Ex Parte Do et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2014

11922720 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2014)

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 A TIORNEY DOCKET NO, CONFIRMATION NO.
111922,720 04/16/2009 LinhN.Do 200Sur018 8817
7590
Gary D. Lawson
0612712014
EXAMINER
ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS
CORP-URX-SW-341
PO Box 2189 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
Houston, TX 77252-2189 2123
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL·90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LINH N. DO, JOHN W. MIERTSCHIN, and
ALLEN R. KIESLING
____________

Appeal 2011-012241
Application 11/922,720
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOHN A. EVANS, and J. JOHN LEE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1, 3, and 5-933 as anticipated and as
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.4

1 The Real Party in Interest is ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company.
2 We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
3 App. Br. 8.
4 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed February 1, 2011
Appeal 2011-012241
Application 11/922,720

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a well management computer program that may
be used in connection with a reservoir simulation computer program used to
solve reservoir equations. Spec., ¶ [0002].
Claims 1, 44, 48, and 87 are independent. Claim 90 has been argued
separately. Claims 3, 5-43, 45-47, 49-86, 88, 89, and 91-93 have not been
argued separately and therefore stand or fall together with their respective
independent claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is
reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized:
1. A reservoir simulation method comprising:
building a hierarchical logic tree diagram having one or more
components, wherein each component represents a block of
programming code which interacts with other components; and

displaying said diagram on a graphical user interface to provide
a high-level, structured and graphical view of the programming code;
and
converting the hierarchical logic tree diagram to programming
code configured to manage the simulation of a reservoir.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Barstow US 4,827,404 May 2, 1989
Banki US 2002/0169589 A1 Nov. 14, 2002
Edwards. WO 99/57418 Nov. 11, 1999

(“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed May 11, 2011 (“Ans.”); Final
Office Action mailed July 14, 2010 (“Final Rej.”); and the original
Specification filed December 21, 2007 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2011-012241
Application 11/922,720

3
The claims stand rejected as follows:5
1. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-53, 55-89, and 91-93 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Banki. Ans. 3-14.
2. Claims 6 and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Banki and Barstow. Ans. 14-16.
3. Claim 90 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Banki and Edwards. Ans. 16-17.

ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9-13),
the issues presented on appeal are:
I. Whether the Examiner erred by finding Banki discloses “a
hierarchical logic tree diagram,” as recited in Claim 1, and discloses
“a hierarchical logic diagram,” as recited in Claims 44, 48, and 87.
II. In light of the alleged deficiencies of Banki, whether the
Examiner erred in rejecting Claims 6 and 54 over Banki in view of
Barstow.
III. Whether the Examiner erred in asserting the combination of
Banki and Edwards to reject the limitation of “the hierarchical logic
diagram is configured to set the well rates and boundary conditions
for the reservoir simulation model” of Claim 90.

5 Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the
appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2011-012241
Application 11/922,720

4
ANALYSIS
I. INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1, 44, 48, AND 87
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions.
Appellants contend Banki does not teach “building a hierarchical
logic tree diagram.” App. Br. 9. Appellants argue that Banki makes a clear
differentiation between the Facility Network Model (FNM), which is a data
model of a facility network, and the Facility Management Logic (FML),
which is converted to code to manage the simulation. Appellants further
argue the Examiner has confused or improperly combined the model (FNM)
and the programming code of Banki. Ans. 11. Appellants contend the logic
(FML), and not the model (FNM), should be compared with the logic
diagram of Appellants’ claimed invention. Id. Appellants argue that,
because the logic (FML) of Banki is disclosed as having a flowchart format,
Banki cannot anticipate Appellants’ recitation of a hierarchical logic tree
diagram. Id.
Appellants also contend that Banki does not teach “converting the
hierarchical logic tree diagram to programming code configured to manage
the simulation of a reservoir.” App. Br. 11-12. Appellants argue the model
(FNM) of Banki, which includes hierarchical data classes, does not manage
a simulation, but rather it is the flowchart-based logic (FML) that is
converted to programming code configured to manage the simulation. App.
Br. 12. Appellants argue the claimed invention requires the hierarchical
logic tree diagram to be converted to programming code configured to
manage the simulation of a reservoir. Id.
Appeal 2011-012241
Application 11/922,720

5
Appellants further contend the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of anticipation with respect to independent Claims 44, 48, and 87,
for reasons analogous to those regarding the rejection of Claim 1 over Banki.
App. Br. 12.
The Examiner finds that Banki’s Facility Network Model (FNM)
comprises the hierarchical logic tree diagram, and the generic data from the
model (FNM) facilitates the complementary custom Facility Management
Logic (FML). Ans. 3-4. During a simulation, the FML logic is converted to
programming code to control the operation of the objects in the FNM model.
Id. The Examiner relies upon the FNM hierarchical model to anticipate the
“hierarchical logic tree diagram.” Ans. 18-19. The Examiner further finds
that one of ordinary skill in the art would find any of Banki’s Figs. 2-7 to be
hierarchical. Ans. 19.
The Examiner finds that flowcharts are also known as logic diagrams
and that Appellants’ Figure 4 is a flowchart used to represent a “hierarchical
logic tree diagram.” Ans. 23 (citing App. Br. 10). The Examiner finds that
element 410 is a flowchart decision diamond directing a computer to take
one of two paths, and element 420 is an icon that represents “looping” in a
flowchart. Ans. 24. Therefore, the Examiner equates the flowchart of Banki
to the “hierarchical logic tree diagram” flowchart of Appellants’ Figure 4.
Ans. 24-25.
The Examiner further finds that Banki discloses “converting the
hierarchical logic tree diagram to programming code configured to manage
the simulation of a reservoir” within the model (FNM), and not just within
the logic (FML), as argued by the Appellants. Ans. 19, 25. The Examiner
finds the hierarchical model of Banki is converted to programming code
Appeal 2011-012241
Application 11/922,720

6
when the Definitions Data File (DDF) is converted to reservoir facility
objects that are used to run the simulation. Ans. 25-26. The Examiner also
finds this “programming code” of the model (FNM) is “configured to
manage the simulation of a reservoir” because the FNM models fluid flow
and production throughout “every component of the hydrocarbon field from
the subsurface reservoir, all wells and well hardware, and surface facilities
up to and including the product delivery outlet(s).” Ans. 19-20.
The Examiner contends that Claims 44, 48, and 87 do not have similar
limitations to Claim 1, in that “hierarchical logic tree diagram” only appears
in Claim 1 whereas Claims 44, 48, and 87 read “hierarchical logic diagram.”
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. While the Examiner
primarily relied upon Fig. 4 of Banki to anticipate the “hierarchical logic tree
diagram,” the Examiner also cited ¶ [0057], which describes the relationship
between the model (FNM, Fig. 4) and the logic (FML, Fig. 5): “The FML
operates on facility objects during a simulation run that are created from and
analogous to the FNM data model objects.” This relationship between FNM
and FML becomes more clear in view of Claim 20 of Banki, where the
simulation logic is converted into code, and this converted code is integrated
with the simulation data model to result in an integrated simulation system.
Therefore, we find the Examiner’s interpretation of Banki to be reasonable.
The “hierarchical logic tree diagram” is the hierarchical tree of Fig. 4, which
has the form of object code within the computer system and is considered to
be “logic,” as it defines the parameters of the physical facility. Ans.3-4.
The hierarchical tree is converted to programming code configured to
manage the simulation of the reservoir when it is integrated with the logic
code corresponding to the FML to form the integrated simulation system.
Appeal 2011-012241
Application 11/922,720

7
Furthermore, we also find the “hierarchical logic tree diagram” of
Claim 1 to be analogous to the Figure 5 flowchart of Banki. The Examiner
cited ¶[0057] of Banki, which describes how the model tree diagram of Fig.
4 (FNM) and the logic flowchart of Fig. 5 (FML) are integrated; therefore,
both Figure 4 and Figure 5 are relied upon to reject Claim 1. Appellants’
Figure 20 and Banki’s Figure 5 both show a simulation process that controls
the output of water for all wells in the simulation. In Appellants’ Figure 20,
if the water rate for a given well does not exceed the maximum
(CHECK_IF_WATER_CUT_EXCEEDS_MAXIUMUM_VALUE = N),
that loop ends and the program starts over on the next well. Spec., Figure
20.
This flowchart of the Appellant is equivalent to the flowchart of
Banki, where maximum water rate is checked (Banki, Fig. 5, 516) and the
program moves on to the next well if the rate is not exceeded (519 back to
514). There is a hierarchy of logic decisions in the flowchart of Banki, as
the program decides whether to continue down to steps 520 and 526 for
workover or shutdown of the well. Banki also describes the decisions made
at each diamond to be “logic branches” (Banki, ¶ [0072]). In light of
Appellants’ and Banki’s flowcharts, and Banki’s flowchart being
hierarchical diagrams with logic branches, we agree that Banki anticipates
Appellants’ claimed “hierarchical logic tree diagram.” Claims 44, 48, and
87 do not include the term “tree,” thus, it is even more clear that the
flowchart of Banki anticipates the “hierarchical logic diagram” of those
claims.
Therefore, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting Claims 1, 3,
5, 7-53, 55-89, and 91-93 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Banki.
Appeal 2011-012241
Application 11/922,720

8
II. CLAIMS 6 AND 54
Because we find the Examiner did not err in the application of Banki
in the rejection of Claims 1 and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and Appellants
did not argue their patentability separately, we also find the Examiner did
not err in rejecting Claims 6 and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Banki in view of Barstow.
III. CLAIM 90
Appellants contend that neither Banki nor Edwards teaches “the
hierarchical logic diagram is configured to set the well rates and boundary
conditions for the reservoir simulation model.” App. Br. 13. Appellants
argue that the figures of Edwards relied upon by the Examiner are not
hierarchical logic diagrams, but rather a series of graphical windows a user
may scroll through and configure to interface with a software application for
near-wellbore modeling. Id. Appellants contend that, while a hierarchy of
models can be used with the application, there is no indication the cited
models are configured to set the well rates and boundary conditions for a
reservoir simulation model. Id.
The Examiner finds Edwards teaches a Graphical User Interface
(GUI) labeled “Near Wellbore Model- Flux Run Manager” and a GUI dialog
to “set boundary condition type” as either “pressure (default) or flux.” Ans.
29. The Examiner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize Edwards discloses a GUI dialog to “configure to set boundary
conditions (set boundary condition type) for the reservoir simulation model
(Near Wellbore Model)” as claimed. Id. The Examiner explains Edwards’
GUIs and a GUI dialogs were not relied upon as the “hierarchical logic
Appeal 2011-012241
Application 11/922,720

9
diagrams,” but rather the combination of Banki and Edwards taught the
claimed limitations. Ans. 16, 29.
We disagree with the Appellants conclusions. As discussed above, we
find Banki anticipates “a hierarchical logic tree diagram.” Edwards was
relied upon to teach that a reservoir simulation conventionally sets boundary
conditions and well production rates. A fortiori, Banki also teaches these
limitations. Banki teaches specifying variables such as fluid pressure and
phase saturation at specified points (¶ [0005]), which is considered setting
boundary conditions, and setting well rates to determine if a well needs to be
worked over (¶ [0071]). In light of this disclosure of Banki, we find the
Examiner did not err in combining the teaching of Edwards of how to
implement the setting of these boundary conditions and rates (e.g., the GUI
windows of Edwards) within the simulation program of Banki.
Therefore, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting Claim 90
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Banki in view of Edwards.
ORDER
The rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-53, 55-89, and 91-93 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of Claims 6, 54, and 90 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

gvw