Appeal No. 2005-0663
Application No. 09/682,142
appellants. In our view, the claim 1 language "in-well
transmitting the signal by a wireless communication" only
requires that an in-well signal be somehow transmitted by
wireless communication. Similarly, the claim 44 language "a
transmitter associated with the sensor in well to wirelessly
transmit a signal" requires only that the signal from the sensor
in well be transmitted wirelessly. Hence, we find that the
Figure 8 embodiment of Misquitta depicts the presently claimed
wireless transmission of a signal generated by a sensor located
in the well. Moreover, even if the appealed claims defined the
wireless transmitter as being in the well, we are satisfied that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
place the wireless transmitter in the most practical and
advantageous location, including within the well, if that proved
to be the case.
As for the remaining arguments advanced by appellants with
respect to the other claims on appeal, we subscribe to the
reasoning set forth by the examiner in the Answer.
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the examiner.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007