Appeal No. 1998-0419
Application No. 08/526,534
Having construed the claim language, we now consider the
examiner's rejections. The examiner's position is as follows:
It should be noted that although Song et al. directs
the teachings to the manufacture of gum base, Song et
al. also teaches that once the gum base has been
produced, the output of the produced gum base can used
[sic, can be used] to supply a continuous chewing gum
production line.
(Examiner's answer, page 4.)
Although the examiner is correct in stating that Song
teaches the production of chewing gum using the gum base output
of the continuous mixer (column 2, line 49 to column 3, line 11;
column 4, lines 23-25), such a method for producing chewing gum
using multiple mixing devices is not encompassed by the appealed
claims as we have discussed above. Accordingly, we reverse the
examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of method claims 1 through
4, 6 through 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, and 20 as anticipated by Song.
Concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 14, 15, and
17, this rejection is also not tenable because the modification
of Song's method to include the recited L/D ratios would not
result in a method encompassed by the appealed claims.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007