Appeal No. 1997-1397
Application 08/411,245
acknowledged by the examiner is that the claims call for the
step of generating vibrations into the earth and the step of
detecting the resulting earth movements to be carried out at
the surface of the earth, whereas in Farr one of the
generating and detecting steps is carried out at the surface
and the other is carried out at a subsurface location in a
well bore. The examiner considers, however, that Smith
teaches that it is well known in the seismic prospecting art
to use vibrating means and geophones that are both located at
the surface of the subterranean formation under investigation.
Based on this teaching, the examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify Farr by locating both the oscillators and the
detectors thereof at the surface of the earth rather than one
at the surface and the other in the well bore, the motivation
being “[to] provide a cost savings (no need to drill a well)
and a corresponding mobility for the prospecting system”
(answer, page 6).
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007