Appeal 2007-1474
Application 10/192,833
ISSUE
Appellant contends Goldman fails to disclose using a drill bit selected to
optimize at least one production parameter, as recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 5-9),
and fails to disclose a technique for optimizing a production performance
parameter, as recited in claims 4 and 6 (Appeal Br. 10-11). Appellant further
contends that Johnston likewise fails to disclose selecting a drill bit to optimize a
production performance parameter (Appeal Br. 11-12).
The Examiner found that Goldman discloses optimization of hole cleaning
efficiency, which is related to factors such as drill cutting size, the percentage of
cutting removed from the wellbore during drilling, and the composition of the
drilling mud (Answer 7)2. The Examiner thus determined that Goldman discloses
optimizing at least one production parameter because the Specification defines drill
cutting size as one production parameter (Answer 8). The Examiner further found
that Johnston discloses using a drill bit 10 to drill the production zone where the
drill bit is used to optimize or enhance the production of the zone by increasing the
surface area of the borehole wall (Supp. Answer 6-7).
The issues before us are whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that Goldman anticipates claims 1-4, 7, and 8 and in holding that
the combination of Goldman and Johnston renders claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 10
2 The Examiner mailed an Answer on November 16, 2005 (“Answer”) and a
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer on September 29, 2006 (“Supp. Answer”). The
Supplemental Answer incorporates by reference the Examiner’s comments on hole
cleaning efficiency made in the original Answer (Supp. Answer 7).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013