Dunbar v. Eastern Elevating Co.

81 F. 201, 26 C.C.A. 330, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 1849
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedMay 26, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 81 F. 201 (Dunbar v. Eastern Elevating Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dunbar v. Eastern Elevating Co., 81 F. 201, 26 C.C.A. 330, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 1849 (2d Cir. 1897).

Opinion

WALLACE, Circuit Judge.

This appeal presents the question of the patentable novelty of the apparatus described and claimed in reissued letters patent Ho. 10,521, dated September 16, 1881, to Robert Dunbar. Tbe subject of the patent is a portable elevator, adapted for use, in connection with an ordinary grain elevator, for unloading grain from vessels. The ordinary grain elevator is a warehouse having a tower equipped with a leg carrying an endless chain and buckets, an engine, and other connections for raising the grain from the hold of the vessel or other receptacle to the upper part of the warehouse. The leg is constructed to swing out at the bottom at a greater or less angle, and to be lowered so that the [202]*202buckets, as they are carried around the endless chain, dip into the grain, and carry it up to any desired height. As the buckets turn over at the top, they empty the grain into any desired hopper or receptacle, from which it is distributed by troughs or other devices into the various parts of the storehouse. When thus constructed, it was necessary to bring the hatch of the vessel to be discharged to the leg, and, when the grain was discharged from one hatch, it was necessary to move the vessel to bring the other hatch to the leg. Dunbar conceived the idea of making an accessory elevator, which could be moved so as to reach the different hatches of the vessel, and discharge the grain into the warehouse. By using such a contrivance, it would be unnecessary to move the vessel, and both hatches could be discharged, if desirable, at the same time.

The patent describes the ordinary grain elevator or tower, with apparatus for transferring the grain to the warehouse, "constructed and arranged in-the ordinary way.” The portable elevator tower, as described, is the ordinary elevator placed upon wheels and a track, and equipped with devices for moving it along the front of the warehouse in order to place it in the desired position opposite the hatch of the vessel, and with devices for fastening it to the building. , The devices for moving the tower over the track consist of a chain or cable anchored at both ends, and connected with the drum of a windlass rotated by worm gear, so that upon turning the windlass one part of the chain is wound upon the drum and the other part is paid out. Those fop fastening it to the building consist of two cables or guy ropes extending from the upper part of the warehouse to one of the upper floors of the tower, and passing downward over pulleys to the drum of a windlass on one of the lower floors of the tower. The windlass by which the guy ropes are paid out or tightened is described as being similar to that which is used for moving the tower. The building is provided with a trough, extending horizontally along its front, to receive the grain from the portable elevator at any desired point.

At the time of the alleged invention, portable elevators were old, and were of many varieties. One form of such elevators is shown in the patent to Walsh of August 20, 1878, arranged for taking the grain from the hold of a canal boat or vessel, and elevating it into a loft in a store room, or transferring it into the hold of another vessel. They were old when supported on flanged wheels ánd moved upon a track. The patent to Sykes of October 12, 1869, describes one for transferring grain, arranged upon truck wheels so that it may be moved on a track of a railroad, and the grain elevated from one receptacle and transferred to another. Another form is described in the patent to Mennell of January 11, 1881, for transferring coal from holds of vessels, and discharging the same into cars, barges, or other receptacles, the frame of which is provided with wheels, and adapted to run on a track. The mechanism for moving large structures was old, and had been employed in analogous structures. The-English patent to Curtiss of January 21, 1853, shows a portable structure for elevating earth in the same way that grain is elevated; the structure being supported on wheels moving on rails, and being [203]*203moved backward and forward by apparatus subsí antially the same as that described in she patent in suit, — the ordinary windlass engaging with a cable anchored at each end. Dunbar contemplated making his portable elevator a high one, capable of emptying its contents into one of tint stories of the many-storied grain elevators of Buffalo, but the patent is not limited to such an elevator. The descriptive parts, and some of the claims, though more directly addressed to such an elevator, are applicable to one of any'height or size. When the elevator is not a high one, the devices for securing it to the main building could be dispensed with; and, if a,ny at all should he needed, those of the simplest kind could be used to> tie the two structures together.

In the claims of the patent the portable elevator is named as an “elevator tower,” but the structure is termed in the description “an elevator or elevator tower,” and both terms mean the same thing. The claims are as follows:

“(1) In an elevator tower, the combination of the mechanism, substantially as described, for moving it horizontally hack and forth, with the gearing, N, drums, X', and cables, O, for securing it at any point to which it may be moved.
“(2) A movable and adjustable elevator tower, arranged upon wheels, and provided with the cables, O, gearing and drums or pulleys, X, N', and a grain spout, R, in combination with a main stationary elevator building, R', having a long, horizontally arranged trough, S. to receive the grain from any point to wiiich the elevator tower may he adjusted.
“(3) The combination of the main stationary elevator, and the movable elevator tower, A, having wheels adapted to tracks in front of the main building, substantially as specified, wliereby two elevators may be operated at the same time, so that a stationary elevator may be used in one hatch, while the movable elevator may he adjusted to operate in another hatch, substantially as specified.
“(d) The combination of a movable elevator tower, having wheels adapted to tracks, with a rope or chain, G, O', anchored at both ends, and passing around a drum or pulley, and with gearing through the medium of which the said drum may he rotated, substantially as set forth.
“(•">) The combination of Lhe stationary elevator, R', a movable elevator tower, ropos or cables connecting the two, and mechanism as shown, whereby salfl ropes may be tightened and loosened, all substantially as described.”

Concededly, Dunbar is entitled to the credit of originating the conception of using a second elevator as an adjunct of the ordinary grain elevator, which could be moved so as to reach the different hatches of the vessel, and discharge into the main elevator; but his right to a patent cannot rest upon this conception alone. It must rest upon the novelty of the means which he contrived to embody the conception, and to carry it into practical application. He effected a new organization of a portable elevator, but if this did noi: involve invention, but was that which could have been done by the skilled mechanic by selecting known devices, applying them to their appropriate uses, and introducing such modifications of detail to fit them for the new environment as would be dictated by experience and good judgment, the patent cannot be sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Carson v. American Smelting & Refining Co.
293 F. 771 (W.D. Washington, 1923)
Mead Morrison Mfg. Co. v. Exeter Mach. Works
215 F. 731 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1914)
Winston v. Croton Falls Const. Co.
194 F. 123 (Second Circuit, 1912)
Toledo Computing Scale Co. v. Moneyweight Scale Co.
178 F. 557 (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois, 1910)
American Laundry Machinery Mfg. Co. v. Troy Laundry Machinery Co.
171 F. 870 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York, 1909)
Lettelier v. Mann
91 F. 909 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 F. 201, 26 C.C.A. 330, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 1849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunbar-v-eastern-elevating-co-ca2-1897.