General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2020

2019004337 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2020)

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.
14/830,471 08/19/2015 Luca Parolini 280198-1 US 1026
86661 7590 10/02/2020
BAKER HUGHES COMPANY
ATTN: IP Legal
14990 Yorktown Plaza Drive
Houston, TX 77040
EXAMINER
CARTER, CHRISTOPHER W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2118
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2020 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):
ipdocketing@bakerhughes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUCA PAROLINI and VITTORIO MICHELASSI

Appeal 2019-004337
Application 14/830,471
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-004337
Application 14/830,471
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 3–14, and 16–20 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed
by Appellant, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1
See Final Act. 1.2, 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, relates generally
to “a method of operating a hydrocarbon extraction field [that] is performed
with the aid of a computer,” which “may include programming the computer
with a virtual flow meter model.” Spec. 1:22–24. More specifically,
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to methods of operating a
hydrocarbon extraction field using a computer by programming the
computer with a virtual flow meter model that includes one or more of mass
flow, temperature, and pressure within pressure loss elements (PLEs) (that
include wells) in the hydrocarbon extraction field. The computer receives
sensor data from sensors in the PLEs and uses the model to estimate mass
flow rates from the wells. See Spec. 1:22–30; Abstract. Claims 1, 14, and
18 (each directed to a method) are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as General Electric
Company. See Appeal Br. 3.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Aug. 19, 2015; and
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed July 13, 2018. We also refer to the
Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Dec. 28, 2017; and
Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Oct. 2, 2018.
3 We note that Appellant’s claim 3 improperly shows dependence on
canceled claim 2 and Appellant’s claim 16 improperly shows dependence on
canceled claim 15. See Appeal Br. 14, 16.
Appeal 2019-004337
Application 14/830,471
3
1. A method of operating a hydrocarbon extraction
field with the aid of a computer, the method comprising:
programming the computer with a virtual flow meter
model, said model written with a notation that represents at least
one of mass flow, temperature and pressure at extremities of a
plurality of pressure loss elements (PLEs), said PLEs including
a plurality of wells located in said hydrocarbon extraction field;
receiving sensor data from sensors installed in association
with said PLEs;
providing the sensor data to the computer;
estimating, based on the sensor data, by said computer,
using said model, respective mass flow rates from a plurality of
said wells; and
controlling elements of the hydrocarbon extraction field
based at least in part on said estimated mass flow rates.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Li et al. (“Li”) US 2013/0110485 A1 May 2, 2013
Rashid US 2014/0094974 A1 Apr. 3, 2014
Yeboah Gyasi-Agyei, Hydraulic Modelling of Drip Irrigation Systems
Used for Grass Establishment on Steep Slopes, vol. 96, pp. 159–169, WIT
Transactions on Ecology and the Environment (Aug. 2006) (“Gyasi-
Agyei”).
Appeal 2019-004337
Application 14/830,471
4
REJECTIONS4
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 7–11, 14, and 17–19 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rashid. See Final Act. 2–9.5
2. The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Rashid and Gyasi-Agyei. See Final Act. 9–11.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 3–6, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Rashid and Li. See Final Act. 12–16.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues independent claims 1, 14, and 18, and dependent
claims 7–11, 17, and 19 together as a group with respect to the
§ 102(a)(1)rejection. See Appeal Br. 12. Appellant does not provide
separate arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 3–6, 12, 13, 16,
and 20. See Appeal Br. 12–13. We select independent claim 1 as
representative of Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3–14, and
16–20. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 7–11, 14, and 17–19
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as anticipated by Rashid.
See Final Act. 2–4; Ans. 3–4. Appellant contends Rashid does not disclose
the disputed features of claim 1—“receiving sensor data from sensors
installed in association with” “pressure loss elements (PLEs),” “providing

4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. Because the present
application has an effective filing date (Aug. 19, 2015) after the AIA’s
effective date for applications (March 16, 2013), this decision refers 35
U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 103.
5 The Examiner’s statement of the rejection includes canceled claim 15. See
Final Act. 2. We find this typographical error to be harmless and revise the
statement of rejection to omit claim 15.
Appeal 2019-004337
Application 14/830,471
5
the sensor data to [a] computer,” “estimating, based on the sensor data, by
[the] computer, using” “a virtual flow meter model,” “respective mass flow
rates from a plurality of . . . wells,” and “controlling elements of [a]
hydrocarbon extraction field based at least in part on [the] estimated mass
flow rates” (Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.) (claim 1)). Appeal Br. 7–8; see
Appeal Br. 7–12. Specifically, Appellant contends that:
Rashid does not disclose anything akin to the receiving sensor
data from sensors installed in association with said PLEs;
providing the sensor data to the computer; and estimating, based
on the sensor data, by said computer, using said model,
respective mass flow rates from a plurality of said wells; and
controlling elements of said equipment installation based at least
in part on said estimated mass flow rates elements.
Appeal Br. 8; see Appeal Br. 8–9.
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2–4) and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3–
4) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the findings and
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we provide the following analysis
for emphasis.
Rashid describes, as explained by the Examiner, a flow simulation
model (Rashid ¶ 41), and simulators (e.g., reservoir simulator) (Rashid ¶ 56),
that predict flow rates, temperature profiles, and pressure. See Final Act. 3
(citing Rashid ¶¶ 41, 56); Ans. 3–4 (citing Rashid ¶¶ 55, 56). We agree with
the Examiner that Rashid discloses “a virtual flow meter model” (claim 1),
which “is an estimator which attempts to compute relevant properties of a
fluid by combining real-time measured data and a variety of models that
relate the relevant fluid properties to the measured data” (Spec. 5:7–9), in
that Rashid describes a flow simulation model and reservoir simulator that
Appeal 2019-004337
Application 14/830,471
6
determine, simulate, or predict hydrocarbon flow (“reservoir simulator 228
may be configured to solve for hydrocarbon flow rate through a reservoir
and into one or more wellbores” (Rashid ¶ 56)). See Rashid ¶¶ 36, 41, 56.
Rashid also describes pressure loss elements (PLEs), which “may include a
plurality of wells located in the hydrocarbon extraction field” (Spec. 1:24–
25), as Rashid describes wells (wellbores) and reservoirs. See Rashid ¶¶ 35,
46, 56. Rashid further describes sensors, receiving sensor data from sensors,
and providing the sensor data to a computer (the surface unit). See Final
Act. 3 (citing Rashid ¶¶ 52–53); Ans. 3–4 (citing Rashid ¶¶ 52–55). Rashid
additionally describes controlling elements of the equipment installation or
hydrocarbon extraction field using a controller. See Final Act. 3 (citing
Rashid ¶¶ 45, 54, 57, 58); Ans. 3–4 (citing Rashid ¶¶ 53–54).
Accordingly, Rashid discloses the disputed features of claim 1—
“receiving sensor data from sensors installed in association with” “pressure
loss elements (PLEs),” “providing the sensor data to [a] computer,”
“estimating, based on the sensor data, by [the] computer, using” “a virtual
flow meter model,” “respective mass flow rates from a plurality of . . .
wells,” and “controlling elements of [a] hydrocarbon extraction field based
at least in part on [the] estimated mass flow rates” (Appeal Br. 14 (Claims
App.) (claim 1)). Appellant’s generalized contentions that Rashid does not
disclose the disputed features (supra) do not persuasively explain how the
Examiner’s findings are erroneous. Additionally, Appellant did not file a
Reply Brief addressing the Examiner’s clarified findings with respect to
Rashid and the disputed limitations of claim 1 (see Ans. 3–4), or otherwise
rebutting the findings and responsive arguments made by the Examiner in
the Answer.
Appeal 2019-004337
Application 14/830,471
7
To the extent Appellant argues that the disputed features of claim 1
are not identically disclosed in Rashid as arranged in the claims (see Appeal
Br. 8–12), we disagree. “Anticipation is a factual question.” Microsoft
Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We find, as
did the Examiner (supra), that the disputed features are disclosed in Rashid
as arranged in claim 1 (see discussion supra). Further, even if the disputed
features are not identically disclosed in Rashid as arranged in claim 1,
Rashid need not “expressly spell out all limitations combined as in the claim
if a [person ordinarily skilled in the art] would at once envisage the
arrangement or combination.” Biscotti, 878 F.3d at 1069.
Accordingly, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s finding that Rashid anticipates the disputed limitations of claim
1. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claim 1, independent claims 14 and 18, and dependent claims
7–11, 17, and 19, not separately argued with particularity (supra). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Obviousness Rejections of Claims 3–6, 12, 13, 16, and 20
The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 13 over Rashid and Gyasi-Agyei.
See Final Act. 9–11. The Examiner also rejects claims 3–6, 16, and 20 over
Rashid and Li. See Final Act. 12–16. Appellant does not address the
obviousness rejections in detail or the individual claims with specificity. See
Appeal Br. 12–13. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 3–6, 12, 13, 16, and 20 for the same reasons
set forth with respect to claim 1 (supra). Therefore, we affirm the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 3–6, 12, 13, 16, and 20.
Appeal 2019-004337
Application 14/830,471
8
CONCLUSION
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1,
7–11, 14, and 17–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Appellant has also not
shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3–6, 12, 13, 16, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 3–14, and 16–20.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 7–11, 14,
17–19
102(a)(1) Rashid 1, 7–11, 14,
17–19

12, 13 103 Rashid,
Gyasi-Agyei
12, 13
3–6, 16, 20 103 Rashid, Li 3–6, 16, 20
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–14, 16–20

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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED