HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2020

14910587 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 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.
14/910,587 02/05/2016 Ronald Johannes DIRKSEN 2013-IP-078230 U1 US 9366
142050 7590 04/30/2020
HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
C/O PARKER JUSTISS, P.C.
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
EXAMINER
SABUR, ALIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2812
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2020 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RONALD JOHANNES, IAN DAVID CAMPBELL MITCHELL,
and JON TROY GOSNEY
____________

Appeal 2019-003543
Application 14/910,587
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Applicant (“Appellant”)2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Primary Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–23. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Feb. 5, 2016 (“Spec.”),
the Final Office Action dated Apr. 17, 2018 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed Nov. 27, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated Jan. 31,
2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Apr. 1, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. is identified as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003543
Application 14/910,587

2
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a drilling method, and, more
particularly, to a measurement-while-drilling (MWD) survey technique with
improved accuracy. Spec. 1. According to the Specification, boreholes may
stray from their intended trajectories due to the earth’s varying gravity and
magnetic field. Id. The Specification discloses existing electronic survey
instruments that compensate for variations in gravity by providing correct
geographical location into tool software prior to commencing surveying or
with manual entry of data at each drilling site to support suitable corrections
for MWD survey data. Id. at 1–2. Appellant’s drilling method is said to
automate waypoint or borehole path updates based on survey data
corrections. Id. at 2. Independent claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief, is illustrative:
1. A drilling method that comprises:
collecting survey data at a drilling site;
determining a waypoint or borehole path based on the
survey data;
sending the survey data to a remote monitoring facility
that applies corrections to the survey data;
receiving from the remote monitoring facility the
corrected survey data or a related correction message; and
upon said receiving, automatically updating the waypoint
or borehole path based on the corrected survey data or the
related correction message; and
adjusting a drilling trajectory based at least in part on the
updated waypoint or borehole path.
Appeal Br. 27 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2019-003543
Application 14/910,587

3
Claim 12, the other independent claim in this appeal, is directed to a drilling
system comprising a survey tool that collects survey data and at least one
drilling site computer configured to carry out the steps of claim 1. Id. at 29.
II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, the Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 1–23
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and maintains the prior art rejections as follows:
A. Claims 1–10, 12–18, and 21–23 under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Marsh,3 Illfelder,4 and Boone;5
B. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Marsh,
Illfelder, Boone, and Rasheed;6
C. Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Marsh,
Illfelder, Boone, and Reay;7 and
D. Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Marsh,
Illfelder, Boone, and Brooks.8
Ans. 3; Final Act. 3–13.
III. DISCUSSION
Rejection A (Claims 1–10, 12–18, and 21–23). Appellant argues the
rejection of claim 1 and repeats the same argument for claims 12 and 21.
Accordingly, we confine our discussion to claim 1, which we select as

3 US 2010/0332175 A1, published Dec. 30, 2010.
4 US 2008/0275648 A1, published Nov. 6, 2008.
5 US 2009/0090555 A1, published Apr. 9, 2009.
6 US 2011/0247878 A1, published Oct. 13, 2011.
7 Sarah Reay et al., Improving directional drilling accuracy using magnetic
referencing techniques, British Geological Survey (May 2012).
8 US 2010/0211318 A1, published Aug. 19, 2010.
Appeal 2019-003543
Application 14/910,587

4
representative pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018). Claims 2–10,
12–18, and 21–23 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds Marsh describes a method that includes every
limitation recited in claim 1 except for explicitly teaching that the survey
data, collected at a drilling site and sent to a remote monitoring facility that
applies corrections to the survey data and automatically updates the survey
data, is used to determine a waypoint or borehole path and that the waypoint
or borehole path is updated automatically with corrected survey data and the
drilling trajectory adjusted. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds Boone and
Illfelder teach determining a borehole path based on survey data and
adjusting a drilling trajectory based on an updated borehole path that is
based on corrected survey data. Id. at 3–4. The Examiner determines it
would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to have combined the teachings of Boone and Illfelder
with Marsh such that the waypoint or borehole path based on survey data is
automatically updated based on corrected data and a drilling trajectory is
adjusted. Id. at 4.
Appellant contends that because Boone and Illfelder fail to disclose
that the automated correction to the borehole path is from the remote
monitoring facility, the combination fails to disclose the method claimed.
Appeal Br. 15. Appellant reproduces paragraph 44 and Figure 4 of Illfelder
and paragraph 117 and Figure 5A of Boone cited by the Examiner to
emphasize that the disclosures do not disclose receiving corrected survey
data from a remote monitoring facility. Id. at 15–17.
Appellant’s arguments fail to identify any reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The
Appeal 2019-003543
Application 14/910,587

5
problem with Appellant’s argument is that the rejection is based on the
combination of Boone and Illfelder with Marsh’s disclosure of automatically
updating upon receiving corrected data from a remote monitoring facility.
Ans. 4 (citing Marsh ¶ 16). Appellant’s argument (Appeal Br. 15–17; Reply
Br. 3) merely distinguishes Boone and Illfelder from claim 1’s method on
the basis that they fail to disclose what the Examiner relies upon Marsh for
disclosing, namely, receiving automatically corrected data from a remote
monitoring facility. The Examiner does not rely on Boone and Illfelder for
teaching this limitation. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For these reasons and those given by the Examiner, we uphold the
Examiner’s rejection as maintained against claim 1.
Rejections B–D (Claims 11, 19, 20). Appellant asserts that the
secondary references do not cure the deficiencies of the combination of
Marsh, Illfelder, and Boone. Appeal Br. 24–25. Appellant refers back to the
arguments made with respect to claims 1 and 12. Appeal Br. 24–25. Because
we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s combination of Marsh,
Illfelder, and Boone as discussed above in connection with claim 1, we
affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 11, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 for the same reasons and for the reasons provided by the Examiner.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we uphold the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the cited prior art references.
Appeal 2019-003543
Application 14/910,587

6
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 12–18,
21–23 103
Marsh, Illfelder,
Boone
1–10, 12–18,
21–23
11 103 Marsh, Illfelder, Boone, Rasheed 11
19 103 Marsh, Illfelder, Boone, Reay 19
20 103 Marsh, Illfelder, Boone, Brooks 20
Overall
Outcome
1–23

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED