Appeal No. 2005-2192
Application No. 10/047,865
through 8 do not extend from the shroud in opposite directions.
The appellants (see pages 3 and 4 in the brief), observing that
the ring 17 and sleeve extend from the shroud in the same
direction, agrees with the examiner that these elements fail to
meet the opposite direction limitations in the claims and also
argues that the ring 17 is not an annular inlet ring as set forth
in the claims.
The appellants’ position that Chapman’s ring 17 does not
constitute an annular inlet ring as recited in claims 1 and 2 is
well taken. Given the stated purpose of the ring to inhibit
fluid recirculation and the depiction thereof in Chapman’s
drawings as being distanced both axially and radially from the
actual inlet of the impeller, the examiner’s insistence that
this ring embodies an annular inlet ring is unreasonable.
Nonetheless, Chapman’s impeller does in fact include an annular
inlet ring as recited in claims 1 and 2. As best shown in
Figures 1 and 4 through 11 in the reference, the portion of the
impeller projecting above the upper edges of the vanes forms an
annular ring which defines the inlet of the impeller. This
annular inlet ring, however, extends from the shroud in the same
direction as the sleeve.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007