Dunbar v. Eastern Elevating Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““He effected, a new organization of a portable elevator, but if this did not 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. It is manifest from what has been said of the prior state of the art that .what Dunbar did was to adapt well-known devices to- the special purpose to which he contemplated their application. The elevator, with all its equipment for reaching, raising, and transferring grain, was at hand. Various forms of portable elevators, carried by wheels and moved upon tracks, were at hand. To adapt his elevator to the new occasion, it was necessary that a track should be located in such relation to the warehouse that the elevator could be moved upon it back and forth to reach vessels lying at the dock, and discharge their contents into the warehouse. The devices known to builders and in common use tor moving similar structures were at hand, and it was. only necessary for him to select them with reference to the particular struc-' ture to be moved. It was necessary to select a more powerful windlass and a stronger cable, if he proposed to move an elevator of large size and weight, than would be required to move one of smaller size and weight. It was neces-’ sary that appropriate fastening devices sho”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dodge Coal Storage Co. v. New York Cent. & H. R. R.

2. ““Tile process of development in manufactures creates a constant demand for new appliances, which the skill of ordinary head workmen and engineers is generally adequate to devise, and which, indeed, are the natural and proper outgrowth of such development. Each stop forward prepares the way for the next, and each is usually taken by spontaneous trials and attempts in a hundred different places. To grant to a. single party a monopoly of every slight advance made, except where the exercise of invention, somewhat above ordinary mechanical or engineering skill, is distinctly shown, is unjust in principle, and injurious in its consequences.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American Laundry Machinery Mfg. Co. v. Troy Laundry Machinery Co.

3. ““It rarely happens that old Instrumentalities are so perfectly adapted for a use for which they were not originally intended as not to require any alteration or modification. If these changes involve only the exercise of ordinary mechanical skill, 'they do not sanction the patent; and, in most of the adjudged cases where it has been held that the'application of old devices to a new use was not patentable, there were changes of form, proportion, or organization of this, character which were necessary to accommodate them to the new occasion.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lettelier v. Mann