The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1909-01-30


grooves may and must accurately |
cross each other on a line midway OF /
The space between the cylinders. |
Thus under q new situation, created !
by the absence Of the cam, the prob /
lem was 10 devise a frm and compact |
readjustment. under mechanical con- !
ditiOns which should not only promote |
but compel. accuracy and the incest |
possible precision and perfection In |
the mechanical work OF the thousand |
or more cooperating needles upOn tha |
swiftly rotating cylinders.
Hurley solved the problem, and sue |
cessfully accomplished what he start |
cd cut 70 do. He removed the Made |
came as an Objectionable ObstruouVO
feature. He rendered its presence ~ |
necessary by providing other and bet |
ter means for performing It's useful |
functions, and he also found q way
for performing its useful functions,
and he also found a way for construct
ing a greatly enlarged operative ma
chine capable Of satisfactorily turn
ing out shirt bodies and other tubular
fabrics in sizes which met the re-
quirements Of the trade. These we're
the substantial results secured
through Hurleys task; and what he
did unquestionably marked a long
step in advance fop manufacturing
uses" Il is quite true that the Hur-
ley adaptation has been perfected by
subsequent additions and improve
m hts, but his fundamental idea in res
pect to these important and useful
things was present in the patent, and
his conceptions and the theory OF the
operation of his proposed construction
were sufficiently described, and as
such are entitled to reasonably liberal
protection And while it is also con-
ceded to be quite true that Hurley is
not in the pioneer field, it still re-
mains that the results accomplished
were so substantially useful to manu-
featuring and commercial interests as
10 commend his work and his claim
for favorable consideration, not only
upon the question of invention, but up
on those OF equivalents and infringe
ment as we'll
OF course, the solution Of the ques
ton Of the scope of the invention and
OF the questions relating to equiva
Tents and infringement, necessarily de
pends very much upon the other and
underlying question as to what should
be accepted as Hurley's primary and
leading idea. Was it his original pur
pose to make the two cylinders OF the
same size and form, or was 1t TO dis
card, or. as counsel express 1T ABOLISH
the inside cam and stationary arm
1t makes considerable difference whet-
her dropping the cam was a mechani-
cal detail incidental to the primary
purpose OF making the cylinders OF
! the So q size and form. or whether
The size and form of the cylinders was
an incident of the reorganization made
necessary by dropping the cam The
view of the circuit court was that
Hurley conceived the simple idea OF
making the two cylinders OF the same
size and form. From that standpoint
the question of infringement was
quite likely correctly decided below;
but we are unable to accept that
view. We are strongly impressed
with the contention that that was not
the original and leading idea OF Hur-
| ley
We think the reasoning OF the cir
| cult court was too largely based upon
the words of the patent that the cy-
| finders were TO be Of the same size
and form We do not look upon this
declaration of Hurley as a thing of
| controlling significance upon the pre-
else question as TO what was the pri-
mary and leading idea, because the
size and form would be desirable and
quite likely necessary in the reorgan
ization without regard to whether
they were viewed as an essential me
chanical detail. or as the particular
fundamental element covered by the
primary purpose. We look upon these
words as referring to a detail Of his
I combination rather than as expressing
a single idea, or as describing and con
trolling a sole conception and inVen-
ton. Neither do we view as neces-
sarily controlling the fact that the
words same size and form" we're not
in the original declaration, and that
Claim as originally drawn without
them was rejected and afterwards al
lowed upon their insertion, because
they were doubtless an essential ele-
ment OF a workable reorganization,
land therefore necessary, whether pri-
mary or incidental, to a valid claim.
Or to state it differently. the inser-
ton OF the words "of the same size
and form" was to meet the rejection
of the patent office, a rejection ex-
pressly based upon the White patent.
which described a machine where one
cylinder was cylindrical with vertical
slots while the other was conical and
was for the purpose Of putting that
detail OF Hurley's conception outside
of the White patent, rather than to
make Il the sole substantial feature
of his invention.
It would seem to be established be
yond question--in fact there was no
substantial controversy about II In
largument-that the inside cam and
stationary arm prevented or at least
impeded the successful operativeness
Of the older machines; and we think
that Hurley's original and leading
idea was to construct machine with
out their presence and in logical Sc
uuence that he first discarded the cam
with its attendant stationary arm and
then sought to reorganize and assem-
BILE the remaining mechanical parts
I'm n way which would enable him to
get along without IL. The broader
problem of a successful reorganization
or assembling of the mechanical parts
as a whole without the cam and sta
tionary arm of course involved the
lesser problem OF suitably shaping, nd
iusting. and growing the cylinders
and bringing them closer together un
der suitable supports and proper me
chanical adaptations for the new and
additional work of accurately moving
and directing the needles, as we'll as
the other lesser problem OF how tC
cast off the loops by outside cams and
pressers without the influence and ait
| 20 4ho ola ineida cam and stationary