Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817
stream,” the Examiner finds this language to be new matter because the
limitation presumes that there is some minimum length and/or width
required to allow swelling, however, the Specification does not discuss such
a minimum length and/or width (Answer 3).
We cannot agree that there is no support on the basis provided by the
Examiner. The Specification describes a swelling section 16 which allows
swelling and which is a container, coiled tube, or section of drilling pipe.
Figure 1 illustrates a swelling section with a length and width. Inherently
the swelling section must have a length and width sufficient to allow the
swelling that is purported to take place within the structure.
With respect to the limitation in claim 21, “producing a pressure
sufficient to feed a horizontal drill head via a drill string” and “drill string”
in general, the Examiner contends this limitation contains new matter
because (1) there is no discussion of a “drill string,” (2) no discussion of a
relationship between a “drill string” and pressure, and (3) there is no
discussion of “sufficient pressure” in the original Specification (Answer 3).
That one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Appellant
was in possession of what is claimed is evidenced from the description of the
process as for horizontal drilling and that there is a section of drilling pipe
10 via which the suspension is fed to the drilling head 11 or the expansion
tool 17 (Specification 7:17-20). “Drill string” is simply another name for the
drill pipe 10. In order to accomplish the horizontal drilling described in the
Specification, a sufficient pressure must be present to feed the drill head via
the drill string (drill pipe 10) as claimed. That Appellant was in possession
of what is claimed is evident from the original disclosure.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013