Appeal 2007-3299
Application 10/747,011
1 ANALYSIS
2 There are two grounds of rejection on appeal, each of which is based
3 on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We affirm the Examiner’s rejections
4 for the reasons of record. For purposes of completeness we provide the
5 following additional commentary.
6 The United States Patent & Trademark Office is tasked with
7 interpreting claims as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re Zletz,
8 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Indeed, Zletz
9 held that the Board erred in reading unwritten limitations into claims on
10 appeal and stated that it was incorrect for the Board to construe claims
11 narrowly, such as is done in courts confronting issues of infringement and
12 validity.
13 Weatherford’s claims on appeal are directed to a gripping
14 arrangement and a method of rotating a wellbore tubular. Weatherford’s
15 claims on appeal are not limited to a particular friction or ploughing effect
16 when the gripping arrangement is used to rotate a wellbore tubular. Further,
17 Weatherford’s claims do not exclude scoring or damage to a wellbore
18 tubular when rotating the tubular with the claimed gripping arrangement.
19 The Examiner has demonstrated that the prior art teaches a gripping
20 arrangement that employs friction to turn a tube. The Examiner has
21 demonstrated that it was known in the gripping art to employ particles such
22 as diamond dust and glass to aid in gripping a pipe to be rotated. Based
23 upon the record presented, we find that Applicants’ claimed subject matter
24 combines familiar elements of the prior art according to known methods to
25 yield predictable results, the formation of a gripping arrangement having
26 particles to better grip the surface to be rotated. Weatherford has failed to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013