Appeal No. 1998-1722
Application No. 08/527,018
Having analyzed the scope of appealed claim 1, we consider
the teachings of the Song reference. Song describes a method
for producing chewing gum comprising the steps of: (a) adding
5.0-95% by weight of elastomer(s), 0-50% by weight of elastomer
solvent(s), 0-75% by weight of plasticizer(s), 0-30% by weight
of wax(es), 0.5-40% by weight of emulsifier(s), 1.0-65% by
weight of filler(s), and 0-3.0% by weight of
colorant(s)/flavor(s) into a continuous extruder providing
highly dispersive mixing to form a chewing gum base; and then
(b) using the chewing gum base to produce conventional chewing
gums. (Column 2, line 49 to column 3, line 24; column 4, lines
23-25.) The examiner found (answer, page 5), and the appellants
do not specifically dispute, that Song’s element 32 (Figure 1),
which is “not directly under an ingredient addition port,” is a
“conveyor element.”
On the basis of these findings, we agree with the examiner
that Song describes each and every limitation of appealed claim
1 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102. In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The appellants argue that Song’s “chewing gum base is made
separate and apart from the chewing gum.” (Appeal brief, page
7.) As we discussed above, however, appealed claim 1 reads on a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007