Appeal No. 1999-0033
Application No. 08/514,255
capability of the elastic member 44 to deform in a circumferential direction reduces the
connecting rigidity in that direction (see appellants’ answer in Paper No. 28 to our
Interrogatory No. 2 in our Order mentioned above).
Appealed claim 5 recites that “at least one of the vane member and the casing has
an elastically deformable portion connected to another [sic] one of the vane member and
the casing to obtain a decreased connecting rigidity between the vane member and the
casing in at least one of an impeller axial direction, an impeller radial direction and an
impeller circumferential direction, . . . ” This claim additionally recites that the “vane
member is movable to a predetermined extent relative to the casing in an impeller axial
direction . . . ”
Appealed claim 9 specifically calls for an “elastic member . . . arranged between
the vane member and the casing . . .” This claim recites that the elastic member is
“substantially deformable in at least one of an impeller radial direction and an impeller
circumferential direction so that the deformation of the vane member in the impeller
radial direction is substantially unrestrained by the elastic member.”
In contrast to claims 1, 5 and 9, appealed claim 8 is not limited to an elastically
deformable portion or to an elastic member. Instead, claim 8 recites that “at least a
portion of the vane member is discrete from the casing” and that “a deformation of the
vane member in an impeller radial direction is unrestrained by the casing.”
Appealed claim 12 also is not limited to an elastically deformable portion or to an
elastic member. Furthermore, claim 12 differs from claims 1, 5, 8 and 9 by reciting, inter
alia, that the casing structure has an inner casing and an outer casing. This claim
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007