Appeal No. 2001-2686
Application Re08/932,718
the appealed claims define a connector shaft which is
splined at one end, but which may or may not be splined at
the other end.
Admittedly, appellants’ specification sets forth only a
single embodiment having splines at both ends of the
connector shaft for non-rotatably coupling the connector
shaft to the motor drive shaft and the rotor. However, the
claimed invention pertains to a mechanical art which is
considered to be predictable so that a broad claim may be
enabled by disclosure of a single embodiment. See Spectra-
Physics v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d 1524, 1530, 3 USPQ2d
1737, 1743 (Fed. Cir. 1987) citing In re Cook, 439 F.2d 730,
735, 169 USPQ 298, 301 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, the level
of skill in the relevant art as evidenced by the prior art
of record is sufficiently high to conclude that the skilled
artisan would have been fully aware of well known prior art
connections or couplings other than splined connections for
coupling the connector shaft to the rotor and the motor
drive shaft. For example, appellants’ specification (see
column 1, lines 21-25 of appellants’ original patent) states
that U-joints may be used to accommodate the orbital motion
of the rotor. The examiner has not demonstrated that splined
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007