Appeal No. 2005-1483 9
Application No. 90/005,947
formation from the well bore pressure while still permitting the gravel packing of the
formation for sand control.
The select flow screen system on page 457 uses a production screen with a non-
perforated base pipe. The screen has a length of production tubing trapped inside and
sealed at both ends so that no fluid flow is permitted through the apertures of the screen
during the gravel packing operation. Note that the inner production string is later
perforated or a sliding sleeve is opened using a wireline to put the well on production.
In our view, the structure described in the Select Flow Screen paragraph of the SPE
23741 article (page 457) anticipates claim 4. It is our further finding that contrary to
appellants’ arguments the examiner is not relying on the ports mentioned in the tell-tale of
the SPE article but has expressly relied on the return ports located at the bottom of the
production screen. See Answer at page 6. This appears to be the only issue appellants
take with respect to the examiner’s findings of fact. The balance of appellants’ arguments
are directed to the examiner’s conclusions of law, i.e., the examiner’s interpretation of
claim scope we have discussed above. Since the only issue that appellants argue with
respect to the factual findings is not credited, we are in agreement with the examiner that
the Restarick paper anticipates appellants’ claim 4 and the claims dependent thereon, viz.,
claims 5, 6 , 10 and 11. The rejection under section 102 is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the obviousness rejections based on the combined
teachings of the Rebardi and the Restarick paper, we will sustain the rejection of claims
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007