Appeal No. 97-4183
Application 08/424,128
While the examiner has also relied on Kistler (column 1,
lines 29-36) for a broad teaching of changing nozzle size in
order to adapt to various ?drilling conditions,? Miller, as we
have noted above, clearly teaches such an arrangement.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection
of claims 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Miller in view of Kistler.
Turning to the rejection of claims 9-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the Russian publication in
view of Kistler, the examiner has taken the position that it
would have been obvious to open the closed or inactive nozzle
of the Russian publication for reasons other than erosion or
plugging in view of the teachings of Kistler. We do not
agree. The Russian publication only teaches taking one nozzle
out of service when it becomes plugged and opening a
replacement nozzle in response to a rise in pressure of the
drilling fluid caused by the plugged nozzle. There is no
teaching or suggestion whatsoever in the Russian publication
of changing the flow rate. Apparently recognizing this
deficiency, the examiner has also relied on the teachings of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007