Ex Parte Chen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 24, 2010

11284540 (B.P.A.I. May. 24, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SHILIN CHEN
____________

Appeal 2009-002087
Application 11/284,540
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: May 24, 2010
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-22, 26-31, and 39-45. On April
16, 2007, Appellant confirmed the election of the above claims and
withdrew claims 23-25 and 32-38 from consideration subject to filing a
divisional application (Application SN 11/875,098, now US Patent
Appeal 2009-002087
Application 11/284,540

2
7,624,823). Therefore, the corresponding claims should be canceled from
this application in the event of further prosecution.1 The Appellant appeals
therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
The invention at issue on appeal.
Roller cone drill bits may be formed with cutting elements and cutting
structures optimized to increase downhole drilling life of an
associated drill bit. The cutting zone, load zone and wear zone of each
cutting element may be analyzed by finely meshing each cutting
element into many small segments. The number of contacts between
each meshed segment and portions of a downhole formation may be
determined during discrete drilling time periods. A distribution of
sliding velocity for each segment relative to portions of the downhole
formation may also be determined during the discrete drilling time
periods. Force profiles for each cutting zone may be used to determine
associated loading zones. A wear profile for each cutting element may
be estimated by combining the associated force profile with the
associated distribution of sliding velocity.

(Abstract.)
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows.

1 Additionally, information disclosure statements were filed on January 21,
2009, June 18, 2009, and December 11, 2009, which the Examiner should
consider in any further prosecution.
Appeal 2009-002087
Application 11/284,540

3
1. A method for designing a roller cone drill bit to form a
wellbore in an earth formation, comprising:

determining a cone profile for each roller cone projected onto a
vertical plane passing through an associated cone rotational axis;

initially designing the roller cone drill bit with the cone profile
for each roller cone and at least one roller cone drill bit design
parameter selected from the group consisting of type of cutting
element, size, configuration and number of cutting elements,
respective offset of each roller cone, number of roller cones, number
of rows of cutting elements on each roller cone and number of cutting
elements in each row;

initially designing the roller cone drill bit using the location of
each cutting element and orientation of each cutting element on each
roller cone;

simulating drilling a portion of the earth formation with the
initial at least one roller cone drill bit design parameter and at least
one drilling parameter selected from the group consisting of weight on
bit, rate of penetration, rate of drill bit rotation, depth of borehole,
bottom hole temperature, bottom hole pressure, deviation of the
wellbore from vertical, distance from an associated well surface, type
of formation, hardness of formation and diameter of the wellbore; and

determining at least one characteristic for each cutting element
associated with the roller cone drill bit design selected from the group
consisting of a respective cutting zone, loading zone, stress zone and
wear zone for each cutting element based on the drilling simulation
with the at least one initial roller cone drill bit design parameter and
the at least one drilling parameter.

Appeal 2009-002087
Application 11/284,540

4
C. REJECTIONS
Claims 1-16, 18-22, 26-31, and 39-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Huang (US 2003/0195733 A1).
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang as applied to claims 11-14 above, and further in
view of Singh (US 6,856,949 B2).

II. ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding Huang teaches the claimed
invention recited an independent claim 1? Specifically, does Huang teach
"determining a cone profile for each roller cone projected onto a vertical
plane passing through an associated cone rotational axis?" Does Huang
teach "determining at least one characteristic for each cutting element
associated with the roller cone drill bit design selected from the group
consisting of a respective cutting zone, loading zone, stress zone and wear
zone for each cutting element based on the drilling simulation with the at
least one initial roller cone drill bit design parameter and the at least one
drilling parameter?"

III. ANALYSIS
ANTICIPATION
Appellant contends that Huang does not teach "determining a cone
profile." (App. Br. 8). In response to Appellant's contention that Huang
Appeal 2009-002087
Application 11/284,540

5
does not teach "determining a cone profile," the Examiner at page 40 of the
Answer maintains that Huang "clearly teaches having a respective cone
diameter profile available/determined as a bit design parameter." We agree
with the Examiner that Huang teaches a "cone profile." Appellant in the
Brief and Reply Brief identify that the "cone profile is defined" and refer to
page 13, lines 12-16, of the Specification. We note the proffered definition
in the Specification begins with the cone profile "may be defined...."
Appellant provides no further analysis or comparison of the Examiner’s
proffered "cone diameter profile" as taught by Huang with respect to the
asserted definition in the Specification to differentiate the claimed "profile"
from the prior art "profile." We find Appellant to be in the best position to
differentiate the differences between the proffered "cone diameter profile"
and the "cone profile" wherein both are "cone profiles" and Huang further
teaches preferred methods for bit design parameter inputs, including the use
of 3-dimensional CAD solid or surface models to facilitate in geometric
input. (Ans. 40). Therefore, we do not find Appellant's argument to be
persuasive of error in the Examiner's proffered showing of anticipation.
Appellant further contends that Huang does not teach the claimed "a
respective cutting zone, loading zone, stress zone and wear zone," but
Appellant again does not provide any reasoned analysis of why the proffered
teaching of Huang does not teach any one of the single alternatives listed in
the claim limitations. At pages 40-41 of the Answer, the Examiner
maintains that paragraph [0070] of Huang teaches:
Appeal 2009-002087
Application 11/284,540

6
an optimal set of parameters includes: rate of penetration, cutting
element wear, forces distribution on the cones, force distribution
on cutting elements, forces acting on the individual cones during
drilling, total forces acting on the bit during drilling, and the rate
of penetration for the selected bit. This output information may be
in the form ... for each bit design

whereby Huang teaches having characteristics available/determined for each
cutting element selected from Appellant's group. Therefore, we find that
Huang teaches the invention as recited in independent claim 1 and
Appellant’s reiteration of the claim language and generalized contention that
Huang does not teach the claimed limitation does not show error in the
Examiner's proffered showing of anticipation of independent claim 1.
With respect to independent claim 10, Appellant contends that the
anticipation rejection is improper because the cited reference does not
expressly or inherently teach all of the claimed elements. (App. Br. 9).
Appellant contends that Huang does not teach the claimed "a respective
cutting zone, loading zone, stress zone and wear zone," but Appellant does
not provide any reasoned analysis of why the proffered teaching of Huang
does not teach any one of the single alternatives listed in the claim
limitations, as discussed above. Therefore, Appellant's argument is not
persuasive of error in the Examiner's showing of anticipation.
With respect to the claim 10 limitation "determining contacts between
each mesh segments of each cutting element and mesh segments of the earth
Appeal 2009-002087
Application 11/284,540

7
formation limitation during the selected drilling time interval," Appellant
merely argues that:
As described in ¶ [0060] of Huang, however, this process is a
'simplifying assumption' that determines the 'net resulting force' rather
than the complicated process of determining contacts between each
mesh segment of each cutting element and mesh segments of the
earth formation during the selected drilling time interval. Nowhere
does Huang teach this limitation.

(App. Br. 10.)

We find this generalized argument to be unpersuasive and does not
show error in the Examiner's proffered showing of anticipation.
With respect to the claim 10 limitation "determining the cutting zone
and respective force profile for each cutting element," Appellant argues:
As described in ¶ [0060] of Huang, however, this process is a
'simplifying assumption' that determines the 'net resulting force' rather
than the complicated process of determining the cutting zone and
respective force profile for each cutting element. Nowhere does
Huang teach this limitation. Instead, Huang uses his mesh to provide a
summation of the total cutting area of an insert and then calculates a
gross force on the insert (See, e.g., Huang, ¶ 0068). This total force
does not provide or even address the distribution of forces across a
cutting element.

(App. Br. 11). We find Appellant's arguments to go beyond the express
language of independent claim 10 and is unpersuasive of error in the
Examiner's showing of anticipation based upon Huang.
Appeal 2009-002087
Application 11/284,540

8
With respect to independent claim 11, Appellant contends that Huang
does not teach the claimed "the group consisting of a respective cutting
zone, loading zone, stress zone, and wear zone," "determining the mesh
segments of each cutting element which cut into portions of the earth
formation during a selected drilling time interval," nor "determining the
cutting zone for each cutting element based on the number of mesh
segments having contact with portions of the earth formation during the
selected simulated drilling time interval." (App. Br. 11).
With respect to the first argued limitation, we find Appellant's
argument unpersuasive. As discussed above with respect to the second
argued limitation, Appellant's argue:
As described in ¶ [0060] of Huang, however, this process is a
'simplifying assumption' that determines the 'net resulting force' rather
than the complicated process of determining the mesh segments of
each cutting element which cut into portions of the earth
formation during a selected drilling time interval. Nowhere does
Huang teach this limitation. Instead, Huang uses his mesh to provide a
summation of the total cutting area of an insert and then calculates a
gross force on the insert (See, e.g., Huang, ¶ 0068). This total force
does not provide or even address the distribution of forces across the
mesh segments of a cutting element.

(App. Br. 12-13). We find Appellant's argument is not commensurate in
scope with the language of independent claim 11 which does not require a
distribution of forces across the mesh segments of a cutting element.
Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of error in the Examiner's
showing of anticipation. The Examiner further identifies that paragraphs
Appeal 2009-002087
Application 11/284,540

9
[0059] and [0060] of Huang discussed the use of finite element analysis
where each cutting element is analyzed and the Examiner associates the
finite element analysis as "mesh analysis" and "mesh segments." (Ans. 42).
We agree with the Examiner's correlation of the teachings of Huang. We
find no responsive arguments in Appellant’s Reply Brief to the Examiner’s
reliance upon the finite element analysis. Therefore, we find Appellant's
above generalized argument to be unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's
finding of anticipation.
With respect to Appellant's third argument in relation to "determining
the cutting zone for each cutting element based on the number of mesh
segments having contact with portions of the earth formation during the
selected simulated drilling time interval," Appellant argues:
As described in ¶ [0060] of Huang, however, this process is a
'simplifying assumption' that determines the 'net resulting force' rather
than the complicated process of determining the cutting zone for
each cutting element based on the number of mesh segments having
contact with portions of the earth formation during the selected
simulated drilling time interval. Nowhere does Huang teach this
limitation.

(App. Br. 13). We find this generalized argument to be unpersuasive and
does not show error in the Examiner's proffered showing of anticipation and
Appellant does not provide any reasoned analysis of why the proffered
teaching of Huang does not teach the claim limitations. Furthermore, the
Examiner further identifies that paragraphs [0059] and [0060] of Huang
discussed the use of finite element analysis where each cutting element is
Appeal 2009-002087
Application 11/284,540

10
analyzed and the Examiner associates the finite element analysis as "mesh
analysis" and "mesh segments." (Ans. 42). We agree with the Examiner's
correlation of the teachings of Huang. We find no responsive arguments in
Appellant’s Reply Brief to the Examiner’s reliance upon the finite element
analysis. Therefore, we find Appellant's above generalized argument to be
unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's finding of anticipation.
With respect to independent claim 26, Appellant argues that Huang
does not teach “determining a cone profile” as recited in Claim 26. (App.
Br. 14). Yet, the language of the claim does not set forth “determining. . .”
and only sets forth “selecting . . . .” Therefore, we find Appellant's above
generalized argument to be unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's finding
of anticipation. Appellant further argues that:
As can be clearly seen in the cited passage, however, Huang
does not teach determining respective cutting zones for each
cutting element. The cited passage, instead, lists some factors which
may contribute to drilling performance. No part of Huang may be
properly said to teach determining respective cutting zones for each
cutting element.

(App. Br. 14). Appellant further argues:
As described in ¶ [0060] of Huang, however, this process is a
“simplifying assumption” that determines the “net resulting force”
rather than the complicated process of determining respective force
profiles and respective wear profiles for each cutting zone. As
previously pointed out, Huang fails to teach cutting zones at all, so
cannot be said to teach this limitation either. Instead, Huang uses his
mesh to provide a summation of the total cutting area of an insert and
Appeal 2009-002087
Application 11/284,540

11
then calculates a gross force on the insert (See, e.g., Huang, ¶ 0068).
This total force does not provide or even address the force profile
across a cutting zone.

(App. Br. 15). As discussed above with respect to claim 1, we find the
Examiner’s reliance upon paragraph [0070] teaches the claimed invention.
Furthermore, we find the Examiner’s discussion of finite element analysis at
page 42 of the Answer to further support the Examiner’s position. We agree
with the Examiner's correlation of the teachings of Huang. Therefore, we
find Appellant's above generalized argument to be unpersuasive of error in
the Examiner's finding of anticipation of independent claim 26.
With respect to independent claim 39, Appellant contends that Huang
does not teach the claimed “a respective cone profile” and “determining a
respective cutting zone, loading zone, stress zone or wear zone.” (App.
Br. 16). We find that the Examiner has further supported the rejection at
page 40 of the Answer in the responsive arguments to identify paragraphs
[0035] and [0070] to show the two argued features. As discussed above, we
find no response by Appellant to the Examiner’s further support, and we find
the Examiner’s position to be reasonable. Therefore, we find Appellant's
above generalized argument to be unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's
finding of anticipation of independent claim 39.

Appeal 2009-002087
Application 11/284,540

12
OBVIOUSNESS
Appellant has presented no separate arguments for patentability with
respect to dependent claim 17. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of
claim 17 since we do not find the base arguments persuasive and group it
with its parent claim 11.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the Examiner did not err in the
anticipation rejection of claims 1-16, 18-22, 26-31, 39-45, and the
obviousness rejection of claim 17.

V. ORDER
We affirm the anticipation rejection of claims 1-16, 18-22, 26-31, 39-
45, and the obviousness rejection of claim 17.

Appeal 2009-002087
Application 11/284,540

13
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).

AFFIRMED

rwk

BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
PATENT DEPARTMENT
98 SAN JACINTO BLVD., SUITE 1500
AUSTIN, TX 78701-4039