Ex Parte Santoso et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

11953902 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

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.
11/953,902 12/11/2007 David Santoso 2841-02600 3017
92297 7590
Conley Rose P.C
P.O.Box 3267
Houston, TX 77253
EXAMINER
BALSECA, FRANKLIN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
pathou @conleyrose.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID SANTOSO and JULIUS KUSUMA
Appeal 2016-001214
Application 11/953,9021
Technology Center 2600
Before NATHAN A. ENGELS, JOHN D. HAMANN, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—19, 21, 23, and 24, which constitute of all
of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is IntelliServ, LLC. Br.
3.
Appeal 2016-001214
Application 11/953,902
INVENTION
Appellants’ application relates to configuring drill string
communications. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject
matter and reads as follows:
1. A method to configure drillstring communications,
comprising:
generating a signal at a plurality of transmitters coupled
along a drillstring;
transmitting the generated signals along different sections
of the drillstring via the transmitters to a plurality of receivers,
wherein the different sections of the drillstring are responding to
different conditions in a wellbore;
sampling the transmitted signals at the receivers to
generate a plurality of received signals;
calculating a plurality of drillstring transmission
characteristics based on comparisons of the generated signals and
the received signal for corresponding drillstring sections; and
individually configuring at least one of the transmitters
and at least one of the receivers based on the corresponding
drillstring section transmission characteristic.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1,2, 4—9, and 11—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Shah et al. (US 2003/0142586 Al;
published July 31, 2003) (“Shah”), Hentati et al. (US 7,453,372 B2; issued
Nov. 18, 2008) (“Hentati”).
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Shah, Hentati, and Rawle et al. (US 2006/0145889
Al; published July 6, 2006) (“Rawle”).
2
Appeal 2016-001214
Application 11/953,902
Claims 17—19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Shah, Hentati, and Rawle.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Pacault et al. (US 6,950,034 B2; issued Sept. 27,
2005) (“Pacault”), Laborde (US 6,252,518 Bl; issued June 26, 2001), and
Rawle.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Pacault, Laborde, Rawle, and Shah.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Shah teaches or suggests
all of the recited limitations, except that the transmission characteristics are
found by comparing the received signal with the signal sent from the
transmitter, for which the Examiner relied on Hentati. Final Act. 6—7 (citing
Shah Figs. 3A, 3B, H 1, 7, 19-22, 25, 26; Hentati col. 1:16-23, col. 3:12—
31).
Appellants contend the cited portions of Shah do not disclose the
limitation “individually configuring at least one of the transmitters and at
least one of the receivers based on the corresponding drillstring section
3
Appeal 2016-001214
Application 11/953,902
transmission characteristic,” recited in claim 1. Br. 11. Appellants argue
that the “characterizations” described in Shah relate to the logical link
between transceivers (i.e., communication channels) and not to properties of
corresponding drillstring sections. Id. at 12.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner found Shah teaches that signals are transmitted using acoustic
signals that use the drill string as the communication channel. Ans. 3 (citing
Shah || 2, 6). The Examiner explained that when transceivers are being
calibrated in each section of the drill string in Shah, the system finds the
transmission characteristics of each section of the drill string where each pair
of transceivers is located because the communication channel used to
transmit the acoustic signals is the drill string. Id. Thus the Examiner found
that Shah’s teaching of finding the characteristics of the communication
channel teaches or suggests the recited “drillstring section transmission
characteristics” because the drill string is used as a communication channel
to transmit the acoustic signals. Id. The Examiner further found that Hentati
teaches a method for finding transmission characteristics based on
comparisons of the generated signals and the received signals. Id. (citing
Hentati col. 1:16—23, col. 3:12-31). Appellants did not file a Reply Brief
and have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings.
Appellants further contend Shah does not teach the limitation
“individually configuring at least one of the transmitters and at least one of
the receivers” because “the only component that may be considered to be
configured during the method described in Shah is the surface computer.”
Br. 17. Appellants argue that “the memory-lacking transceivers 310” of
Shah “are not themselves designed or adapted, given that calibration may
only begin upon the connection of the surface computer.” Id.
4
Appeal 2016-001214
Application 11/953,902
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that the plain language of the claim does not require that the
transmitter and the receiver perform the recited configuration, only that the
transmitter and the receiver are configured. Ans. 4. The Examiner found
Shah teaches that a transmitter and a receiver are calibrated in order to
transmit and receive data using a frequency that was found based on the
transmission characteristics. Id. (citing Shah || 25, 28). The Examiner
explained that the transmitter and receiver are set up (configured) to use the
frequency found based on the transmission characteristics to transmit and
receive data. Id. Moreover, the Examiner found that Shah teaches
transceivers are calibrated as they are being placed on the drill string when
the drill string is being built, meaning that the transceivers can calibrate
themselves without the need of a surface computer. Id. at 4—5. Appellants
have not presented sufficient persuasive explanation or objective evidence to
rebut the Examiner’s findings.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Shah and Hentati teaches or suggests the
limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claims 2, 4—9, and 11—16, for which Appellants make no
additional arguments. Br. 19-20.
With regard to claim 17, Appellants contend each of Shah and Hentati
fails to teach the limitation “configure the transmitters and the receivers
based on the corresponding drillstring transmission characteristics” for the
reasons given for the similar limitation in claim 1. See Br. 21—22.
Appellants argue that Shah and Hentati fail to teach the disputed limitation
5
Appeal 2016-001214
Application 11/953,902
because the “first information” recited in claim 17 corresponds to signals
transmitted via a plurality of transmitters along different sections of a drill
string and the recited “second information” in claim 17 corresponds to a
plurality of receivers receiving the signals transmitted along the different
sections of the drill string. Id. at 21. According to Appellants, the
transmitters and receivers disclosed in Hentati “are reliant upon for control
by either a surface processor or a processor of the BHA of the drillstring.”
Id. (citing Hentati col. 13,11. 43—51).
Appellants’ arguments for claim 17 are similar to those made for
claim 1. For the reasons discussed above with regard to claim 1, we do not
find Appellants’ arguments for claim 17 persuasive. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 17,
as well as dependent claims 18, 19, and 21, not argued separately. Br. 22.
Regarding claim 23, Appellants contend Laborde does not teach the
recited “receiving” and “generating” steps. Br. 37. Appellants argue that,
because “Laborde is directed towards receiving signals distorted by the
extremely long length of communication link 20 and not due to changing
wellbore conditions,” “under 35 U.S.C. § 112 16, the transmission
characteristics of Laborde cannot disclose the transmission characteristics
feature of claim 23.” Id.
We disagree. The Examiner found that Laborde teaches that the
transmission characteristics are due not only to length but also to change of
downhole conditions, noise (i.e., electrical interference), and depth. Ans. 6
(citing Laborde col. 4:55—62, col. 5:53—56). Appellants did not file a Reply
Brief and have not sufficiently or persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s
findings.
6
Appeal 2016-001214
Application 11/953,902
Appellants next contend one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have incorporated the teachings of Laborde into a wired pipe drilling system
because the method of Laborde would require the opening and closing of
switches within the wired pipe network, which would limit the functionality
and operability of the network anytime a transmitter or receiver were to be
calibrated. Br. 27. According to Appellants, combining the teachings of
Laborde and those of Pacault would change the principles of operation of
Pacault, which are directed towards availability for testing and quickness in
identifying failures. Id. Appellants further contend the Examiner has failed
to provide a suitable rationale for why Pacault, which teaches a wired drill
pipe system, would be combined with Laborde. Id.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in combining the teachings
of Laborde and Pacault. As the Examiner points out, Laborde and Pacault
are in the same field of endeavor, which is transmission of data in a wellbore
using wires. Ans. 6 (citing Pacault col. 1:7—10, Laborde col. 2:51—54).
Moreover, the Examiner explained that Laborde’s teachings improve
Pacault’s system because the use of switches permits the telemetry system to
bypass faults found in the telemetry system, which helps Pacault’s system to
maintain communications at all times. Id. (citing Laborde Pigs. 5B, 6).
Appellants have not sufficiently rebutted these findings by the Examiner.
further, we find that the Examiner has provided persuasive articulated
reasoning with rational underpinning for an artisan of ordinary skill to have
modified Pacault’s system with Laborde’s teaching of generating
transmission characteristics for the different sections of the communications
channel based on a comparison of transmitted and received signals—to help
Pacault’s system to maintain reliable communications even when the
7
Appeal 2016-001214
Application 11/953,902
communication channel is affected by change of downhole conditions, noise
or increase of depth. See Ans. 7.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Pacault and Laborde teaches or suggests the
limitations of claim 23. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 23, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of dependent claim 24, for which Appellants make no additional arguments.
Br. 29.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—19,
21, 23, and 24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8