Appeal No. 1999-1042 Page 12 Application No. 08/781,220 defined in patent claim 1, which requires a plurality of support surfaces (panels) at least two of which support medical gas supply assemblies, and which does not recite any details concerning orientation of the support surfaces, the height of the gas support assemblies or the width of the panels as compared to the width of the gas outlet assemblies. Moreover, patent claim 1 sets forth structure that is not present in application claim 1, such as angled medical gas outlet panels having first and second angled planar outlet support surfaces and gas outlets supported by each of the angled panels. 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 appellant’s doing, double patenting would result 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 bePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007