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.                                                                                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007