Ex Parte Geerits et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 8, 2011

11062395 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 8, 2011)

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.
11/062,395 02/22/2005 Theodorus W. Geerits 1391-462.00 7664
36177 7590 09/09/2011
KRUEGER ISELIN LLP (1391)
P O BOX 1906
CYPRESS, TX 77410-1906
EXAMINER
KEITH, JACK W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/09/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte THEODORUS W. GEERITS, BALAKRISHNA MANDAL, and
DENIS P. SCHMITT
____________

Appeal 2009-012079
Application 11/062,395
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, KEN B. BARRETT, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012079
Application 11/062,395

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Theodorus W. Geerits et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. §
134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims
1, 2, 4, 19, and 20 over George (US 6,568,486 B1, issued May 27, 2003) and
Hsu (US 6,631,327 B2, issued Oct. 7, 2003) and claims 5-7, 9, 21, and 22
over George and Varsamis (US 6,366,531 B1, issued Apr. 2, 2002). Claims
3, 8, and 10-18 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to an acoustic logging-while-drilling
(LWD) tool 26 including an acoustic source array 42, an acoustic receiver
array 46, and a control and data processing system 31. Spec. 5, paras.
[0027] and [0028] and figs. 1 and 2A.
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention and reads as
follows:
1. An acoustic logging-while-drilling (LWD) tool, comprising:
a transmitter array that generates acoustic waves with an
excitation pattern characterized by a formation cutoff frequency
greater than about 3 kHz;
at least one receiver array spaced apart from said transmitter
array, wherein the receiver array includes acoustic sensors that each
detect said acoustic waves; and
a processor configured to combine signals from the acoustic
sensors in the receiver array, wherein the number of acoustic sensors
from which the processor is configured to combine signals is less than
the number of transmitter poles in the transmitter array.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2009-012079
Application 11/062,395

3
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites that “the number of acoustic sensors [in
the receiver array] … is less than the number of transmitter poles in the
transmitter array.” Similarly, independent claim 5 recites that “the number
of acoustic sensor signals combined from at least one of the receiver arrays
is less than or equal to four.” App. Br., Claims Appendix.
The Examiner found that George discloses an acoustic LWD tool
including a transmitter array 30 having six transmitter poles and at least one
receiver array 34 having four individual ring sensors 51 or a single ring
sensor 61. Ans. 4-5 and 8. Hence, according to the Examiner:
Because George teaches acoustic sensors whose
number (either four for ring array 51 or one for
ring array 61) is less than the number of
transmitter poles (six in the sextupole mode),
George meets applicant’s claim limitation.
Ans. 8.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s interpretation of George’s
ring array 51 and 61 as individual acoustic sensors is unreasonable. App.
Br. 9 and Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, George discloses that each
set of azimuthally-aligned individual receiver elements 52 from ring array
51 are electrically wired in parallel and operate as one electrical unit, hence
resulting in eight azimuthally acoustic sensors. App. Br. 9. See also,
George, col. 5, ll. 46-67 and fig. 5. Similarly, with respect to ring array 61,
Appellants note that ring array 61 is machined to produce electrically
separate receiver elements 62. Reply Br. 1. See also, George, col. 8, ll. 45-
48 and figs. 9A and 9B.
In response to Appellants’ contention, the Examiner merely opines
that Appellants’ broad use of the term “acoustic sensors” does not limit it to
Appeal 2009-012079
Application 11/062,395

4
the individual receiver elements 52 and 62 of ring array 51 and 61,
respectively. Ans. 7-8. According to the Examiner, since “ring arrays [51,
61] in George sense the acoustic waves emitted from the transmitter
section,” they constitute “acoustic sensors.” App. Br. 8.
While the Examiner correctly looks to apply a broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim term “acoustic sensors,” it is also necessary for
the Examiner to properly construe what the applied reference fairly teaches
or discloses. See, e.g., In re Fracalossi and Wajer, 681 F.2d 792 (CCPA
1982) (reference is prior art not only for specifically disclosed embodiments,
but also all that it fairly teaches). In this case, interpreting ring array 51 and
61 as individual acoustic sensors is contrary to the disclosure of George and
not within the realm of what George reasonably and fairly discloses.
George discloses, in relevant part, that:
The number of … receiver elements in a receiver
station is at least equal to, and is generally greater
than, the minimum number of azimuthally arrayed
receiver elements required to resolve pulses of the
selected mode without aliasing.

George, col. 3, ll. 19-24
According to Appellants, stated otherwise, George discloses that “the
number of azimuthally-spaced receiver elements at a given distance from the
transmitter is at least equal to the number of transmitter elements.” App. Br.
6. The Examiner has not provided any evidence to rebut Appellants’
finding. As such, we shall adopt Appellants’ finding that George’s number
of receiver elements is at least equal to the number of transmitter elements.
If we accept the Examiner’s interpretation of George’s ring array 51
and 61 as individual acoustic sensors, then the number of acoustic sensors
Appeal 2009-012079
Application 11/062,395

5
(and their respective signals), i.e. either four for ring array 51 or one for ring
array 61, is less than the number of transmitter elements (six in the sextupole
mode), which is inconsistent with George’s disclosure that the number of
receiver elements is at least equal to the number of transmitter elements.
However, if we accept Appellants’ interpretation of the term “acoustic
sensors” as George’s eight azimuthally-spaced receiver elements 52 or
sixteen rectangular receiver elements 62 (and their respective signals), the
number of acoustic sensors (and their respective signals) is greater than the
number of transmitter elements (six in the sextupole mode), which is
consistent with George’s disclosure. As such, because the Examiner’s
interpretation of the term “acoustic sensors” is contrary to George’s
disclosure that the number of receiver elements is at least equal to the
number of transmitter elements, we adopt Appellants’ finding that George’s
eight azimuthally-spaced receiver elements 52 or sixteen rectangular
receiver elements 62 constitute the claimed “acoustic sensors” of the
receiver array (and their respective signals).
In conclusion, because George discloses that the number of acoustic
sensors (and their respective signals) is greater than the number of
transmitter elements (six in the sextupole mode), we find that George does
not disclose that “the number of acoustic sensors [in the receiver array] … is
less than the number of transmitter poles in the transmitter array,” as called
for by independent claim 1. Emphasis added. Similarly, we find that
George does not disclose that “the number of acoustic sensor signals
combined from at least one of the receiver arrays is less than or equal to
four,” as called for by independent claim 5.
Appeal 2009-012079
Application 11/062,395

6
The addition of either Hsu or Varsamis does not remedy the
deficiencies of George as described above. As such, the rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 2, 4, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over George
and Hsu and of claims 5-7, 9, 21, and 22 as unpatentable over George and
Varsamis cannot be sustained. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed.
Cir. 1988).

SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, and 19-22 is
reversed.

REVERSED

mls