Home/Court of Claims/Moore v. United States

Moore v. United States

50 Ct. Cl. 120, 1915 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 144, 1915 WL 1092
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedFebruary 1, 1915
DocketNo. 32943
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 50 Ct. Cl. 120 (Moore v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Moore v. United States, 50 Ct. Cl. 120, 1915 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 144, 1915 WL 1092 (cc 1915).

Opinion

Booth, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a suit under the act of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. Z., 85, for an alleged infringement of a patented article by the United States, acting through the trustees of the Postal Savings System. The issue presented is raised by defendants’ demurrer to the petition. We say petition, for, in view of the state of the record, we treat the pleadings as amended and designate them in accordance with our rules and practice.

Claimant alleges that he is the inventor of a new, useful, and improved certificate of deposit, for which he obtained on June 28, 1904, Letters Patent No. 763778. ’The petition makes said letters a part thereof, and from them and the allegations in reference thereto it appears that there is but one claim on the patent, stated as follows:

“A certificate issued for a round principal sum, a statement that said principal sum is being held on deposit, a promise by the depositary to pay said principal sum to the order of the specified depositor, a promise by the depositary to pay interest to the holder at a specified rate, and appropriately designated spaces for the signature and countersignature of *the depositor to thereby protect the depositor from presentation by an unauthorized person.”

An illustration made part of the letters patent simplifies both the claim and allegations of the petition to such an extent that we reproduce it (p. 124 post).

Defendants’ demurrer goes directly to the validity of the patent, assailing it for want of novelty and invention, as being void upon its face, and likewise void for want of subject matter. To sustain any one of these defenses would be fatal to a recovery, and all of them are properly raised by the pleadings in suit. Strom Mfg. Co. v. Weir Frog Co., 83 Fed. R., 170.

The case does not admit of prolonged discussion. Whatever novelty, if any, embraced within the claim of the alleged patent of the inventor consists in a duplication of signatures, [125]*125one made by the depositor at the time o‘f making his deposit and subsequently duplicated by him when he seeks to realize funds upon his certificate. For this purpose two blank spaces or lines are provided, properly designated for signing and countersigning. This, as appears from the claim, is the most that can be claimed as new or novel, and is alleged as the instrumentality for the absolute prevention, barring forgery, of wrongful payment of the certificate. No mere rearrangement of words disclosing commercial transactions between individuals whereby one pays funds and the other acknowledges the receipt thereof, no matter how carefully guarded against fraud and mistake, can at this time claim the distinction of novelty. As has been heretofore said:

[124]*124

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

Related

In Re Dixon
44 F.2d 881 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 Ct. Cl. 120, 1915 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 144, 1915 WL 1092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-united-states-cc-1915.