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.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007