The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1909-01-30
COOPER VS.. OTIS COMPANY
Decision Of Importance to the Knit
Underwear Business.

IL NAAN .AAANu 0AtAANa NNtA vi EAIItAln
in the case of Charles Cooper, com
plainant, appellant, VS. the Otis Com
pany defendant. appellee, on an APP
peal from the circuit court OF the Uni
ted states for the district of Massa-
chusetts. before Judges Putnam. Low
ell and Aldrieh. the opinion being writ
ten by the latter:
We have to deal here with the pat
ents which are described in the opin.
ion of the Circuit court reported in
Cooper VS.. Otis Company Q56 Fed.
Rep. 665).
We view this case as one having re-
ference to a situation in which the
trade required a machine that would
produce knitted fabric tubes suitable
for the ordinary and the larger sizes
of underwear. II seems beyond ques-
lion that the demand of business was
for the spring-needle product, as some
thing superior and decidedly prefer
able to the product OF the machines of
The latch-needle type, which in use
and washing loses shape. 1t is from
that point OF view that we must con
slider this case.
1t is likewise beyond question that
at the time Hurley came into the
field, manufacturers, and those skill
ed in the art as well, We're struggling
with springneedle machines which
were only capable Of turning out small
sized fabric tubes suitable only for
cuffs, sleeve-ends. and drawer-bOttoms
and which were subject to the further
limitation OF a necessarily interposed
inside cam between the two cylinders
which prevented the fabric from pass
ing right side out through the secon-
Diary cylinder We deem it significant
that Carr whose work in this partic-
ular field was probably the most inn
portant until that of Hurley, failed in
his undertaking to meet the require
meuts of the trade by building a ma
chine Of his type which would turn OFF
tubes suitable for the larger sizes of
knitted underwear. He undertook TO
raise the standard of his larger oper.
alive machine of something like eight
inches In diameter, and only capable
Of knitting tubes from something like
four to six inches in width at the most
to that of an operative machine OF fif-
teen or sixteen inches in diameter
capable of knitting tubes for the re-
| quiTed larger sizes Of underwear, and
did not succeed. 1t is likewise per
tinent and significant that Carr, at
the time of these experiments, deem
ed the cam a thing OF necessary func-
tions, and had no idea of removing it
from his combination of elements.
The various and supposed indispensa
bly, necessary functions of the cam
were fully and particularly described
| by Carr in his specification and draw
ings.
Now. what was Hurley's problem,
and what did he do to simplify and
advance the art Of mechanical knit
ting by machines Of the circular
spring-needle type? To dispense with
The undesirable obstructive features
OF the cam, and at the same time to
present an operative machine with
out it, and one OF sufficient diameter
to knit tubular fabrics of a size meet
ing the demands OF manufacturers
and Of the trade, required not only
that certain elemental details OF the
old machines should be dropped but
an ingenious and general reorganiza-
ton of the existing combinations and
substantial changes in the adaptation
Iof mechanical parts, a reorganization
which would render il necessary to
devise new and additional mechanical
plans and schemes of adjustment and
adaptation. In the older machines
like the Carr, as said, the inside cam
was an obstruction to the extent that
the tubular fabric could not be remov.
ed upwardly and right side out, and
unquestionably the leading If not the
primary idea Of Hurley was to relieve
the situation in this respect by dis
carding the inside cam altogether
Plainly recognizing the desirabilty
of such a result the idea Is given
prominence in the specification at the
outset through the unmistakable ex
preston that the machine is TO be SO
constructed as to enable the finished
work to be taken up either above OF
below the cylinders. and the idea is
preserved in the apt words of Claim
4 whereby the finished work may be
taken upwardly or downwardly from
the needles Hurley further empha
sizes the importance OF his idea OF
discardng the inside cam of the Older
machines through his Fig. as Illus
trated and explained in his speciiica
ton. line SO. page 2, to line "a, page
where among other things after des
cribing the functions of the inside
cam in the old machine, he says:
1T Is clearly evident, then that ma
chimes constructed prior to my inven
ton have not been so arranged that
in any one machine the finished worl
can pass to the take-up either above
or below the cylinders. - The oh
ect OF my particular construction ant
arrangement of conical needlecyln
ders is to remedy the difficulty here
tofore experienced in not being able
in the same machine to adjust Tho
parts so that the finished work can
pass to the take-up from the interior
of the cylinders to either above OF
below the cylinders, and to this enc
- my improved conical cylinders
each of which Is of the same form
and size. = IN this arrangement
of parts the needles of each cylinder
are confined to their own particula'
grooves. and must necessarily eros
each other at h in the center OF th'
space between the cylinders, as Il
clearly indicated in the drawings ant
the loops formed on the needles are
cast off by means Of the cams an'
presses as hereinbefore described am
shown in Fig. I, and the stationar,
arm b and adjustable cam c. Thereon
for pushing the needle outward, a
shown in Fig 6, are dispensed with
leaving the interior space of the cy
finders unobstructed to enable tn,
finished work to extend up througl
the center Of the cylinder to the take
up above"
AS the operating accuracy OF th
! knitting mechanism OF the Carr ma
! chine was In considerable measure
tFaV