Appeal 2007-1722
Application 10/212,919
unitary member, such as found with Appellants’ suction liner, is not a patentable
distinction because it is well settled that to make unitary what otherwise could be
made in two pieces is an obvious variant. See In re Stenzler, 331 F2d 898, 901,
141 USPQ 576, 578 (C.C.P.A. 1964). While Studebaker's follower plate 34 is not
integrally formed with the intake chamber 30 structure, Appellants' claims do not
expressly require that the suction liner be integral or unitary with the intake
chamber structure.
Appellants next argue:
[1.] Studebaker et al. employs an annular lip 50, which is
not rounded, and that is integral to the follower plate. [2.]
The annular lip extends inwardly to a labyrinth seal
arrangement 24, which is also not rounded (see Fig. 2).
[3.] Further, the annular lip does not have an inner edge
that extends downwardly from a rounded tip, or end, of
the annular lip to a suction liner face (or follower plate
surface) at an angle that facilitates the deflection of
particulate matter. (Emphasis original) (Br. 3).
The Examiner found it would have been an obvious matter of design choice
to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a rounded shape for the
protrusion tip 50 and a corresponding rounded relief 24 in the pump disclosed in
Studebaker (FF 6). Appellants, however, have failed to show how the curved
shape of its diverter and recess, versus the prior art’s square shape, is anything
more than a predictable variation of the square shaped protrusion and recess design
adopted by Studebaker. Absent such showing, we hold that Appellants’ curved
shaped protrusion and its correspondingly shaped recess is something that a person
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013