Appeal No. 2003-0410
Application 09/775,785
Anticipation requires the disclosure, in a single prior art
reference, of each element of the claim under consideration. See
W. L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1544, 220
USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Each of claims 1, 13 and 19
requires the use of a single mixing apparatus (claim 1) or
extruder (claims 13 and 19) for performing all of the addition
and compounding steps necessary to produce a gum base. According
to appellants,
[a]n important step that is disclosed in each of the
independent claims is that the chewing gum base is produced
in a single mixing apparatus such as an extruder and that
the processes use a continuous mixing operation to produce
the gum base. Unlike the known processes, the claimed
invention does not require the separate step or steps of
pre-blending or pre-treating any of the ingredients before
the ingredients are mixed to produce the gum base. These
processes, therefore, reduce the time needed to produce the
chewing gum base and thereby increase the efficiency of
chewing gum production.
Appeal brief, page 9.
It is the examiner’s position that claims 1, 13 and 19 read
on Naumann’s disclosure of combining an unplasticized chewing gum
base from a powder mixer B with a liquid plasticizer in an
extruder C. See Examiner’s answer, paper no. 10, mailed Aug. 26,
2002, page 4. Appellants maintain that Naumann cannot anticipate
the claimed invention because Naumann utilizes separate mixers to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007