Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817
From the above analysis, we determine that both the surfactant and the
polymer of Venema are “drilling fluid additive mediums” within the
meaning of claim 19.
With regard to Appellant’s contention that Venema’s pump 29 does
not pump pressurized drilling fluid suspension to a horizontal drill head (Br.
43-44), we note that claim 19 contains no such limitation. Claim 19 merely
requires that the pump “provide a pressurized drilling fluid suspension
stream.” The claim is open to any destination including those other than the
horizontal drill head.
Turning to the language “pressurizing said water stream or drilling
fluid suspension stream in the vicinity of said selected location by flowing
such stream through a high pressure pump,” this language requires
“pressurizing … in the vicinity of said selected location,” (claim 19
(emphasis added) not placing the pump “in the vicinity of said selected
location.” The pressurization must occur “by flowing such stream through a
high pressure pump” but placing the pump upstream will pressurize the
stream at all points downstream until there is a significant pressure drop. In
the context of Venema, the water in throughout conduit 16 is pressurized by
pump 29. Venema introduces both the surfactant and polymer additives at
selected locations within the pressurized conduit 16. Therefore, Venema
teaches “pressurizing said water stream … in said vicinity of the selected
location” as claimed.
The pressurizing is accomplished “by flowing such stream through a
high pressure pump” as claimed. (Claim 19). We note that, as established
above with regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, “high
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013