Ex Parte Valenza et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 201713339936 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/339,936 12/29/2011 JOHN J. VALENZA II ISl 1.0148-US-NP 3874 37003 7590 06/01/2017 SCHLUMBERGER-DOLL RESEARCH 10001 Richmond Avenue IP Administration Center of Excellence Houston, TX 77042 EXAMINER BALSECA, FRANKLIN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2685 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2017 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): U S Docketing @ sib. com jalverson@slb.com smarckesoni @ slb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN J. VALENZAII and DAVID LINTON JOHNSON Appeal 2017-000818 Application 13/3 3 9,93 61 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which are all claims pending. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Schlumberger Technology Corporation as the real party in interest. (Br. 2.) Appeal 2017-000818 Application 13/339,936 THE INVENTION Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to methods and devices for attenuating acoustic signals traveling within bodies. (Abstract.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A device comprising: a body; at least one acoustic attenuator disposed along the body, the attenuator comprising: a cavity; a plurality of granular particles disposed within the cavity; a liquid disposed within the cavity; and a restrictor configured to apply a stress to the granular particles within the cavity. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1—11 and 13—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hsu et al (US 6,643,221 Bl, pub. Nov. 4, 2003) (hereinafter “Hsu”), in view of Iwasa et al. (US 5,744,763, pub. Apr. 28, 1998) (hereinafter “Iwasa”). (Final Act. 4.) The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hsu and Iwasa, and further in view of Simon (US 2005/0167192 Al, pub. Aug. 4, 2005). (Final Act. 9.) 2 Appeal 2017-000818 Application 13/339,936 ISSUES ON APPEAL Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following issue:2 Whether the Examiner erred in combining Hsu and Iwasa in the rejection of independent claim 1. (Br. 3—8.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—9) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—3). We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner, and emphasize the following. Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in combining the teachings of Hsu and Iwasa because the Examiner “has not provided any rationale or reason to apply the compression of the elastomeric damping system of Iwasa et al. to a particle damping system such as Hsu et al.” (Br. 4.) Appellants further contend that “Hsu et al. explicitly teaches against compaction of particles in a particle damping system” which is “logical since the damping mechanism in a particle damping system, as described by Hsu et al., utilizes 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 4, 2016); the Final Office Action (mailed June 4, 2015); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed July 29, 2016) for the respective details. 3 Appeal 2017-000818 Application 13/339,936 inelastic collision and friction between particles.” (Br. 6—7, citing Hsu 6:62— 67.) We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner correctly finds that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have used Iwasa’s teachings in the acoustic attenuator taught [by] Hsu because it will permit the attenuator to attenuate acoustic signals at specific frequencies” and that Hsu does not teach “away from using the type of particles taught in Iwasa’s invention because the fact that Hsu teaches one way to attenuate signals does not mean [anjother method cannot be used.” (Ans. 3.) Appellants’ argument that “Hsu explicitly teaches against compaction of particles” is not persuasive, because the cited portion of Hsu indicates that the “particles are not compacted” in the “preferred embodiments.” (Hsu 6:64—67.) We further note that Iwasa explicitly teaches that “friction among the rubber grains” converts “the energy within the noises into vibrational energy and thermal energy” (Iwasa 5:44-48), which corresponds to the “friction between particles” occurring in Hsu, as admitted by Appellants, and thus provides an additional reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the teachings of Iwasa with respect to Hsu. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2—11 and 13—20 not separately argued (Br. 7.), and claim 12 not separately argued with particularity. (Br. 8.) CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2—11 and 13—20 over Hsu and Iwasa; and of claim 12 over Hsu, Iwasa, and Simon. 4 Appeal 2017-000818 Application 13/339,936 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is affirmed. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation