Appeal 2007-1722
Application 10/212,919
of the lip 50 and the complimentary rounded geometry of
the relief in the impeller front shroud (unnumbered, see
col. 1, lines 71-75), and the 45° inclination of the lip 50.
(Answer 8).
5. The Examiner found that “the follower plate 34 of Studebaker et al. is
mechanically no different than the claimed suction liner 4. Both elements bound a
slurry flow path.” (Answer 8).
6. The Examiner found that “[a]t the time the invention was made, it would
have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art
to have a rounded protrusion tip and rounded relief because Applicant has not
disclosed that a rounded protrusion tip and rounded relief provide an advantage,
are used for a particular purpose, or solve a stated problem.” (Final Rejection 5).
7. Studebaker discloses that the protrusion formed by the annular lip 50:
…serves to direct the flow of slurry into the runner eye in
such a manner that it reduces secondary circulation of
slurry between the runner and the follower plate to a
minimum. (Studebaker col. 2, ll. 14-21.)
8. It is our understanding that the secondary flow in Studebaker, discussed
supra (FF 7), would also include particulates suspended in the disclosed slurry
which would move with the slurry as part of the secondary flow. However, any
such secondary flow in Studebaker is reduced by the protrusion 50 as found supra
(FF 7), as does Appellants’ protrusion 2 reduce flow through the nose gap because
both protrusions are disposed perpendicularly to the radial path, which is the
direction the secondary flow would otherwise take through the space between the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013