Ex parte MULLINS et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 96-3109                                                          
          Application No. 08/445,121                                                  


                    a) illuminating a wall of the borehole with light                 
          from a source in the drill bit,                                             
                    c) detecting any fluorescence from the wall with a                
          detector in the bottom hole assembly, and                                   
                    d) analyzing the detected fluorescence to determine               
          the presence of hydrocarbon in the formation.                               

          45. A method as claimed in claim 15, comprising                             
          illuminating the wall using a light source selected from the                
          group consisting of visible light sources, infrared light                   
          sources, ultraviolet light sources and combinations thereof.                
                                                                                     
               No references are relied on by the Examiner.                           
               Claims 12, 45, 47, 50, 52 and 60 stand rejected under                  
          35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, in that the specification                 
          fails to provide an enabling disclosure for the embodiment                  
          using an infrared source or for the embodiment using a                      
          visible/infrared source to illuminate the wall of the                       
          borehole.                                                                   
               Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the                  
          Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for                 
          the respective details thereof.                                             
                                       OPINION                                        
               After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do                
          not agree with the Examiner that claims 12, 45, 47, 50, 52 and              
                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007