Appeal No. 2003-0331 Page 4
Application No. 09/106,608
deficiency, the examiner relies on the teachings of Shaw and determines that it would
have been obvious to modify Howell to include such a detector and a pump being
operationally controlled by the detector in order to maximize the rate of production of
hydrocarbon and to determine when the producing formation was no longer producing
hydrocarbon (answer, pages 4-5).
Shaw discloses a down-hole hydrocyclone separator in a wellbore for separating
water from oil, with an elaborate array of sensors, valves and pumps used in
conjunction with the hydrocyclone separator to achieve the proper separation and to
optimize the performance of the separator. The control system and sensors are
described in detail in columns 3-5 of Shaw.
As pointed out by appellants (brief, page 7), Shaw teaches a hydrocyclone
separator which is much more complex than a gravity separator and requires an
elaborate system of sensors and controllers to ensure its proper operation. This is in
contrast to a gravity separator which relies on gravity, not the operation of a plurality of
fluid control devices, for its operation. We find in neither Howell nor Shaw an
appreciation of a need for detection and flow control equipment in a gravity separator of
the type taught by Howell to optimize the performance of the separator, much less any
suggestion to locate a detector in the vicinity of one of the openings as called for in
appellants’ independent claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007