Appeal No. 2006-0357
Application No. 10/743,501
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the stated combination of
references further in view of Boudy.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
Section 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we
will sustain the examiner’s rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the answer.
Naumann, like appellants, discloses a process for making
chewing gum base by adding elastomer, plasticizer, filler, etc.,
to a single continuous mixing apparatus having at least two
mixing zones. The reference teaches that mixer B maybe
eliminated by adding the premix comprising elastomer and filler
from mixer A into the first segment of the extruder (see page 9
of English translation). A principal issue on appeal is the
claim requirement that the elastomer is not preblended or
pretreated before addition to the single continuous mixing
apparatus. However, we agree with the examiner that the
embodiment of Naumann comprising mixer A and extruder C can be
reasonably considered a single continuous mixing apparatus
comprising at least two mixing zones. Hence, we find that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007