Annen avdeling PROTOKOLL Annen avdelings ... - Patentstyret

Annen avd. sak nr. 7592 80
patentet kan for øvrig ha en lateral produksjonsport i kommunikasjon med den radiale
produksjonsporten 78 i ventiltreet. Se avsnitt 11 i Hoppers erklæring.
D9 mangler ytterligere et trekk ved den foreliggende oppfinnelsen. Den foreliggende
oppfinnelsen muliggjør opptrekk av den andre nedre hengeren 56 i brønnhodet gjennom
ventiltreet 62. Som beskrevet i avsnittene 13–15 av Hoppers erklæring, kan ikke hengeren
med rør i D9 trekkes opp fra brønnhodet, fordi hengersammenstillingen 26, som i D1, har en
ytre diameter som er for stor til å passere gjennom produksjonsboringene i konnektoren og
treet. Siden hengeren og røret i D9 er opphengt i brønnhodet og ikke i treet 46, løser ikke D9
problemet som løses med den foreliggende oppfinnelsen.
Det vil ikke være nærliggende å kombinere D9 med D6, siden D6 er rettet mot et horisontalt
tre mens D9 er rettet mot et tre med en gjennomgående boring. Ingen av dem er rettet mot å
løse problemet som løses med den foreliggende oppfinnelsen. Se avsnitt 16 i Hoppers
erklæring.
Dersom Annen avdeling finner det nyttig å møte partene i den hensikt å innhente videre
forklaring av teknikken og den foreliggende oppfinnelsen, vil patenthaver delta med glede."
Fra den i brev av 23. januar 2010 vedlagte erklæringen fra Hans Paul Hopper hitsettes:
"DECLARATION OF
HANS PAUL HOPPER
_________________________________________
1. For the sake of brevity, I will not repeat my biography set out in paragraphs 1-4 of my
Declaration dated March 19, 2009 previously filed in this matter.
2. I have been authorized by Cameron to make this statement. The facts and matters contained
in this statement are true and are from my own personal knowledge unless otherwise stated when
they are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
3. I have been asked to render an opinion as to the teachings of D9 relied upon by the Opponent
and to comment on the statements made by Opponent in its submission dated September 21, 2009
and the Declaration of Murray McIntosh accompanying that submission.
4. McIntosh admits in his Declaration that from January 1985 to 1992 he was a consultant for
National Supply and not an employee and that in 1985 he was new to the wellhead industry. It is
my recollection that Mr. McIntosh was a “contract” draftsman for National Supply in 1985.
Whether there were any agreements or obligations of confidence between National and Hamilton
Brothers would not be his responsibility or within his knowledge or authority and therefore his
statement that he did not know of any such agreements is not proof that such agreements did not
exist. Thus he is not in a position to state what agreements were in place between National and
Hamilton and in particular was not in a position to make the Declaration statement: “The handing
over of the drawing was for their consumption without any clauses whatsoever limiting the
possibilities for either Hamilton Brothers or National that I am aware of to show the drawing to
whoever they may want to or to the pubic for that matter i.e. no written secrecy clause/contract
was signed by myself as a consultant or as I believe Hamilton Brothers for this proposal.”