Appeal No. 2005-1483 2
Application No. 90/005,947
the claimed subject matter may be ascertained with reference to claims 4-11, 13 and 14
appended to appellants’ brief.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as evidence of anticipation
and obviousness are:
Rebardi et al. (Rebardi) 4,858,690 Aug. 22, 1989
Restarick, H.L. “Mechanical Fluid Loss Control Systems Used During Sand Control
Operations”, SPE 23741, March 1992, pp. 455-465.
The Rejections
Claims 13 and 14, added during re-examination, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§112, second paragraph.
Claims 4-6, 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
article 23741 from the Society of Petroleum Engineers by Restarick.
Claims 4-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Rebardi
in view of the SPE 23741 reference.
Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the SPE
article in view of Rebardi.
For the details of these rejections reference is made to the examiner’s answer. For
appellants’ response with respect to the rejections reference is made to the appeal brief
and the reply brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007