Ex Parte Geerits et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 8, 201111062395 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 8, 2011) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation