Appeal No. 1997-4397
Application 08/395,698
Column 6, lines 61-65, states: "whereby its content of water
is displaced up through the liquid line 32 and further on from
this via the water/air sluice 7 to the instrument and control
unit 9 . . . ."
Appellant argues that "a structure capable of making a
fluid connection between a rotating drill and a stationary
analyzer is not disclosed in [Sorensen] because it would be
unnecessary to the operation of Sorensen's device" (Br6-7).
For example, because Sorensen discloses sending samples to the
surface in cycles at short intervals (col. 7, lines 18-23), it
does not teach or suggest the need for continuous monitoring.
Appellant argues that there is no evidence that the samples
are (or are capable of being) pumped up while the drill is
rotating (Br7): "While Sorensen does say that this sampling
may be done 'without interrupting the drilling process,' it is
clear from this statement that he means the drill string does
not need to be disassembled or removed from the well."
Appellant argues (Br8) that the Examiner erred in finding that
Sorensen disclosed continuous drawing up of vapor while the
rig is rotating and compounded the error by the circular
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007