Ex parte NASVIK et al. - Page 8




          Appeal No. 1997-0635                                       Page 8           
          Application No. 08/375,183                                                  


          with respect to the claims under appeal.  Accordingly, the                  
          decision of the examiner to reject claims 4 to 8 and 11 under               
          35 U.S.C.                                                                   
           103 is reversed.                                                          


          The double patenting rejection                                              
               We will not sustain the rejection of  claims 4 to 8 and                
          11 under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting.               


               The appellants argue (brief, pp. 10-11, and reply brief,               
          pp. 5-6) that the rejection is in error since the subject                   
          matter of the claims under appeal is patentably distinct from               
          the claims in Nasvik.  We agree.  The limitations of claim 4                
          are not suggested by the claims of Nasvik taken together with               
          the applied prior art.  In that regard, while various pieces                
          of the claimed invention are shown in each reference, it is                 
          our view that the applied prior art would not have taught or                
          suggested modifying the claimed gang form of Nasvik to have a               
          plurality of form liners as recited in claim 4 mounted to a                 
          backing member.  Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to               









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007