Ex Parte Martin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 21, 2010

10350838 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 21, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GREGORY D. MARTIN
____________

Appeal 2008-005648
Application 10/350,8381
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: June 21, 2010
____________

Before THU A. DANG, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Application filed January 24, 2003. The real party in interest is Pavilion
Technologies.
Appeal 2008-005648
Application 10/350,838

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1-4,7-37, and 40-66, which are all the claims
remaining in the application, as claims 5, 6, 38, 39, and 67-702 are cancelled.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The present invention relates to the field of predictive modeling and
hydrocarbon, e.g., oil and/or natural gas, production, and more particularly
to parameterization of stead-state empirical models of in-situ hydrocarbon
reservoirs with derivative constraints. (Spec., 1:4-7.)
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method for parameterizing a
steady-state model of an in-situ hydrocarbon reservoir, the model
having a plurality of model parameters for mapping model input to
model output through a stored representation of reservoir, the method
comprising:
providing a training data set comprising a plurality of
input values and a plurality of target output values, wherein the
training data set is representative of production operations for said
reservoir;
receiving a next at least one input value of the plurality of
input values and a next target output value of the plurality of target
output values;
parameterizing the model with a predetermined algorithm
using said next at least one input value and said next target output
value, and one or more derivative constraints, wherein the one or
more derivative constraints are imposed to constrain relationships
between the at least one input value and a resulting model output

2 Ans. 2, (4).
Appeal 2008-005648
Application 10/350,838

3
value, wherein said parameterizing comprises using an optimizer to
perform constrained optimization on the plurality of model parameters
to satisfy an objective function subject to the derivative constraints;
iteratively performing said receiving and said
parameterizing using the optimizer to generate a parameterized model,
wherein the model comprises a model function, wherein the one or
more derivative constraints comprise upper and/or lower bounds on
one or more model function derivatives, wherein one or more of the
model function derivatives comprise one or more of:
a first order derivative of the model function,
wherein the first order derivative represents inter-well
transmissibilities;
a second order derivatives of the model function,
wherein the second order derivative of the model function represents
curvature of the inter-well transmissibilities; and/or
a third order derivative of the model function,
wherein the third order derivative of the model function represents
rate of curvature of the inter-well transmissibilities; and
storing the parameterized model in a computer-accessible
memory medium, wherein the parameterized model is usable to
analyze operations for the reservoir for management of the production
operations for the reservoir.

Appellant appeals the following rejection3:
Claims 1-4, 7-37, and 40-66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Turner (US Patent Pub. 2002/0072828 A1, June 13, 2002), Roggero
(US 6,662,109 B2, Dec. 9, 2003) and Kuipers (Higher-order derivative
constraints in qualitative simulation, vol. 51 Artificial Intelligence, pp. 343-
379 (1991)).

3 The Examiner noted that the double patenting rejection is withdrawn
because the co-pending application (10/350,830) has been abandoned by
Appellant (8/13/2007). (Ans. 2-3.)
Appeal 2008-005648
Application 10/350,838

4
FACTUAL FINDINGS
1. Roggero discloses a formula (32) for the transmissivity between
grid cell I and a neighboring grid cell v(I). (Col. 12, ll. 59-64.)
2. Roggero discloses calculating the bottomhole pressure derivatives
using the transmissivity value. (Col. 13, ll. 1-29.)

ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined references
disclose a derivative that represents either inter-well transmissibilities,
curvature of the inter-well transmissibilities, or rate of curvature of the inter-
well transmissibilities?

Appellant contends that “Roggero fails to teach or suggest, or even
mention, inter-well transmissibilities, which, as is well-known in the art of
hydrocarbon extraction, characterize and quantify production effects of wells
on each other.” (App. Br. 12.)
Appellant further contends that:
[G]rid cells in the model of Roggero are not wells, and that
transmissivity between adjacent grid cells in the model of
Roggero is not equivalent to transmissivity between wells. For
instance, . . . Figure 11 of Roggero shows that wells may be
separated by distances on the order of 40-60 grid cells . . .
therefore, are not located in adjacent grid cells, contrary to the
Examiner’s assertion.
(Reply Br. 5.) We agree with Appellant.
Here, the Examiner is primarily relying on Roggero to disclose a
derivative that represents inter-well transmissvity. Thus, our discussion will
mainly focus on the teachings of Roggero. While the Examiner has found
Appeal 2008-005648
Application 10/350,838

5
that “Roggero further discloses derivatives of the transmissivity (between
grids cells)” (Ans. 13: see also FF 1), Appellant has shown that
transmissivity between grid cells is distinguishable from the claimed inter-
well transmissivity.
In other words, we are looking at a transmissivity relationship
between wells and the Examiner has merely drawn our attention to a
transmissivity determination between neighboring grid cells without
showing how the grid cells are related to the positions of the wells
themselves, or the transmissivity between wells. In essence, Appellant
argues that there are multiple grid cells (on the order of 40-60) located
between wells, and the transmissivity between grid cells would not give you
the transmissivity between wells. (Reply Br. 5.) We agree.
Furthermore, we find that the section of Roggero that the Examiner
directs our attention to focuses on providing a bottomhole pressure
derivative (FF 2), not a derivative that represents inter-well transmissivity.
“[T]he PTO gives claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’”
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). However, we find that the Examiner’s
construction of the aforementioned limitation is unreasonably broad in light
of the express language of claim 1 requiring a derivative representing inter-
well transmissivity. The Examiner’s findings appear to be targeting a
derivative pertaining to a single well as opposed to derivatives representing
relationships between wells. Similarly, independent claims 34, 65, and 66
also recite this limitation. The Examiner has not shown, and we do not
readily find how Turner and Kuipers cure the above-noted deficiency of
Roggero.
Appeal 2008-005648
Application 10/350,838

6
Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
Based on the record before us, we find that the Examiner did err in rejecting
representative claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of independent
claims 1, 34, 65, 66, as well as associated dependent claims 2-4, 7-33, 35-37,
and 40-64.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection.

REVERSED

Erc

Susan M. Donahue
Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY
1201 South Second Street
E-7F19
Milwaukee WI 53204