Ex parte BAILEY - Page 15




          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