Carl Bright

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 3, 2020

14926508 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/926,508 10/29/2015 Carl Bright OKC03680 1618
33900 7590 03/03/2020
Hall Estill Attorneys at Law
(MDMMY)
100 NORTH BROADWAY
SUITE 2900
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102-8820
EXAMINER
VALENTINER, JEREMY SCOTT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
danderson@hallestill.com
okcipdocketing@hallestill.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CARL BRIGHT

Appeal 2018-006650
Application 14/926,508
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as IBall
Instruments LLC (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2018-006650
Application 14/926,508

2
Appellant’s invention is directed to “a portable Mudlogging gas
detection system [that] determines the total amounts and various
composition of an incoming mixture of gases extracted from a drilling fluid”
(Spec. 1:3–5).
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a portable case housing at least one computing device
connected to a wide band infrared emitter configured to
emit focused infrared light into a Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) interferometer;
a gas cell housed within the portable case and adapted to
receive a sample gas and a processed light from the FTIR
interferometer to irradiate the sample gas;
a detector positioned in the portable case to collect unabsorbed
processed light from the gas cell;
a controller of the at least one computing device adapted
to measure a first testing condition within the portable
case and alter a second testing condition within the
portable case in response to a predicted testing condition
within the portable case computed by the controller based
on the first testing condition measured by the controller;
at least one redundant detector positioned in the portable case
and configured to detect hydrocarbons in the gas sample
from the FTIR interferometer; and
at least one pump connected to the gas cell and positioned to
move the gas sample from the gas cell to the detector
during the first testing condition and to the at least one
redundant detector positioned in the portable case in
response to the predicted testing condition.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.)
Appeal 2018-006650
Application 14/926,508

3
Appellant appeals the following rejections2:
1. Claims 1–9, 15–18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gunn (US 2013/0334412 A1, published Dec.
19, 2013)) in view of Bright (US 2014/0208840 A1, published
July 31, 2014).
2. Claims 10–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Ganguli (US 2004/0015300 A1, published Jan. 22, 2004) in
view of Bright, and Wong (US 2015/0053861 A1, published Feb.
26, 2015).
3. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Gunn in view of Bright, and Wong.
Appellant argues the claims as a group with claim 1 as representative
of the group (Appeal Br. 7). Any claim not argued separately will stand or
fall with our analysis of the rejection of argued claim 1. See also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Gunn, Bright,
Ganguli, and Wong with respect to claim 1 are located on pages 6 to 10 of
the Final Office Action.
Appellant argues that none of Gunn, Bright, Ganguli, and Wong teach
or suggest a computing device having a controller that alters a second testing
condition in response to a predicted testing condition computed on a first

2 The Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection of claims 1–20
(Ans. 3).
Appeal 2018-006650
Application 14/926,508

4
testing condition (Appeal Br. 8). Appellant contends that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood from pages 5 to 6 of the
Specification that the controller 190 detects a first testing condition and then
predicts a testing condition and alters the second testing condition (Appeal
Br. 8). Appellant argues that Bright does not predict future test conditions or
proactively alter test conditions (Appeal Br. 8). Appellant contends that
Bright alters detector activation, detector calibration, or testing environment
after a threshold testing accuracy has been met (Appeal Br. 8). Appellant
argues that Bright uses a reactive control operation, not a predictive testing
condition, to correct problems with threshold accuracy (Appeal Br. 9).
Appellant contends that Bright teaches away from using a predictive
operation (Appeal Br. 9). Appellant contends that there is no motivation,
except for impermissible hindsight, to combine Bright’s teachings with
Gunn or Ganguli and Wong to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1
(Appeal Br. 9–10).
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner finds that the
Specification does not provide the specific “prediction algorithm” in its
software code or instructions on how the prediction is made (Ans. 5). The
Examiner finds that Bright’s self-calibration process which uses
environmental conditions to compute new gas detection thresholds to ensure
outputted gas results have not been jeopardized by errant, mis-calibrated, or
inappropriate test detectors is no different from Appellant’s disclosed
method (Ans. 5–6). The Examiner finds that Bright’s predetermined logical
algorithm (PLA) has the ability to simultaneously compare readings from all
three detectors and makes logical considerations, including shutting down a
sensor (Ans. 6). The Examiner finds:
Appeal 2018-006650
Application 14/926,508

5
Here, Bright discloses the controller which can predict future
test conditions or proactively alter test conditions by being able
to compare measurements, i.e. first testing condition, to correct
and self-calibrate "unexplained and unexpected detector results"
by correcting a calibration point and self-calibrating a sensor to
alter a second testing condition, i.e. predicted testing condition
to alter a second testing condition (Bright: ¶¶76-80).
(Ans. 6).
Appellant does not dispute these findings (no Reply Brief was filed).
We agree with the Examiner that Bright does not discourage or
otherwise teach away from using predictive operations (Ans. 7). The
Examiner properly finds the Specification does not distinguish the claimed
predictive operations relative to what is disclosed in Bright. Although
Appellant argues that there is a difference between Bright’s “reactive
processing” and the claimed predictive methodology, Appellant does not
explain why the Examiner’s claim construction is improper (Ans. 4–6). We
have reviewed the Specification, including pages 5 and 6 cited by Appellant,
and we find that the Examiner’s construction is supported. The
Specification discloses that the ability to proactively predict testing
conditions is based upon prior logged environmental and operational
conditions (Spec. 6:10–12). Bright discloses after threshold accuracy has
not been met (i.e., an operational condition) then the gas detectors may go
through a self-calibrate mode (¶ 104). In self-calibrate mode, new gas
detection thresholds are determined and used (¶ 104). The Examiner
reasonably finds that Bright’s new thresholds values and their use
correspond to the second testing condition computed based on the first
testing condition measured by the controller (Ans. 6).
Appeal 2018-006650
Application 14/926,508

6
Appellant’s arguments about the lack of motivation to combine
Bright’s teachings with Gunn or Ganguli and impermissible hindsight are
not persuasive. Bright and Gunn are each directed to measuring a gas
sample in a drilling fluid. The Examiner’s reasons for the modification of
Gunn with Bright’s teachings is to respond to readings and select the best
possible detector to provide the most accurate measurements (Final Act. 10).
Appellant does not show reversible error in this finding of the Examiner
(Appeal Br. 10). The Examiner’s rejection is not based on impermissible
hindsight, but rather the teachings of the references and what those teachings
would have been suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 15–18,
20
103 Gunn, Bright 1–9, 15–18,
20

10–14 103 Ganguli,
Bright, Wong
10–14
19 103 Gunn, Bright,
Wong
19
Overall
Outcome
1–20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2018-006650
Application 14/926,508

7

AFFIRMED