Appeal 2007-1474
Application 10/192,833
relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24
USPQ2d at 1444; Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
ANALYSIS
As we found supra, Goldman does not disclose drilling a borehole through
at least part of a production zone with a drill bit selected to optimize at least one
production parameter, as recited in claim 1. Goldman also fails to disclose a
method for selecting parameters to optimize a production performance parameter
in a drilled borehole, as recited in claim 4. As such, Goldman does not anticipate
the subject matter of claims 1 and 4 or their respective dependent claims 2, 3, 7,
and 8.
Further, although Johnston discloses a means to enhance production from a
well bore, Johnston does not disclose achieving this enhanced production by using
a drill bit selected to optimize at least one production performance parameter, as
recited in claim 1, because Johnston’s cutting apparatus 30 is not a drill bit. The
definition of drill bit provided by the Examiner requires that “[t]he bit is on the
bottom of the drill string ...” (Final Office Action 8, n. 1). Johnston’s cutting
apparatus 30, which is used to enhance production, is disposed above the bottom of
the drill string. As such, Johnston does not disclose using a drill bit to enhance
production. Similarly, Johnston does not disclose a method of selecting parameters
of a drill bit to optimize production performance.
Neither Goldman nor Johnson discloses optimizing at least one production
performance parameter of a drill bit. As such, we find that the Examiner’s
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013