Appeal No. 95-2803
Application 08/024,851
In reaching our conclusion on the “same invention”
double patenting issue raised in this appeal, this panel of the
board has carefully considered appellants’ specification and
claims 29, 30 and 33, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the4
claimed subject matter of U.S. Patent No. 5,248,162, and the
respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As a 5
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
4The term “Apparatus” in claim 30, line 1, should more
appropriately be --A cylindrical inflator--, for consistency with
parent claim 29.
5Each of appellants’ specification (pages 1 through 3) and
the Levosinski specification (column 1, lines 10 through 46)
refers to the earlier U.S. Patent No. 4,846,368 to Goetz, of
record in the present application, as background for the
respective inventions. However, the inventions differ from one
another. The Levosinski patent seeks to retain the cylindrical
housing and pressure controlling layer of foil of Goetz, but
includes a plenum member in the form of a strand wound in a
helix, in place of the plenum mesh screen of Goetz. On the other
hand, in the pending application, the cylindrical housing
structure (with plenum mesh screen and pressure controlling layer
of foil) of Goetz is eliminated and replaced with a pair of end
caps having an outer filter layer and ends of a helically wound
strand extending thereover, characterized by appellants
(specification, page 2) as a “simplified structure.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007