Ex Parte Clark et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2010

09471659 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LLOYD D. CLARK, JR., JOSEPH M. STEINER, JR.,
SUZANNE D. RICHARDSON, RAMON HERNANDEZ-MARTI,
TERRY L. MAYHUGH, BART J. BOMBAY, JOHN A. BOOKER
and GILBERT R. MARTINEZ
____________

Appeal 2009-000528
Application 09/471,659
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: March 31, 2010
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KENNETH W. HAIRSTON,
and JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134 from the final
rejection of claims 2 to 9, 12 to 14, 16, 17, 20 to 26, and 28 to 53. We will
reverse.
Appeal 2009-000528
Application 09/471,659

2
The disclosed invention relates to a well-logging telemetry system and
method that has a downhole telemetry cartridge and an uphole telemetry unit
connected via a wireline cable. The telemetry data from the downhole
telemetry cartridge is transmitted to a receiver in the uphole telemetry
cartridge as analog signals on a plurality of carrier frequencies. The
downhole transmitter has transmission power control circuitry that controls
transmission power applied to the wireline cable in response to an
adjustment signal transmitted from the uphole telemetry unit (Figs. 1-4;
Spec. 3, 4, 6-13, and 25).
Claim 8 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
8. A telemetry system for transmitting well-logging data from at least
one downhole tool to a surface data acquisition system, the at least one down
hole tool having a first tool data input/output interface, the telemetry system
comprising:
a. a downhole telemetry cartridge connected to the at least one
downhole tool via a second tool data input/output interface connected to the
first tool data input/output interface, wherein the downhole telemetry
cartridge receives a bitstream from the at least one downhole tool over the
second input/output interface and comprising:
a transmitter connected to the second tool data input/output interface,
and having a logic operable to cause transmission of the bitstream as analog
signals on a plurality of carrier frequencies to an uphole telemetry unit
connected to the downhole telemetry cartridge by a wireline; and
Appeal 2009-000528
Application 09/471,659

3
a cable driver having transmission power level control circuitry
having logic to control the transmission power to optimize the total
transmission power applied to the wireline cable in response to a received
adjustment signal transmitted to the downhole telemetry cartridge from the
uphole telemetry unit and wherein the adjustment signal is a function of
cable length, cable material, cable temperature, and cable geometry;
b. wherein the uphole telemetry unit is further connected to the
surface data acquisition system via an acquisition computer interface and
comprising a receiver connected to the surface data acquisition system and
having logic operable to receive the analog signals on the plurality of carrier
frequencies, to demodulate the received signals into a bitstream, and to
output the bitstream to the acquisition computer via the acquisition computer
interface;
overall power setting logic to measure the received signal amplitude
and, in response to the measure of the received signal amplitude, to transmit
the adjustment signal to the downhole telemetry cartridge; and
logic to cause the overall power setting logic to be executed prior to
determining bits-per-carrier and power-level per carrier; and
c. a wireline cable providing an electrical connection between the
downhole telemetry cartridge and the uphole telemetry unit, wherein the
analog signals are transmitted in an uphole direction on the wireline cable.

Appeal 2009-000528
Application 09/471,659

4
The prior art1 relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gardner US 5,365,229 Nov. 15, 1994
Van Kerckhove US 5,812,599 Sep. 22, 1998
Bae US 5,832, 387 Nov. 3, 1998
Baird US 6,469,636 B1 Oct. 22, 2002
Cioffi US 6,473,438 B1 Oct. 29, 2002
Isaksson US 6,493,395 B1 Dec. 10, 2002
Matsumoto US 6,522,731 B2 Feb. 18, 2003
Bremer US 6,647,058 B1 Nov. 11, 2003
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 13, 20, and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Gardner, Isaksson, and Bremer.
The Examiner rejected claims 2 to 7, 9, and 42 to 44 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Gardner, Cioffi, and Baird.
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Gardner, Cioffi, and Isaksson.
The Examiner rejected claims 14, 16, 17, 21 to 25, 28, 29, 31 to 35, 37
to 41, 48, and 51 to 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of
Gardner, Matsumoto, and Cioffi.
The Examiner rejected claims 26, 45 to 47, 49, and 50 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Gardner, Bae, and Cioffi.
The Examiner rejected claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Gardner, Bae, Cioffi, and Van Kerckhove.

1 The filing dates/effective filing dates of the applied references are
presumed to be prior to the filing date of the subject application.
Appeal 2009-000528
Application 09/471,659

5
Turning first to claims 8, 13, 20, and 30, Gardner describes a well-
logging telemetry system that uses Digital Signal Processing (DSP)
techniques to provide digital communication over the wireline logging cable
(Fig. 1; Abstract).
The Examiner acknowledges:
Gardener et al. does not disclose the
apparatus having logic operable to cause
transmission of the bitstream as analog signals on a
plurality of carrier frequencies and logic operable
to receive the analog signals on the plurality of
carrier frequencies and optimizing the . . . total
transmission power applied to the wireline in
response to a received adjustment signal
transmitted from the uphole telemetry unit wherein
the adjustment signal is a function of cable length,
cable material, cable temperature, and cable
geometry; wherein the uphole telemetry units [sic]
includes logic . . . to repeatedly measure the
received signal amplitude and to transmit the
received adjustment signal in response to the
measurment [sic] to the downhole telemetry
cartridge.
(Final Rej. 5)
According to the Examiner:
However, Isaksson et al. discloses logic
(Fig. 4, column 7, lines 5-19) operable to cause
transmission (Fig. 4, Transmitter) of the bitstream
as analog signals (multi-level pulses) on a plurality
of carrier frequencies and logic (Fig. 4, Receiver)
operable to receive the analog signals (multi-level
pulses) on the plurality of carrier frequencies by
the use of DMT modulation and logic to control.
DMT modulation causes transmission of the
Appeal 2009-000528
Application 09/471,659

6
bitstream as analog signals on a plurality of carrier
frequencies.
(Final Rej. 5)
Based upon the teachings of Isaksson, the Examiner concludes (Final Rej. 5)
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to modify
the transmitter and receiver of Gardener et al. with the transmitter and
receiver logic of Isaksson et al. since Isaksson et al. states DMT modulation
handles frequency dependent loss and noise in cables in an efficient manner
and also provides high bit rate traffic over the cables (column 1, lines 14-23
and column 7, lines 5-20).”
With respect to the claimed control of “the transmission power to
optimize the total transmission power applied to the wireline cable in
response to a received adjustment signal transmitted to the downhole
telemetry cartridge from the uphole telemetry unit” that was found to be
missing in the teachings of Gardner, the Examiner states:
Bremer et al. further discloses optimizing a
transmission power applied to a cable (DSL) by
measuring the SNR (column 5, lines 38-41) of a
signal transmitted through the transmission cable
and comparing this measured SNR of the
transmitted signal to a minimum SNR (see column
6, lines 1-15). The comparison is then used to
generate a power control signal (see column 6,
lines 1-15) as function of cable noise which can be
caused by the length/geometry of the cable (see
column 2, lines 35-38) and cable (copper) material
(see column 1, lines 49-51), wherein the power
control signal is transmitted to the transmitter used
to adjust the signal power level of the transmitted
signal before it is transmitted though [sic] the
transmission cables (column 6, lines 1-15). The
Appeal 2009-000528
Application 09/471,659

7
power control can be used in a DMT system absent
any bits-per-carrier of power-level-per carrier
adjustment (see column 10, lines 1-10).
(Final Rej. 5, 6)
In view of the teachings of Bremer, the Examiner concludes (Final Rej. 6)
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
the Gardner and Isaksson system with the transmission power control
teachings of Bremer “since Bremer et al. states the transmission power
control can optimize the transmission cable length used in the system (see
column 10, lines 18-20).”
Appellants argue inter alia (App. Br. 33) that “Gardner’s telemetry
systems were not confronted with frequency dependent loss and noise” and
“[t]hus, it is not logical that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be
motivated to combine these references on the notion that Isaksson et al.
states DMT modulation handles frequency dependent loss and noise in
cables in an efficient manner and also provides high bit rate traffic over the
cables because that was not a problem faced in Gardner.
In response, the Examiner contends (Ans. 38) that “[e]ven though
Gardener discloses using a ‘single carrier[,]’ there is still noise applied to
this carrier frequency through the cable.”
Based upon the foregoing, we have to determine whether the
Examiner erred by finding that it would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan to apply the frequency dependent loss and noise teachings of
Isaksson and the transmission power control teachings of Bremer to the
well-logging telemetry system teachings of Gardner.
Appeal 2009-000528
Application 09/471,659

8
Although Isaksson recognizes (col. 7, ll. 5-7) that “[a] multi-carrier
modulation technique, such as DMT, handles frequency dependent loss and
noise in twisted pair-cables in an efficient manner,” we agree with the
Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 33) that Isaksson is a solution to a
nonexistent problem in the single carrier, digital wireline logging cable
communication technique used by Gardner. Although Bremer recognizes
(col. 1, ll. 49-51; col. 2, ll. 23-42; col. 6, ll. 1-15; col. 10, ll. 1-17; Abstract)
that the variables of transmission power level and data rate are affected by
and are adjusted based on the signal to noise ratio in a DSL copper based
communications system using DMT, we agree with Appellants’ arguments
(App. Br. 33-38) that the non-existent noise problem in Gardner would not
have required the transmission power level control teachings of Bremer.
In summary, the Examiner erred in finding that the skilled artisan
would have applied the frequency dependent loss and noise teachings of
Isaksson and the transmission power control teachings of Bremer to the
well-logging telemetry system teachings of Gardner. Thus, the obviousness
rejection of claims 8, 13, 20, and 30 is reversed because we agree with
Appellants conclusion (Reply Br. 8) that the Examiner’s articulated reasons
for modifying the teachings of the reference to Gardner with the teachings of
Isaksson and Bremer do not support a legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR
Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Turning next to claims 2 to 7, 9, and 42 to 44, the Examiner indicates
(Final Rej. 10, 11) that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify Gardner with the DMT data transmission teachings of
Cioffi (col. 1, ll. 21-25; Abstract) and the wireline well-logging telemetry
Appeal 2009-000528
Application 09/471,659

9
system “power transmission modes (eigenmodes)” teachings of Baird (col.
5, l. 1 - col. 6, l. 16) to avoid or compensate for the noise problem in
Gardner. As indicated supra, and as repeated by Appellants (App. Br. 39), it
would not have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify the teachings of
Gardner with those of Cioffi and Baird because noise and distortion are
nonexistent problems in the single-carrier system described by Gardner. For
this reason, the obviousness rejection of claims 2 to 7, 9, and 42 to 44 is
reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claim 12 is reversed because the non-
existent noise and distortion problem in Gardner is not in need of a fix via
the noise/distortion avoidance and compensation teachings of Cioffi and
Isaksson as indicated supra (App. Br. 42).
Turning next to claims 14, 16, 17, 21 to 25, 28, 29, 31 to 35, 37 to 41,
48, and 51 to 53, we agree with the Examiner (Final Rej. 16, 17) that
Matsumoto describes the use of a constellation encoder 67 and DMT
modulation, but such teachings do not cure the noted shortcomings in the
teachings of Gardner and Cioffi. Accordingly, the obviousness rejection of
these claims is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 26, 45 to 47, 49, and 50 is
reversed because the Examiner’s reasoning does not have a rational
underpinning to support a conclusion of obviousness of the specifically
claimed well-logging telemetry system training sequence based upon the
teachings of Gardner, Cioffi, and the subchannel power level teachings of
Bae (Abstract).
Appeal 2009-000528
Application 09/471,659

10
The obviousness rejection of claim 36 is reversed because the bits per
carrier and power level teachings of Van Kerckhove (col. 11, l. 20 – col. 13,
l. 39) do not cure all of the noted shortcomings in the teachings of Gardner,
Bae, and Cioffi.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

BRIGITTE ECHOLS
SCHLUMBERGER WELLS SERVICES
200 GILLINGHAM LANE, MD-9
SUGAR LAND, TX 77478