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

ed to cylinders of diameter which
could only produce tubes sufficient for
sleeve-ends and drawer-bottoms His
contribution to the art was a machine
with free and unobstructed interior,
and Of size sufficient to knit such
underwear as the trade required with
its reorganized parts so poised, sup
ported, and mechanically adapted as
to make It an operative success.
The Inventive novelty and compre-
hensiveness Of Hurley's combination,
and the various conveniences and adj
vantages to manufacturing and trade
interests, as more fully explained by
complainant's experts, reinforced by
the meritorious character of the lead
Ing facts and the substantial results
to which we have referred. compel us
to give the fourth claim OF Hurleys
patent a broader scope than was ac-
corded to 1t by the circuit court and
make 1t reasonable, we think, to ap
ply more liberal range of equiva-
Tents than the one adopted by the
learned judge OF that court.
Upon the question OF infringement,
the defendants differential argument
in respect to its machine. and the Hur-
ley machine is, as ii seems to us,
largely, II not wholly, technically bas-
ed upon the lack OF exactness Of par
ticular parts and Of adaptations, rath-
er than upon the broader question
whether the defendants Intentionally
and with studied effort appropriated
the substance Of the Hurley construc-
tion under changed mechanical details
like substituted parts made of one
piece by casting, for the same purpose
and to perform substantially the same
functions, instead of using brackets
and cap-plates rigidly united, and
casting in one piece gear-rings and
supporting rings for like purposes and
like functions instead of rigidly con
Meeting them, and nuts which turn
around the jack-screws rather than
jack-screws which turn around in the
nuts. While some Of these changes.
used here for purposes of illustration,
have more particular reference to
Claims l and 2, they relate to details
involved in Hurley's conceptions and
in the general scheme of his adapta-
lions and manifestlv bear upon the
general questions of good faith and
equivalency; and as we view this
case as one to be determined under a
| reasonably liberal rule OF equivalents,
the differences are too technical and
cannot be accepted as at all controll-
ing. And il is in the same sense that
We view the contention that the ma
chimes are different because the defen-
dAnts needles do not cross in the pre-
else center OF the space between the
cylinders, while the literal interpre-
tation OF Hurley's Claim provides
for that The difference in the size
and form OF the defendants cylinders
is SO infinitesimal that they may be
said TO be substantially the same, and
to have substantially the same opera
tive effectiveness as Hurleys. The
cylinders are rounded on their inner
surfaces and the secondary needles,
not working In the grooves OF the pri-
mary cylinder as OF old, cross within
the space between the two. The cam
and stationary arm are not there, the
finished product may be taken out
through the secondary cylinder and
but for the omission of the detail of
the reversible take-up operating mech
anism, 1t might be taken out the other
way.
We look upon the defendants ma
chine as involving a studied and sub
stantial departure from the scheme Of
construction and operation provided
for in machines Of the prior art like
Park & Ellis and Carr, and as involv-
ing substantial adoption and appro-
priation OF the essential conception,
and the general scheme OF Hurley's
work; and, under the rule of equiva-
Tents which we adopt as controlling
In this case, we think the defendants
have infringed Claim OF the Hurley
| patent.
We agree with the circuit court that
the Hurley invention, so far as it re-
ksides In the claims other than Claim
4, is not infringed; and we are salts
fed with the way in which the Bar
raft patent Is disposed OF in that
court. We have. Therefore, limited our
discussion solely to the rights OF the
parties as involved in Claim of the
Hurley patent.
The decree Of the circuit court is
reversed, and the case is remanded to
that court for further proceedings not
inconsistent with this opinion; and
the appellant RECEIVERS his cost of APP
peal.