Appeal No. 2000-0053
Application 08/829,863
We reverse the aforementioned rejection.
Clay discloses a process which eliminates dead volume
between the outlet and bottom of a storage tank and also
restores the tank, and which differs from the appellants’
claimed process only in that Clay does not combine
unconsolidated solids with a gelation solution which is placed
in the tank (col. 1, line 62 - col. 2, line 17; col. 3, line
21 - col. 4, line 15).
Sydansk (col. 1, line 66 - col. 2, line 24; col. 3,
lines 22-36; col. 4, lines 35-60) and Smith (col. 1, line 57 -
col. 2, line 16; col. 2, lines 29-57; col. 3, lines 3-8) both
disclose processes for reducing the permeability of a high
permeability region of a subterranean hydrocarbon-containing
formation, thereby improving the vertical and areal
conformance of the formation, by injecting into the formation
a mixture of a gelation solution, which is essentially the
same as that used by Clay, and an inert filler such as crushed
or naturally fine rock material or glass beads.
The appellants argue that the processes of Sydansk and
Smith are nonanalogous art with respect to the appellants’
claimed process (brief, pages 8-12).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007