Appeal No. 2003-1210
Application No. 09/295,212
It is apparent that Bayh’s tubing string 20 corresponds to
Kramer’s drop pipe 11 and concomitantly that Bayh’s casing string
(not shown) corresponds to Kramer’s well casing 12. Viewed from
this perspective, an artisan with ordinary skill might have
combined the applied reference teachings by providing Bayh’s
casing string (not shown) with a guard device of the type taught
by Kramer for holding Bayh’s tubing string 20 within the casing
string pursuant to the manner in which the analogous drop pipe 11
of Kramer is held within his well casing 12. Certainly it is
clear that, in the absence of impermissible hindsight, the
artisan would not have disposed this guard device inside of
Bayh’s tubing string 20 in replacement of patentee’s electrical
connector means 45 (which is referred to by the examiner as a
“bridging means”). This is because such a disposition would be
analogous to using Kramer’s guard device inside of his drop pipe
11, and there is simply no teaching or suggestion in Kramer (or
in Bayh) of such a use.
There are other reasons for doubting that an artisan would
have replaced Bayh’s electrical connector means 45 with Kramer’s
guard device 10 as proposed by the examiner. For example, we do
not perceive and the examiner does not explain how the guard
device would be capable of performing the connecting function
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007