Ex Parte Marsh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 2012

11164291 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 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. 11/164,291 11/17/2005 Richard Marsh 101.0148 US/PCT 5290 7590 12/03/2012 Patent Counsel Schlumberger Reservoir Completions Schlumberger Technology Corporation 14910 Airline Road Rosharon, TX 77583 EXAMINER JAGAN, MIRELLYS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2856 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/03/2012 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 RICHARD MARSH, ARTHUR H. HARTOG, GARTH NALDRETT, and VLADIMIR VAYNSHTEYN ____________ Appeal 2010-005450 Application 11/164,291 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, ERIC B. CHEN, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005450 Application 11/164,291 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-12. Claims 13-18 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Representative Claim 1. An optical fiber distributed temperature sensing system, comprising: an opto-electronic unit and an optical fiber functionally connected to the opto-electronic unit; the opto-electronic unit adapted to transmit optical energy into the optical fiber and to receive backscattered signals reflected from the optical fiber in order to measure temperature; the optical fiber including at least one reference coil at a known temperature; and the reference coil located remote from the opto-electronic unit. Prior Art Schroeder US 6,751,556 B2 Jun. 15, 2004 Shioji US 7,237,950 B2 Jul. 3, 2007 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 5-9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being unpatentable over Shioji. Claims 2-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shioji and Schroeder. Claims 10 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shioji. Appeal 2010-005450 Application 11/164,291 3 Claim Groupings Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims 1 and 5-8. ANALYSIS Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 9, and 11 Appellants contend that Shioji does not describe a “reference coil” as recited in claim 1. According to Appellants, the “reference coil” has a clearly established meaning as disclosed in the Background Section of Appellants’ Specification, which is not described by Shioji. Br. 4. However, Appellants’ argument that the “reference coil” recited in claim 1 is not described by the prior art is inconsistent with Appellants’ statement in the Specification that reference coils were known in the prior art. Appellants contend that Shioji does not describe an “optical fiber including at least one reference coil at a known temperature; and the reference coil located remote from the opto-electronic unit” as recited in claim 1. Br. 5. In particular, Appellants contend that the coiled optical fiber shown in Figure 8 of Shioji is a temperature sensor that increases resolution of the temperature measurement, but is not a remote reference coil. Br. 6. The Examiner finds the coil shown in Figure 8 of Shioji, after obtaining a temperature measurement, is a coil at a known temperature located remote from an opto-electronic unit. The Examiner therefore finds that Shioji describes a “reference coil at a known temperature . . . located remote from the opto-electronic unit” within the meaning of claim 1. Ans. 5-6. We agree with the Examiner’s finding. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to distinguish the remote coil at a known Appeal 2010-005450 Application 11/164,291 4 temperature described by Shioji from the “reference coil at a known temperature” that is “located remote from the opto-electronic unit” as recited in claim 1. In addition to the Examiner’s finding, we cumulatively find that Shioji describes an optical fiber thermometer provided with a reference optical fiber inside or outside of the thermometer, where the optical fiber temperature sensor invented by Shioji (such as the coil shown in Figure 8) can be used as the reference optical fiber. See col. 8, ll. 44-50. We find that Shioji describes an “optical fiber including at least one reference coil at a known temperature; and the reference coil located remote from the opto- electronic unit” as recited in claim 1. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellants have not presented arguments for separate patentability of claims 9 and 11, which fall with claim 1. Section 102 rejection of claims 5-8 Appellants contend that Shioji does not disclose measurement of temperature at the reference coil “by a separate sensor” as recited in claim 5. Br. 7. Appellants have not provided a definition of “a separate sensor” that excludes the separate sensor shown in Figure 8, or the reference optical fiber described in col. 8, ll. 44-50. Appellants contend that Shioji does not disclose measurement of temperature at the reference coil “by a separate optical fiber functionally connected to the opto-electronic unit” as recited in claim 6. Br. 7. Appellants’ argument is inconsistent with the description of reference optical fiber in col. 8, ll. 44-50. Appeal 2010-005450 Application 11/164,291 5 Appellants contend that Shioji does not disclose measurement of temperature at the reference coil “by the optical fiber with an optical pulse having unique characteristics” as recited in claim 7. Br. 7. Appellants’ argument that measuring temperature with an optical pulse having unique characteristics is not described by the prior art is inconsistent with the discussion of measuring temperature based on change in transmitted light described in col. 3, ll. 51-65 of Shioji, Appellants’ discussion of measuring backscattered light returning on a fiber to sense temperature on pages 1 and 2 of Appellants’ Specification, and Schroeder’s discussion of observing backscattered light from a pulse of optical energy to measure temperature in cols. 1 and 2. Appellants contend that Shioji does not disclose measurement of the temperature at the reference coil “by use of a thermal model” as recited in claim 8. Br. 7. Appellants have not provided a definition of “thermal model” that excludes the temperature distribution in an optical fiber that correlates to change in transmitted light as described in col 1, ll. 15-29 of Shioji. We sustain the rejection of claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Section 103 rejection of claims 2-4, 10, and 12 Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2-4, 10, and 12, but rather relies on arguments presented for the patentability of claim 1, which we find unpersuasive. We sustain the rejection of claims 1-4, 10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2010-005450 Application 11/164,291 6 DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 5-9, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being unpatentable over Shioji is affirmed. The rejection of claims 2-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shioji and Schroeder is affirmed. The rejection of claims 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shioji 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED gvw