Appeal No. 2006-3061
Application No. 10/405,405
that Bailey teaches a system where the drill is raised in the casing, cement is
delivered through the drill string and pressure is applied to deliver the cement
to the annulus around the casing. Bailey raises the drill string in the casing so
that if the pressure fails the drill will not be fouled by the cement. Appellants
argue that Bailey has no use for holes in the casing wall to deliver cement.
Further, on page 3 of the reply brief, appellants state that “[a]dding openings to
the casing in Bailey from Wardley just makes no sense since it defeats the
purpose of the internal pressurization of the casing so key to keeping the
cement out of it. In short, the one trip system of Bailey becomes inoperative
with the casing holes of Wardley.”
On page 4 of the answer, in the statement of the rejection, the examiner
asserts that “having openings in the wall of the casing would allow the cement
to flow to the annulus more quickly and thus reduce the cementing time.”
Further, on pages 4 and 5 of the answer, the examiner, in response to
appellants’ arguments states:
The appellant states the primary reference is [sic, in]support of the
rejection is Wardley ' 574. This statement is incorrect. As disclosed in
the final rejected [sic] dated October 7, 2004, the primary reference used
in the rejection is Bailey '413. The Wardley '574 reference is the
secondary reference. Therefore, the appellant's [sic] arguments are not
responsive to the rejection on record. Clearly, the rejection using Bailey
'413 in view of Wardley '574, as set forth in the above rejection, meets
the limitations of the claimed invention and no substantial arguments are
provided to the contrary.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007