Ex Parte Colvin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201612413770 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/413,770 0313012009 30903 7590 03/01/2016 CRAIN, CATON & JAMES FIVE HOUSTON CENTER 1401 MCKINNEY, 17TH FLOOR HOUSTON, TX 77010 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Dan Colvin 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 33849-258 9783 EXAMINER MANSFIELD, THOMAS L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2016 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): wjensen@craincaton.com jhudson@craincaton.com ipdocket@craincaton.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAN COL VIN and GARY SCHOTTLE Appeal2013-007640 1 Application 12/ 413, 77 02 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed December 3, 2012) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed May 24, 2013), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed March 26, 2013), and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed May 25, 2012). 2 Appellants assert "[t]he real party in interest is Landmark Graphics Corporation, which is the assignee of record and a subsidiary of Halliburton Energy Services, Inc." (Appeal Br. 4). Appeal2013-007640 Application 12/413,770 CLAIMED fNVENTION Appellants' claimed invention is directed generally to determining an optimal number of platforms, which includes eliminating the least valuable platforms (Spec. i-f 3). Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for determining which platform in a project to remove, comprising: [a] calculating a first minimum value for each platform in the project on a computer system using a first-platform-value algorithm; [b] calculating a second minimum value for each platform in the project on the computer system using a second- platform-value algorithm; [ c] compiling a list comprising each platform in the project with at least one of a lowest first minimum value and a lowest second minimum value; [ d] calculating, on the computer system, how many targets each platform in the list hits; and [ e] determining which platform in the project to remove based on how many targets each platform in the list hits. REJECTION Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Prange (US 2006/0151214 Al, pub. July 13, 2006) and Cullick (US 2004/0220790 Al, pub. Nov. 4, 2004). ANALYSIS Independent claims 1and11, and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the 2 Appeal2013-007640 Application 12/413,770 Examiner's proposed combination of Prange and Cullick fails to disclose or suggest "determining which platform in the project to remove based on how many targets each platform in the list hits," as recited by limitation [ e] of independent claim 1, and similarly recited by independent claim 11 (Appeal Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 4). In rejecting independent claims 1 and 11, the Examiner relies on both Prange and Cullick to disclose "determining which platform in the project to remove based on how many targets each platform in the list hits," as recited by limitation [ e] of claim 1, and similarly recited by independent claim 11 (see Ans. 16; see also id. at 7). Prange is directed to a system "for automatically designing a well development plan" which determines "an optimum plan by minimizing the total cost as a function of existing and required new platforms, the number of wells, and the drilling cost of each of the wells" (Prange i-f 2; see also id. at i16). Prange determines well-target locations by assocrntmg "a well production value" which "may be based upon various data sources, such as proposed yield data determined by well simulation techniques, as well as various cost data and economic data" (id. at i-f 7; see also id. at i-fi-1 44 and 55- 58). Based on these "well production value data, one or more well paths are generated" (id.). Prange also discloses that "a clustering algorithm may be used in assigning one or more well platforms to a surface well location" (id. at i-f 14; see also id. at i-f 64 ). Prange discloses [t]he function C(platform) returns the fixed cost per platform before any wells are considered. While this cost may vary from platform to platform, it remains fixed for the purposes of generation one or more well paths leading from a platform to a well-target location. The function C(well slot) returns the fixed 3 Appeal2013-007640 Application 12/413,770 cost per well path on a platform before the costs of drilling are considered. (Id. at i-f 46). Prange further discloses that "the generation of well paths may include the removal of cost ineffective well targets from the list of available well targets if the expense of generating a well path to these well-target locations outweighs the predicted cost benefit of including them" (id. at ,-r 4 7). Cullick is directed to a system for evaluating "the economic impact of uncertainties associated with the planning of a petroleum production project" (Cullick, Abstract). Cullick describes that its "decision management system" simulates "a value chain including a number of reservoirs, wells, facilities, and couplings between the wells and the facilities" and "highlight[ s] uncertainties and risks to capital investment" (Cullick i-f 104). Cullick discloses that its system "allow[ s] a user to specify a global schedule for a petroleum exploration and production project" (id. at i-f 154) which "represents a project from start to finish" (id. at i-f 162). More particularly, Cullick's system "generates schedules for the drilling and completion of wells and schedules for the establishment of facilities ... includ[ing] production start dates per well" (id. at i-f 132). Cullick also discloses that its "schedule manager may display an estimated start date, an estimated end date and an estimated production start date for each schedule" (id. at i-f 165). Cullick further discloses that a user may also remove wells and/or facilities from a schedule using the schedule assigner interface. The user may select one or more wells and/or facilities that have been previously assigned to a schedule (or schedules), and invoke a removal operation to de-assign the selected wells and/ or facilities from the schedule (or schedules). 4 Appeal2013-007640 Application 12/413,770 (Id. at il I 72). The Examiner maintains that Prange' s disclosure that "the removal of cost ineffective well targets from the list of available well targets if the expense of generating a well path to these well-target locations outweighs the predicted cost benefit of including them" discloses the argued limitation (Ans. 16-17 (citing Prange i-fi-147 and 60-69)). But, as Appellants correctly point out, "[t]he removal of cost ineffective well targets from a list of available well targets, however, does not teach the removal of a platform in the project from the list," as recited by independent claims 1 and 11 (Appeal Br. 14). And, to the extent Prange discloses "optimization techniques" (see e.g., Prange i-fi-1 60-69), Prange describes that its "optimization techniques" are related to the optimal placement of platforms, and not related to "determining which platform in the project to remove based on how many targets each platform in the list hits," as recited by independent claims 1 and 1 1. The Examiner also maintains that Cullick discloses the argued limitation (see Ans. 17 (citing Cullick i-f 165-178, Figs. 6-8 and 12, and the Abstract). However, the addition of Cullick, at the Examiner's cited portions, also fails to disclose "determining which platform in the project to remove based on how many targets each platform in the list hits," as recited by independent claims 1 and 11. As Appellants point out (see Appeal Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 4), "removing a facility from a particular schedule does not mean that it is removed from the global schedule that represents a project from start to finish" (Reply Br. 4). Thus, the combination of Prange and Cullick fails to disclose or suggest "determining which platform in the 5 Appeal2013-007640 Application 12/413,770 project to remove based on how many targets each platform in the list hits," as recited by independent claims 1 and 11. On this record, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20. Cf In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious"). DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation