Appeal No. 1998-1722
Application No. 08/527,018
one flavor into the blade-and-pin mixer, and mixing
said sweetener and flavor with the remaining
ingredients to form a chewing gum product; and
c) wherein the mixer includes at least one
conveyor element that is not directly under a feed
port of the mixer.
The examiner relies on the following prior art references
as evidence of unpatentability:
Song et al. 5,486,366 Jan. 23, 1996
(Song) (filed Oct. 14, 1993)
Bernd Rose, Buss Technology for the Continuous Compounding of
Chewing Gum and Bubble Gum, Buss AG (1995) (Rose (I)).
Bernd Rose, Buss Technology for the Continuous Compounding of
Gum Base, Buss AG (1995) (Rose (II)).
Claims 1 through 15 on appeal stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Song. (Examiner’s answer
mailed Sep. 16, 1997, paper 16, pages 4-5.) Further, claims 16
through 20 on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Song in view of Rose (I) and Rose (II). (Id.
at pages 5-6.)
We affirm the §102(e) rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5,
10, and 13 but reverse as to claims 4, 6 through 9, 11, 12, 14,
and 15. We also affirm the §103(a) rejection of claims 16
through 20.1
1 The appellants submit: “Appellants do argue for the
patentability of dependent Claims 4, 5, 10, 13, 15 and 20
separate and apart from the independent claims from which they
depend. Appellants also argue for the patentability of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007