Appeal No. 96-4183
Application 08/235,625
speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to
supply deficiencies in the factual basis. See In re Warner, 379
F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967).
As such it is the examiner’s duty to establish a
factual basis for concluding that Lygas teaches or suggests the
placement of the receiver in the data handling sub. The examiner
has not met this burden. We have reviewed the disclosures of
Lord, Cox, Ely, Hoyle, Schuster, Moser, Waters, Brie and Hsu but
these references do not cure the deficiencies of Lygas in this
regard. For example, while Cox, Ely, Hoyle, Schuster and Moser
disclose downhole logging tools which include transmitters and
receivers, these references do not disclose tools which are
utilized during drilling.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 based on the use of Lygas as the primary reference. As
each of the independent method claims recite a step of receiving
an acoustic signal at a location on the drill collar and each of
the independent apparatus claims recite that the receiver is
mounted on a drill collar, we also will not sustain the
rejections of claims 10-16 and 19-24 based on Lygas as the
primary reference.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007