Appeal No. 1997-0594
Application No. 08/448,134
drilling. However, Bartel teaches that the sensors are
mounted on the drill mandrel, see column 2, lines 33 to 37,
and not in the drill bit as is claimed. Further, we find that
both Blondeau and Piety teach that electromagnetic energy is
emitted from the drill bit, i.e. Blondeau, column 3 lines 54
to 59 and Piety figure 1, column 2, lines 26 to 31. Both
Blondeau and Piety teach that the drill bit itself is the
electrode. However, we find that neither of these references
teach a separate sensor on the drill bit to emit the energy.
Further, we find that neither Blondeau nor Piety teach
receiving the reflected signal at a sensor on the drill bit,
for example, Blondeau teaches that the returned signal is
received by electrodes 15 and 16 on the surface and Piety
teaches that the return signal is received by electrodes 23,
24, and 25 in the drill string.
For the foregoing reasons we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 11, 13 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 12 and 14 are dependent upon claim 11, accordingly, the
rejection of these claims will not be sustained. Therefore
the decision of
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007