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 toPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007