Ex Parte Addie et al - Page 8



            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