Ex Parte Olson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 2019

13705130 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/705, 130 12/04/2012 30686 7590 01/31/2019 SCHLUMBERGER K.K. 10001 Richmond Avenue IP Administration Center of Excellence Houston, TX 77042 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Alex Olson 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. IS12.2279 US NP 3637 EXAMINER NGUYEN, LAURAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/31/2019 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): USDocketing@slb.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 ALEX OLSON, NALIN WEERASINGHE, KUN WANG, and MILOS MILOSEVIC Appeal2018-000365 Application 13/705, 130 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants request review of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. Appeal2018-000365 Application 13/705, 130 BACKGROUND The present patent application "relates to cable telemetry for a wellsite." Specification ,r 27, filed December 4, 2012 ("Spec."). "'Cable telemetry' refers generally to communication between an uphole modem and a downhole modem over a cable." Spec. ,r 27. The cable telemetry described in the application "enable[ s] data reception from tools and send[ s] data commands to downhole tools via, for example, a wireline heptacable." Spec. i127. Claims 1, 7, and 11 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed invention: 1. A method for multiple carrier frequency, half duplex cable telemetry for a wellsite, comprising: generating a first type of bi-directional message in a first propagation mode; generating a second type of bi-directional message in the first propagation mode and in a second propagation mode; transmitting the first and second types of bi-directional message over a cable operatively coupling a surface modem and a downhole modem sequentially in a plurality of time periods across a single frequency bandwidth, the downhole modem being located downhole in a wellbore, wherein the first and second types of bi-directional messages are separated by a quiet time sample during which no message is transmitted either uphole or downhole along the wellbore; wherein a length of the quiet time sample is determined based on one or more of: a length of the cable, a time interval sufficient for a cross-talk ECHO to dissipate, and a variable user input, so as to allow sufficient time for the residual energy caused by a message most recently transmitted, in a direction 2 Appeal2018-000365 Application 13/705, 130 along the wellbore, to dissipate before another message, transmitted in the other direction along the wellbore, is received. Appeal Brief 23, filed January 6, 2017 ("App. Br."). REJECTION 1-5 7-9 11 and 13-, ' ' 16 Â§ 103 DISCUSSION Miyamae, 1 Botzel, 2 and Ho mann 3 We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments, and we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. As consistent with the discussion below, we adopt the Examiner's findings, conclusions, and reasoning set forth in the Final Office Action mailed June 15, 2016 ("Final Act."), Advisory Action mailed October 27, 2016 ("Advisory Act."), and Answer mailed May 3, 2017 ("Ans."). Claim 1 recites a method in which bi-directional messages are separated by a "quiet time sample," where a length of the quiet time sample "is determined based on one or more of' "a length of the cable," "a time interval sufficient for a cross-talk ECHO to dissipate," and "a variable user input." App. Br. 23. The claim also recites determining a length of the quiet time sample "so as to allow sufficient time for the residual energy caused by a message most recently transmitted, in a direction along the wellbore, to dissipate before another message, transmitted in the other direction along the wellbore, is received." App. Br. 23. 1 Miyamae et al. (US 6,552,665 Bl; Apr. 22, 2003). 2 Botzel et al. (US 2004/0105405 Al; June 3, 2004). 3 Hoymann et al. (US 2013/01364041 Al; May 30, 2013). 3 Appeal2018-000365 Application 13/705, 130 Although not entirely clear, Appellants seem to contend the Examiner did not show these limitations would have been obvious over the cited art for three reasons. First, Appellants contend that "[t]he problems addressed by Botzel and Hoymann have no nexus to the claimed subject matter" and the evidence presented "is insufficient to demonstrate why one ... would search, find, and read" Botzel. App. Br. 15, 19; see also App. Br. 17-21. We understand this to mean that Appellants argue Botzel and Hoymann are non- analogous art. Second, Appellants argue the Examiner erroneously found Hoymann's propagation delay analogous to "a length of the cable." App. Br. 14. Third, Appellants assert the Examiner's motivation to combine the cited references lacks adequate support. App. Br. 14--17. We address each of these arguments in tum. Analogous Art To support their contention that Botzel and Hoymann are non- analogous art, Appellants argue that the claimed invention concerns cross- talk between cable conductors and "residual energy in a cable," while Botzel and Hoymann involve time division duplex (TDD) wireless systems that use the same frequency band. App. Br. 15, 17-19. According to Appellants, neither Botzel nor Hoymann "provide[ s] evidence of issues with respect to residual energy in a cable" such as "ECHO" interference or addresses the "real-world problems associated with long cables." App. Br. 15-16. Appellants also point to several other differences between the claimed invention and the cited art. For example, Appellants assert that Botzel's system transmits data "over short distances of only a few meters," Botzel's guard time intervals "have nothing to do with" a transmission medium, Hoymann concerns interference among multiple base stations, and 4 Appeal2018-000365 Application 13/705, 130 Hoymann's switching time has "no relationship to the real-world physics underlying the cable-based approach" of the claimed invention, among other things. App. Br. 13, 15, 18-21. We find these arguments unpersuasive. For an obviousness determination underÂ§ 103, a reference qualifies as prior art only if the reference is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Generally, a reference is analogous to the claimed invention when the reference either is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention or is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Bigio, 381 F .3d at 1325. "A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem." In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Here, the Examiner found Botzel and Hoymann reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors: preventing overlap or interference between transmissions in half-duplex communication. See Ans. 3--4, 8; see also Advisory Act. 2. The record provides adequate support for this finding. Appellants' written description discloses that a receiver in a full-duplex architecture may encounter ECHO interference, that is, the receiver "may see a portion of the locally transmitted signal on the same mode." Spec. ,r,r 46--4 7. The written description explains that the disclosed invention uses a half-duplex architecture with guard periods to avoid the effects of ECHO interference. Spec. ,r,r 50-51. Botzel and Hoymann address similar problems in much the same way. Botzel discloses using "guard time intervals" to prevent overlapping data bursts caused by asynchronous transmission cycles. See Botzel ,r,r 5, 21, 38. 5 Appeal2018-000365 Application 13/705, 130 And Hoymann discloses using "guard periods" to not only allow user equipment to receive all downlink data before transmitting uplink data, but also to avoid interference from other base stations. Hoymann ,r,r 5---6, 3 6-41. The Examiner found that Botzel and Hoymann use TDD communication and that TDD communication is "a half-duplex communication link." Advisory Act. 2 (citing supporting references). Thus, Botzel and Hoymann each "logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering" how to prevent overlap or interference between transmissions in half-duplex communication. Clay, 966 F.2d at 659. Even if Botzel and Hoymann were not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors, one of ordinary skill in the art still would have considered the references. The Examiner found both the claimed invention and the cited art use half-duplex communication. See Advisory Act. 2; see also Spec. ,r 50 ( explaining that "[t]he architecture disclosed herein" is referred to as a half-duplex architecture). Appellants have not persuasively challenged this finding. Although Botzel and Hoymann transmit data wirelessly and the claimed invention transmits data through a cable, the Examiner found-and we agree-that when "considering ... half- duplex communications in a cable between two devices, one of ordinary skill in the art may want to consider other applications of half-duplex communications, including half-duplex communications in wireless communications." Advisory Act. 2; see also Ans. 3 (finding that protecting against "overlapping as a result of asynchronous transmission cycles would be relevant to both wired and wireless communications"); Advisory Act. 2 ( finding that using the length of a guard period to improve performance "could also apply to wired communication systems employing half-duplex communications"). As explained by the Supreme Court, "[ w ]hen a work is 6 Appeal2018-000365 Application 13/705, 130 available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007) (emphasis added). For at least the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that Botzel and Hoymann are analogous art. "A Length of the Cable" Claim 1 recites "wherein a length of the quiet time sample is determined based on one or more of," among other things, "a length of the cable." App. Br. 23. The Examiner found Hoymann, in combination with Miyamae and Botzel, teaches this limitation. Final Act. 2-5. Of note, the Examiner found Hoymann discloses determining the duration of a guard interval in part based on the propagation delay between communication devices. See Final Act. 4. The Examiner found that Hoymann's propagation delay is "analogous to the length of a cable" because the delay relates to the time needed to transmit information to a device over a communication medium. Final Act. 4; Ans. 4. Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "the purpose of calculating propagation delay in the wireless system of Hoymann lacks an analogy to two pieces of equipment operatively coupled by a cable." App. Br. 14. We disagree. Hoymann uses propagation delay essentially the same way the claimed invention uses "a length of the cable": to determine how long a gap between data transmissions should be to reduce or eliminate interference. Hoymann discloses inserting a guard period between downlink and uplink transmission frames, the duration of the guard period set to allow user equipment to receive data before transmitting data of its own or to 7 Appeal2018-000365 Application 13/705, 130 reduce interference from other base stations. See Hoymann ,r,r 29-31, 3 6-41. In either case, Hoymann discloses basing the guard period duration at least in part on a propagation delay. See Hoymann ,r,r 31 ( determining a guard period duration based in part on the propagation delay between a base station and user equipment), 36 (determining a guard period duration based on the propagation delay between first and second base stations). Similarly, claim 1 recites determining "a length of the quiet time sample" based on "a length of the cable" "to allow sufficient time for the residual energy caused by a message most recently transmitted ... to dissipate before another message ... is received." App. Br. 23. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to combine Hoymann' s method of determining the length of a guard period, Botzel' s guard time interval, and Miyamae's cable-based borehole telemetry method to arrive at the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 2-5. In this combination, messages flow through Miyamae's cable, not through the air as in Hoymann's system. See Final Act. 2-5. And as found by the Examiner-and not disputed by Appellants-propagation delay is based on the length of the associated transmission medium. See Ans. 4 (finding that propagation delay is "the ratio between the link length and the propagation speed over the specific medium" (emphases added)). We thus agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to consider the length of Miyamae's cable when setting the guard period length. See Final Act. 2-5. For at least the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Miyamae, Botzel, and Hoymann teaches or suggests "wherein a length of the quiet time sample is determined based on one or more of' "a length of the cable." 8 Appeal2018-000365 Application 13/705, 130 Motivation to Combine Appellants argue that the Examiner's motivation for combining the teachings of the cited references is "based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction" and "lacking in evidence as to real-world physics" for the reasons discussed above in the analogous art section. App. Br. 14--21. As in that section, Appellants contend that the Examiner erred "by citing [the] wireless technologies" described in Botzel and Hoymann that do not "experience residual energy in a cable" and by ignoring that although "information may be transmitted via wire or ... via air, the means of transmission differ significantly, as do their associated issues." App. Br. 15- 16; see also App. Br. 7. As for Miyamae, Appellants argue one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Miyamae to include the recited "quiet time sample." App. Br. 17. Appellants assert "Miyamae is directed to increasing data transmission rates" in downlink data flows and argue that including a quiet time sample "does not increase the amount of time for downlink data flow." App. Br. 17 (emphasis modified). We disagree. The Examiner found one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Miyamae's borehole telemetry method to include Botzel' s guard intervals because the guard intervals would "compensate for overlap of data when a sequence of data is being transmitted." Final Act. 3; Advisory Act. 2 (citing Botzel ,r 21). The Examiner found one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the Miyamae-Botzel method to employ Hoymann's method of determining guard interval length because doing so would "allow[] for a time period large enough to avoid interference, while not taking away resources for the transmission of payload data." Final Act. 4--5 ( citing Hoymann ,r 4). The Examiner also found this modification "would improve 9 Appeal2018-000365 Application 13/705, 130 performance of a communication system." Final Act. 5 ( citing Hoymann ,r 4); see also Ans. 3 (providing additional motivation for the combination); Advisory Act. 2 (same). We see no error in these findings. Rather than rely on impermissible hindsight, the Examiner found the references themselves provide the necessary motivation to combine their respective teachings in the claimed manner. See Final Act. 4--5 (citing Hoymann ,r 4); Advisory Act. 2 (citing Botzel ,r 21 ). And although Appellants assert that cables have properties and "associated issues" that separate Appellants' system from the systems disclosed by Botzel and Hoymann, as explained below, Appellants have not persuasively explained why these differences undermine the Examiner's motivations to combine. For instance, Appellants assert that cables suffer from ECHO interference, "a property of the physical interfaces, such as the hybrid and its impedance matching to the cable, as well as the relative size of the signal to the ECHO." App. Br. 15. According to Appellants, "[s]uch a phenomenon does not occur for wireless communication as there is no equivalent to impedance matching." App. Br. 15. Even assuming these assertions are true, the assertions at best establish that cables suffer from a different type of interference than wireless communication systems. But Appellants have not persuasively explained why this difference, or any other difference identified by Appellants, is relevant. Appellants have not argued, much less shown, that Botzel' s and Hoymann' s transmission delays cannot address the type of interference suffered by cables. Nor could Appellants-Appellants' written description explicitly describes using similar transmission delays to address this type of interference. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 53 (explaining that a guard period "allows sufficient time for the residual energy caused by the most recently 10 Appeal2018-000365 Application 13/705, 130 transmitted frame to dissipate before the other direction's telemetry unit begins receiving data"). As to Miyamae, the part of Miyamae relied on by Appellants describes a telemetry system that "can be configured to allow increased downlink data flow when required," for example, during "reprogramming." Miyamae 2: 1-16 ( emphasis added). But Miyamae discloses a "normal logging operation" not configured to allow increased downlink data flow. Miyamae 4:21-32, Fig. 5. The Examiner found that the words "'when required' indicate[] that there are times when increased downlink data flow is not required." Ans. 7. And because Miyamae's normal logging operation is not configured to increase downlink data flow, the Examiner found "Miyamae does not foreclose the use of guard intervals or quiet time samples during the normal logging operation, where time would not be of the essence." Ans. 7. We agree with the Examiner and thus find Appellants' argument unpersuasive. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Because Appellants have not presented separate, persuasive arguments for the patentability of claims 2-5, 7-9, 11, and 13-16, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. 11 Appeal2018-000365 Application 13/705, 130 1-5, 7-9, 11, and 13-16 Summary Â§ 103(a) DECISION Miyamae, Botzel, and Ho mann 1-5, 7-9, 11, and 13-16 1-5, 7-9, 11, and 13-16 No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 12