Appeal No. 1999-0444
Application No. 08/758,655
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
The examiner rejects claim 21 (section 10 of the
examiner’s answer) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leutwyler '803 in view of Ross '860 or
Council '046 or Crawford '642, and further in view of Rubbo
'494 by stating,
Leutwyler et al disclose the invention substantially
as claimed except that the perforating gun and
packer are lowered into the well on a wireline
whereas the claim calls for a tubing. However, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to run
the well tool of Leutwyler et al on coiled tubing
since it is well known in the art to run well tools
into a wellbore on coiled tubing rather than a
wireline because of its many advantages over
wireline such as having a greater strength, usable
in a horizontal well completion, as evidenced by
Council et al '046 (see column 1, lines 17-32) or
Ross '860 (see column 13, lines 5-20) or Crawford
'642 (see column 1, lines 22-43).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007