Appeal No. 1997-4397
Application 08/395,698
reasoning that a swivel joint must be there to provide
continuous monitoring while the rig is rotating.
We are not persuaded that Sorensen fairly discloses or
suggests a swivel-type joint that permits continuous
withdrawal of vapors while the drill rig is rotating. It is
difficult to discern the extent of the teachings of Sorensen
after reading Appellant's disclosure without the use of
hindsight. However, since the swivel assembly is said to be
Appellant's invention, more than mere speculation about what
is disclosed is required to establish a prima facie case. See
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA
1967) (it is improper to resort to speculation or unfounded
assumptions to supply deficiencies in the factual basis for a
rejection).
Because Sorensen states that the working cycle is
repeated, the statement that monitoring may take place at
short intervals and "without interrupting the drilling
process" does not unambiguously imply (as the Examiner
assumes, FR6) that fluid is continuously conveyed through line
32 to the unit 9 through a swivel-type connection. Appellant
has a valid point that "without interrupting the drilling
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007