Ex Parte Ewing et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2018

14431758 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/431,758 03/26/2015 Michael David Ewing
115745 7590 08/27/2018
HALLIBURTON/POLSINELLI
1000 Louisiana Street
Fifty-Third Floor
Houston, TX 77002
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.
C-085126-561885 3997
EXAMINER
HE,WEIMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2018 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):
salaniz@polsinelli.com
aweaver@polsinelli.com
patentgroup@polsinelli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL DAVID EWING and
DAVIDE BRYAN JOHANSON 1
Appeal2018-005756
Application 14/431,758
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 5-10. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants list Landmark Graphics Corporation as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief 2, filed July 19, 2017 ("App. Br.").
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above-mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents, for their respective details: the Final Action mailed
Jan. 26, 2017 ("Final Act."); the Examiner's Answer mailed April 4, 2018
("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed May 15, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2018-005756
Application 14/431,758
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as entailing "[ s ]ystems and
methods for creating a thickness grid for determining reserve estimates for a
reservoir by performing a fast sweep thickness extraction on a sealed
triangulated mesh to create the thickness grid." Abstract. That is,
Appellants' invention is directed to an improved computer-modeling
algorithm that more accurately defines geologic volumes and more
accurately produces three-dimensional visual representations of the
calculated volumes. Spec. ,r 4.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed
invention:
1. A method for creating a thickness grid for determining
reserve estimates for a reservoir, which comprises:
creating a plurality of poly lines by intersecting a vertical
plane with a sealed triangulated mesh at a predefined slice
interval along an x-dimension in spatial extents for the sealed
triangulated mesh, each polyline including a first point and a last
point;
creating a plurality of polygons by connecting the first
point and the last point on each polyline in a respective vertical
plane;
aligning each polygon perpendicular to the respective
vertical plane;
creating a grid wherein each grid node on the grid is
initiated with a value of zero;
computing a plurality of thickness values using each
aligned polygon at a predefined thickness interval; and
creating the thickness grid using a computer processor by
assigning each thickness value to a respective grid node on the
grid.
2
Appeal2018-005756
Application 14/431,758
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Goff (US 2003/0112704 Al; published June 19, 2003), Barth
(US 2004/0161144 Al; published Aug. 19, 2004), and Muller-Fischer
(US 2007/0024620 Al; published 2007/0024620). Final Act. 4--10.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Garth discloses claim 1 's limitations of
"creating a plurality of polylines by intersecting a vertical plane with a
sealed triangulated mesh at a predefined slice interval along an x-dimension
in spatial extents for the sealed triangulated mesh, each polyline including a
first point and a last point" and "creating a plurality of polygons by
connecting the first point and the last point on each polyline in a respective
vertical plane." Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner finds that Barth teaches
claim 1 's limitations of "aligning each polygon perpendicular to the
respective vertical plane" and "each aligned polygon [being] at a predefined
thickness interval. Id. at 6. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious "to combine the invention of Goff with the teaching of Barth so as
to determine the imaged 3D object service." Id. (citing Barth ,r 41).
The Examiner additionally finds that Muller-Fischer teaches claim 1 's
limitations of "creating a grid wherein each grid node on the grid is initiated
with a value of zero," "computing a plurality of thickness values using each
aligned polygon at a predefined thickness interval," and "creating the
3
Appeal2018-005756
Application 14/431,758
thickness grid using a computer processor by assigning each thickness value
to a respective grid node on the grid." Id. at 6-7. The Examiner further
concludes that it would have been obvious "to combine the invention of
Goff and Barth with the teaching of Muller-Fischer so as to use 2D mesh
with a corresponding depth map (thickness grid) to generate 3D graphics
primitives." Id. at 7 (citing Muller-Fischer ,r 46).
Appellants point out that "Goff is concerned with interpreting faults in
seismic data, not generating or measuring geologic volumes." Reply Br. 3.
Appellants point out that "Barth is directed to images produced by computed
tomography devices," and they argue that "there is no rationale for
combining Barth." Id.
Appellants additionally argue
Mueller-Fischer provides no teaching or suggesti[on] relating to
computing, or otherwise determining, a plurality of thickness
values using aligned polygons at a predetermined thickness
interval, as recited in independent claim 1. Mueller-Fischer
assigns each node in the 2D mesh a "depth value," but does not
compute a thickness value using aligned polygons. Specifically,
Mueller-Fischer recites "[t]he 2D mesh may be transformed into
a 3D mesh by multiplying coordinates of each node in the
2D mesh by an inverse of a projection matrix used to project the
3D point cloud onto the projection plane." Paragraph [0017].
Mueller-Fischer does not teach or suggest the use [of]
aligned polygons to determine the "depth map," and provides no
teaching or suggestion to cure the [deficiencies] of Barth and
Goff. Further, such a combination ignores the teaching of Barth
relating to a polar transformation followed by a second
transformation back to a Cartesian coordinate system.
App. Br. 8.
4
Appeal2018-005756
Application 14/431,758
Appellants expand upon the arguments in the Reply Brief:
There is no articulated reasoning for why the Muller-
Fischer embodiment should be applied in particular to the stack
of slices of a CT scan FIG. 2 of Barth according to the instant
claim. Barth is unconcerned with such stack in FIG. 2 in relation
to determining volume of a component shape. There is no
rationale provided as to how this stack of CT scan slices relates
to the slices in Goff with respect to determining a thickness grid.
Neither Goff nor Barth are concerned with determining the
volume of a shape formed from slicing. The Muller-Fischer is
simply applied because it "can" [be-]not because there is reason
to. This is simply impermissible hindsight reconstruction using
the present application as a blueprint.
The Examiner's Answer simply breaks the claim apart in
its component parts, seeks such limitations in disparate unrelated
portions of three different references without any reasonable
basis. This is precisely contrary to the admonition that a claim
which is "composed of several elements is not proved obvious
merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
independently, known in the prior art." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The claimed invention must be
taken as a whole. 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Reply Br. 5.
ANALYSIS
Appellants arguments noted above are persuasive. The rejection sets
forth insufficient reasoning or explanation for why one would have
combined the three cited references in a manner that would arrive at the
present invention, as claimed.
We recognize that the Examiner attempts to buttress the obviousness
rejection by additionally relying upon Appellants' Admitted Prior Art
Admissions, as evidenced by additional prior-art references. Final Act. 2-3;
Ans. 2, 4. Specifically, in response to Appellants arguing that the cited
5
Appeal2018-005756
Application 14/431,758
references fail to teach "aligning each polygon perpendicular to the
respective vertical plane" (App. Br. 5), the Examiner takes notice that
Appellants admit various techniques associated with 3D mesh modeling
were known. Ans. 2 ( citing Spec. ,r,r 27, 39, 43). The Examiner also takes
notice that Appellants admit aligning each polygon perpendicular to the
respective vertical plane was a well-known thickness computation. Ans. 4.
The Examiner then cites "some examples to further supplement [ the
teaching of Appellants' admitted prior art]." Final Act. 2. Particularly, the
Examiner cites Nakamura JP 2013-157081 (filed July 29, 2013); Salomie
(US 2006/0290695 Al; published Dec. 28, 2006); and Johnson
(US 5,113,357; issued May 12, 1992). Id. at 2-3.
We do not consider any of these noticed admissions or references in
deciding the present appeal. The Examiner neither reformulates the
rejection to incorporate the cited teachings nor adequately explains how
these teachings are being combined with the rejection's affirmatively cited
references. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA 1970) ("Where
a reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a 'minor
capacity,' there would appear to be no excuse for not positively including
that reference in the statement of the rejection.").
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants persuade us of error in the
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of that claim or of independent claims 8
or 15, which recite similar limitations. We likewise do not sustain the
rejection of claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, which depend from claims 1, 8,
and 15.
6
Appeal2018-005756
Application 14/431,758
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
7