Ex Parte Sanstrom et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 11, 2017

12740262 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2017)

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.
1391-756.04 7258
EXAMINER
HENSON, MISCHITA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/740,262 04/28/2010
36177 7590
Iselin Law PLLC (HAL)
P. O. BOX 1906
CYPRESS, TX 77410-1906
William C. Sanstrom
01/12/2017 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 WILLIAM C. SANSTROM and ROLAND E. CHEMALI
Appeal 2014-007961
Application 12/740,262
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, MARKNAGUMO, and
MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision2 finally rejecting claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellants identify Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Substitute Appeal Brief filed April 8, 2014 (“App. Br.”) 3.
2 Final Office Action mailed February 22, 2013 (“Final Act.”); see Advisory
Action mailed July 30, 2013 (“Advisory Act.”) 2 (explaining that Appellants
filed amendments to the claims after the Final Action, noting that the
amended claims “will be entered upon appeal,” and withdrawing a rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 101), 4—20 (explaining how the amended claims would be
rejected). The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—21 in the Advisory Action
are substantively the same as the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—21 in the
Final Action.
Appeal 2014-007961
Application 12/740,262
We affirm.
Background
The subject matter on appeal relates to log quality monitoring systems
and methods. Spec. 3:14—15. According to the specification, “[mjodem oil
field operations demand a great quantity of information” regarding
downhole parameters and conditions, including “characteristics of the earth
formations traversed by the borehole, and data relating to the size and
configuration of the borehole.” Id. at 1:4—6. The collection of information
regarding downhole conditions “commonly is referred to as logging.” Id. at
1:6-7.
The specification explains that it is desirable to construct an image of
the borehole wall in logging environments in order to reveal, e.g., the fine-
scale structure of the penetrated earth formations. Id. at 1:20—22. Borehole
wall imaging can be achieved using several different methods, including,
ultrasonic imaging, micro-resistivity imaging, azimuthally-sensitive varieties
of logs, induction logs, nuclear magnetic resonance (“NMR”) logs, gamma-
ray logs, and other azimuthally-sensitive logs. Id. at 1:25—2:1. The resulting
image logs “may appear accurate while failing to reflect the actual properties
of the borehole wall[,]” or the image logs “may appear ‘noisy’ . . . when in
fact they accurately reflect the actual properties of the borehole wall.” Id. at
2:1-5.
According to the specification, in the past, log quality judgments were
made by experts “using a subjective, error-prone approach.” Id. at 2:6—7.
Appellants purport to improve upon the process by providing “systems and
methods for performing automated log quality monitoring, thereby enabling
a fast, on-site determination of log quality by logging engineers.” Id. at
2
Appeal 2014-007961
Application 12/740,262
3:14—15.
Of the appealed claims, claims 1,13, and 19 are independent. Claims
1 and 13 are representative of the claims on appeal, and are reproduced
below:
1. A log quality monitoring system that comprises:
at least one processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor to provide log monitoring
software that configures the processor to:
apply a comparison function to measurements from spaced-
apart sensors to determine an image log quality indicator;
and
display the image log quality indicator to a user.
App. Br. 15 (Claims App’x).
13. A log quality monitoring method that comprises:
measuring one or more formation characteristics downhole
using spaced-apart sensors of a downhole tool;
obtaining downhole tool measurements from said spaced-apart
sensors;
processing measurements from different sensors in accordance
with a comparison function to obtain a measure of logging
quality; and
displaying an image log to a user with an indication of regions
where the log quality is poor.
Id. at 16.
3
Appeal 2014-007961
Application 12/740,262
The References
Hepp US 4,852,005 July 25, 1989
Maclnnis US 5,432,446 July 11, 1995
Hassan US 2006/0015257 A1 Jan. 19,2006
The Rejections
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
1. Claims 1, 3, 7, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Maclnnis;
2. Claims 2, 4, 6, 8—11, 14, 16, and 18—21 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Maclnnis and
Hepp; and
3. Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Maclnnis and Hassan.
Final Act. 3—19; Advisory Act. 4—20.
OPINION
After having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and
each of Appellants’ contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellants
identify reversible error, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the
reasons expressed in the Final Action, the Advisory Action, the Answer, and
below.
Rejection 1
Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 13 together, relying on
limitations that are similar in each claim. App. Br. 11—12. Although
Appellants contend that none of the other claims stand or fall together
because Appellants provide “separate arguments for various independent
and dependent claims under corresponding headings and sub-headings as
4
Appeal 2014-007961
Application 12/740,262
required by 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(l)(vii),” id. at 11, Appellants do not provide
substantive arguments for the patentability of claims 3, 7, 15, and 17. See id.
at 12—13 (“Appellants respectfully submit that dependent claims 3,7, 15,
and 17 are allowable for at least the same reasons as argued . . . regarding
their respective independent claims.”). We, therefore, limit our discussion to
claims 1 and 13. Dependent claims 3,7, 15, and 17 stand or fall with claims
1 and 13.
Claim 1 requires, inter alia, applying “a comparison function to
measurements from spaced-apart sensors to determine an image log quality
indicator.” App. Br. 15 (Claims App’x). Claim 13 requires, inter alia,
“displaying an image log to a user with an indication of regions where the
log quality is poor.” Id. at 16.
Maclnnis relates to “apparatus and techniques for making [NMR]
measurements in boreholes, and to methods for determining magnetic
characteristics of formations traversed by a borehole.” Maclnnis, 1:9—13.
As is relevant to the issues on appeal, Maclnnis discloses logging tool 13
connected to surface equipment 7 including recorder 6. Id. at 3:57—59.
Logging tool 13 comprises two sensors positioned at different depths of the
borehole for collecting NMR data. Id. at 4:18—50. Maclnnis explains that
“one could draw conclusions about the quality of the log obtained” by
comparing the data or measurements obtained from the two sensors. Id. at
8:44-49. Figure 1 of Maclnnis depicts near NMR and far NMR data that
recorder 6 can obtain from the sensors. Id. at Fig. 1. Maclnnis discloses two
relationships that indicate logging quality, each of which is represented by a
quality indicator index (depicted as part of the information obtained by
5
Appeal 2014-007961
Application 12/740,262
recorder 6 in Figure 1) that “provides an appropriate indication” when either
of the relationships “does not hold true.” Id. at 9:14—37.
The Examiner finds that the teachings of Maclnnis correspond to the
recited “image log” and “image log quality indicator.” Final Act. 4 (citing
Maclnnis, 2:38—42, 9:14—37, and Fig. 1); Advisory Act. 4—5 (citing same);
Ans. 2—3.
Appellants argue that Maclnnis does not teach or suggest an “image
log” or “image log quality indicator” because Maclnnis discloses “the use of
conventional logs, wherein a single value is plotted as a function of borehole
depth independent of the azimuthal orientation of the logging tool.” App.
Br. 11. Appellants, pointing to Figures 5 and 7 of their application and
extrinsic evidence of record, contend that an “image log” is different from
the log disclosed in Maclnnis because an image log “depicts a value of a
measured parameter by other graphical means (intensity, color, etc.)” and
“as a function of both depth and azimuthal orientation of the logging tool.”
Id. at 11—12; Reply Brief filed July 14, 2014 (“Reply Br.”) 2. Thus,
Appellants’ arguments turn on the proper interpretation of the claim terms
“image log” and “image log quality indicator.”
It is well established that “the PTO must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we
look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but
otherwise apply a broad interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Appellants’ specification does not set forth a definition for the terms
“image log” or “image log quality indicator.” The specification, however,
provides that logging is the “collection of information relating to conditions
6
Appeal 2014-007961
Application 12/740,262
downhole,” “it is desirable to construct an image of the borehole wall” in
logging environments, and borehole wall imaging can be achieved in a
number of ways, including NMR logs. Spec. 1:7—8, 1:20—21, 1:25—2:1. The
specification further provides that the “image logs” resulting from the
borehole wall imaging methods may appear accurate even though they do
not reflect the actual properties of the borehole wall, or may appear “noisy”
when, in fact, they accurately reflect the properties of the borehole wall.
2:1—2:5.
Appellants’ interpretation of the claim terms is narrower than the
above-discussed description from the specification and based on the
illustrative embodiments of Figures 5 and 7. App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 2;
see Spec. 2:21—23 (“The drawings show illustrative invention
embodiments”). Those figures depict resistivity images of color or intensity
as a function of tool position and azimuthal orientation. Spec. 7:16—22,
Figs. 5, 7. We, however, do not read embodiments or limitations from the
specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
Nor do we find that the extrinsic evidence on which Appellants rely
outweighs the broader meaning of “image log” provided in the specification.
In that regard, we note that the extrinsic evidence refers to resistivity or
conductivity images, which represent only a subset of the image logs
described in the specification. App. Br. 9-10. We, therefore, agree with the
Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms
“image log” and “image log quality indicator,” consistent with the
specification, encompasses Maclnnis’s NMR log and quality indices. See,
e.g., Final Act. 4; Advisory Act. 3; Ans. 3. Accordingly, we affirm the
7
Appeal 2014-007961
Application 12/740,262
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 13, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
Rejections 2 and 3
Although the Examiner applies additional prior art references in
rejecting independent claims 2, 4—6, 8—12, 14, 16, and 18—21 and Appellants
argue that those claims do not stand or fall with claims 1 and 13, Appellants
present no substantive arguments for the separate patentability of claims 2,
4—6, 8—12, 14, 16, and 18—21. App. Br. 13. Rather, Appellants argue that
independent claim 19 is patentable “for at least the same reasons as
presented with regard to claim 1,” dependent claims 2, 4, 8—11, 14, 16, 18,
20, and 21 are patentable “for at least the same reasons as argued above
regarding their respective independent claims [1, 13, and 19],” and
dependent claims 5 and 12 are patentable “for at least the same reasons as
argued above regarding claim 1.” Id. Accordingly, for the reasons provided
in connection with the rejection of claims 1 and 13, we also affirm the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 4—6, 8—12, 14, 16, and 18—21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION/ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 13, 15, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 4—6, 8—12, 14, 16, and 18—21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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).
AFFIRMED
8