Appeal No. 1997-0594
Application No. 08/448,134
drilling. Further, on page 8 of the brief, Appellants assert
that Bartel teaches that the sensors should be mounted above
the drill bit and does not suggest that the sensors be placed
on the transverse face of a drill bit. Finally, Appellants
assert on page 10 of the brief, that neither Blondeau nor
Piety teach or suggest a sensor on the bit face which causes
emission and reception of signals with respect to a zone
uninvaded by drilling fluids.
Before turning to the references applied, we must analyze
the claims. In analyzing the scope of the claims, office
personnel must rely on the Appellant's disclosure to properly
determine the meaning of terms used in the claims. Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980, 34 USPQ2d 1321,
1330 (Fed. Cir.) (en banc), aff'd, 116 S. Ct. 1384 (1996). We
find that the scope of claims 1 and 11 includes a sensor
mounted on the face of the drill bit which emits
electromagnetic signals into the earth formation ahead of the
drill bit and receives the signals which are reflected off of
the formation. Claim 1 contains the limitation “a sensor
mounted in said bit body and adjacent said transverse face in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007