Appeal No. 1999-0033
Application No. 08/514,255
“something that encases.” Thus, Ryall’s elements 26 and 42 form part of a casing that
“encases” the impeller and the diffuser vane stages.
Ryall’s resilient member 180 is therefore confined between a diffuser vane
structure and a part of the casing to read on the recitation in claim 5 that the vane member
has an elastically deformable portion connected to the casing. Being deformable and
being axially confined between the vane structure 44 and the end casing member 42,
Ryall’s resilient member 180 will inherently reduce the connecting rigidity between the
vane structure and the casing member in at least the impeller axial direction as recited in
claim 5.
With regard to the last limitation in claim 5 (which recites that the vane member
is movable to a predetermined extent relative to the casing in an impeller axial direction),
Ryall’s resilient member 180 is expressly described as being compressible (see column 5,
lines 37-42), thus permitting the vane structure to be movable in an impeller axial
direction. Furthermore, Figure 4 of Ryall’s drawings shows that there are clearance
spaces between vane structure 44 and the casing member 42 to permit movement of the
vane structure in an impeller axial direction. In fact, a printed caption in Figure 4 refers
to the clearances in question and states that they allows for “axial float of the cartridge,”
the “cartridge” obviously being the assembly of vane stages.
Thus, Ryall meets the last limitation, which recites that the vane member is
movable in an impeller axial direction. Appellants have not argued otherwise.
Contrary to appellants’ arguments on page 9 of the brief, neither claim 5 nor any
of the other appealed claims “specifies decreased mobility” or even “vibration isolation”
between the vane member and the casing. Furthermore, unlike claim 1, the limitation
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007