Appeal No. 2006-1500
Application No. 10/701,325
The appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine
the teachings of Tubel and More such that More’s inductive
coupler is used to communicate electrical signaling in Tubel’s
main bore with an electrical device in one of Tubel’s lateral
branches (brief, pages 5-7). That motivation is to provide the
aforementioned benefit of inductive coupling disclosed by More.
The appellants, therefore, have not convinced us of
reversible error in the rejection of claim 1. Consequently, we
affirm the rejection of that claim and claim 20 that stands or
falls therewith.
Claim 2
Claim 2 requires that a first inductive coupler portion is
attached to a connector mechanism adapted to connect equipment in
a main bore to equipment in a lateral branch.
The appellants argue “although Appellant agrees with the
Examiner that an inductive coupler portion would typically be
attached to some structure in a well, there is no teaching or
suggestion in either Tubel or More of attaching an inductive
coupler portion to a connector mechanism adapted to connect
equipment in the main bore to equipment in the lateral branch”
(brief, page 9).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007