Ex Parte Addie et al - Page 10



            Appeal 2007-1722                                                                               
            Application 10/212,919                                                                         

            of ordinary skill could implement as a predictable variation of the square shaped              
            elements corresponding in Studebaker, and therefore 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) bars its                
            patentability.  See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.                                
                  Furthermore, the Specification discloses that Appellants’ protrusion 2 acts to           
            divert, and thus limit the flow of particulates through the nose gap 12 (FF 9).  In            
            this way, the flow is diverted back to the vanes and pumped into the main collector            
            22 (FF 9).  Likewise, as found supra (FF 7), the annular lip 50 of Studebaker                  
            “serves to direct the flow of slurry into the runner eye in such a manner that it              
            reduces secondary circulation of slurry between the runner and the follower plate              
            to a minimum.”  Any such secondary flow in Studebaker would intrinsically                      
            include particulates suspended in the disclosed slurry which would move with the               
            secondary flow (FF 8).  Studebaker’s protrusion 50 reduces the secondary flow (FF              
            7) just as Appellants’ protrusion 2 reduces flow through the nose gap (FF 9),                  
            because both protrusions are disposed perpendicularly to the radial direction of the           
            pump, which is the direction the secondary flow would otherwise take through the               
            space between the impeller and the liner (FF 8).                                               
                  Appellants further argue that Studebaker’s protrusion (annular lip 50)                   
            projects into a non-rounded labyrinth seal arrangement 24 and not a recess, and                
            thus does not meet the claim limitations (Br. 3, 4).  However, the independent                 
            claims require only that a relief or recess be formed in the front of the impeller             
            shroud to receive the protrusion.  As found supra (FF 3), Studebaker discloses the             
            projecting feature of the protrusion (annular lip 50), wherein the protrusion                  

                                                    10                                                     



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013