Appeal No. 2002-2203 Page 6
Application No. 09/584,526
of formation fluids (brief, page 12). While appellants may be correct that neither
reference recognizes this fact, as long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the
references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require that
the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor. See In re
Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Dillon,
919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990), (en banc), cert. denied,
500 U.S. 904 (1991) and In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1304, 190 USPQ 425, 427-428
(CCPA 1976). Calcar discloses a method of detecting “kick” or “lost circulation”
conditions but does not specify any means to correct or compensate for such
conditions. Bruce teaches adjustment of lift gas flow rate as a means to control riser
base pressure so as to prevent lost circulation conditions. It thus would have been
obvious to adjust lift gas flow rate as taught by Bruce with the method of Calcar to
correct for a lost circulation condition once it has been identified.
Appellants’ argument on page 13 of the brief that Bruce does not teach or
suggest the method of injecting boost mud to prevent an influx of formation fluids is not
commensurate in scope with the language of claim 12. Claim 12 does not require
adjustment of both lift gas flow rate and boost mud flow rate. Rather, claim 12 recites a
step of adjusting “one or both” of the boost mud flow rate and lift gas flow rate. This
limitation is met by the adjustment of lift gas flow rate only, which appellants concede is
taught by Bruce.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007