Appeal No. 97-4183
Application 08/424,128
to) one of ordinary skill in the art that the separate nozzle
systems can also be provided with nozzles of different
dimensions or sizes, and that a change from one size nozzle to
another may be effected ?by merely closing one nozzle system
and opening the other? (i.e., in the same manner that eroded
nozzles are taken out of service) in order to adapt to
different drilling conditions, irrespective of whether the
nozzles being taken out of service are eroded. Thus, the
teachings of Miller are not limited to only taking eroded
nozzles out of service as the appellants would have us believe
but, instead, are also directed to changing from one size of
nozzle to another when drilling conditions dictate.
With respect to claim 11, the artisan would also
reasonably infer that the change in the dimension or size of
the nozzles to ?adapt to different drilling conditions? is done
for the purpose of increasing drilling efficiency. In
addition, the artisan as a matter of ?common sense? (see In re
Bozek, supra) would not change the size of the nozzles in
accordance with Miller’s teachings without first ?predicting
the effect? of such a change.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007