Appeal No. 1998-1722
Application No. 08/527,018
Second, the present specification clearly enlightens one
skilled in the relevant art that the manufacture of a chewing
gum base and the final chewing gum product in a single high
efficiency mixer constitutes one, not the sole, embodiment of
the invention. (Page 3, lines 11-17.)
Third, the present specification defines the term “high
efficiency continuous mixer” as “one which is capable of
providing thorough mixing over a relatively short distance or
length of the mixer.” (Id. at page 5, lines 7-9.) While the
specification describes an embodiment in which the total L/D
ratio (“ratio of the length of a particular active region of the
mixer screw, which is composed of mixing elements, divided by
the maximum diameter of the mixer barrel in this active region”)
is not more than about 40, it does not limit the term “high
efficiency continuous mixer” to any particular L/D ratio.
Fourth, the present specification states that the phrase
“not directly under” as used in appealed claim 1 “means that no
significant portion of the [conveyor] element is adjacent to the
port.” (Id. at page 9, lines 19-21.) In elaborating on this
language, the specification explains that “it is acceptable for
a small overlap to occur between the element and port, so long
as the majority of the element extends beyond the wall of the
port.” (Id. at page 9, lines 21-24.)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007