Appeal No. 2003-0331 Page 2
Application No. 09/106,608
produced by an oil well (specification, page 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set
forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Howell 5,443,120 Aug. 22, 1995
Shaw et al. (Shaw) 5,996,690 Dec. 7, 1999
(filed Sep. 26, 1997)
Claims 1-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Howell in view of Shaw.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 20) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 19 and 21) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, for the reasons which follow, we cannot sustain this rejection.
Each of independent claims 1, 7, 15 and 21 calls for, inter alia, two separate flow
paths each having an opening in a non-vertical well section having an angle of 40 to 90
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007