Appeal No. 1999-1042 Page 12
Application No. 08/781,220
defined in patent claim 1, which requires a plurality of
support surfaces (panels) at least two of which support medical
gas supply assemblies, and which does not recite any details
concerning orientation of the support surfaces, the height of
the gas support assemblies or the width of the panels as
compared to the width of the gas outlet assemblies. Moreover,
patent claim 1 sets forth structure that is not present in
application claim 1, such as angled medical gas outlet panels
having first and second angled planar outlet support surfaces
and gas outlets supported by each of the angled panels.
Insofar as Schneller is concerned, this case does not, as
it appears the examiner would have us believe, stand for the
proposition that simply because the subject matter recited in
the claims on appeal was disclosed in the application from
which the patent matured and the events which gave rise to the
situation were the result of the appellant’s doing, double
patenting would result if the application claims were allowed
to issue. The ruling in Schneller that double patenting
existed was based upon a factual situation which is not present
here, from which the court found the inventions not to be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007