Ex Parte Gilbert et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 6, 2006

09887066 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 6, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DURIEZ GILBERT and DEWIMILLE BERNARD
____________

Appeal No. 2006-2629
Application No. 09/887,066
Technology Center 1700
____________

HEARD: October 17, 2006
____________

Before OWENS, WALTZ and GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from a rejection of claims 9-23, which are
all of the pending claims.
THE INVENTION
The appellants claim an apparatus and method for analyzing
and/or measuring gaseous constituents in drilling fluids.
Claim 9 is illustrative:
An analysis and/or measuring device comprising means
for extracting, in the gaseous form, hydrocarbons contained
in a liquid drilling fluid after drilling in a reservoir
rock, means for transporting said extracted gases, and means
intended for analysis and measurement on these extracted
gases, characterized in that said transport means include a
tubular line comprising an inner tube which limits retention
of trace hydrocarbons made from at least one plastic
selected from the group consisting of PTFE
(polytetrafluoroethylene), FEP (tetrafluoroethene-
Appeal No. 2006-2629
Application No. 09/887,066

2
periluoroprene copolymer), PVDF (polyvinylidene fluoride),
ETFE (tetrafluoroethylene-ethylene copolymer), ETFCE
(ethylenetrifluorochlorethylene copolymer), PCTFE
(polychlorotrifluoroethylene), FPA (perfluoroalkoxyalkane),
hexafluoropropylene/vinylidene fluoride copolymers,
hexafluoropropylene/vinylidene fluoride/tetrafluoropropylene
THV terpolymers, tetrafluoroethylene/hexafluoropropylene/
treated vinylidene fluoride, PEEK (polyetherether ketone),
PEKK, PAEK, PEK, and aliphatic polyketones.

THE REFERENCES
Issenmann 5,090,256 Feb. 25, 1992
Cheney et al. (Cheney) 5,566,720 Oct. 22, 1996
THE REJECTION
Claims 9-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Issenmann in view of Cheney.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejection. We need to address
only the independent claims, i.e., claims 9 and 16, each of which
requires an inner tube that is made of at least one recited
polymer that limits retention of trace hydrocarbons.
Issenmann discloses a method and apparatus for sampling
gases contained in drilling mud from an oil well or oil
exploration site (col. 1, lines 10-13). The apparatus is placed
as close to the source of drilling mud as possible to prevent
escape of gases therefrom so that the properties of the sampled
hydrocarbon gases correspond as closely as possible to the
Appeal No. 2006-2629
Application No. 09/887,066

3
properties at the source (col. 4, lines 39-52). The drilling mud
is collected and delivered to a degassing device (23) through,
respectively, flexible tubes 28 and 22, the compositions of which
are not disclosed (col. 5, lines 47-55).
Cheney discloses a dual layer hose that has a fluoropolymer
inner layer and is useful as a fuel line or a vapor recovery line
in a motor vehicle (col. 1, lines 9-11). The preferred
fluoropolymer is made of vinylidene fluoride, hexafluoropropene
and tetrafluoroethylene (col. 5, lines 49-52). Cheney teaches
that it is important that fuel and vapor return lines be
essentially impervious to permeation of hydrocarbons (col. 1,
lines 25-28).
The examiner argues that “[i]t would have been obvious to
one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to modify Issenmann to include the elongated fuel and
vapor tube of Cheney because of the increased retention time of
the hydrocarbons in the tubing during the transporting to the
analyzer or the measurement means and to limit retention of trace
hydrocarbons so that the samples can be analyzed in there [sic]
purest form when transported from the degassing apparatus”
(answer, page 5). For a disclosure of limiting retention time of
hydrocarbons the examiner relies upon Cheney’s column 1, lines
Appeal No. 2006-2629
Application No. 09/887,066

4
25-30, column 3, lines 11-22, and column 4, lines 30-32 and 39-44
(answer, pages 6-7).
Cheney’s column 1, lines 25-30 and column 3, lines 11-22
disclose that it is important to reduce hydrocarbon emissions
from fuel and vapor return lines by making the lines impervious
to permeation of hydrocarbons. Column 4, lines 30-32 states that
“in a [sic] application such as fuel lines and vapor recovery
systems, outer diameters up to about 2 inches are preferred.”
Column 4, lines 39-44 discloses that wall thicknesses between
about 0.8 and about 1 mm exhibit better durability, stability and
resistance to hydrocarbon permeation than conventional polymeric
fuel and vapor tubes.
Thus, none of the portions of Cheney relied upon by the
examiner pertains to limiting retention of trace hydrocarbons.
The examiner’s reason for combining Issenmann and Cheney,
therefore, is improper. Moreover, the examiner has not
established that the reduced permeation disclosed by Cheney would
have been desired in Issenmann’s lines by one of ordinary skill
in the art.

Appeal No. 2006-2629
Application No. 09/887,066

5
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the appellants’ claimed invention.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 9-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Issenmann in view of Cheney is reversed.
REVERSED

)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
THOMAS A. WALTZ ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LINDA M. GAUDETTE )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 2006-2629
Application No. 09/887,066

6

ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP
1300 NORTH SEVENTEENTH STREET
SUITE 1800
ARLINGTON, VA 22209-3873

TJO/lg