Case Name: In re Rossman
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1952-02-18
Citations: 39 C.C.P.A. 840
Docket Number: No. 5829
Parties: In re Rossman
Judges: Before Garrett, Chief Judge, and Jackson, O’Conneli,, Johnson, and Worley, Associate Judges
Reporter: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 840–847

Head Matter:
194 F. (2d) 711; 93 USPQ 19
In re Rossman
(No. 5829)
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
February 18, 1952
Emery, Holcombe & Blair (Amasa M. Holcombe of counsel) for appellant.
E. L. Reynolds (Clarence W. Moore of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents.
[Oral argument November 6, 1951, by Mr. Holcombe and Mr. Moore]
Before Garrett, Chief Judge, and Jackson, O’Conneli,, Johnson, and Worley, Associate Judges

Opinion:
Garrett, Chief Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
Appellant here seeks reversal of the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming that of the Primary Examiner denying three (all) of the claims of appellant's application for a patent for alleged improvements in building construction.
It is thought that the nature and objects of the alleged invention may be discerned from the claims, which read:
11. A building construction of the character described comprising a plurality of separate alined apartment units, each unit including at least one room, a roof covering and spaced above said units, a main access corridor in the building located parallel with and adjacent to a plurality of said units and into which said units open, said corridor being of less height than the adjacent rooms, an upper corridor directly over said access corridor of a height to provide working space between the floor and the roof of said upper corridor and to give access to the spaces under the roof above said units, and an air conditioning conduit located in the lower part of said upper corridor extending parallel to said alined units and communicating therewith to provide a direct passage for air between said conduit and upper part of the interior of each unit, whereby all electric conduits and service and supply mains for said units may be housed contiguous to said corridor and accessible for repairs.
12. A building construction as set forth in Claim 11 in which each apartment unit comprises a room opening into said main corridor and a garage alongside of and opening into said room.
13. A building construction as set forth in Claim 11 in which the apartment units are alined in two groups disposed on opposite sides of the main corridor and there are two air conditioning conduits, one at each side of the upper corridor.
The brief for appellant dissects the claims, emphasizing certain features as follows:
Claim 11 specifies the following elements:
(a) a plurality of apartment units each having at least one room
(b) alined along a mam access corridor of less height than the rooms,
(c) a roof covering and spaced above said rooms and main corridor
(d) enclosing an upper corridor having accessible working and pipe space alongside and over said rooms, and
(e) an air conditioning conduit in the lower part of said upper corridor opening laterally into the upper part of the adjacent rooms.
Claim 12 specifies in addition that each apartment unit (a) comprises a room opening into the corridor (b) and a garage alongside of and opening into said room.
Claim IS specifies two groups of apartment units (a), one on each side of the main corridor (b), and two air conditioning conduits (c), one at each side of the upper corridor (d), otherwise all as set forth above in connection with Claim 11.
Thus the claims are characterized by the arrangement and relative heights of the rooms and main corridor and upper corridor and roof, first, to provide concealed ducts for conducting the air (either heated or cooled or humidified) di reetly into the room below the ceiling level and second, to conceal and give ready access to all service mains, conduits, wires and facilities usually found in modern hotels within a minimum overall height of structure; thereby (1) saving in first cost by economizing space, (2) saving in cost of maintenance by exposing all pipes, etc., that are normally in the walls and floors for periodic inspection and repair, and (3) at the same time permitting a low eaves and roof design of external architecture appropriate for the type of accommodations provided. [Italics quoted.]
The Primary Examiner rejected the claims upon two grounds: first, as being unpatentable over prior art disclosed in three patents; and second, as "being directed to aggregations."
As to the latter ground the board said, "We do not sustain this rejection since, in our opinion, the claims are directed to a unitary structure." So, we are called upon to consider only the rejection based upon prior art.
The three patents cited as references are:
Hatch, 288,332, November 13,1883.
Earle, 1,654,683, January 3,1928.
Coe, 2,107,523, February 8,1938.
The structure may be visualized from the following excerpt from the official statement of the Primary Examiner after the appeal had been taken to the board, the numerals identifying specific features shown in drawings being deleted as indicated by the asterisks:
It is described particularly with relation to a single story tourist camp.
The floor plan of the embodiment illustrated is generally of H-shape and includes a transverse, central portion having two lateral extensions or continuations, . Additional portions are at right angles to the main portion.
The central part is the main operational area and comprises a reception office portion and a coffee shop .
At the left end of Figure 1 a single room is shown which communicates thru a doorway with a garage . Next in order is a garage which communicates with a room . The rooms also have doorways communicating with the main corridor . On the opposite side of the corridor is an arrangement of rooms and garages similar to those [above] described.
The corridor is of less height than the living quarters on either side and above it is a utility corridor, «.
Entrance openings are provided on either side of the [utility] corridor . for the purpose of giving workmen access to service pipes and wiring facilities or conduits in the space between the ceilings of the described rooms and the room .
Air conditioning ducts on the floor of the corridor provide a direct passage for air to the upper part of the rooms.
Specifically, claims 11, and 13 were rejected below as unpatentable over Hatch, in view of Coe and claim 12 on a combination of Hatch and Coe in view of Earle.
The Hatch patent, issued November 13,1883, was for an apartment house. It was cited by the Primary Examiner as showing a corridor communicating with rooms on either of its sides.
In the brief for appellant it is said, in substance, that there is nothing in the Hatch patent which in any way suggests appellant's type of multiple-room, low-roof, one-story structure, nor of the arrangement of superimposed corridors, each of less height than the room units by which accessible space is provided for concealed service mains and connections along with unobstructed access to the rooms.
It may be conceded that the Hatch patent does not show a one-story structure having a low roof, nor does it show corridors having ceilings lower than the ceilings of the rooms adjoining the corridor as does appellant. The drawings do not show a complete building structure, but do show floor plans. It is clear, as said in the official statement of the Primary Examiner, that all of claim 11 down to the phrase "said units" reads on the patent to Hatch, except as to the limitation "said corridor being of less height than the adjacent rooms."
Surely no invention is involved in putting corridors in a one-story building having a low roof. As for the low ceiling, we could not regard as skilled in the building art any architect or carpenter who could not plan or frame a structure so that the ceiling of a corridor would be lower than the ceiling of adjoining rooms and then imposing an upper section, or corridor, above the lower one to provide a passage for air and for conduits and other supply mains.
The Coe patent evidently was cited as meeting the provision in the claims for "an air conditioning conduit located in the lower part of said upper corridor extending parallel to said alined [apartment] units and communicating therewith ." It is broadly entitled "Building Structure." One figure of the drawings indicates a building of several stories. The specification recites that its main object is "to provide a building structure adapted for a residence, store or the like in which the walls are peculiarly adapted for use in connection with heating, ventilating and air conditioning the interior of the building." In his statement the Primary Examiner points out the presence in this patent of an air conduit which, extending along and through apertures, "communicates with alined superimposed rooms for air-conditioning the same." We note that in the specification the conduit is referred to as an inner "duct" or a series of inner ducts, connected with "a common manifold which, in turn, is connected by feed pipes with a suitable hot air furnace."
With respect to the Coe patent the brief for appellant states:
There is no attempt made in this patent to utilize either upper corridor space or attic space for serving the rooms below, the lateral conduits being located between the ceiling of one room and the floor of the room above, thereby substantially increasing the overall dimensions of the building both horizontally and vertically. * • *
As to this it seems sufficient to say that the claims do not present any dimensional limitation which is asserted to be critical, nor is there any specific claim of a location for the housing of the electric conduits and service and supply mains in appellant's corridor sufficient to differentiate it definitely from the location of the same instrumentalities in the Coe patent. Claim 11 simply states that the conduit for them is located in the lower part of the upper corridor. Even if there were such differentiation, however, it is not seen how, upon the record here presented, it would render the claims patentable.
The Earle patent was cited with particular reference to the limitation in claim 12 which recites that "each apartment unit comprises a room opening into said main corridor and a garage alongside of and opening into said room."
The patent shows individual basement garages with interior and exterior doors, the garages being built into residential buildings, and shows also superimposed individual garages to which access may be had from different ground levels.
"We do not think there is anything inventive in appellant's limitation in view of the Earle patent. There is no invention in placing a conventional door where one wishes such a door to be.
In summary the board said:
We have given careful consideration to tbe arguments presented by appellant at the hearing and in the brief, but are not convinced of error in the conclusion reached by the Examiner. While it is conceded that the references relied upon do not show the specific construction recited in claims 11 and 12 in respect to the corridor structure of less height than the adjacent rooms whereby an upper utility corridor is provided, we do not believe that the incorporation of this feature involves the exercise of the inventive faculties, it being routine practice in designing building structures to adapt and modify basic architectural plans to provide for air ducts and other utility services. Nor does the fact that appellant's construction has attracted favorable attention contribute anything in a patentable sense to the structure claimed. As for claim 12, the inclusion of a garage as an element of the apartment unit adds nothing upon which patentability can be predicated since a garage in conjunction with living quarters is not only old, as shown in Earle, but is also a well-known adjunct in the type of construction herein considered. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 11, 12 and 13 as failing to distinguish patentably from the prior art.
We find ourselves in accord with the foregoing views, and the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.
Worley, Judge, dissents.