Application of Norman B. Christensen

SMITH, Judge.

The Board of Appeals sustained the examiner’s rejection of appealed claims 18 and 19 of appellant’s application 1 as “patentably indistinct” from the claims of appellant’s own previously issued patent. 2 The application upon which the patent issued was a continuation-in-part 3 of the instant application and was co-pending with it. Thus, the issue raised by the rejection is one of pure “double patenting,” i. e., whether appellant is seeking more than one patent for but one patentable invention.

Appellant’s invention relates generally to a suspension system for vehicles, wherein a…