Ex Parte Song et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2003-0410                                                        
          Application 09/775,785                                                      


               1.  A process for making chewing gum comprising the steps              
          of:                                                                         
               using a single continuous mixing apparatus to perform all of           
          the addition and compounding steps necessary to produce gum base;           
               adding to the single continuous mixing apparatus all of a              
          group of components necessary to make a chewing gum base                    
          including an elastomer and a plasticizer, wherein the elastomer             
          is added to the single continuous mixing apparatus separate and             
          apart from the plasticizer;                                                 
               providing at least two mixing zones in the mixing apparatus;           
               producing gum base from the mixing apparatus; and                      
               mixing the gum base with other ingredients to produce                  
          chewing gum.                                                                
               The references relied upon by the examiner are:                        
               Naumann             0,273,809           Jul. 06, 1988                  
               (European Patent Application)                                          
               Boudy               2,635,441           Feb. 23, 1990                  
               (French Patent Application)                                            
                                GROUNDS OF REJECTION1                                 
               1.  Claims 1-5, 9-16, 19 and 20 stand rejected under                   
          35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Naumann.                               




               1 The rejections of claims 1-20 under the judicially created           
          doctrine of obviousness type double patenting (see final                    
          rejection, paper no. 3, mailed Oct. 22, 2001) have been overcome            
          by appellants’ filing of a terminal disclaimer (paper no. 5,                
          received Jan 22, 2002).  Advisory action, paper no. 6, mailed               
          Jan. 29, 2002.                                                              
                                          2                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007