Ex Parte Meyer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2016

13215922 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2016)

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