Appeal No. 96-1835
Application 08/207,116
The appellants’ evidence also shows that such breather structures
are rather simple and straightforward mechanisms. Although the
appellants have not disclosed any specific breather material for
use in their fluid clutch, it is not apparent, nor has the
examiner cogently explained, why one of ordinary skill in the
clutch art, given the widespread application of breather
structures demonstrated by the appellants’ evidence, would not
have been able to make and use without undue experimentation a
fluid clutch having at least one breather as recited in the
appealed claims. To the extent that the breather art is distinct
from the clutch art, it is also not apparent why one of ordinary
skill in the breather art would not have been able to design such
a breather without undue experimentation. While the appellants’
evidence does not disclose a breather for use in the specific
environment set forth in the appealed claims, i.e., a fluid
clutch, this evidence taken as a whole indicates that breathers
are relatively uncomplicated devices which are used in a number
of diverse environments. In this light, the construction without
undue experimentation of a breather suitable for use in a fluid
clutch as recited in the appealed claims would appear to have
been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art, be it
the clutch art or the breather art, at the time of the
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007