Appeal No. 1996-1838 Page 15 Application No. 08/119,655 from or generic to claim 24 of U.S. Patent No. 5,321,680. Furthermore, it is our view that the facts of this case are sufficiently different from the facts present in Schneller that a double patenting rejection in this application is inappropriate. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 8, 10, 11, 32, 34, 35, 37, 54 to 59 and 61 to 65 under the judicially created doctrine of nonstatutory (i.e., obviousness-type) double patenting over claim 24 of U.S. Patent No. 5,321,680 is reversed.Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007