Richards v. Chase Elevator Co 312

Decision Date11 November 1895
Docket NumberNos. 310,311,s. 310
CitationRichards v. Chase Elevator Co 312, 159 U.S. 477, 16 S.Ct. 53, 40 L.Ed. 225 (1895)
PartiesRICHARDS v. CHASE ELEVATOR CO. et al. , and 312
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

[Petition for Rehearing from pages 478-485 intentionally omitted]C. K. Offield, for petition.

Mr. Justice BROWNdelivered the opinion of the court.

A petition was filed at the last term for a rehearing the these cases, upon the ground that the court erred in assuming judicial knowledge of the construction and operation of grain elevators, and in holding that these elevators contained practically the same elements as the grain-transferring apparatus of the Richards patents.The argument is that the object of Mr. Richards' invention was to obviate and do away with elevators, by securing the continuous and automatic transfer of grain from one car to another, weighing it in transit, and preserving the identity of each lot; whereas, in the ordinary elevator, the grain is raised from the car or vessel, deposited in a storage bin, where its identity is lost, and other grain is withdrawn, as required, from the storage bin, to take its place.

That the device described may be a convenient and valuable method of transferring grain from one car to another is not denied.The question is whether it involves invention.

There is certainly no novelty in the result, since the grain may be transferred by shovels from one car to a platform or bin, where it may be weighed, and again transferred to a receiving car, though, doubtless, this is a slow and laborious process.Is there any novelty in the method by which this is done?The grain is shoveled from one car into a chute, from which it passes into the elevator leg, through which the buckets move upward, and is discharged into a hopper.It is there weighed, without being mixed with other grain; a valve is opened; and the grain discharged into the receiving car.There is clearly no novelty in the individual steps of this transfer.Indeed, the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
72 cases
  • Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • 6 Noviembre 1987
    ...by that element * * * if the elements retained performed the same function as before' ") (quoting Richards v. Chase Elevator, 159 U.S. 477, 486, 16 S.Ct. 53, 54, 40 L.Ed. 225 (1895)). G Graver Tank is the Culmination of this Extensive The last word, in a century of consideration, analysis, ......
  • Maurice A. Garbell, Inc. v. Boeing Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • 1 Octubre 1973
    ...in a prior art device does not constitute invention" which 35 U.S.C. § 101 declares to be patentable. Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., (1895) 159 U.S. 477, 486, 16 S.Ct. 53, 40 L.Ed. 225; Grayson Heat Control v. Los Angeles, 134 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1943). 7. Claims 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the p......
  • Handel Co. v. Jefferson Glass Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 1 Mayo 1920
    ... ... v. H. Mueller ... Mfg. Co. (C.C.A. 8th Cir.) 183 F. 972, 106 C.C.A. 312; ... Walter Baker & Co. v. Gray (C.C.A. 8th) 192 F. 921, ... 113 C.C.A ... [265 F. 292] ... 221, 36 ... L.Ed. 1068; Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 158 U.S ... 299, 15 Sup.Ct. 831, 39 L.Ed. 991; ... ...
  • Krell, Auto Grand Piano Co. of America v. Story & Clark Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 15 Abril 1913
    ... ... senses. Of one of these, Richards v. Chase Elevator ... Co., 158 U.S. 299, 15 Sup.Ct. 831, 39 L.Ed. 991, on ... ...
  • Get Started for Free