Ex Parte Bixenman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 20, 2012

11539200 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PATRICK W. BIXENMAN, CRAIG D. JOHNSON, JAKE A. DANOS and MATTHEW R. HACKWORTH ____________ Appeal 2010-005397 Application 11/539,200 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, MICHAEL L. HOELTER and SCOTT A. DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005397 Application 11/539,200 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Castano-Mears (US 6,457,518 B1, iss. Oct. 1, 2002). Claims 1-9 have been indicated as allowable. Advisory Action mailed June 5, 2009, see Br. 2. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 10 and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 10, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 10. A method for completing a well, comprising: positioning a completion string in the well, the completion string having a screen therein, the screen defining a first portion that is covered by a filter media and a second portion that is uncovered by the filter media, the filter media extending circumferentially around a section of the screen to cover the first portion longitudinally along the screen; providing a screen-adjacent device in the second portion of the screen; and expanding the screen. OPINION Claim 10 Claim 10 recites a method for completing a well including “positioning a completion string in the well, the completion string having a Appeal 2010-005397 Application 11/539,200 3 screen . . . defining a first portion that is covered by a filter media and a second portion that is uncovered by the filter media, the filter media extending circumferentially around a section of the screen to cover the first portion longitudinally along the screen.” App. Br., Claims Appendix (emphasis added). The Appellants contend that the Examiner’s finding that Castano- Mears’ helically wrapped filter media 66 corresponds to “the filter media extending circumferentially around a section of the screen to cover a first portion ‘longitudinally along the screen,’” as recited in claim 10, is not adequately supported. See App. Br. 5, Reply Br. 3-4. But see Ans. 4, 5. It is notable that Figure 4 of the Appellants’ Specification illustrates an alternative embodiment where “[t]he second portion 48 extends along a helical path.” Spec. 8, para. [0023]. The Specification also identifies the helical path as “arcuate” and further distinguishes a helical (arcuate) path from a “linear path.” Id. Moreover, we understand the orientation of the claimed filtered media “extending circumferentially around a section of the screen to cover the first portion longitudinally along the screen,” (emphasis added) as recited by claim 10, to be a “linear” orientation. See also Spec. 7, para. [0021], Spec. 9, para. [0026], and Spec. 14, para. [0040] (Specification using the terms “longitudinal” or “longitudinally”). As such, we do not understand the term “helical” to correspond to the term “longitudinal.” Additionally, Castano-Mears use of the terms “helical” and “longitudinal” is similar to the use of those terms in Appellants’ Specification. For example, Figure 5 of Castano-Mears depicts “strands of the filtering material . . . oriented helically relative to the base pipe Appeal 2010-005397 Application 11/539,200 4 longitudinal axis 64” and “[t]he filtering media 66 . . . wrapped helically about the base pipe 62 in multiple wraps.” Col. 7, ll. 24-28. For the reasons provided above, the Examiner’s finding that Castano- Mears’ helically wrapped filter media 66 extends circumferentially around a section of the screen to cover the first portion longitudinally along the screen, as called for by claim 10, is not adequately supported. Thus, the rejection of claim 10 as anticipated by Castano-Mears is not sustained. Claims 11-13 Claim 11 recites an expandable sand screen for a well including an expandable base pipe having a first and a second portion, a filter media, and “a screen-adjacent device positioned adjacent a second portion of the base pipe that remains uncovered by the filter media, the second portion extending longitudinally along the base pipe.” App. Br., Claims Appendix (emphasis added). The Appellants contend that the Examiner’s finding that the helical wrapping pattern of connector 72 and, similarly, the area of the base pipe 62 that is uncovered by filtering media 66, do not correspond to a “second portion extending longitudinally along the base pipe,” as recited in claim 11. App. Br. 5, Reply Br. 3, 4. Contra Ans. 4, 5. The Appellants’ contention is persuasive because, as discussed supra, the term “helical” cannot be read to correspond to the term “longitudinally.” Thus, the rejection of claim 11, and claims 12 and 13 that depend therefrom, as anticipated by Castano-Mears is not sustained. Appeal 2010-005397 Application 11/539,200 5 DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 10-13. REVERSED Klh