Appeal No. 1997-4397
Application 08/395,698
with the Sorensen device without the hindsight benefit of
having read Appellant's specification.
We have read Johnston and find no teaching that the drill
string is intended to rotate while the dome 37 of the sound
pickup unit 31 is over the open end of the drill string. The
sound pickup unit 31 is placed over the end of a stationary
drill string during a test to measure fluid flow by the noise
produced. Since the sound pickup unit is mounted to drill
string the dome 37 cannot rotate relative to the drill string.
If this is the best evidence that can be produced to show a
swivel-type joint, then we must question the Examiner's
finding that swivel-type joints were "ubiquitous" in the
drilling art and that this is the reason no details are
provided in Sorensen.
In summary, the Examiner has failed to establish that the
combination would have made obvious a swivel-type assembly for
permitting continuous vapor monitoring while the drill is
rotating and has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. The rejection of claims 1-13 is reversed.
REVERSED
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007