Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817
requires further mixing to form a drilling mud whereas Landers teaches
drilling mud that is already mixed (Br. 43-44, 49-50; Reply Br. 15).
First, we do not agree with Appellant’s interpretation of Venema.
Venema describes the water-soluble polymer as a stabilizer for drilling mud
(Venema, col. 1, ll. 8-16). This polymer is incorporated into a solution in
the process of Venema which activates the polymer, i.e., swells it, as it is
released into the water. Venema states that “the resultant activated solution
can be readily employed for one or more of the commercial applications
previously mentioned.” (Venema, col. 1, ll. 63-65). In other words, the
polymer is a stabilizer, and the solution product of Venema is a drilling mud.
Venema further indicates that the surfactant can be a clay. Appellant’s own
Specification indicates that it was well known to use such mixtures as
drilling muds in horizontal drilling, and that in these processes the drilling
fluid is fed to the drill from a tank (Specification 2:7-20). While Venema
does not describe how the drilling mud is provided to the drilling head, it
would be conveyed to the drilling head by some means. One way evident
from the art is by discharging the activated solution into a tank such as that
taught by Landers.
Nor can we agree that Landers teaches away from the combination.
The premix 56 of water and surfactant residing in container 54 of Landers
must be formed somehow. Venema describes a method of making a
surfactant and water solution.
2. Claim 20
Appellant’s contention with regard to the second group of claims is
that Venema’s pump 29 is upstream, not downstream from the selected
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013