Appeal No. 2005-2192
Application No. 10/047,865
Attention is directed to the brief (filed February 20, 2004)
and the final rejection and answer (mailed November 24, 2003 and
April 9, 2004) for the respective positions of the appellants and
examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.
DISCUSSION
Chapman, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses an
centrifugal impeller formed as a single piece via an injection
molding process. The impeller comprises a hub 11, a plurality of
blades 12, a shroud 13, an axis of rotation 16 and a ring 17.
The ring 17, which projects from the shroud, functions to inhibit
the recirculation of air from the impeller outlet to the impeller
inlet. As shown in Figures 6 through 8, the hub also includes a
sleeve for receiving the drive shaft of a motor.
It is not disputed that Chapman teaches, or would have
suggested, a pump impeller and method of manufacturing same
responding to all of the limitations in claims 1 and 2 except for
those requiring the annular inlet ring and the sleeve to protrude
in opposite directions from the shroud. The examiner (see page 3
in the final rejection) considers that Chapman’s ring 17
constitutes an annular inlet ring as defined in the claims but
concedes that this ring and the sleeve shown in Figures 6
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007