Appeal No. 2006-0357
Application No. 10/743,501
We do not understand appellants’ argument that “Naumann does
not disclose, teach or suggest a single mixing apparatus
including at least two mixing zones as defined by claim 1” (page
8 of principal brief, third paragraph). Even if we consider only
the extruder of Naumann as the single apparatus, the extruder is
depicted as having three mixing zones, C1, C2 and C3.
Appellants also maintain that “Reggio does not disclose,
teach or suggest employing a ‘single extruder’ to perform all of
the necessary addition and compounding steps to produce the gum
base as defined by claims 13 and 19” (sentence bridging pages 8
and 9 of principal brief). However, as pointed out by the
examiner, Naumann is cited for teaching a single extruder.
As for separately rejected claims 7, 8 and 18, we agree with
the examiner that Boudy establishes the obviousness of employing
a counter-rotating, intermeshing twin screw extruder in the
process of Naumann.
We note that appellants base no argument upon objective
evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, attached
to not pretreating or preblending the elastomer before it is
added to the mixing apparatus. Indeed, appellants’ specification
seems to militate against any idea of criticality with respect to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007