Ex Parte LEUCHTENBERG et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 28, 2019

14572492 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/572,492
96897 7590
THOTPATENT
POS1FACH 10 17 56
RATINGEN, 40837
GERMANY
12/16/2014
03/28/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christian LEUCHTENBERG
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.
MPO 1603 US-PAT 6681
EXAMINER
LAMBE, PATRICK F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAN LEUCHTENBERG and BRIAN PICCOLO
Appeal2018-007806
Application 14/572,492 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 "The real party in interest for this appeal is Managed Pressure Operations
PTE LTD, Singapore." Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-007806
Application 14/572,492
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 18, and 25 are independent. Claim 18, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
18. A drilling system including a separator apparatus for
degassing drilling fluid, a riser which extends between a subsea
blowout preventer mounted on a wellhead at the top of a
wellbore, and a diverter which has a returns port which is
connected to an inlet of the separator apparatus via a returns line,
and a rig choke and kill manifold which is connected to a
wellbore annulus below the subsea blowout preventer via a well
control choke line, the choke and kill manifold being, in tum,
connected to the inlet of the separator apparatus via a choke valve
which is operable to either permit or substantially prevent flow
of fluid from the choke and kill manifold to the inlet of the
separator apparatus.
Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2)
as anticipated by Morgan et al. (US 6,413,297 Bl, iss. July 2, 2002)
(hereinafter "Morgan").
Claims 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2) as anticipated
by Gonzalez (US 6,276,455 Bl, iss. Aug. 21, 2001).
Claims 4, 10-17, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Morgan.
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2-17
The Appellants argue that Morgan fails to teach "wherein gas leaving
the vessel body of the primary separator via the primary separator gas vent
2
Appeal2018-007806
Application 14/572,492
port enters the secondary separator via the inlet port of the secondary
separator," as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 6-12; Reply Br. 3-
6.
The Examiner finds that gas output port 9 of Morgan's primary
separation means 1 corresponds to the claimed "primary separator gas vent
port" and inlet 15 of secondary separation means 2 corresponds to the
claimed "inlet port of the secondary separator." Non-Final Act. 3--4 (citing
Morgan Fig. 1); Ans. 4 (annotating Morgan Fig. 1). As best we can
determine, it is the Examiner's position that gas leaving output port 9 is
capable of entering inlet 15 by way of jet pump 46, valves 24, 25, and 33,
flow control system 32, and piping 31. See Ans. 4--5.
The Appellants argue that "pump and control flow system 32 cannot
be operated so that gas can flow from valve 25 to valve 24," because "pump
and flow control system 32 does nothing more than open or close valves 23,
24 and 25 using pneumatic or hydraulic pressure." Reply Br. 6; see id. at 5-
6 (citing Morgan 9:3-31). The Appellants point to Morgan's Figure 1,
which shows dotted lines connecting valves 23, 24, and 25 to pump and flow
control system 32, instead of solid lines which designate the other conduits
in the Morgan system. Id. at 6. The Appellants' argument is persuasive of
error as we do not agree with the Examiner's position that gas leaving output
port 9 is capable of entering inlet 15 in the manner described.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-9 as anticipated by Morgan. For a
similar reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claims 4 and 10-17 as unpatentable over Morgan.
3
Appeal2018-007806
Application 14/572,492
Independent Claim 25 and Dependent Claims 26--30
The Appellants argue that Morgan fails to teach "liquid level sensing
system that measures a surface level of liquid collected in the bottom of the
vessel body and provides an output representing the surface level," as recited
in independent claim 25. Appeal Br. 13-16; Reply Br. 7-10.
The Examiner finds that Morgan's knockout vessel 34 associated with
inlet 15 corresponds to the claimed "vessel body," and pressure sensors 44
and 56 correspond to the claimed "liquid level sensing system." Non-Final
Act. 5 ( citing Morgan Fig. 1 ). As for the latter, the Examiner explains,
"[t]he pressure sensors (56, 44) measure the liquid levels throughout the
system. The output of the liquid level is monitored [sic] the rate of change
of the vessel body to determine flow rate." Id.
The Appellants argue that Morgan's pressure sensors 44 and 56 do not
measure a surface level of liquid collected in the bottom of vessel body 34.
See Reply Br. 9. The Appellants point out that "pressure sensor 44
'monitors the pressure in piping 26 and sends a signal to microprocessor 28',
while pressure sensor 56 monitors pressure and emits a well pressure signal
to microprocessor 28." Appeal Br. 13-15 (citing Morgan 6:63-7:58, 8:62-
9:2). The Appellants contend that pressure sensors 44 and 56 are used to
open and close control valves 23, 24, and 25. Id. at 15.
In response, the Examiner adds:
Sensor 56 with flow meter 27 monitors between the wellhead and
the separator. Thus it is monitoring the amount of fluid that enters
the vessel body. On the other end, sensor 44 is monitoring the
pressure ofliquid leaving the body, which is directly related to the
volume leaving. Additional sensors are monitoring additional
outflows, such as gas. With a known body volume, known inputs,
4
Appeal2018-007806
Application 14/572,492
and known outputs, the microprocessor is constructively given the
liquid level of the body.
Ans. 7 ( emphasis added). Additionally, the Examiner equates a purpose of
sensor 44 as "a 'safeguard against the possibility of liquid carry over into the
gas process stream'" with a statement in the Specification that the sensing
system is to avoid "the possibility of flooding the vessel body 12, potentially
resulting in liquid carry over into the vent line." Id. (citing Morgan 8:62---63,
Spec. 15:12-14); see also Spec. Fig. 1.
The Examiner's position appears to be based on speculation that data
and programming could be made available to processor 28, so that Morgan's
sensing system would be able to measure a surface level of liquid collected
in the bottom of the vessel body. This suggestion does not support the
finding that Morgan discloses a "liquid level sensing system that measures a
surface level of liquid collected in the bottom of the vessel body and
provides an output representing the surface level," as recited in independent
claim 25.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 25 and dependent claims 26-29 as anticipated by Morgan. For a
similar reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claim 30 as unpatentable over Morgan.
Independent Claim 18 and Dependent Claims 19-24
The Appellants argue that Gonzalez does not disclose, "a diverter
which has a returns port which is connected to an inlet of the separator
apparatus via a returns line," as recited in independent claim 18. Appeal
Br. 17-20.
5
Appeal2018-007806
Application 14/572,492
The Examiner finds that Gonzalez's gumbo box arrangement 68 and
gumbo slide 78 correspond to the claimed "diverter," return line 66
corresponds to the claimed "returns line," and gas separator 52 corresponds
to the claimed "separator apparatus." Non-Final Act. 6-8 (citing Gonzalez
Fig. 2); Ans. 9 (annotating Gonzalez Fig. 2).
The Appellants argue that "Fig[ ure] 2 of Gonzalez shows that no inlet
into the separator apparatus (i.e., gas separator 52) is connected to the
returns port (i.e., return line 66) of the diverter (i.e., gumbo box
arrangement 68) via a returns line." Reply Br. 12. The Appellants also
contend that "the only possible way to interpret Gonzalez as argued by the
Examiner would be to invert the entire system so that mud takeout ( 66)
would be on top, and therefore act as an inlet." Id. at 12-13. The
Appellants' argument is not persuasive of Examiner error.
The Appellants' argument implies a construction of "a diverter which
has a returns port which is connected to an inlet of the separator apparatus
via a returns line," as recited in claim 18, which requires a particular flow
stream within the claimed structures. We disagree with this construction.
The disputed claim limitation is directed to structural relationship between
the claimed "returns port," "returns line," and "separator apparatus."
Specifically, the claimed structural connection is between the diverter
return's port and the separator apparatus's inlet via a return line. We note
that the term "connected" is defined as "united, joined, or linked." Connect
Definition, DICTIONARY.COM, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/connected
(last visited Mar. 27, 2019). The definition of "connected" is not restricted
to either a direct or an indirect connection. See Ullstrand v. Coons, 147 F.2d
698, 700 (CCP A 1945) ("It is clear that the accepted definition of the term
6
Appeal2018-007806
Application 14/572,492
'connected' is restricted to neither a direct nor an indirect connection, and
the term is therefore applicable to an indirect connection."). Accordingly,
the claimed structural connection between the diverter return's port and the
separator apparatus's inlet via a return line maybe direct or indirect.
Gonzalez's Figure 2 shows an indirect structural connection between
diverter 68/78 return's port and gas separator 52's inlet via a return line 66.
Therefore, the Examiner's finding that Gonzalez discloses "a diverter which
has a returns port which is connected to an inlet of the separator apparatus
via a returns line," is adequately supported.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 18 as
anticipated by Gonzalez. For the same reason, we also sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 19-24, which are not argued
separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17 and
25-30.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 18-24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7