Appeal No. 97-4183
Application 08/424,128
unpatentable over Miller in view of Kistler. We will not,
however, sustain the rejection of claims 9-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the Russian publication in
view of Kistler.
Considering first the rejection of claims 9-14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller in view of
Kistler, it is the examiner’s position that:
Miller et al ’346 disclose that the
initially closed nozzle is opened by fluid
pressure when the initially open nozzle
becomes eroded (column 4, lines 15-39).
However, Miller et al ’346 also disclose in
column 4, lines 4-8 that the dimensions and
pattern of the initially closed nozzle
system can be different from those of the
initially open nozzles to permit the bit to
adapt to different drilling conditions by
merely closing one nozzle system and
opening the other.
* * *
Kistler, Jr. ’413 discloses that it is
desired to use different nozzle dimensions
for different drilling conditions during
the course of drilling a borehole, such as
type and depth of formation, rotary speed,
weight on bit mud weight, etc. (see column
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007