Appeal No. 1999-0033
Application No. 08/514,255
concerning the connecting rigidity in claim 5 is met where, as here, Ryall’s resilient
member 180 inherently decreases the connecting rigidity in an impeller axial direction.
Contrary to appellants’ arguments Ryall’s resilient member 180 will also reduce the
connecting rigidity in an impeller radial direction and an impeller circumferential
direction because the resilient member is deformable in radial and circumferential
directions due to its engagement with the vane structure and the casing member. In any
case, as far as claim 5 is concerned, it is sufficient that Ryall’s resilient member 180
decreases the connecting rigidity in an impeller axial direction to meet the terms of the
claim.
Finally, appellants argue on page 10 of the brief that Ryall does not “teach the
concept of unrestrained deformation of the vane member in relation to the casing.” This
contention is unpersuasive even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that it is correct,
because claim 5 is not limited to such “unrestrained deformation of the vane member.”
In this regard, it is well established patent law that features not claimed may not be relied
upon to support patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1350-1351, 213 USPQ 1, 5
(CCPA 1982) and In re Richards, 187 F.2d 643, 645, 89 USPQ 64, 66 (CCPA 1951).
In view of the foregoing we are satisfied that Ryall anticipates the subject matter
of claim 5, since each of the limitations of claim 5 is either expressly or inherently
described in the Ryall patent. Accordingly, we will sustain the § 102(b) rejection of
claim 5 based the Ryall patent. We also will sustain the standing § 102(b) rejection of
claims 1, 8, 9 and 12 based on Ryall , since, as noted supra, these claims stand or fall with
claim 5.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007