
    In re CARLTON.
    Patent Appeal No, 2269.
    Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
    April 10, 1930.
    
      A. L. Jackson, of'Washington, D. C., for appellant.
    T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents.
    Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD,. GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges.
   HATFIELD, Associate Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the decision of the Examiner denying all claims in appellant’s application for an alleged invention relating to improvements in self-serving stores, and particularly to the arrangement of certain cahinets therein forming an “M-shape.”

Claim 1 is illustrative. It reads: “1. An ‘M’ store comprising a building having inclosing side and end walls and a partition dividing the building into a sales department and a storage department, said sales room having a main entrance door, a cashier’s stand within said sales department, cabinets against said side walls and partition, and pairs of cabinets parallel to each other and set at angles to and spaced from said side walls and arranged with their front sides in view of the cashier’s stand and forming an M-shape with the converging ends towards said stand and the remote ends diverging.”

The references are: McCarty, reissue, 15,368, May 30, 1922; Anderson, 1,461,374, July 10, 1923; Stevenson, 1,494,390, May 20,1924; Smiley, 1,544,949, July 7,1925.

The patents to Smiley and Anderson disclose cabinets in an “M-shape” arrangement. If two additional cabinets were placed somewhat in advance of, and spaced from, the “M-shape” arrangement in thn Smiley store, it would be substantially identical with the alleged novel feature of appellant’s arrangement. Of course, if these additional cabinets are not suggested by Smiley, it would not be proper to reconstruct his store in the light of appellant’s disclosure, in order to meet the appealed claims. But we think that such additional cabinets are suggested by both the Smiley and Anderson references. Furthermore, although it is contended by counsel for appellant that such is not the ease, we are of opinion that these cahinets would be within the unobstructed vision of one occupying the cashier’s stand.

For the reasons stated, the decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.  