SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 24, 2021

2020003534 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 24, 2021)

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. 14/763,518 07/26/2015 Clinton D. Chapman IS13.3111 US PCT 7322 84143 7590 12/24/2021 Schlumberger Technology Corp. / SHTC 10001 Richmond Avenue IP Administration Center of Excellence Houston, TX 77042 EXAMINER SANDERS, JOSHUA T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2119 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/24/2021 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): SMarckesoni@slb.com USDocketing@slb.com jalverson@slb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CLINTON D. CHAPMAN, HAN YU and MBAGA LOUIS AHORUKOMEYE Appeal 2020-003534 Application 14/763,518 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and MATHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-003534 Application 14/763,518 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed invention is directed to selectively adjusting an operating characteristic of equipment by a set point value, which is associated with the operating characteristic of equipment. Spec. para. 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: selectively adjusting an operating characteristic of equipment by modification of a set point value, the set point value associated with the operating characteristic of the equipment, the equipment for adjusting the operating characteristic based upon the set point value; providing a remote control indication, the remote control indication for indicating when a set point value is available for modification, the remote control indication adjusted by an execution module associated with the equipment; and providing a set point latch, the set point latch representing a value for indicating when the set point value is to be modified by an automation agent, the automation agent to automatically adjust the operating characteristic by modification of the set point value when the set point latch is latched. Appeal 2020-003534 Application 14/763,518 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Johnson US 2003/0129052 Al Jul. 10, 2003 Smirnov US 2007/0276545 Al Nov. 29, 2007 Yoshida US 2008/0059038 Al Mar. 6, 2008 Panther US 2013/0282150 Al Oct. 24, 2013 REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 3–8, 10–15, 17–20 103(a) Smirnov, Panther 2, 9, 16 103(a) Smirnov, Panther, Johnson, Yoshida OPINION To the extent consistent with our analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the action from which this appeal is taken and the Answer and add the following for emphasis. Claim 1 Appellant argues that the Smimov and Panther combination does not teach or suggest “selectively adjusting an operating characteristic of equipment by modification of a set point value,” as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant argues that Smimov’s control algorithm does not modify the set point value. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues that “the processor 102 uses the indicators from the sensors 142, 144, the set point indicator 146, and the adaptive closed-loop-control algorithm to control the valve 104 via a control indicator sent to the valve 104 to conform with the new set point.” Id (citing Snimov para. 34). In other words, Appellant argues that “Smirnov Appeal 2020-003534 Application 14/763,518 4 teaches that the adaptive closed-loop-control algorithm is used to conform the valve 104 to the set point value, but fails to teach or suggest that the adaptive closed-loop-control algorithm is used to adjust the set point value.” Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant concludes that “Smirnov neither teaches nor suggests how the set point value is adjusted, much less adjusted selectively or otherwise.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant also argues that the Examiner did not indicate what elements in Smirnov paragraph 32 correspond to the presently claimed set point latch and automation agent. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues that because the Examiner failed to indicate which features correspond to the claimed set point latch and automation agent, Appellant is forced to guess. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant argues that the only feature that could arguably resemble an automation agent with respect to paragraphs 19, 31, 32, and 38, is the adaptive closed loop-control algorithm. Id. However, according to Appellant, the adaptive closed-loop-control algorithm does not modify a set point value, nor does the adaptive closed-loop-control algorithm automatically adjust an operating characteristic by modifying a set point value when a set point latch is latched. Appeal Br. 10–11. Appellant further argues that none of the features in Smirnov paragraph 32 teaches or suggests a set point latch. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues that in paragraphs 19, 31, 32, and 38 of the Specification, and as also recited in claim 1, latching of the set point latch permits the automation agent to automatically adjust the operating characteristic by modification of the set point value. Id. Appellant argues that nothing in Smirnov teaches or suggests such a set point latch. Id. Appeal 2020-003534 Application 14/763,518 5 We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner explains that Appellant mischaracterized the rejection. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification the “set point value associated with the operating characteristic” is a parameter of the automation routine itself, and the “set point latch representing a value for indicating when the set point value is to be modified” is accordingly a value which represents when the parameters of the automation routine itself are to be modified. Id. We give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner finds that Smirnov teaches selectively adjusting an operating characteristic of equipment (i.e., flow of fluid through a valve) by modification of a set point value (i.e., parameters associated with the control algorithm, and in particular “slow mode”). Final Act. 7 (citing Smirnov paras. 30, 31). We agree with the Examiner’s finding which is consistent with Appellant’s own Specification giving an example of a set point value as “flow rate.” See Spec. para. 29. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Smirnov teaches equipment for adjusting the operating characteristic based upon the set point value because Smirnov teaches “flow controller 100 that uses an adaptive closed-loop-control algorithm to control a flow of a fluid from a fluid dispenser 120 to a reaction vessel 180.” Final Act. 7 (citing Smirnov para. 26). We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that Smirnov teaches providing a set point latch, the set point latch representing a value for indicating when the set point value is to be modified by an automation agent, Appeal 2020-003534 Application 14/763,518 6 the automation agent to automatically adjust the operating characteristic by modification of the set point value when the set point latch is latched. Final Act. 7 (citing Smirnov para. 32). In particular, the Examiner finds that the threshold conditions associated with the indicators from the sensors 142 and 144 and the set point indicator 146 are also stored in memory 106. Id. The Examiner finds that the threshold conditions are defined so that when the threshold conditions are satisfied, the adaptive closed-loop-control algorithm is modified to have a fast response time (i.e., “fast mode” or “fast response mode”). See id. The adaptive closed loop-control algorithm is modified to have a fast response time by changing the parameters (stored in the memory 106) associated with the algorithm. Id. Appellant agrees with the Examiner that, “Panther does indeed teach that equipment can be configured for local and/or remote control” but argues that “Panther does not teach or suggest that such local and/or remote control, or the selection thereof, includes any indication for when a set point value (associated with operation of the equipment) is available for modification.” Appeal Br. 11–12 (citing Panther para. 54 and step 506 of Fig. 7). Appellant argues that at most, Panther merely teaches that a set point value of equipment may be controlled locally or remotely, but Panther does not teach or suggest that a set point value may or may not be available for modification, much less an indication of when the set point value is available for modification. Id. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. One cannot show non obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1096 (Fed. Cir. Appeal 2020-003534 Application 14/763,518 7 1986). The Examiner relies on Smirnov for teaching or suggesting that a set point value is available for modification and an indication of when the set point value is available for modification as discussed supra, wherein the adaptive closed loop-control algorithm is modified from a slow response time (i.e., “slow mode” rate) to a fast response time (i.e., “fast mode” rate) by changing the parameters (stored in the memory 106) associated with the algorithm. See Final Act. 7 (citing Smirnov para. 26, 30, 31, 32). The Examiner relies on Panther for teaching remote control of modules that allow for adjustment of a field device including settings of valve conditions. See Final Act. 8–9 (citing Panther paras. 53, 54). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of Smirnov and Panther teach the disputed limitation of “selectively adjusting an operating characteristic of equipment by modification of a set point value,” as recited in claim 1. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claims 2–20 Appellant does not separately argue the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–20. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2– 20 for the same reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 under § 103 are AFFIRMED. Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). Appeal 2020-003534 Application 14/763,518 8 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–8, 10– 15, 17–20 103(a) Smirnov, Panther 1, 3–8, 10– 15, 17–20 2, 9, 16 103(a) Smirnov, Panther, Johnson, Yoshida 2, 9, 16 Overall Outcome 1–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED