Appeal 2007-1722
Application 10/212,919
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. Studebaker discloses a follower plate 34 between the intake chamber and
the pump casing, which follower plate 34 is a suction liner (Studebaker, col. 2, ll.,
6-7), an impeller 20 (Studebaker, col. 1, l., 69) with a front shroud (front shroud is
read on the rightmost face of the impeller 20 facing the follower plate/liner 34
(Studebaker, Figs. 2 and 4)), and a nose gap between the suction liner and the front
shroud of the impeller (nose gap is read on the space between the rightmost face of
the impeller 20 and the leftmost face of the plate 34 which faces the impeller 20
(Studebaker, Figs. 2 and 4)).
2. Studebaker discloses that the surface of the follower plate 34 opposing
the impeller 20 has a protrusion 50 formed upstream of the nose gap, the protrusion
extending inwardly toward the front shroud of the impeller (Studebaker, col. 2, ll.
14-16, Figs. 2 and 4, FF 1), such protrusion 50 corresponding to the diverter
recited in Appellants' claims; (b) an impeller front shroud being operatively
opposed to the suction liner face (follower plate 34) and a relief (labyrinth means
24) formed within the front shroud (Studebaker, col. 1, l. 71, Figs. 2 and 4, FF 1).
3. Studebaker discloses that the tip of the protrusion 50 extends into the
relief (labyrinth means 24) of the front shroud (Studebaker, col. 2, ll. 14-16, Figs. 2
and 4, FF 2).
4. The Examiner’s Answer states:
The only difference between the claimed invention and
the Studebaker et al. reference is the rounded geometry
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013