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