|
|
Court OpinionsState LawsUS CodeUS Constitution |
Ex parte YUICHI ONO et al. - Page 4Legal Research Home > Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 1997 > Ex parte YUICHI ONO et al. - Page 4
Appeal No. 96-1835
Application 08/207,116
[a] breather 30 is disposed passing through the
casing 4 in the torque transmission chamber 7. The
breather 30 is adapted such that when the pressure in
the torque transmission chamber 7 increases in excess
of a predetermined upper limit value, only the gas in
the torque transmission chamber 7 is released through
the breather 30 out of the casing 4, and such that when
the pressure in the torque transmission chamber 7 is
lower[ed] to less than the predetermined lower limit
value, atmospheric air flows through the breather 30
into the torque transmission chamber 7.
To support their position that the specification does comply
with the enablement requirement, the appellants have made of
record and relied upon a number of references which disclose
various breather structures in assorted devices such as valves,
engines and pumps (see pages 4 through 11 in the main brief filed
on May 22, 1995 ). According to the examiner, however,3
[w]hile there is no doubt that the prior art shows that
breathers and filters made from metal, plastic and
numerous other materials are commonly used in many
different environments, none show[s] a breather mounted
on a rotatable housing where it would be subjected not
only to the pressure of the fluid in the housing but
also the effects of centrifugal forces acting thereon.
The examiner therefore submits that none of the
prior art of record provides any evidence that one
3It is noted, however, that not all of the references cited
in the brief have publication dates early enough to support the
appellants’ position. It is also noted that the appellants filed
a reply brief on July 3, 1995 in response to the examiner’s
answer, and that the examiner refused entry of same (see the
advisory action dated August 7, 1995). Accordingly, we have not
considered the arguments advanced in the reply brief in assessing
the merits of the appealed rejection.
-4-
|