Appeal No. 1998-0941 Page 7
Application No. 08/226,660
movement of the selected bill (i.e., the bill whose denomination
has been determined by the signal processing means) whereas the
claims under appeal set forth means which control the movement of
the next upstream bill (i.e., the bill upstream from the selected
bill).
It is our view that insofar as Schneller is concerned, this
case does not, as it appears the examiner would have us believe,
stand for the proposition that simply because the subject matter
recited in the claims on appeal was disclosed in the application
from which the patent matured and the events which gave rise to
the situation were the result of the appellants' doing,
judicially created doctrine of double patenting would apply if
the application claims were allowed to issue. The ruling in
Schneller that double patenting existed was based upon a factual
situation which is not present here, from which the court found
the inventions not to be independent and distinct. It is our
view that Schneller did not establish a rule of general
application and thus is limited to the particular set of facts
set forth in that decision. In fact, the Court in Schneller, 397
F.2d at 355, 158 USPQ at 215, cautioned against the tendency to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007