Appeal 2007-1101
Application 10/248,535
control lines noted earlier. These views at pages 9 and 10 of the Answer
have not been questioned or challenged by Appellant in the Reply Brief.
Thus, the Examiner’s views in the Answer that there are corresponding
teachings of Ciglenec and Meister leading the artisan to prefer the
advantageous approaches followed by Meister and the system of Ciglenec
are well founded. In addition to the advantages discussed at page 16, lines
19 through 26, of improving the accuracy of the overall determination of
parameter such as pressure parameters noted by the Examiner, we observe
page 3, line 30 through page 4, line 3, indicates that Meister’s advantages
include reducing the time required for taking samples and measurements and
reducing the risk of system clogging. Further advantages are noted at page
18, lines 18 through 21, which indicate that Meister’s invention provides a
faster evaluation of formations by using variable rates of piston drawdown
and pressure build up in his various embodiments.
Thus, these observations in addition to those of the Examiner provide
strong basis within 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the combination of the teachings of
Ciglenec and Meister notwithstanding Appellant’s arguments in the Brief
and Reply Brief to the contrary. We strongly believe that the artisan would
not characterize the teachings of Meister, and for that matter those of
Ciglenec, as not teaching the claimed oscillator since an examination from
an artisan’s perspective of the teachings and showings of both references
clearly would have led the artisan to have concluded otherwise. In a similar
manner, to the extent argued in the Brief and Reply Brief that the references
teach away from their combinability, it is noted first that this is merely an
allegation with no developed reasoning, and we have found no evidence,
teaching or statement in either reference that would have discouraged the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013