Appeal 2007-1722
Application 10/212,919
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
ANALYSIS
We affirm the rejection of claims 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants do not provide a substantive argument as to the separate patentability of
claim 22 that depends from claim 21, which is the sole independent claim.
Therefore, we address only claim 21 and, for the reasons that follow, we affirm the
rejection of claim 21. Claim 22 falls with claim 21. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006). Also, because Appellants’ arguments as to
independent claim 23 are limited only to those advanced with regard to claim
independent claim 21, we affirm the rejection of this claim for the same reasons as
set forth infra with respect to independent claim 21.
Appellants initially argue “Studebaker et al. does not have a suction liner
construction of the type having a nose gap. Rather, the Studebaker et al.
construction relies on a separate follower plate construction 34 that is disposed
between the intake chamber 30 and the casing 32 to reduce wear.” (Emphasis
original) (Br. 3). However, the Examiner found that the follower plate 34 of
Studebaker is mechanically no different than the claimed suction liner 4 in that
both elements bound a slurry flow path (FF 5). We agree with the Examiner that
the follower plate in Studebaker and the claimed liner are equivalents in that each
serves to separate the two pressure zones within the impeller housing. Whether
this separation occurs as a result of a two piece barrier member or a one piece
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013