Appeal No. 1999-0444
Application No. 08/758,655
Leutwyler et al use electrical signals to
actuate the packer and perforating gun. However,
Rubbo et al '494 teach actuating one or more
downhole well tools (e.g., packers, perforating
guns) carried by a production or work string conduit
with an acoustical signal or a pressure signal as
claimed (column 3, lines 32-46; column 4, lines 1-29
and lines 44-49). Rubbo et al '494 further disclose
that the actuation of downhole well tools in such a
manner provides an unusually economical, yet highly
reliable system for effecting the remote operation
of downhole well tools (column 5, lines 30-41). It
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to set
the packer or fire the gun of Leutwyler et al '803
as modified by Ross '860 or Council et al '046 or
Crawford '642 by an acoustical signal or a pressure
signal in view of the teaching of Rubbo et al '494
for the advantages pointed out above.
We agree with the examiner.
In response to appellants’ arguments regarding claim 21
(section 11 of the examiner’s answer) the examiner states,
[a]ppellants argue that the Leutwyler reference does
not suggest the use of coiled tubing in place of a
wireline configuration nor does Leutwyler teach how
the elements which comprise the single-trip
apparatus would operate with coiled tubing. This
argument is of no consequence as it attacks the
Leutwyler reference individually. Where the
rejection is a combination of references, appellant
cannot show unobviousness by so attacking the
references. In re Young et al, 56 CCPA 757, 403
F.2d 754, 159 USPQ 725.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007