Appeal No. 2003-0410
Application 09/775,785
produce the unplasticized gum base. Id. Appellants point out
that Naumann teaches that an elastomer and filler are first pre-
mixed in a mixer A, processed, and then fed to the powder mixer B
where other ingredients of the gum base are added. Reply brief,
paper no. 11, received Oct. 31, 2002, page 3. Further processing
occurs before the resultant unplasticized gum base is added to
the extruder for final processing. Id.
In making a patentability determination, analysis begins
with the question, “what is the invention claimed?” since
“[c]laim interpretation, . . . will normally control the
remainder of the decisional process.” Panduit Corp. v. Dennison
Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1052 (1987). In determining the
patentability of claims, the Patent Office gives claim language
its “broadest reasonable interpretation” consistent with the
specification and claims. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
While the independent claims require that a single mixing
apparatus/extruder is utilized to perform “all of the addition
and compounding steps” necessary to produce a gum base, the
claims do not require the addition of each of the individual
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007