Appeal No. 1997-0635 Page 8
Application No. 08/375,183
with respect to the claims under appeal. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 4 to 8 and 11 under
35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
The double patenting rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 4 to 8 and
11 under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 10-11, and reply brief,
pp. 5-6) that the rejection is in error since the subject
matter of the claims under appeal is patentably distinct from
the claims in Nasvik. We agree. The limitations of claim 4
are not suggested by the claims of Nasvik taken together with
the applied prior art. In that regard, while various pieces
of the claimed invention are shown in each reference, it is
our view that the applied prior art would not have taught or
suggested modifying the claimed gang form of Nasvik to have a
plurality of form liners as recited in claim 4 mounted to a
backing member. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007