Ex parte YUICHI ONO et al. - Page 5

          Appeal No. 96-1835                                                          
          Application 08/207,116                                                      

               skilled in the clutch art even with the assistance of                  
               one skilled in the breather art could, without undue                   
               experimentation, select a suitable breather for use in                 
               conjunction with a rotatable housing of a fluid clutch                 
               which would prevent fluid from escaping while allowing                 
               gas to escape and air to enter [answer, page 7].                       
               The test for compliance with the enablement requirement is             
          whether the appellants’ disclosure, considering the level of                
          ordinary skill in the art as of the date of the appellants’                 
          application, would have enabled a person of such skill to make              
          and use the appellants’ invention without undue experimentation.            
          In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212 USPQ 561, 563-64               
          (CCPA 1982).  The specification need describe the invention only            
          in such detail as to enable a person skilled in the most relevant           
          art to make and use it.  When an invention, in its different                
          aspects, involves distinct art, that specification is adequate              
          which enables the adepts of each art, those who have the best               
          chance of being enabled, to carry out the aspect proper to their            
          specialty.  In re Naquin, 398 F.2d 863, 866, 158 USPQ 317, 319              
          (CCPA 1968).                                                                
               As essentially conceded by the examiner, the reference                 
          evidence relied upon by the appellants establishes that breather            
          structures of the sort disclosed by the appellants were widely              
          used in the mechanical arts at the time of the appellants’                  
          application to allow the passage of gases but not of liquids.               

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007