Ex Parte Moran

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

11556860 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID P. MORAN
____________________

Appeal 2010-011586
Application 11/556,860
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before: KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011586
Application 11/556,860

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 28, 29, 31, 32, and 37-48.1 Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The claims are directed to the field of rotary wellbore drilling, more
specifically, the invention relates to methods for optimizing values of
drilling variables, or parameters, in real time to improve or optimize drilling
performance based on drilling objectives. Spec. ¶ [0001]. Claim 28,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
28. A method for optimizing drilling parameters, comprising:
obtaining previously acquired vibration data;
querying an electronic remote data store for current
vibration data;
determining vibration-optimized drilling parameters for a
next segment, based on the vibration data; and
transmitting returning the vibration-optimized parameters
for the next segment to the electronic remote data store;
wherein the querying the electronic remote data store, the
determining the vibration-optimized drilling parameters, and
the transmitting the vibration-optimized parameters are
performed in real-time.

1 Appellant omits claim 48 in its listing of appealed claims. Br. 5. We treat
this as a typographical error because Appellant argues claim 48 in the
Argument section of the Appeal Brief. Br. 6.
Appeal 2010-011586
Application 11/556,860

3
REFERENCES
Dashevskiy US 2004/0256152 A1 Dec. 23, 2004
Anderson US 6,826,483 B1 Nov. 30, 2004

REJECTION
Claims 28, 29, 31, 32, 37-45 and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dashevskiy. Ans. 3-5.
Claims 46 and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dashevskiy and Anderson. Ans. 3-5.

Issue
Appellant presents the issue whether Dashevskiy teaches “querying an
electronic remote data store for current vibration data,” and “transmitting
returning the vibration-optimized parameters for the next segment to the
electronic remote data store,” recited in claim 28, thereby rendering obvious
claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellant presents the issue whether Dashevskiy teaches “the
previously acquired vibration data comprises at least one of an axial, lateral,
and torsional vibration,” recited in claim 37, thereby rendering obvious
claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellant presents the issue whether Dashevskiy teaches “at least one
of the defined drilling priorities includes vibration reduction,” recited in
claim 40, thereby rendering obvious claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2010-011586
Application 11/556,860

4
Analysis
Claim 28
Claim 28 recites a “querying an electronic remote data store for
current vibration data,” and “transmitting returning the vibration-optimized
parameters for the next segment to the electronic remote data store.”
Appellant argues Dashevskiy does not teach these limitations. Br. 7.
Specifically, Appellant argues that the remote data store must be remote
from the drilling site or if the remote data store is at the drilling cite then the
optimization must occur remote from the drilling site. Id. Appellant asserts
that in Dashevskiy, drilling optimization, modeling, and advising, as well as
the collection of vibration data, occur at the drilling site because the
downhole tool is not remote from the drilling site. Br. 7-8. This argument is
not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellant relies on the definition of remote given in the Specification
as follows:
The word “remote” is defined in THE CHAMBER'S
DICTIONARY (9th ed., 2003) on page 1282. It is an adjective
meaning “far removed in place, ... widely separated.” In relation
to computers, THE CHAMBER'S DICTIONARY defines
“remote” as “located separately from the main processor but
having a communication link with it.” In this disclosure,
“remote” means at separate location (e.g., removed from the
drilling site), but having a communication link (e.g., satellite,
internet, etc.). For example, a “remote data store” may be at a
different location from a drilling site. In one example, a “remote
data store” is located at the location where the drilling
parameters are optimized. In addition, a “remote data store”
may be located at the drilling site, but remote from the drilling
parameter optimization. In many embodiments, however, a
“remote data store” is located remote from both the drilling site
Appeal 2010-011586
Application 11/556,860

5
and the location where the drilling parameter optimization is
performed.

Spec. ¶ [0023]. We agree with the Examiner that this definition is limited to
“at separate location, but having a communication link.” Ans. 8. Although
the Specification mentions “removed from the drilling site,” this is preceded
by an “e.g.” which means it is merely an example. Thus, we accept that
remote is construed as simply at separate location, but having a
communication link.
In Dashevskiy, there is processing occurring downhole, below the
surface, at the location of the drill itself. Dashevskiy, Fig. 1 (Item 16 –
“Downhole data transmitted to surface”). We agree with the Examiner that
this can be considered the claimed remote data store. Ans. 8. This is because
the optimization, modeling and advising occur on the surface. For Example,
Fig. 1 shows that there is “Downhole data transmitted to [the] surface.”
Dashevskiy, Fig. 1
Appellant argues that Figure 6 of Dashevskiy does not teach
“querying an electronic remote data store for current vibration data” because
it is not remote from the drilling cite and because it evaluates historical data
instead of current data. Br. 10. The Examiner notes that Figure 6 is used only
to show using current vibration data in modeling. Ans. 9. For example,
paragraph [0015] states that “real-time drilling data is dynamically updated.”
Dashevskiy, ¶ [0015]. The real time data is transmitted from the downhole
tool to the surface. Dashevskiy, ¶ [0013]. In other words, Dashevskiy shows
that real-time vibration data (i.e., the claimed current vibration data) is
transmitted from the drill to the surface (i.e., the claimed “remote” location).
Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Appeal 2010-011586
Application 11/556,860

6
Claim 28 also recites “transmitting returning the vibration-optimized
parameters for the next segment to the electronic remote data store.”
Appellant argues that the vibration-optimized parameters originate at the
remote data store and thus would not be transmitted to the remote data store.
Br. 11. As discussed above, the downhole tool is a “remote data store.” The
cited paragraphs 0034 and 0078 discuss control, using the surface modeling,
of “acceptable vibration levels” (paragraph 0034) and for “reduced
downhole vibration” (paragraph 0078). Thus, since the surface modeling is
transmitted to the drill to reduce vibration, this teaches “transmitting
returning the vibration-optimized parameters for the next segment to the
electronic remote data store.” See Ans. 9-10. Additionally, as noted above,
real time data is transmitted from the drill, then used to do modeling, then
sent back down to the drill to control the drill and reduce vibration.
Dashevskiy, ¶ [0015]; see Ans. 10.
Appellant does not make separate arguments regarding claims 29, 31,
32, 38, 39, and 41-48. Thus, those claims fall with claim 28.
Claim 37
Appellant argues that “Dashevskiy does not teach or suggest
previously acquired vibration data including at least one of axial, lateral, and
torsional vibration,” as recited in claim 37. Br. 13. Appellant argues that in
Fig. 1A and paragraph [0034], Dashevskiy only shows setting acceptable
ranges of vibration data and not previously acquired vibration data. Id.
Dashevskiy teaches that sensors sense downhole drilling vibrations,
which one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
recognize includes at least one of axial, lateral, or torsional vibration, that
Appeal 2010-011586
Application 11/556,860

7
are then stored on the surface. Dashevskiy, ¶ [0015]; see Ans. 11. Thus, we
are not persuaded by this argument.
Claim 40
Appellant argues “Dashevskiy does not teach or suggest defining
drilling priorities, wherein at least one of the defined drilling priorities
includes vibration reduction.” Br. 15. This argument is not persuasive.
Dashevskiy teaches benefits related to drilling include reduced
downhole vibration. Dashevskiy, ¶ [0034]; see Ans. 11. We find that one of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a benefit is equivalent to a
priority as claimed since one would attempt to maximize benefits as a
priority. Ans. 11.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 28, 29, 31, 32, and
37-48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc