Appeal No. 2005-1483 10
Application No. 90/005,947
4-11 and the separate rejection of claims 7-9, also. Rebardi discloses a gravel packing
assembly and method essentially as claimed except that Rebardi does not disclose an
isolation valve that is operable by a means connected to the crossover assembly. As
noted above, we have construed this means as a shifting tool. As further noted above,
Restarick teaches the use of a shifting tool for controlling the position of an isolation valve.
Restarick additionally teaches that an isolation valve that closes the gravel-packed
formation off from the well bore is desirable to prevent fluid loss and formation damage
and excessive cost. Thus, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made
to have modified the Rebardi gravel packing tool with an shiftable isolation valve.
We note appellants’ argument that a washpipe is not required and is preferably not
present in the current invention. However, a washpipe is not precluded by the claims on
appeal. This argument is simply irrelevant to the examiner’s rejection. With respect to the
argument that Rebardi would be impermissibly changed if modified as taught by the
Restarick paper, this argument is simply an argument that Rebardi does not anticipate
appellants’ claim. However, the examiner has established by a preponderance of the
evidence that it would have been obvious to modify the assembly and process of Rebardi.
So, yes, Rebardi is changed when the teachings of the Restarick paper are incorporated
therein.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007