Ex Parte Kleinberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 1, 2016

11432269 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111432,269 05/11/2006
37003 7590 02/03/2016
SCHLUMBERGER-DOLL RESEARCH
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Kleinberg
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
60.1647 US NP 8703
EXAMINER
BREIER, KRYSTINE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2016 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):
USDocketing@slb.com
jalverson@slb.com
JScott19@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT KLEINBERG and JAKOB B.U. HALDORSEN
Appeal2013-006921
Application 11/432,269
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Robert Kleinberg and Jakob B.U. Haldorsen ("Appellants") seek our
review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 11-19, 22-
24, 26, and 28. Appeal Br. 4 (indicating that claims 11-19, 22-26, and 28
stand appealed); id. at 13 (Claims App.) (indicating that claim 25 is
withdrawn). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2013-006921
Application 11/432,269
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention relates to "methods for locating gas hydrate
deposits." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 11, 19, and 26 are independent and claims 11
and 19 are reproduced below, with emphasis on particular limitations that
are at issue in this appeal.
11. A method of detecting gas hydrate, the method
compnsmg:
collecting data about a region using an electromagnetic
surveying technique; and
characterizing at least one hydrate dike formation based at
least in part on the data, wherein characterizing the at least one
hydrate dike formation includes estimating at least one of a dip
and strike of a hydrate dike.
19. An exploration method for detecting marine gas
hydrate comprising:
selecting an exploration site based on a geologic
indication of a probable presence of hydrate dikes wherein
selecting the exploration site comprises selecting the exploration
site based on the geologic indication of a presence of a gas
hydrate stability zone, a source of gas located beneath the gas
hydrate stability zone, and at least one channel that can convey
a high flux of gas into the gas hydrate stability zone;
surveying the exploration site using an electromagnetic
survey technique to collect data about the exploration site; and
processing the data based on an earth model that accounts
for the probable presence of hydrate dikes.
Appeal Br. 11, 12-13 (emphases added) (Claims App.).
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 19 and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Edwards (R. Nigel Edwards, On the Resource Evaluation
of Marine Gas Hydrate Deposits Using Sea-Floor Transient Electric
Dipole-Dipole Methods, GEOPHYSICS, vol. 62, no. 1, 63-74 (Jan.-Feb.
2
Appeal2013-006921
Application 11/432,269
1997)). Final Act. 5.
II. Claims 11-13 and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Edwards and Collett (Timothy S. Collett,
ChevronTexaco GOM Gas Hydrate JIP Drilling Program Downhole
Logging Program, CRUISE REPORT (May 21, 2005)). Final Act. 6.
III. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Edwards, Collett, and Yu (L. Yu, R. L. Evans, and R. N.
Edwards, Transient Electromagnetic Responses in Seajloor with Triaxial
Anisotropy, GEOPHYS. J. INT. 129, 292-304 (1997)). Final Act. 7.
IV. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Edwards and Belosludov (Vladimir R. Belosludov, et al.,
Absolute Stability Boundaries of Clathrate Hydrates of Cubic Structure II,
JOURNAL OF SUPRAMOLECULAR CHEMISTRY 2, 377-383 (2002)). Final Act.
8.
V. Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Edwards, Belosludov, and Yu. Final Act. 9.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I: Claims 19 and 22-24 Anticipated by Edwards
Appellants group claims 19 and 22-24 together in contesting this
rejection. See Appeal Br. 7. Accordingly, we select claim 19 as the
representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims,
with claims 22-24 standing or falling with claim 19. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
In rejecting claim 19, the Examiner finds that Edwards discloses the
claimed exploration method for detecting marine gas hydrate comprising the
3
Appeal2013-006921
Application 11/432,269
steps ot~ inter alia, "selecting an exploration cite based on a geologic
indication of a probable presence of hydrate dikes." Final Act. 5 (citations
omitted).
In contesting the rejection, Appellants argue that the Examiner's
rejection should be withdrawn, because the "combined sets of information
are not described in Edwards," as found by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 7
(emphasis omitted). In particular, Appellants assert that Edwards does not
describe:
[ 1] selecting the exploration site based on the geologic indication of a
presence of a gas hydrate stability zone;
[2] a source of gas located beneath the gas hydrate stability zone; and
[3] at least one channel that can convey a high flux of gas into the gas
hydrate stability zone.
Id. (numbered paragraphing added for clarity).
In response to assertion [1], the Examiner explains that "[t]he
exploration site of Edwards is selected based on the indication of a gas
hydrate stability zone, which was determined from previous seismic
studies." Ans. 4 (citing Edwards; 64, col. 1, and 65, col. 2).
In response to assertion [2], the Examiner explains that Edwards
"shows the source of gas ("free gas zone") located beneath the gas hydrate
stability zone ("hydrated [sediments,]") as Edwards teaches, "[t]he
amplitude of the [bottom simulating reflector, as determined from seismic
surveying from [1], above,] has been related to the thickness of a free gas
zone beneath the hydrated sediments." Id. (citing Edwards, p. 64, col. 1).
In response to assertion [3], the Examiner finds that Edwards teaches,
"'the gas can migrate upward back into the stable hydrate zone[,'] thus
4
Appeal2013-006921
Application 11/432,269
showing that there is at least one channel which can convey the gas into the
hydrate zone." Id. at 5 (citing Edwards, 64, col. 1).
Upon reviewing the record, we find that the Examiner's position is
supported by the evidence, and Appellants' arguments do not identify error
in the Examiner's findings with respect to [1]-[3], summarized above.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 19 under Rejection I, and of
claims 22-24, which fall with claim 19.
Rejection II: Claims 11-13 and 15-18
Unpatentable Over Edwards and Collett
Appellants group claims 11-13 and 15-18 together in contesting this
rejection. See Appeal Br. 7-8. Accordingly, we select claim 11 as the
representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims,
with claims 12, 13, and 15-18 standing or falling with claim 11.
In rejecting claim 11, the Examiner finds that Edwards "does not
teach estimating at least one of a dip and a strike of a hydrate dike," as
reproduced supra, and instead relies on Collett for teaching this limitation.
Final Act. 6 (citing Collett, 13). Based on these findings, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious "to modify the method of
Edwards with the dip and strike estimations of Collett since such a
modification would have given high-resolution images for improved
interpretation accuracy." Id. (emphasis added).
In contesting the rejection, Appellants assert that the Examiner's
rationale for combining Edwards with Collett "is insufficient to properly
support an obviousness rejection." Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 5
(questioning the Examiner's "assum[ption] that one of ordinary skill in the
art would recognize the benefits of combining the references.")
5
Appeal2013-006921
Application 11/432,269
that:
In response to Appellants' second argument, the Examiner explains
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
teachings of Collett would have improved the images and
characterizations output by the method of Edwards, due to its
teachings of high resolution images and the use of such images
with the dip and st[r]ike determinations to infer gas hydrates.
Ans. 6 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981)).
Upon reviewing the record, we find that the Examiner's rationale is
adequate and Appellants' argument does not persuade us of error in the
Examiner's reasoning that combining Collett's teachings would improve the
"images and characterizations output" of Edwards' method. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 11 under
Rejection II, and of claims 12, 13, and 15-18, which fall withclaim 11.
Rejections IIL IV, and V: Claims 14, 26, and 28
Urzpatentable Over Edwards and Other Cited Art
In contesting the rejection of claims 14, 26, and 28, under Rejection
III, IV, or V, respectively, Appellants present two arguments, which we
address separately, below. Appeal Br. 8.
First, Appellants assert that "Edwards, alone or in combination, does
not describe estimating at least one of a dip and a strike of a hydrate dike."
Id. (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' first argument because, as
explained supra, the Examiner relies on Collett for teaching "at least one of
a dip and a strike of a hydrate dike" and Appellants' fail to persuade us that
the Examiner's reason for combining Edwards with Collette is in error. Ans.
6
Appeal2013-006921
Application 11/432,269
6 ("Collet[t] does teach estimating at least one of a dip and strike of a
hydrate dike" (emphasis omitted)).
Second, Appellants argue that "the motivations to combine the
references are advantages, not explicit analysis supported by specific
reference text." Appeal Br. 8. In presenting this argument, Appellants do
not contest any particular Examiner reasoning under Rejection III, IV, or V,
but instead contest the Examiner's reliance on "advantages" rather than
"explicit analysis supported by specific reference text." See id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' second argument. As explained
correctly by the Examiner, "[a] reason to combine a secondary reference
with a primary reference is to gain an advantage or improvement to the
method or primary reference." Ans. 7. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme
Court rejected the rigid requirement of an explicit teaching, suggestion, or
motivation be found in the prior art to combine known elements in order to
show obviousness. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 14, 26, and 28 under
Rejections III, IV, and V, respectively.
SUMMARY
The Examiner decision to reject claims 19 and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Edwards is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 11-13 and 15-18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Edwards and Collett is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Edwards, Collett, and Yu is affirmed.
7
Appeal2013-006921
Application 11/432,269
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Edwards and Belosludov is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Edwards, Belosludov, and Yu 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
msc
8