Appeal No. 1998-1722
Application No. 08/527,018
method in which the chewing gum base is “made separate and apart
from the chewing gum.”
The appellants contend that Song’s “extruders are not high
efficiency mixers as used in the claims” because Song’s
extruders are exemplified as having L/D ratios of 48, 58, and
35, as contrasted with the here recited “high efficiency
continuous mixer” allegedly having a L/D ratio of 40 or less.
(Appeal brief, pages 8 and 10; see also reply brief filed Oct.
20, 1997, paper 17, page 2.) This argument lacks merit, because
the appellants have not pointed to anything in the language of
the claim itself or in the record to substantiate this
restrictive definition of “high efficiency continuous mixer.”
Contrary to the appellants’ belief, nothing in the specification
limits the “high efficiency continuous mixer” to any particular
L/D ratio. The portion of the specification cited by the
appellants (appeal brief, page 10) merely describes one
embodiment of the invention. Moreover, as correctly pointed out
by the examiner (answer, page 8), Song’s disclosed extruder
having an L/D ratio of 35 is within the appellants’ argued range
of L/D ratios.
Because none of the appellants’ arguments are sufficient to
rebut the examiner’s prima facie case of anticipation as to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007