|
|
Court OpinionsState LawsUS CodeUS Constitution |
Ex parte YUICHI ONO et al. - Page 2Legal Research Home > Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 1997 > Ex parte YUICHI ONO et al. - Page 2
Appeal No. 96-1835
Application 08/207,116
The invention relates to a fluid clutch. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A fluid clutch comprising a driving section, a rotation
shaft rotatably driven by said driving section, a driving disc
rigidly mounted to and rotationally driven by said rotational
shaft, a casing in which said driving disc is incorporated and
which is rotatably disposed around said rotational shaft as a
center of rotation, such that a torque transmission gap is
defined between said driving disc and the casing, and an oil
filled in the torque transmission gap defined between said
driving disc and the casing for transmitting a driving torque
from said driving disc to said casing, wherein
a non-rotatable oil supply pipe communicates from a location
external of the casing into the casing and wherein an oil supply
means is non-rotatably mounted to the portion of the oil supply
pipe external of the casing for selectively supplying and
returning said oil between the outside and the inside of said
casing and for selectively increasing and decreasing the driving
torque transmitted from the driving disc to the casing, said
casing further including at least one breather extending through
said casing between the torque transmission gap and atmospheric
air for releasing gas from said torque transmission chamber when
pressure in said torque transmission chamber exceeds a
predetermined upper limit value and for enabling inflow of
atmospheric air to said torque transmission chamber when pressure
in the torque transmission chamber is less than a predetermined
lower limit value.
Claims 1, 2, 14, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as being based upon a specification which
purportedly fails “to provide an adequate written description of
the invention” (answer, mailed June 13, 1995, page 3). The 2
2In the final rejection, claims 1, 2, 14, 18 and 19 were
also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The examiner has since
withdrawn all such prior art rejections (see the advisory action
dated April 19, 1995).
-2-
|