Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817
2. Claims 17, 18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 as
lacking written descriptive support; and
3. Claims 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Venema in view of Landers.
In reviewing the rejections, we consider the dispositive issues arising
from the contentions in the Brief filed April 6, 2005, the Answer filed June
2, 2005, and the Reply Brief filed August 1, 2005.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2
Claims 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 as indefinite.
According to the Examiner:
a. Claims 17 and 18 are rendered indefinite by the phrase “said
swelling section having a length or width sufficient to allow swelling of the
suspension stream” as recited in claim 17.
b. Claims 17-20 are rendered indefinite by the use of the relative term
“high pressure” in claims 17 and 19.
c. Claims 21 and 22 are rendered indefinite by the phrase “a pressure
sufficient to feed a horizontal drill head via a drill string” as recited in claim
21.
In each case, the issue before us is: Is there is a reasonable basis to
believe that the ordinary artisan in the art of horizontal drilling would not be
able to determine the scope of the claim? In each case, we answer this
question in the negative.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013