Ex Parte Shah et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2016

11945055 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111945,055 11/26/2007
7590 11/21/2016
Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A.
P.O. Box 2938
Minneapolis, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vimal V. Shah
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.
1880.018US2 6685
EXAMINER
BALSECA, FRANKLIN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2016 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 VIMAL V. SHAH, WALLACE R. GARDNER, and
DONALD G. KYLE
Appeal2015-005577
Application 11/945,055 1
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, and 16. App. Br. 3. Claims 4, 5,
9, 10, 14, and 15 are subject to objection. Id. at 6. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-005577
Application 11/945,055
The invention relates to downhole drilling employing acoustic
telemetry. Abstract; Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1 is exemplary of the matter on
appeal:
1. A method comprising:
receiving an acoustic signal that is propagated along a drill
string;
correlating the acoustic signal to a first stored acoustic signal
representing a first symbol,
wherein the first stored acoustic signal is acquired from a
propagation along the drill string in an approximately noise free
environment.
App. Br. 16 (Claims App'x.).
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Scherbatskoy (US 5, 113,379;
issued May 12, 1992) in view of Schultz (US 6,434,084 Bl; issued Aug. 13,
2002)). Final Act. 3---6.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Scherbatskoy does not teach the claim 1 limitation
"wherein the first stored acoustic signal is acquired from a propagation along
the drill string in an approximately noise free environment." App. Br. 10-
13; Reply Br. 2-3.
According to Appellants, Scherbatskoy' s pump noise remains a
significant factor in the received signal and the "noiseless signal" is arrived
at only after the received signal has been filtered and thereafter processed to
2
Appeal2015-005577
Application 11/945,055
remove pump noise. i\ .. pp. Br. 10-11 (citing Scherbatskoy col 35, 1. 45-52).
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding "the noise created by the
pump is not random which makes it easy to remove" and [also argues] "the
Examiner thus appears to interpret the term "noise" to be limited to random
noise."' Id. 13.
The Examiner finds Scherbatskoy teaches drilling operations are
stopped when the signal is sent and the noise created by the running pump
can easily be filtered. Ans. 3 (citing Scherbatskoy col. 8, 11. 31-52). The
Examiner interprets the signal is transmitted in an approximately noise free
environment to mean the environment still has noise when the signal is
transmitted and finds Scherbatskoy teaches (or at least suggests) the disputed
limitation because "a major part of the noise is removed by stopping drilling
operations." Id.
In response to the Examiner's Answer, Appellants argue Scherbatskoy
teaches transmitting the signal through a noisy environment and then using
filtering. According to Appellants, the Examiner errs in suggesting "because
the noise in the environment P(t) is non-random, and therefore filterable,
that no matter how noisy, the environment qualifies as approximately noise
free." Reply Br. 3. Appellants also argue "it is unreasonable to suggest that
the significant pump noise of Scherbatskoy allows for a noise-free
environment for propagation of the signal." Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner's interpretations and findings.
3
Appeal2015-005577
Application 11/945,055
Based on the record before us, i\~ppellants present no persuasive basis
to limit the meaning of approximately noise free environment as understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art to exclude the teaching of Scherbatskoy as
relied on by the Examiner. Claim terms in a patent application are given the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253,
1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, great care should be taken to avoid reading
limitations of the Specification into the claims. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com
Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Here, approximately noise free can be reasonably broadly interpreted
as encompassing Scherbatskoy' s stopped drilling operation,_ and we note this
is consistent with the Specification. For example the Specification discloses,
"[ t ]his library of signals may be generated during an approximately noise
free environment (such as when drilling operations are not being
peiformed)." (Emphasis added) Spec. i-f 38. In addition, the availability of
additional filtering is consistent with the signal being generated during an
approximately noise free environment.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
independent claims 6 and 11 as these claims recite the disputed limitation
and are argued together with claim 1. App. Br. 13. Dependent claims 2, 3,
7, 8, 12, and 13 are not argued separately and, therefore, we sustain the
rejection of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding independent claim 16, Appellants argue Scherbatskoy and
Schultz do not teach the limitation transmit an acoustic signal along the drill
string when the drill string is not in motion. App. Br. 14. According to
Appellants, it would have not been obvious to transmit Schultz' signal along
4
Appeal2015-005577
Application 11/945,055
the drill string \vhen the drill string is not in motion because Scherbatskoy
teaches that noise is still present when the signal is transmitted. Id.
The Examiner notes the claim does not recite that the signal is
transmitted when no operational noise is present as the claim only recites
that the signal is transmitted when the drill string is not in motion. The
Examiner then finds:
Scherbatskoy clearly teaches that the signal is sent when the drill string
is not in motion [see Scherbatskoy, col. 8, L. 44--52]. Scherbatskoy
also clearly teaches that all his teachings can be applied in an acoustic
system [see Scherbatskoy, col. 54, L. 55---68, and col. 55, L. 1-15]. For
this reason, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made would have applied Scherbatskoy's teachings in any acoustic
system including Schultz's acoustic system. Schultz was only used to
show a well-known feature in the art feature which is that in an acoustic
system; the signals are transmitted through the drill string. For all the
reasons above, the cited prior art teach all the argued limitations, and
the appellant's arguments are not persuasive.
Ans. 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner's findings. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim
16.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13,
and 16.
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
5