Ex Parte Carney et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2016

11940222 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111940,222 11/14/2007
48879 7590 03/30/2016
SCHLUMBERGER INFORMATION SOLUTIONS
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
HOUSTON, TX 77042
Michael Carney
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.
94.0145 7377
EXAMINER
SCHEUNEMANN, RICHARD N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2016 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):
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 MICHAEL CARNEY, PAUL S. LUNDY,
RANDALL G. MCKEE, PHAL YN PAO, DAVID J. ROSSI,
PETER A. SCHIPPERIJN, DAVID N. SHIPLEY, and
IAN H. TRABOULA Y
Appeal2013-008605 1
Application 11/940,2222
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-18, and 22-25. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
April 5, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed June 26, 2013), and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Apr. 26, 2013) and Final Office Action
("Final Act.," mailed June 5, 2012).
2 The real parties in interest, as identified by Appellants, are Schlumberger
Technology Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. App. Br. 4.
Appeal2013-008605
Application 11/940,222
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to "managing a workflow of an
activity, such as an oilfield activity, to resolve a problem associated with the
oilfield activity." Spec. i-f 28.
Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of managing a waterflood activity for an
oilfield having at least one processing facility and at least one
well site operatively connected thereto, each at least one well
site having a wellbore penetrating a subterranean formation for
extracting fluid from an underground reservoir therein,
compnsmg:
[(a)] identifying a problem in the waterflood activity
involving injecting water into subsurface oil reservoirs;
[ (b)] opening a first waterflood project corresponding to
the problem and comprising a waterflood workflow,
[(c)] wherein the waterflood workflow comprises a
plurality of tasks necessary to complete the first
waterflood project of a plurality of projects,
[ ( d)] wherein the plurality of tasks are arranged
within a plurality of workflow states associated with the
waterflood activity including a surveillance state, a well
identification state, a zone analysis state, a production
evaluation state, and a decision process state;
[ ( e)] displaying a workflow manager comprising a first
column and a second column, wherein the first column
comprises a plurality of regions corresponding to the plurality
of workflow states;
[(t)] displaying an icon corresponding to the first
waterflood project within a first region corresponding to the
surveillance state and a first set of the plurality of tasks
corresponding to the surveillance state within the second
column;
2
Appeal2013-008605
Application 11/940,222
[(g)] obtaining a solution result associated with at least
one task of the first set of the plurality of tasks,
[(h)] wherein the solution result is based on
historical oilfield data;
[(i)] receiving a drag-and-drop request from a user to
relocate the icon to a second region corresponding to the zone
analysis state;
[U)J displaying, in response to the drag-and-drop request,
the icon within the second region and a second set of the
plurality of tasks corresponding to the zone analysis state within
the second column;
[(k)] analyzing, using a computer processor and while
continuing to analyze other projects of the plurality of projects,
the first waterflood project by executing the second set of the
plurality of tasks based on the solution result to obtain a
decision; and
[(l)] resolving the problem in the waterflood activity
based on the decision.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3, 22, and 25 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Gurpinar (US 6,980,940 Bl, iss. Dec. 27, 2005), McNally
(US 2006/0195510 Al, pub. Aug. 31, 2006), N0rgaard (US 6,895,573 B2,
iss. May 17, 2005), and Dortmans (US 2003/0018512 Al, pub. Jan. 23,
2003).
II. Claims 2, 16, 17, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gurpinar, McNally, N0rgaard, Dortmans, and Tubel
(US 5,732,776, iss. Mar. 31, 1998).
III. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gurpinar, McNally, N0rgaard, Dortmans, and Ciglenec
(US 2003/0058125 Al, pub. Mar. 27, 2003).
3
Appeal2013-008605
Application 11/940,222
IV. Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gurpinar, McNally, N0rgaard, Dortmans, and Kohl (US
6,851,444 Bl, iss. Feb. 8, 2005).
V. Claims 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gurpinar, McNally, N0rgaard, Dortmans, and Chikirivao (US
2006/0190544 Al, pub. Aug. 24, 2006).
VI. Claims 9-12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gurpinar, McNally, N0rgaard, Dortmans, and Rosnow
(US 2003/0106039 Al, pub. June 5, 2003).
VII. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gurpinar, McNally, N0rgaard, Dortmans, Rosnow, and Ciglenec. 3
VIII. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gurpinar, McNally, N0rgaard, Dortmans, Rosnow, and Tubel.
IX. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gurpinar, McNally, N0rgaard, Dortmans, Tubel, and Ciglenec.
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 because McNally, on which the Examiner relies, does not
disclose limitations ( e ), (t), (i), and U), as recited in claim 1. See App. Br.
14--16. The Examiner relies on paragraph 65 and Figure 1 ofMcNally as
disclosing each of the argued limitations. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 5-6, 35-38.
3 We treat the Examiner's omission of the McNally reference in the
rejection heading (Final Act. 32) as inadvertent error, given the claim's
dependence from claim 12.
4
Appeal2013-008605
Application 11/940,222
McNally relates to an information management and synchronous
communications system for generation of computerized menus for
restaurants, sessions (e.g., enrollment sessions) and other applications with
specialized display and synchronous communications requirements.
McNally i-f 2. Figure 1 of McNally shows an intuitive GUI from which to
build a menu on a desktop or other computer. Id. i-f 43. A hierarchical tree
structure 2 is used to show different relationships between the menu
categories 3 (e.g., soups, salads, appetizers, entrees, des[s]erts, etc.), menu
items 4 (e.g., green salad, chicken Caesar salad, etc.), menu modifications 5
(e.g., dressing, meat temperature, condiments, etc.), and menu sub-modifiers
6 (e.g., Italian, French, ranch, bleu cheese, etc.). Id. A drag-and-drop
approach is used to organize the tree structure 2 in the generated menu. Id.
i-f 65. Customizable fonts and layouts enable users to change font (e.g.,
types, style, size) and resize windows, change icons and display preferences.
The Examiner takes the position that the cited portions of McNally
show generic elements of a window-based display that allow users to drag
and drop icons into the directories to which they belong. Final Act. 35-36.
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Gurpinar' s method of managing a gas reservoir to
include "a hierarchical menu display with drag-and-drop functionality, as
taught by McNally." Final Act. 6.
Yet, limitations (e), (f), (i), and U) do not recite a hierarchical menu
display with drag-and-drop functionality. Rather, claim 1 recites:
displaying a workflow manager comprising a first column
and a second column, wherein the first column comprises a
plurality of regions corresponding to the plurality of workflow
states [i.e., a surveillance state, a well identification state, a zone
5
Appeal2013-008605
Application 11/940,222
analysis state, a production evaluation state, and a decision
process state];
displaying an icon corresponding to the first waterflood
project within a first region corresponding to the surveillance
state and a first set of the plurality of tasks corresponding to the
surveillance state within the second column;
receiving a drag-and-drop request from a user to relocate
the icon to a second region corresponding to the zone analysis
state; and
displaying, in response to the drag-and-drop request, the
icon within the second region and a second set of the plurality of
tasks corresponding to the zone analysis state within the second
column[,]
i.e., limitations (e), (t), (i), and U). We fail to see, and the Examiner does
not adequately explain, how McNally's drag-and-drop functionality in a
hierarchical tree structure discloses each of these limitations.
All of the remaining independent claims include limitations
substantially similar to claim 1, and are rejected based on the Examiner's
findings regarding McNally that we have found to be in error. In view of the
foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent
claims 1, 11, 16, and 22, and the claims that depend therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 8-14, 16-18, and 22-25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
6