue applicator, and without further adjustment the valley arrangement becomes an unwinding and winding up station. It delivers a completed wound up roll to the output conveyor. To turn it into an unwinding station alone is quite a major change to its function. Thirdly, the skilled person has to be able to see that a slit in the rolling surface, downstream of the unwinding station can be made to apply glue and seal the log when the log and its trailing tail are in a different configuration from that shown in the unmodified diagrams. Fourthly, the skilled person has to appreciate how to get a much longer tail than that shown in those diagrams. Finally, even then the skilled person would not necessarily come within the claims, because the downstream glue applicator that is designed would be more likely to stop the log before glue is applied, just as in the original proposal. A glue applicator which applied the glue "by rolling… over the slit" would not necessarily result.”
“[The 445 patent] was published in 1977. Figure 1 shows the machine as a whole: The direction of travel is from right to left. The log is first conveyed longitudinally to the position B1. From there it is pushed off and rolled down the slope over surface (5), leaving a tail behind it on the surface. As it rolls it is rotating anti-clockwise. At the end of the surface 5 the log engages at position B3 with a roller (9) rotating in a clockwise direction, and an assembly of belts (10) moving upwardly at the point of contact. At position B3, the direction of rotation of the log is therefore reversed, so as to cause it to rotate clockwise, as shown by arrow f4. This causes the log to wind in the tail which it has left behind as it rolled down the surface, until the end is detected by a photoelectric system. The log however continues to move, due to the differential speed of the pulley (9) and the belts, around the outside of the pulley (9). While the winding in of the tail is going on, and the log is continuing to roll, rotor (18) with a set of brushes (16) applies glue to the outside of the log. As the brushes are spaced out along the length of the log, contacting the log through gaps between the belts, the glue line applied is not continuous along the length of the log. The specification explains that the brushes each deposit strips of glue, 3-4 cm long. Figure 5 shows the position at which the brushes apply glue to the log: Once the log has passed position B4 by some distance it is released and falls on the surface (22): see page 3 lines 38-41. The specification explains at page 3 lines 41-44 that the next log may be received by the apparatus once the log has reached the elevator at the end of surface 22. Figure 7 discloses an alternative way of applying glue, in which the glue is sprayed onto the tail from above as the log rolls down the table. It avoids the use of brushes altogether. Both sides recognise that the 445 apparatus is very different in detail to the specific apparatus described in 929. The question is whether, as described, it necessarily falls within the broad method claims of 929. PCMC contended that the gap between the belts (10) was ‘a slit’ and that all the other features of claims 16 and 17 were present. …”
“Perini has also developed two new tail sealing systems which are known as models 4630 and 4640. Model 4630 is guaranteed at 30 logs per minute but to date, has only run in production at 28 logs per minute. However, model 4640 has been demonstrated at 40 logs per minute but it is unknown at this time how it is performing under production conditions. This new type of tail sealer is reported not to have any moving parts and by that I believe is meant no traversing glue nozzle. The basic operation of this unit is through the use of a glue bar which is equal to the log length. The glue bar sits underneath the log roll-off table which is slotted. When the log rolls down the table, it is momentarily halted over the slot at which time the glue bar moves up through the slot to deposit a line of adhesive along the whole log length in one small upward movement.”