Ex Parte Meyer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 25, 201613215922 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/215,922 08/23/2011 JOERG H. MEYER 101.0278 3158 35204 7590 11/29/2016 SCHLUMBERGER ROSHARON CAMPUS 10001 Richmond IP - Center of Excellence Houston, TX 77042 EXAMINER BETSCH, REGIS J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2863 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/29/2016 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): u sdocke ting @ sib .com jalverson@slb.com SMarckesoni@slb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOERG H. MEYER, MICHAEL CARNEY, and BOBBY D. POE Appeal 2015-005131 Application 13/215,922 Technology Center 2800 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2015-005131 Application 13/215,922 Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision2 finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—7, 9, 10, and 21—27. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Of the appealed claims, claims 1 and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is representative, and is reproduced below (Br. 14, Claims App’x): 1. A method for use in a hydrocarbon production system, comprising: providing a fiber optic sensor system deployed in a hydrocarbon production system, wherein the hydrocarbon production system comprises production components used in the production of production fluids and solids, where the production components are located in either the wellbore or at a wellhead surface facility, and wherein the fiber optic system extends through the hydrocarbon production system to a location of interest; providing at least one production component in the production system; wherein the fiber optic system is situated so as to detect vibration of the production component; providing a signal acquisition and analysis unit, wherein the analysis unit is in communication with the fiber optic system; sending light signals down the fiber optic sensor system; analyzing detected light signals with the analysis unit, wherein the analysis unit uses a distributed vibration sensing (DVS) analysis to identify a change in a flow condition of the production fluids based upon measured vibration of the production component; and identifying a source of the change in the flow condition of the production fluids based upon the analyzed light signals. The claims stand rejected as follows: 1. claims 1, 2, 4—7, 9, 10, and 21—27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, because the specification, while being 1 Appellants identity the real party in interest as Schlumberger Technology Corporation (Br. 1). 2 Final Office Action mailed March 27, 2014 (“Final Act.”). 2 Appeal 2015-005131 Application 13/215,922 enabling for identifying a flow condition change has occurred, does not reasonably provide enablement for identifying a source of the change in the flow condition; 2. claims 4—7 and 9 are rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter; and 3. claims 1, 2, 4—7, 9, 10, and 21—27 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over at least the basic combination of Greenaway (U.S. PGPub No. 2010/0038079 Al, published Feb. 18, 2010) in view of Looper et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2010/0300683 Al, published Dec. 2, 2010) (“Looper”).3 We have considered the arguments advanced by Appellants in the Appeal Brief. These arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusions of non-enablement, indefiniteness, and obviousness for essentially the reasons stated by the Examiner in the Response to Argument section of the Answer. See Ans. 2—20. Appellants (1) do not adequately respond to the scope of enablement rejection which is based on the broad scope of the claim language (Ans. 2— 13), (2) fail to appreciate that the alternative language of dependent claims 4—7 and 9 can be interpreted in more than one way (Ans. 14), and (3) fail to adequately address the facts and reasons relied on by the Examiner in 3 Although the Examiner applies additional prior art to this basic combination for various other claims (Final Act. 10—21); Appellants only rely on the reasons presented for claim 1 for all other obviousness rejections, and do not present any additional arguments (Br. 9 12). 3 Appeal 2015-005131 Application 13/215,922 support of the obviousness determination by the combination of Greenaway and Looper (Ans. 14—17) (Br. generally, no Reply Brief has been filed). With respect to the obviousness rejection, we note that the Supreme Court has stated that it is error to “look only to the problem the patentee [or applicant] was trying to solve.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Beattie, 91A F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.”). We adopt the Examiner’s fact finding and reasoning, as set forth in the Final Office Action and the Answer, in sustaining the Examiner’s rejections. 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 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation