Appeal No. 1999-1095
Application 08/751,632
suggests to one skilled in the art the use of a
coloring agent for the present invention. Applicant
respectfully assert that no suggestion is made
within Ennis ‘429 that the use of coloring agents is
obvious for techniques that don’t require coloring
agents in order to function, but rather merely to
help to improve the technique. (Emphasis in
original).
The argument is also not commensurate in scope with what the
appellants have claimed. The claims on appeal do not limit
the purpose or need for which a coloring agent is used or the
degree of such purpose or need. For instance, independent
claim 13 recites merely the following with respect to a
coloring agent: “displacing and replacing the wellbore fluid
in said selected interval of a borehole with a transparent
water mixture having a viscosifying gent, a coloring agent,
and optionally sufficient salt to increase the mixture
density.”
The request for rehearing is also not an opportunity for
a dissatisfied appellants to introduce new arguments for the
first time, i.e., arguments not presented in the appeal brief.
Accordingly, all of the arguments contained in the rehearing
request concerning unexpected results are improper and not
entitled to consideration. In any event, the appellants have
not submitted objective evidence in the form of declarations
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007