Appeal No. 1998-1722
Application No. 08/527,018
II. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 16-20
The appellants do not dispute the examiner’s finding
(Office letter mailed Oct. 6, 2003, paper 25) that Rose (I)3
discloses the same “blade-and-pin mixer” recited in appealed
claims 16 through 20. Further, the appellants do not contest
the examiner’s finding (id.) that Rose (I) describes a method in
which “both the chewing gum base and the chewing gum are
integrally manufactured in a single continuous mixer,” as
required by appealed claim 20, and that sweetener and flavor are
also added to the same mixer. In another embodiment, Rose (I)
discloses a method in which gum base is fed into the mixer as
pellets and then sweetener and flavor are added to the same
mixer. (Page 5.)
Accordingly, we determine that Rose (I) describes each and
every limitation of appealed claims 16 and 20.4 Although the
examiner’s rejection of claim 16 has been made under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, a prior art disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 also renders the claim obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for
anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. In re Baxter
3 While a more legible copy of Rose (I) would have been
desirable, we think that the record copy is sufficient for us to
render a reasoned decision.
4 We do not have to discuss the other references because
they are not necessary to support the examiner’s rejection.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007