Appeal No. 2006-3061
Application No. 10/405,405
THE REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1 through 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bailey in view of Wardley. The examiner’s rejection is on
pages 3 and 4 of the answer. Throughout the opinion we make reference to the
briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, appellants’ arguments set forth in
the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellants and the examiner, for the
reasons stated infra we will not sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 1
through 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
On page 2 of the brief, appellants assert that Wardley teaches a two trip
system for drilling and cementing the casing. On page 3 of the brief,
appellants assert that though Wardley teaches port collars in the casing,
Wardley teaches that the drill string must be removed from the casing and a
specialized cementing tool used to make use of the ports in the casing wall to
cement the casing to the adjacent formations. On page 3, of the brief,
appellants state that while Bailey teaches drilling and cementing the casing in
one trip, Bailey performs the operation in a different manner. Appellants state
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007