Appeal No. 2003-0410
Application 09/775,785
1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984) (Anticipation does not
require that the references teach what the appellants are
claiming, but only that the claims on appeal “read on” something
disclosed in the reference.)
Accordingly, we are in agreement with the examiner that
Naumann anticipates claims 1-5, 9-16, 19 and 20. The rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
With respect to the rejections of claims 6-8, 17 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, appellants again urge that Naumann fails
to teach or suggest the use of a single mixing apparatus to form
the chewing gum base. However, we are unpersuaded by this
argument for the reasons set forth above.
With respect to claims 7, 8 and 18, appellants further argue
that Boudy teaches away from a process for making a chewing gum
base using a single stage and single apparatus. See appeal
brief, pages 12-13. The examiner, however, points out that Boudy
is merely relied on to show that appellants’ claimed counter-
rotating twin screw extruder is a conventional extruder used in
preparing a chewing gum base. We are in agreement with the
examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to have looked to Boudy in considering the type of
extruder to utilize in Naumann’s process.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007