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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007