Appeal No. 1997-0594
Application No. 08/448,134
Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37
USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W. L. Gore &
Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ
303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)).
On page 5 of the answer, the Examiner identifies all of
the claimed elements that Unterberger teaches. Further, the
Examiner states “Unterberger et al. fail to disclose mounting
the sensor on the transverse face of a drill bit.” In this
same passage the Examiner cites Bartel et al. as evidence that
it is “well-known to provide logging devices having both wire
line and MWD (Monitoring While Drilling) embodiments” (meaning
of abbreviation added). From this the Examiner concluded that
it would have been obvious to mount Unterberger’s sensor on
the face of a drill bit. On pages 8 and 9 of the answer, in
an alternative rejection the Examiner adds Piety and Blondeau
as evidence that "it is well-known to propagate signals from
the head of a drill string."
Appellants argue on page 7 of the September 22, 1998
appeal brief (brief), that Unterberger does not suggest that
sensors should be used on freshly exposed surfaces during
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007