Appeal No. 1999-0444
Application No. 08/758,655
[w]ith respect to the rejection claim 41, appellants
rely on the same arguments presented in Issue 1
regarding claim 21. These arguments have been fully
responded by the examiner above.
With respect to Rubbo et al '793, appellants
contend that Rubbo et al '793 disclose a method of
setting two packers positioned above the perforating
gun and firing the perforating gun while it is
attached to the packers and that Rubbo et al '793
does not disclose separation of the perforating gun
from the packer prior to activating the gun. This
argument is again invalid. Rubbo et al '793 is
cited only to show the desirability and in some
circumstances, necessity of utilizing a deviated or
horizontal wellbore, for instance, a plurality of
deviated wells drilled from a single offshore
platform; a deviated or horizontal wellbore
traversing a production formation providing a higher
production rate. These advantages would motivate
[sic, would have motivated] one of ordinary skill in
the art to use the apparatus of Leutwyler et al as
modified by Ross '860 or Council et al '046 or ubbo
et al '494 in a deviated well as claimed.
Again we agree with the examiner’s rejection and response
to the arguments regarding claim 41.
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being as
being unpatentable over Leutwyler '803 in view of Ross '860 or
Council '046 or Crawford '642, and further in view of Rubbo
'494. As noted above, claims 22-25 and 33-37 will fall with
17
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007