Appeal No. 96-4183
Application 08/235,625
Claims 7, 10-16 and 19-24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the references as stated
above for claims 7 and 10-16 “when taken with Hsu et al” (Final
Rejection, page 8).
Rather than reiterate the respective positions of the
examiner and the appellants in support of their respective
positions, reference is made to the examiner’s answer (Paper No.
14) and the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 13) for the full
exposition thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellants’ invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner, and the respective positions
advanced by appellants in the brief and the examiner in the
answer. As a consequence of this review, we conclude that the
rejections of the examiner should not be sustained.
Independent claim 7 calls for, inter alia, the step of
receiving, at a location on the drill collar, acoustic energy
returned form the surrounding earth formations.
Considering first the rejection based on the use of
Lygas as the primary reference, Lygas discloses a method for
performing logging while drilling a borehole traversing an earth
formation, including drilling the borehole with a drill string 13
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007