Ex Parte Jeffryes et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 7, 201611952238 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111952,238 12/07/2007 23718 7590 09/09/2016 Schlumberger Technology Center Intellectual Property Counsel Houston Formation Evaluation Intergration 200 Gillingham Lane MD-9 Sugar Land, TX 77478 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Benjamin P. Jeffryes 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. 19.0480 9877 EXAMINER GITLIN, ELIZABETH C GOTTLIEB ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3676 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/09/2016 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): SMarckesoni@slb.com jalverson@slb.com USDOCKETING@slb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BENJAMIN P. JEFFRYES and BRUCE W. BOYLE Appeal2012-001027 Application 11/952,238 Technology Center 3600 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Benjamin P. Jeffryes and Bruce W. Boyle (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal2012-001027 Application 11/952,238 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for detecting a cuttings bed, the system compnsmg: a drill string extending into a wellbore; a drill bit disposed at a lower end of the drill string; a cuttings bed detector attached to the drill string, wherein the cuttings bed detector detects a location of the cuttings bed between the drill string and the wellbore; and a cuttings bed remover attached to the drill string, wherein the cuttings bed remover comprises retractable impellors to move the cuttings bed or a valve to release fluid to disturb the cuttings bed wherein the cuttings bed detector communicates with the cuttings bed remover to activate the cuttings bed remover. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Orban Weirich Gzara Wylie Fincher Samuel Ritter Bostick Lynde us 5,354,956 US 6,176,323 Bl US 6,768,106 B2 US 2004/0149431 Al US 2005/0024231 Al US 7,051,821 B2 US 2006/0249307 Al US 2007/0221407 Al US 2007/0272404 Al 2 Oct. 11, 1994 Jan.23,2001 July 27, 2004 Aug. 5,2004 Feb. 3,2005 May 30, 2006 Nov. 9, 2006 Sept. 27, 2007 Nov. 29, 2007 Appeal2012-001027 Application 11/952,238 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1-5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gzara, Samuel, and Lynde. II. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gzara, Samuel, Lynde, and Orban. III. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gzara, Samuel, Lynde, and Weirich. IV. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gzara, Samuel, Lynde, and Ritter. V. Claims 10 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bostick and Fincher. VI. Claims 11, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bostick, Fincher, and Samuel. VII. Claims 13 and14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bostick, Fincher, Samuel, and Weirich. VIII. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bostick, Fincher, Samuel, and Orban. IX. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weirich and Fincher. X. Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weirich, Fincher, and Wylie. 3 Appeal2012-001027 Application 11/952,238 DISCUSSION Rejection I Appellants argue claims 1-5 and 7 together. See Appeal Br. 8-12. 1 We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim and claims 2-5 and 7 stand or fall with claim 1. The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Gzara, Samuel, and Lynde disclose or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. See Ans. 5- 7. In particular, the Examiner determines that Gzara discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 except for a cuttings bed remover. See Ans. 6. The Examiner further finds that: Samuel teaches an adjustable hole cleaning device (Figure 1, 80) attached to a drill string (72) for clearing cuttings beds (column 5, lines 19-21 ). Samuel teaches the adjustable hole cleaning device comprises vanes (Figure 2, 94) that are extended (column 7, lines 49-54) to agitate the accumulated cuttings (column 8, lines 53-58). Samuel also teaches a valve (Figure 4A, ports 99, 86 and sleeve 96) for allowing drilling fluids to be diverted from the drill string to the annulus to remove cuttings from the wellbore (column 8, lines 40-49). Id. (emphasis omitted). In addition, the Examiner finds that "Lynde teaches transmitting a signal indicative of a detection of a cuttings bed ([0018])." Id. Based on these findings, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to try the system of Gzara, with a cuttings bed remover, as taught by Samuel, in communication with the cuttings bed detector and configured to transmit a signal, as taught by Lynde, to achieve the predictable result of cleaning accumulated cuttings from the wellbore (Samuel; column 2, lines 5-15), to provide quick, efficient remedy of the buildup by allowing the detector and 1 The pages of the Appeal Brief are not numbered. We number them 1--41 (excluding the Exhibits) for ease of reference. 4 Appeal2012-001027 Application 11/952,238 remover to communicate, and to allow for the operator to have full knowledge of the condition downhole in real-time (Lynde; [0005]). Id. at 7 (emphasis omitted). Appellants argue that "the Examiner failed to produce any reference that is capable of detecting a location of the cuttings bed between the drill string and the wellbore and communicating with a cuttings bed remover to activate the cuttings bed remover as required by claim 1." Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added). Appellants are correct, however; Appellants' argument is not indicative of error as the rejection is based on the combined teachings of three references and not based on anticipation. See Ans. 5-7. Specifically, as discussed supra, Lynde is relied upon to teach detection of a cuttings bed and communication with a cuttings bed remover and Samuel to teach a cuttings bed between the drill string and the wellbore. See id. Noting that "Lynde et al. teaches flushing the screen of cuttings into the wellbore;" Appellants argue that "Lynde et al. is not relevant to solving the problem of removing a cuttings bed between a drill string and the wellbore." Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 4 (emphasis omitted). Appellants' argument is not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner which, as discussed supra, relies upon Samuel to meet the limitations pertaining to removing a cuttings bed between a drill string and the wellbore. See Ans. 6. Moreover, it is not necessary for the prior art to serve the same purpose as that disclosed in Appellants' Specification in order to support the conclusion that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious. See In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972); see also KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007) ("[N]either the 5 Appeal2012-001027 Application 11/952,238 particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the [Appellants] controls" in an obviousness analysis). In addition, Appellants argue that "Lynde et al. actually teach away from the problem of removing a cuttings bed because Lynde et al. [] flushes cuttings into the annulus between the drill string and the wellbore." Appeal Br. 9, 11; see also Reply Br. 4 (emphasis omitted). However, Appellants do not identify where Lynde "criticize[s], discredit[s], or otherwise discourage[s]" removal of the cutting bed. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We will not read into a reference a teaching away from a proposed combination when no such language exists. See Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Noting that "Lynde et al. merely teach sensors 40, 60 which determine when fluid flow should be reversed to move the cuttings from within the drillstring to within the annulus located between the drill string and the wellbore," Appellants argue that "even if it was known to communicate downhole between components, the references do not teach a cuttings bed detector which detects a location of the cuttings bed between the drill string and the wellbore and communicates with the cuttings bed remover to activate the cuttings bed remover." Appeal Br. 9-10 (emphasis omitted). Again, Appellants' argument is not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. Despite referring to Graza, Samuel, and Lynde "in combination," Appellants argue the references separately. Appeal Br. 10. As discussed supra, the rejection relies upon the combined teachings of Samuel and Lynde to meet the limitation at issue. See Ans. 6-7. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references 6 Appeal2012-001027 Application 11/952,238 individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, (Fed. Cir. 1986). Next, Appellants argue that "[t]he Examiner is merely 'piece-mealing' references together, providing various teachings and positively defined limitations of Appellants' system for impermissible hindsight reconstruction." Appeal Br. 10. The Supreme Court, in KSR, has provided guidance when addressing a concern about piece-mealing references together. For over a half century, the Court has held that a "patent for a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions ... obviously withdraws what already is known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men." Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152- 153 (1950). This is a principal reason for declining to allow patents for what is obvious. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-16. Appellants do not show that any of the teachings relied upon by the Examiner do more than yield predictable results. Furthermore, Appellants do not identify any knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellants' disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, thereby obviating Appellants' assertion of hindsight. See Jn re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Finally, Appellants argue that "Samuel teaches away from a combination with Lynde et al. and Gzara et al. because Samuel teaches a hole cleaning device that works without any communication." Appeal Br. 1 O; see also Reply Br. 6. (emphasis omitted). However, Appellants do not 7 Appeal2012-001027 Application 11/952,238 identify where Samuel "criticize[s], discredit[s], or otherwise discourage[s]" communication between a cutting beds detector and a cuttings bed remover. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. Thus, Appellants' argument is unconvmcmg. For these reasons, Appellants do not apprise us of error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 1, and claims 2-5 and 7, which fall therewith. Rejection II Regarding claim 6, Appellants argue that Orban does not remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Gzara, Samuel, and Lynde with respect to claim 1 from which claim 6 depends (see Appeal Br. 12) and essentially repeats the same arguments regarding "piece-mealing" and teaching away discussed supra. See id. at 13-15. As we find no deficiencies in the teachings of Gzara, Samuel, and Lynde with respect to the rejection of claim 1 and Appellants' arguments regarding "piece- mealing" and teaching away are not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra, Appellants do not apprise us of error. We sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 6. Rejection III Regarding claim 8, Appellants argue that Weirich does not remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Gzara, Samuel, and Lynde with respect to claim 1 from which claim 8 depends (see Appeal Br. 12) and essentially repeats the same arguments regarding "piece-mealing" and teaching away discussed supra. See id. at 15-17. As we find no deficiencies in the teachings of Gzara, Samuel, and Lynde with respect to the rejection of claim 1 and Appellants' arguments regarding "piece- 8 Appeal2012-001027 Application 11/952,238 mealing" and teaching away are not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra, Appellants do not apprise us of error. We sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 8. Rejection IV Regarding claim 9, Appellants argue that Ritter does not remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Gzara, Samuel, and Lynde with respect to claim 1 from which claim 6 depends (see Appeal Br. 12) and essentially repeats the same arguments regarding "piece-mealing" and teaching away discussed supra. See id. at 18-20. As we find no deficiencies in the teachings of Gzara, Samuel, and Lynde with respect to the rejection of claim 1 and Appellants' arguments regarding "piece- mealing" and teaching away are not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra, Appellants do not apprise us of error. We sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 9. Rejection V Claim 10 The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Bostick, Fincher, and Samuel disclose or suggest all of the limitations of independent claim 10. See Ans. 9-10. In particular, the Examiner finds that Bostick discloses "[a] cuttings bed detector [that] detects a location of the cuttings bed on a wall of the well bore." Ans. 9. In support of this finding, the Examiner cites paragraph 7 6 of Bostick stating that this paragraph "disclose[ s] measuring a flow rate near the flow meter 575 to detect an accumulation of cuttings, thus knowing the location of the build-up to be at the location of the flow meter 575." Id. (emphasis omitted). 9 Appeal2012-001027 Application 11/952,238 Appellants argue that "the flow meter 575 of Bostick Ill et al. does not determine the location of a cuttings bed on a wall of the wellbore and is positioned to be incapable of determining the location of a cuttings bed on a wall of the wellbore." Appeal Br. 21; see also Reply Br. 9 (emphasis omitted). In support of this argument, Appellants note that in Bostick the flow meter 575 "cannot determine if a cuttings bed is present on a wall of the wellbore because only cuttings disturbed from a cuttings bed which then enter the drillstring or unaccumulated cuttings from drilling reach the flowmeter 575 by flowing through the drillstring." Id. Responding to this argument, the Examiner explains that: Bostick, III teaches the flow meter (575) is used to measure the flow rate at various locations along the casing string. (Emphasis added; [0068], lines 10-13). Bostick, III teaches measuring the amount of cuttings present in the fluid mixture F2 ([0076]). The fluid mixture F2 is depicted flowing between the drill string (Figure 6, 580) and the casing (505) and thus Bostick, III teaches monitoring a buildup of cuttings on a wellbore wall. Ans. 15 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further notes that, in Bostick, "the wall of the wellbore is the inner wall of casing 505." Id. Rather than contest this explanation, Appellants further argue that Bostick "teach[ es] or suggest[ es] that the cuttings bed detector detects a location of a cuttings bed on a wall of the well bore. At most, Bostick III et al. teach that the flow meter 575 detects a location of cuttings within the drill string." Appeal Br. 22 (emphasis omitted). However, Appellants do not explain how detection of the cuttings on the casing string, which forms a wall of the wellbore, differ from detection of a cuttings bed on a well of a wellbore. Thus, Appellants' argument in unconvincing. 10 Appeal2012-001027 Application 11/952,238 In addition, Appellants argue that "[t]he Examiner is merely 'piece- mealing' references together, providing various teachings and positively defined limitations of Appellants' system for impermissible hindsight reconstruction." Appeal Br. 23. As discussed supra, "piece-mealing" is not indicative of error. Moreover, Appellants do not identify subject matter that was gleaned only from Appellants' disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue for the first time that "[t]he Examiner is alleging that measuring the flow rate at various locations inherently determines the location of a cuttings bed. 'Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities."' Reply Br. 10. In accordance with 37 C.F .R. § 41.41 (b )(2), lacking a showing of good cause, we do not consider this argument raised in the Reply Brief which is not responsive to an argument raised in the Answer. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 10. Claim 19 Regarding claim 19, Appellants essentially repeat the same arguments pertaining to Bostick as presented in contesting the rejection of claim 10. See Appeal Br. 24--25. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra. In addition, Appellants argue that "the teachings of 'acoustically transmitting through the casing' and 'wiring the automated stations together' in Fincher et al. do not teach transmitting the data to a surface device via a plurality of wired drill pipes communicatively coupled." Id. at 26 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 11. In support of this 11 Appeal2012-001027 Application 11/952,238 argument, Appellants contend that "[a]s known to one having ordinary skill in the art, wired drill pipe has a communication line embedded in the housing of the drill pipe formed by jointed tubing sections, and each jointed tubing section has communication connections for the communication line." Id. The Examiner finds that "Fincher teaches automated telemetry stations on a drill string which are wired together to communicate with the surface ([0076], linesl-14; [0083], lines 1-19) and thus teaches a plurality of wired drill pipes as in claim 19." Ans. 16. Paragraph 76 states: When the sections of drill pipe are joined the tubes 161 form a waveguide for bi-directional surface-to-subsurface communication via electromagnetic, optic and/or acoustic energy. Tube 161 provides and/or contains all or part of the transmission medium for communication along the length of section 160. For example, tube 161 may contain one or more electrical conductors 162 and/or optical fibers 165 and paragraph 83 states, "[a]s described previously, optical fibers may be incorporated in the sleeves described in FIGS. 6-8 and the tubes described in 16A,B for communicating between automated telemetry stations." Fincher i-fi-176 and 83. In addition, we note that, in paragraph 75, Fincher states that "[a]ll of the previously described systems are intended to enable bi- directional communication between at least (i) multiple ATS devices, (ii) a surface controller and ATS devices, and (iii) ATS devices and externally located downhole devices." Id. at i175 (emphasis added). Thus, Appellants' argument is unconvincing. Appellants further argue that "[t]he Examiner is merely 'piece- mealing' references together, providing various teachings and positively defined limitations of Appellants' method for impermissible hindsight 12 Appeal2012-001027 Application 11/952,238 reconstruction." Appeal Br. 27. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra, with respect to claims 1 and 10. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 19. Re} ection VI Claims 11 and 12 Appellants argue that "Samuel does not remedy the deficiencies of Bostick III et al. and Fincher et al. with respect to independent claim 10 from which claims 11 and 12 depend." Appeal Br. 27-28 (emphasis omitted). As we find no such deficiencies, Appellants' argument is unpersuasive. Appellants further argue that "[t]he Examiner is merely 'piece- mealing' references together, providing various teachings and positively defined limitations of Appellants' system for impermissible hindsight reconstruction." Appeal Br. 28. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra, with respect to claims 1 and 10. In addition, Appellants argue that "Samuel teaches away from use of a cuttings bed detector to communicate with a cuttings bed remover to active the cuttings bed remover." Id. at 29 (emphasis omitted). However, Appellants do not identify where Samuel "criticize[s], discredit[s], or otherwise discourage[ s ]" communication between a cutting beds detector and a cuttings bed remover. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. Thus, Appellants' argument is unconvincing. We sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11 and 12. Claim 20 13 Appeal2012-001027 Application 11/952,238 Appellants argue that "Samuel does not remedy the deficiencies of Bostick III et al. and Fincher et al. with respect to independent claim 19 from which claim 20 depends." Appeal Br. 29 (emphasis omitted). As we find no such deficiencies, Appellants' argument is unpersuasive. Appellants further argue that "[t]he Examiner is merely 'piece- mealing' references together, providing various teachings and positively defined limitations of Appellants' method for impermissible hindsight reconstruction." Appeal Br. 30. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra, with respect to claims 1, 10, and 19. In addition, Appellants argue that "Samuel teaches away from use of a cuttings bed detector to communicate with a cuttings bed remover to active the cuttings bed remover." Id. (emphasis omitted). However, Appellants do not identify where Samuel "criticize[s], discredit[s], or otherwise discourage[ s ]" communication between a cutting beds detector and a cuttings bed remover. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. Thus, Appellants' argument is unconvincing. We sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 20. Rejection VII Appellants argue that "Weirich et al. do not remedy the deficiencies of Bostick III et al., Fincher et al. and Samuel with respect to independent claim 10 from which claims [13] and [14] depend." Appeal Br. 31 (emphasis omitted). As we find no such deficiencies, Appellants' argument . . 1s unpersuasive. Appellants further argue that "[t]he Examiner is merely 'piece- mealing' references together, providing various teachings and positively defined limitations of Appellants' system for impermissible hindsight 14 Appeal2012-001027 Application 11/952,238 reconstruction." Appeal Br. 32. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra, with respect to claims 1 and 10. In addition, Appellants argue that "Samuel teaches away from use of a cuttings bed detector to communicate with a cuttings bed remover to active the cuttings bed remover." Id. (emphasis omitted). However, Appellants do not identify where Samuel "criticize[s], discredit[s], or otherwise discourage[ s ]" communication between a cutting beds detector and a cuttings bed remover. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. Thus, Appellants' argument is unconvincing. We sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 13 and 14. Rejection VIII Appellants argue that "Orban et al. do not remedy the deficiencies of Bostick III et al., Fincher et al. and Samuel with respect to independent claim 10 from which claim 15 depends." Appeal Br. 33 (emphasis omitted). As we find no such deficiencies, Appellants' argument is unpersuasive. Appellants further argue that "[t]he Examiner is merely 'piece- mealing' references together, providing various teachings and positively defined limitations of Appellants' system for impermissible hindsight reconstruction." Id. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra, with respect to claims 1 and 10. In addition, Appellants argue that "Samuel teaches away from use of a cuttings bed detector to communicate with a cuttings bed remover to active the cuttings bed remover." Id. at 34. (emphasis omitted). However, Appellants do not identify where Samuel "criticize[s], discredit[s], or otherwise discourage[ s ]" communication between a cutting beds detector 15 Appeal2012-001027 Application 11/952,238 and a cuttings bed remover. See Jn re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. Thus, Appellants' argument is unconvincing. We sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 15. Rejection IX The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Weirich and Fincher disclose or suggest all of the limitations of claim 16. See Ans. 3--4. In particular, the Examiner finds that Weirich discloses "a cuttings bed detector comprising the ultrasonic sensor (column 12, lines 28-30) wherein the cuttings bed detector detects a location of the cuttings bed between the drillstring and a wall of the subsurface wellbore (column 12, lines 32-39)." Id. at 4 (emphasis omitted). Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief regarding claim 16 are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. Appeal Br. 34--36. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that: determining the relative amount of the solids in the drilling fluid does not determine a location of a cuttings bed. Even if a large amount of solids are present in the drilling fluid, the solids may be traveling with the drilling fluid and, as a result, not forming a cuttings bed. The Examiner is alleging that determining the relative amount of the solids in the drilling fluid inherently determines the location of a cuttings bed. Reply Br. 13-14. Weirich states: Still referring to FIGS. 1 and 2B, a plurality of flow rate sensors V1 - Vr are disposed in the drill string 20 to determine the fluid flow rate at selected locations in the drill string 20 and in the annulus 27. Great differences in the flow rate between the high side and the low side of the drill string provides at least qualitative measure and the location of the accumulation of cuttings and the locations where relatively large amounts of the drilling fluid are penetrating in the formation. 16 Appeal2012-001027 Application 11/952,238 Weirich 11 :27-35 (emphasis added). Thus, Weirich describes how the flow rate is used to determine the location of the cuttings bed. Appellants further argue that Fincher does not "remedy the deficiencies of Weirich et al. with respect to the claimed invention defined by independent claim 16." Reply Br. 14 (emphasis omitted). As we find no such deficiencies in Weirich, Appellants' argument is unconvincing. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 16. RejectionX Appellants argue that "Wylie et al. do not remedy the deficiencies of Weirich et al. and Fincher et al. with respect to independent claim 16 from which claims 17 and 18 depend." Reply Br. 15 (emphasis omitted). As discussed supra, we find no deficiencies in the rejection of claim 16. Thus, Appellants' argument is unconvincing. We sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 17 and 18. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation