Appeal 2006-1306
Application 10/218,991
coating the candy center (Reply Br. 4-5). We agree with Appellants’
ultimate position.
Mentink teaches that part of his process includes heating the
components of the mixture to “at least 120°C” (col. 7, ll. 41-44). However,
the actual shaping of the multilayer candy such that the external coating
layer is applied to the candy center involves a method where the candy is
brought to a temperature of 60 to 90°C, which is below the melt temperature
of the “stabile” form of xylitol (i.e., 93-94.5°C). Moreover, Mentink does
not indicate whether the “stabile” or “metastable” form of xylitol is used.
Under these circumstances, it is our determination that the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation. That is, the portion of
Mentink’s disclosure relied on by the Examiner does not involve coating a
confectionary center with polyol in molten form.
From the foregoing discussion, we cannot sustain either the § 102(b)
rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-22 and 24-27 over Reed or the
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 1 and 4 over Mentink.
CLAIM 32
Claim 32 recites a method of manufacturing chewing gum that
includes: (1) “forming a chewing gum center that includes a water soluble
portion and a water insoluble portion,” (2) “liquefying at least one polyol
and at least one non-polyol by heating a composition that includes not more
than 5% water and the polyol and non-polyol,” and (3) “coating the chewing
gum center by atomizing the composition and spraying the composition on
the chewing gum center.”
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007