Appeal No. 97-4183
Application 08/424,128
Kistler. While Kistler (column 1, lines 29-36) provides a
broad teaching of changing nozzle size in order to adapt to
various ?drilling conditions,? such a change is apparently
effected when the drill bit is withdrawn from the well (as
distinguished from the arrangement of the Russian publication
wherein the change from one nozzle to the other is made while
the bit is in the well). The examiner also makes much of the
fact that Kistler states that the core 14 in nozzle 1 may be
?controllably? expelled from the nozzle. We must point out,
however, that Kistler only apparently controllably expels this
core for the purpose of expediting withdrawal of the bit from
the well (see column 2, lines 36-42). Absent the appellants’
own teachings, we can think of no cogent reason why one of
ordinary skill in this art would have been motivated to
combine the disparate teachings of the Russian publication and
Kistler in the manner proposed. This being the case we will
not 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.
In summary:
The rejection of claims 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007