Appeal No. 2005-1483 7
Application No. 90/005,947
conclusion of law that the examiner’s construction of the argued limitation is the correct
construction of the claim limitation at issue.
Under the sixth paragraph of section 112, we are required to interpret means-plus-
function limitations in light of appellants’ specification. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189,
119-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(en banc). Accordingly, we construe the
“means for controlling the position of said isolation valve...” from the last portion of claim 4
as the shifting tool 43 on the lower portion of the tool and its equivalents.
The following are the examiner’s findings of fact regarding the SPE 23741 article
that we adopt as our own:
On page 457 and in Figure 8, a system is disclosed including a screen
(Figure 8) which when using a washpipe (page 457, second column, lines
32-40) for a circulating path allows the lower return ports located at the
bottom of the screen or inside the telltale to be used during gravel packing.
At the conclusion of the gravel packing, these lower return ports are then
closed with a shifting tool as the washpipe is pulled out of the hole.
Subsequently, the sliding valve in the screen is opened using wireline to put
the well on production.
As stated on page 456 of this reference, washpipes are used with gravel
pack assemblies to provide the option of circulating a gravel pack. These
gravel pack assemblies are cross-overs to permit the deposition of the gravel
outside the screen. More specifically, as for claim 4, the SPE reference
discloses and shows:
''a gravel packing assembly having an inner bore and an
exterior surface, said gravel packing assembly
having at least one aperture from said inner bore
to said exterior surface'' (see the tubular member
having apertures associated with the sliding
sleeve in Figure 8,' and page 457, column 2: lines
27-46),
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007