Appeal No. 95-0562
Application 07/878,940
Thus appellants contend that the Hen process is incompatible
with the slow dissolving characteristics of the presently
claimed microcapsules. Like the examiner, we see no
inconsistency in the two operations. As the examiner points
out, Hen envisions the scale removing process as one in which
the composition is allowed to remain in place for significant
periods of time at high temperature downhole locations.
Specifically see Hen at column 4, lines 19 through 24.
Accordingly, under these circumstances, a slow release
microcapsule mechanism as disclosed by Mosier would be a
desirable option.
Appellants specifically argue that appealed claims 23 and
24, which refer to a treatment for at least about one month,
involve a process which resolves a specific problem and thus
are separately patentable. See the Brief at page 4. However,
Mosier indicates that a corrosion inhibitor in the prior art
capsules may be introduced at a desired level for from 60 to
90 days. See Mosier at column 6, lines 68 through 73. Thus
we agree with the examiner that process claims 23 and 24 do
not define unobvious subject matter. To the extent that
dependent claims 14, 16, 19, and 22 are argued, we note that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007