Ex Parte Gandikota et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

13095803 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2017)

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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/095,803 04/27/2011 Varadaraju Gandikota WEAT/0991US 3343
36735 7590 06/02/2017
PATTFRSON & SHFRTDAN T T P / Weatherford EXAMINER
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
WANG, WEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3676
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 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):
PS Docketing @ pattersonsheridan .com
Pair_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VARADARAJU GANDIKOTA,
LARRY A. KENDZIORA, and RICHARD LEE GIROUX
Appeal 2015-002528
Application 13/095,803
Technology Center 3600
Before GEORGE R. HOSKINS, LISA M. GUIJT, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-002528
Application 13/095,803
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants, Varadaraju Gandikota et al.,1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—6, 8—16, 21, and 22.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A hearing was held on April
14, 2017 (“Hearing”).
We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an expandable open-hole anchor. Claims 1
and 12 are the independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An anchoring device comprising:
an expandable tubular; and
a plurality of bands disposed on an outer surface of the
expandable tubular, each band being attached to the tubular at a
first connection point and a second connection point, wherein
each band is configured to bow radially outward as the
expandable tubular shortens in length in response to the
expansion of the tubular, and wherein a first set of the plurality
of bands has a length different than a length of a second set of
the plurality of bands.
REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Kurlenya US 2002/0157831 Al Oct. 31,2002
Lohbeck US 2007/0068671 Al Mar. 29,2007
Emerson US 7,543,639 B2 June 9, 2009
1 Appellants identify WEATHERFORD/LAMB Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief, dated October 6, 2014 (“Appeal Br.”), 3.
2 Claims 7 and 17—20 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 11—14 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2015-002528
Application 13/095,803
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Emerson and Kurlenya.
2. Claims 1—6, 8—16, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lohbeck, Emerson, and Kurlenya.
Appellants seek our review of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
The dispositive issue regarding Rejections 1 and 2 relates to the
limitation requiring “a first set of the plurality of bands [to have] a length
different than a length of a second set of the plurality of bands,” recited in
independent claims 1 and 12.
REJECTION 1
With respect to Rejection 1, the Examiner finds that Emerson
discloses expandable bands 84 attached to tubular member (31 in Fig. 5, and
82 in Fig. 10) by first and second connection points 86, 88. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner finds that, although Emerson does not disclose that the first
and second set of the plurality of bands 84 in Figures 10-11 have different
lengths, as recited in claims 1 and 12, Emerson does teach that the outer
diameter of the expanded bands 84 are directly correlated to the length of the
band 84 between first and second connection points 86, 88. Id. (citing
Emerson, 5:8—18); Ans. 3^4. The Examiner then finds that, because
Kurlenya discloses that an open hole may have different diameters at
different depths (Final Act. 4 (citing Kurlenya 1 58)) and Emerson’s upper
3
Appeal 2015-002528
Application 13/095,803
and lower bands 34, 38 in Figures 4—5 are anchored at different depths
(Final Act. 4; Ans. 3—4), each of Emerson’s anchored upper and lower bands
34, 38 will have different diameters and “lengths” between first and second
connection points 86, 88. Final Act. 4.
In response to the Examiner’s rejections, Appellants contend that the
Examiner’s rejection is erroneous because neither Emerson nor Kurlenya
disclose “the simultaneous use of multiple bands having different lengths to
compensate for the magnitudes” of diameters at different depths. Appeal Br.
7; see id. at 6.
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner finds that the length of
Emerson’s band 84 is the length between two ends 86, 88 of the band 84
which are fixed to the expandable tubular 82, so that the band length is
constant during the expansion of the tubular. Ans. 3 (citing to Emerson,
5:3). Under the Examiner’s definition, as ends 86, 88 move closer together,
the band buckles and bends radially outward. The distance between ends 86,
88 may change as tubular 82 expands and retracts, but the length of the
bowed band remains constant. Under the Examiner’s definition, the length
of the band between first and second connections 86, 88 is a different
measurement than the length between the connections 86, 88.
The Examiner’s definition of the “length” of the bands referenced in
claims 1 and 12 is consistent with the Specification’s definition. Referring
to Figures 2A and 3 A, the Specification states that the “bands 155 are
[configured] in a substantially linear arrangement prior to the expansion.
The bands 155 are configured to buckle as the length of the tubular 125
moves from the first length to the second shorter length due to the radial
expansion of the tubular 125.” Spec. 133. We understand that the
4
Appeal 2015-002528
Application 13/095,803
Specification’s definition that “the distance between the connection points
160 define the length of the bands 155” refers to distance between the
connection points 160 (i.e., the linear length of bands 155) before expansion
of tubular 125, not the distance between connection points 160 after
expansion. Id. 134. During the hearing, Appellants’ attorney confirmed
that our understanding is correct. Hearing Tr. 6:5—21, 7:3—21.
Because the length of a band will remain constant as the distance
between the band’s connection points change in response to the expansion
and retraction of the tubular, the Examiner’s findings that upper band 34 and
lower band 38 in Figures 5—6 of Emerson will have different diameters and,
thus, different lengths is incorrect. Different diameters may cause the
distance between connection ends 86, 88 to vary, but the lengths of
Emerson’s individual bands remain constant.
Emerson does not disclose that the first and second set of the plurality
of bands have different lengths, as recited in claims 1 and 12. Kurlenya does
not remedy the deficiencies of Emerson. We appreciate that modifying
either set of Emerson’s upper anchor portion 34 and lower anchor portion 38
to have a length different than the other portion would permit the longer
portion to accommodate a wider bore hole than the shorter portion. See
Final Act. 4; Ans. 3. However, the cited prior art fails to establish that the
diameter of known bore holes varies so significantly along their length that
the existing (equal) lengths of Emerson’s upper anchor portion 34 and lower
anchor portion 38 are inadequate. Thus, the Examiner’s proposed reason for
modifying the length of either upper anchor portion 34 or lower anchor
portion 38 in Emerson lacks a rational basis in the evidence currently of
5
Appeal 2015-002528
Application 13/095,803
record. Therefore, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 12 is not
sustained.
REJECTION 2
With respect to Rejection 2, as discussed above, neither Emerson nor
Kurlenya disclose the limitations in independent claims 1 and 12. As the
Examiner admits that Lohbeck does not disclose a first set of a plurality of
bands having a length different than a length of a second set of the plurality
of bands (Final Act. 5), Lohbeck does not remedy the deficiencies of
Emerson and Kurlenya. The rejection of claims 1 and 12, and their
dependent claims 2—6, 8—11, 13—16, 21, and 22 is not sustained.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—6, 8—16,
21, and 22 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
6