Ex Parte Lievois et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 28, 2012

11764658 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2012)

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. 11/764,658 06/18/2007 John Lievois WEAT/0641.C1 6011 36735 7590 12/31/2012 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. 3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500 HOUSTON, TX 77056 EXAMINER VU, MINDY D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2884 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/31/2012 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 JOHN LIEVOIS and DAVID ATKINSON ____________ Appeal 2010-005543 Application 11/764,6581 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, ERIC B. CHEN, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving the rejection of claims directed to an apparatus and method for determining the concentrations of phases within a flow stream. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 The real party in interest is Weatherford/Lamb, Inc., Houston, Texas. Appeal 2010-005543 Application 11/764,658 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to methods and apparatus for measuring a phase fraction of a flow stream. An infrared phase fraction meter includes a light source for emitting into a flow stream infrared radiation that includes first and second wavelength bands. One or more detectors simultaneously detect attenuation of the first and second wavelength bands upon the infrared radiation passing through at least a portion of the flow stream, and a phase fraction of the second phase is determined based on the attenuation. (Abstract). Claims 1-7 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Turner (US 2003/0056581 A1, filed Mar. 27, 2003) and Servaites (US 2006/0092423 A1, filed May 4, 2006). (Ans. 3-5). The claims have not been argued separately and therefore stand or fall together. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows with disputed limitations italicized: 1. An apparatus for determining the concentrations of phases within a flow stream, comprising: a light source for emitting multiple wavelength bands of infrared radiation into a flow stream containing multiple phases; and a detector for detecting fluctuations of the wavelength bands after the infrared radiation passes through a portion of the flow stream, wherein concentrations of the phases are determined based on the fluctuations of the wavelength bands, and wherein the detector comprises a plurality of optical fibers, and wherein groups of the optical fibers are routed to Appeal 2010-005543 Application 11/764,658 3 different outputs used to measure the fluctuations of the different wavelength bands. CONTENTIONS AND ISSUE The Examiner finds that Turner discloses a single optical fiber coupled to a detector for detecting multiple wavelengths, but that Turner does not disclose that the detector comprises a plurality of optical fibers routed to different outputs used to measure the fluctuations of the different wavelength bands. The Examiner finds that Servaites, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses a method and an apparatus comprising a fiber optic cable split into two or more smaller fiber-optic bundles. The Examiner finds that Servaites suggests multiple cables for carrying multiple wavelength bands to an InGaAs photo diode. Turner also discloses an InGaAs diode array detector. Thus, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to split Servaites’ fiber optic cable into a plurality of fiber-optic bundles, each of which transmits the light onto an extended InGaAs photo diode detector of Turner. (See Ans. 3-4). Appellants contend that the Examiner concedes that Turner does not disclose a detector comprising a plurality of optical fibers routed to different outputs used to measure the fluctuations of the different wavelength bands. Moreover, because the path of the light source calibration system is different from the light path traversing the test cell and the detector, Servaites does Appeal 2010-005543 Application 11/764,658 4 not teach that the “groups of optical fibers are routed to different detectors,” as required by the limitations of claims 1 and 17. (App. Br. 12-13). The Examiner answers that “[t]he use of Servaites reference is for the suggestion of delivering light of different wavelengths using different optical fibers rather than to incorporate the whole source calibration system of Servaites in Turner.” (Ans. 6). Appellants reply that Servaites does not teach that the “groups of optical fibers are routed to different outputs used to measure the fluctuations of the different wavelength bands” after infrared radiation passes through a flow stream because the path of the light source calibration system is different from the light path traversing the test cell and the detector. (See Reply Br. 3). The issue presented for decision is: does the cited art teach or suggest a detector “wherein groups of the optical fibers are routed to different outputs used to measure the fluctuations of the different wavelength bands after infrared radiation passes through a flow stream,” as claimed in independent claims 1 and 17? ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Turner fails to disclose a detector comprising a plurality of optical fibers (Ans. 3). Servaites teaches an optical bundle that is split into a plurality of optical cables. (See Servaites [0029]). However, we agree with Appellants that neither Turner, nor Servaites, teaches or Appeal 2010-005543 Application 11/764,658 5 suggests that the groups of optical fibers are routed to different outputs used to measure the fluctuations of the different wavelength bands after infrared radiation passes through a flow stream. (See App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 3). In view of the forgoing, we decline to sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). SUMMARY We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject independent claims 1 and 17 and to reject claims 2-7 and 18-20, respectively dependent thereon. REVERSED rwk