Ex Parte Lievois et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2012

11764658 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2012)

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.
11/764,658 06/18/2007 John Lievois WEAT/0641.C1 6011
36735 7590 12/31/2012
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P.
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
EXAMINER
VU, MINDY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN LIEVOIS and DAVID ATKINSON
____________

Appeal 2010-005543
Application 11/764,6581
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, ERIC B. CHEN, and JOHN A. EVANS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving the rejection of
claims directed to an apparatus and method for determining the
concentrations of phases within a flow stream. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

1 The real party in interest is Weatherford/Lamb, Inc., Houston, Texas.
Appeal 2010-005543
Application 11/764,658

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to methods and apparatus for measuring a phase
fraction of a flow stream. An infrared phase fraction meter includes a light
source for emitting into a flow stream infrared radiation that includes first
and second wavelength bands. One or more detectors simultaneously detect
attenuation of the first and second wavelength bands upon the infrared
radiation passing through at least a portion of the flow stream, and a phase
fraction of the second phase is determined based on the attenuation.
(Abstract).
Claims 1-7 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious
over Turner (US 2003/0056581 A1, filed Mar. 27, 2003) and Servaites (US
2006/0092423 A1, filed May 4, 2006). (Ans. 3-5).
The claims have not been argued separately and therefore stand or fall
together. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claim 1 is illustrative and reads
as follows with disputed limitations italicized:
1. An apparatus for determining the concentrations of
phases within a flow stream, comprising:
a light source for emitting multiple wavelength bands of
infrared radiation into a flow stream containing multiple
phases; and
a detector for detecting fluctuations of the wavelength
bands after the infrared radiation passes through a portion of
the flow stream, wherein concentrations of the phases are
determined based on the fluctuations of the wavelength bands,
and
wherein the detector comprises a plurality of optical
fibers, and wherein groups of the optical fibers are routed to
Appeal 2010-005543
Application 11/764,658

3
different outputs used to measure the fluctuations of the
different wavelength bands.

CONTENTIONS AND ISSUE
The Examiner finds that Turner discloses a single optical fiber
coupled to a detector for detecting multiple wavelengths, but that Turner
does not disclose that the detector comprises a plurality of optical fibers
routed to different outputs used to measure the fluctuations of the different
wavelength bands. The Examiner finds that Servaites, in a similar field of
endeavor, discloses a method and an apparatus comprising a fiber optic
cable split into two or more smaller fiber-optic bundles. The Examiner finds
that Servaites suggests multiple cables for carrying multiple wavelength
bands to an InGaAs photo diode. Turner also discloses an InGaAs diode
array detector. Thus, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was
made to split Servaites’ fiber optic cable into a plurality of fiber-optic
bundles, each of which transmits the light onto an extended InGaAs photo
diode detector of Turner. (See Ans. 3-4).
Appellants contend that the Examiner concedes that Turner does not
disclose a detector comprising a plurality of optical fibers routed to different
outputs used to measure the fluctuations of the different wavelength bands.
Moreover, because the path of the light source calibration system is different
from the light path traversing the test cell and the detector, Servaites does
Appeal 2010-005543
Application 11/764,658

4
not teach that the “groups of optical fibers are routed to different detectors,”
as required by the limitations of claims 1 and 17. (App. Br. 12-13).
The Examiner answers that “[t]he use of Servaites reference is for the
suggestion of delivering light of different wavelengths using different optical
fibers rather than to incorporate the whole source calibration system of
Servaites in Turner.” (Ans. 6).
Appellants reply that Servaites does not teach that the “groups of
optical fibers are routed to different outputs used to measure the fluctuations
of the different wavelength bands” after infrared radiation passes through a
flow stream because the path of the light source calibration system is
different from the light path traversing the test cell and the detector. (See
Reply Br. 3).
The issue presented for decision is: does the cited art teach or suggest
a detector “wherein groups of the optical fibers are routed to different
outputs used to measure the fluctuations of the different wavelength bands
after infrared radiation passes through a flow stream,” as claimed in
independent claims 1 and 17?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Turner fails to disclose a detector comprising
a plurality of optical fibers (Ans. 3). Servaites teaches an optical bundle that
is split into a plurality of optical cables. (See Servaites [0029]). However,
we agree with Appellants that neither Turner, nor Servaites, teaches or
Appeal 2010-005543
Application 11/764,658

5
suggests that the groups of optical fibers are routed to different outputs used
to measure the fluctuations of the different wavelength bands after infrared
radiation passes through a flow stream. (See App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 3). In
view of the forgoing, we decline to sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

SUMMARY
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject independent claims 1
and 17 and to reject claims 2-7 and 18-20, respectively dependent thereon.

REVERSED

rwk