SERCEL

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 1, 2021

2020003911 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2021)

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.
15/481,713 04/07/2017 Nicolas BRAVARD 0337-071/PI_0193 8240
11171 7590 06/01/2021
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
754 Warrenton Road
Suite 113-314
Fredericksburg, VA 22406
EXAMINER
BOLDUC, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2852
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2021 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):
Mailroom@ppblaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICOLAS BRAVARD
Appeal 2020-003911
Application 15/481,713
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed April 7, 2017 (“Spec.”);
the Final Office Action dated May 24, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief
filed December 6, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Second Examiner’s Answer
dated March 30, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed April 30, 2020
(“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-003911
Application 15/481,713

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–14. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a device for processing recorded raw data
collected with a memory gauge in a well, and the associated method for
processing the recorded raw data. See Spec. 9–11. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix (Claims App.) of the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for optimally processing recorded raw
data acquired with a memory gauge in a well, wherein the
memory gauge has plural calibration tables for a parameter to
be measured with the gauge from the recorded raw data, the
method comprising:
selecting a first calibration table (C1), of the memory
gauge, that has a highest calibration value for the measured
parameter;
performing a first analysis of the recorded raw data
using the first calibration table (C1) to generate measured
values of the measured parameter and to determine a highest
measured value of the measured parameter;
comparing the highest measured value of the measured
parameter with highest calibration values of the plural
calibration tables of the memory gauge;

2 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 SERCEL.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003911
Application 15/481,713

3
if the comparing yields that a highest calibration value of
a second calibration table is closer to the highest measured
value of the measured parameter than the highest calibration
value of the first calibration table, selecting the second
calibration table (C2), and performing a second analysis of the
recorded raw data using the second calibration table (C2) to
generate the measured values of the measured parameter; and
outputting the measured values.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REJECTION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1–14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Zaeper3 in view of Koukol.4
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
Appellant’s contentions, we reverse this rejection for the reasons set forth in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs, and set forth below.
Appellant presents arguments directed to the subject matter of
independent claims 1 and 10, as well as dependent claims 2 and 11. Appeal
Br. 7–11. Because both independent claims include the limitations at issue
and emphasized above, we focus our discussion on representative claim 1.5
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We note that Appellant’s arguments and our

3 Zaeper et al., US 2014/0019052 A1, published Jan. 16, 2014.
4 Koukol, Jr. et al., US 2004/0249592 A1, published Dec. 9, 2004.
5 Although the Examiner’s rejection includes a substantive analysis focused
on claim 10, the Examiner states that the analysis applies to claim 1 as well.
Final Act. 2–4. Because Appellant’s arguments focus on the limitations of
claim 1 (Appeal Br. 7–11), we focus our analysis on claim 1, with reference
to the Examiner’s rejection of the corresponding limitations of claim 10.
Appeal 2020-003911
Application 15/481,713

4
analysis also apply to claim 10, which contains the disputed subject matter
as well.
Appellant first argues that the combination of Zaeper and Koukol fails
to teach or suggest “selecting a first calibration table (C1), of the memory
gauge, that has a highest calibration value for the measured parameter” and
“performing a first analysis of the recorded raw data using the first
calibration table (C1) to generate measured values of the measured parameter
and to determine a highest measured value of the measured parameter,” as
required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 7–9.
Zaeper discloses systems and methods for data collection and
calibration of sensors in a downhole environment (e.g. a well).
Zaeper ¶¶ 10–12. Zaeper further discloses processing the recorded raw data.
Zaeper ¶ 15.
In rejecting the claims as obvious over Zaeper in view Koukol, the
Examiner finds that Zaeper is silent with respect to the steps of “selecting” a
first calibration table and “performing” a first analysis required by claim 1.
Final Act. 3. To account for these deficiencies, the Examiner turns to
Koukol, finding that the disclosure of Figures 1, 2, and 5, as well as
paragraphs 27–32 and 40–42 teach claim 1’s “selecting” and “performing”
steps. Id.
Koukol discloses a method for outputting calibrated values of a
sensor-measured variable by applying a “calibration correction definition,”
that corresponds to a range of the variable being measured. Koukol ¶ 40.
Koukol teaches a number of calibration correction definitions can be stored
in a memory within a system, and during operation, a user is capable of
choosing from any one of these pre-stored calibration ranges “based on the
Appeal 2020-003911
Application 15/481,713

5
expected operating range” of the sensor. Koukol ¶ 21. In operation, Koukol
first applies a characterization equation to raw data to obtain “non-calibrated
measurement values.” Koukol ¶ 40. The characterization equation reduces
differences between the measured variable and the signal from the sensor
output. Koukol ¶ 4. A calibration correction definition that corresponds to
the expected range of the measurement values is then applied to obtain a
calibrated data set, and this data is then output. Koukol ¶ 40.
With respect to the limitations discussed above, the Examiner finds
that the application of Koukol’s characterization equation (shown as step
510 in Koukol’s Figure 5, and described in Koukol’s paragraph 40)
constitutes a calibration step in which “full range entry 208,” as seen in
Figure 2, can be selected. Ans. 4–5; Final Act. 3. It is the Examiner’s
position that this teaching in Koukol reads on the “selecting” and
“performing” limitations required by claim 1. Id. On the record before us,
the Examiner does not provide a sufficient factual basis to establish that
Koukol, as applied to Zaeper, teaches or suggests the “selecting” and
“performing” limitations set forth in claim 1, for the reasons expressed by
Appellant and discussed below.
As Appellant persuasively argues, the Examiner does not establish
that Koukol teaches the selection of a first calibration table that has a highest
calibration value for the measured parameter. Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner
acknowledges that Koukol’s step 510 results in non-calibrated values, which
are then calibrated in step 520. Ans. 4. The dispute, then, is whether the
application of a characterization equation to obtain non-calibrated values
constitutes “selecting a first calibration table . . . that has a highest
calibration value for the measured parameter” and “performing a first
Appeal 2020-003911
Application 15/481,713

6
analysis of the recorded raw data . . . to determine a highest measured value
of the measured parameter.” We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has
failed to establish how Koukol’s characterization equation reads on those
limitations in claim 1, and how a step resulting in non-calibrated values (Fig.
5, step 510) would have been understood as a “first calibration” step. Appeal
Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 1–2.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
and claims 2–9, which depend therefrom. As claim 10 contains limitations
that are substantially similar to those discussed above with respect to claim
1, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 10 and claims 11–14, which
depend therefrom.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Zaeper in
view of Koukol is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–14 103 Zaeper, Koukol 1–14
Overall
Outcome
1–14

REVERSED