Appeal No. 1999-0444
Application No. 08/758,655
Regarding claim 41, the examiner rejects claim 41 (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 Rubbo '494 and further in
view of Rubbo 793 by stating,
Leutwyler et al, as modified by Ross '860 or Council
et al '046 or Crawford '642 and Rubbo et al '494,
disclose the invention substantially as claimed (see
the above rejection of claim 21) except for the
limitation that the wellbore in which the
perforating gun and packer is run is a deviated
wellbore. However, it would have been a matter of
choice and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to use the apparatus of Leutwyler et al '803 as
modified by Ross '860 or Council et al '046 or
Crawford '642 and Rubbo et al '494, in a deviated or
horizontal wellbore because for many years the
desirability and in some circumstances, necessity of
utilizing a subterranean wellbore having a non-
vertical or horizontal portion traversing a
production formation has been known and appreciated
in the prior art (e.g., a plurality of deviated
wells drilled from a single offshore platform; a
horizontal wellbore providing a higher production
rate) as taught by Rubbo et al '793 (see column 1,
lines 19-25).
In response to appellants’ arguments regarding claim
41 (section 11 of the examiner’s answer) the examiner
states,
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007