Yale Hook & Eye Co. v. Interwoven Hook & Eye Co.

• Decision Date: 22 June 1929
• Docket Number: No. 3806.,3806.
• Parties: YALE HOOK & EYE CO. v. INTERWOVEN HOOK & EYE CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

33 F.2d 295 (1929)

YALE HOOK & EYE CO. v. INTERWOVEN HOOK & EYE CO. et al.

No. 3806.

District Court, E. D. New York.

June 22, 1929.

George D. Richards, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Robert B. Killgore, of New York City (Hans v. Briesen, of New York City, of counsel), for defendants.

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This is a suit in equity in which the relief prayed for is an injunction and damages for the alleged infringement by the defendants of patent No. 1,605,902, issued by the United States Patent Office to Leo Rosanman, for sewing machine, dated November 2, 1926.

The patentee has since changed his name to Roseman, and the patent has been assigned to the plaintiff, whose title is not questioned.

The defendant David Silberman is the president of the defendant Interwoven Hook & Eye Company.

The defense is noninfringement.

The suit is based on claims 1, 6, and 29 of the patent in issue.

Tapes having hooks or eyes secured to them are used in large quantities in the garment trade, and the manufacturers of garments do not make the hook and eye tapes which they use, but purchase them from those who specialize in the manufacture of such tapes.

In order to sew the tapes containing the hooks and eyes to the garments without the great loss of time formerly suffered by reason of the necessity for the operator to stop the machine and manually feed the eye loops relative to the needle to produce the traversing stitches, to prevent the breaking of needles by striking the metal eye, the danger to the operator, and the loss of time in replacing the needle, machines and attachments have been supplied to the manufacturers using hook and eye tapes to enable them to attach such tapes containing the hooks and eyes to the garments.

The subject-matter of the patent in suit involves such a sewing machine.

The principal object of the invention is described by the patentee in the patent in suit as follows: "It is the principal object of this invention, therefore, to provide a novel means for controlling the movements of the eye tape to the sewing mechanism of the machine, so that accurate placing of the attaching stitches relative to the loop of the eye is assured, whereby the machine needle will skip the sides of the latter, and whereby any slight variation in the spacing of the eyes on the tape will be automatically compensated for, to always bring the loop of the eye in proper position relative to the machine needle; all to the end that the sewing operations may be carried on at relatively high speed, and without necessity for employing an especially trained or highly skilled operator."

The patent in suit is for a complete sewing machine not an attachment.

The patentee of the patent in suit was not the first to discover, but it was realized by the prior art that in securing by a machine the eye tape to the garment, so that the hooks or eyes should be affixed at definite distances apart, the stretch or inequalities existing in or developed in the tape during the operation would have a tendency to develop inaccuracies in the actual spacing, and have the effect of bringing an eye of the eye tape directly under the needle of the sewing machine when the needle would usually be broken.

The patentee of the patent in suit, in an effort to prevent the likelihood of the needle striking an eye, provided for a positive stop which he generally described in the specification of the patent in suit as follows: "One of the most important features of my present invention, comprises a means for positively controlling the movement of the eye-tape, so that the loops of the eyes of the same will always be brought into proper relation to the sewing needle 12' preparatory to traversing said loops with the stitching, and so that slight variations in the feeding movement of the tape, or in the spacing of the eyes on the tape will be compensated for. This means consists of an automatically controlled positive stop device which coacts with the eye-tape so as to positively arrest the latter, to prevent over-running of the eye-tape under the impulsion of the feeding means and consequent displacement of the eyes from properly timed and spaced presentation to the sewing mechanism of the machine."

The stop provided in the patent in suit was so arranged as to cause positively an entire cessation of movement of the tape toward the sewing point at the moment when an advancing eye reached the position of exactly one inch ahead of the sewing point of the machine, which was adapted to make stitches one-eleventh of an inch each. This positive stop, which operates precisely one inch in advance of the sewing point, gave the eye an absolutely fixed position with relation to the sewing point, and since the engagement of the eye by the positive stop was simultaneous with an operation whereby the tape feeding mechanism was wholly thrown out of operation, a moment was provided therefor, so that whenever an eye contacted with the positive stop, the tape feeding device was momentarily out of operation, the tape lying in a stationary position with the eye held at a dead stop, one inch in advance of the sewing point. Then when the stop was moved out of the way, the feed device again engaged the tape and fed it in the usual way to the sewing point, the sewing machine being modified to cause it to make the first seven stitches of one-eleventh of an inch each, and then two stitches of two-elevenths of an inch each, to bridge the two wires constituting the eye, and when the time had arrived when the positive stop again engaged the next advancing eye, it stopped at one inch from the sewing point, threw the tape feeding mechanism out of operation, and then proceeded from this position of absolute rest through the ensuing sewing period.

The requirement that the tape should be brought to a position of a complete dead stop, at a predetermined distance ahead of the sewing point, was essential to the principle of the patent in suit because continuous feeding of the tape might allow the development of a stretch in the tape, and if a stretch were allowed to remain in the fabric, the eye might be brought directly under the needle.

The importance of the positive stop is fully recognized by the patentee, who says in the specification of the patent in suit: "It must be noted here that the above-described automatic positive stop control device is a basic feature of this invention, and is an essential feature in combination with an eye-tape advancing or feeding means, regardless of the detail structure or specific character of the latter means."

The fundamental principle of the machine of the patent in suit is the principle of employing a positive stop in co-operation with the fasteners on the tape for governing the movement of the tape to the sewing mechanism in such a way that the stop mechanism will actually and positively bring the tape to a clear-cut stop at the moment when each eye reaches a...