Ex Parte HuangDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 29, 201310888354 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte SUJIAN HUANG _____________ Appeal 2010-005985 Application 10/888,354 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before, DAVID M. KOHUT, JASON V. MORGAN, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005985 Application 10/888,354 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-47 and 49-50.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method for designing and determining wear of a fixed cutter drill bit. Spec. 3-4. Claims 1 and 17 are representative of the invention and are reproduced below: 1. A method for determining wear of a fixed cutter drill bit, comprising: (a) simulating the fixed cutter drill bit drilling an earth formation; (b) determining a cutter-formation interaction force and a relative sliding velocity of a selected area on a cutting surface on a cutter of the fixed cutter drill bit during the drilling, wherein the selected area comprises an interface between the cutting surface on the cutter and the earth formation; (c) calculating a wear rate of the selected area based on the cutter-formation interaction force and the relative sliding velocity; (d) converting the wear rate into a visual representation; (e) applying the calculated wear rate to at least one cutter of the simulated fixed cutter drill bit; and (f) continuing to simulate the fixed cutter drill bit with the at least one worn cutter drilling the earth formation; and (g) ending the simulation and displaying output data. 17. The method of claim 16, wherein the calculating the wear rate is according to: WR = a1 × 10a2 × da3 × va4 × Ta5 1 Claim 48 was previously cancelled. Appeal 2010-005985 Application 10/888,354 3 where WR is the wear rate, d is the depth of cut, v is the relative sliding velocity, T is the temperature, and a1 – a5 are constants. REFERENCES Taylor US 6,151,960 Nov. 28, 2000 Chen US 6,412,577 B1 July 2, 2002 Matthias US 6,435,058 B1 Aug. 20, 2002 Warren, et. al., “Drag-Bit Performance Modeling,” SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1989, pp. 119-127.2 Sinor, et al., “Drag Bit Wear Model,” SPE Drilling, Engineering, June 1989, pp. 128-136.3 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 16-18, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Warren, Matthias, Taylor, and Sinor. Ans. 4-7. Claims 3, 4, 6-8, 10-15, 23-47, and 49-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Warren, Matthias, Taylor, Sinor and Chen. Ans. 8-12. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Warren, Matthias, Taylor, and Sinor teaches or suggests: 2 Hereinafter referred to as Warren. 3 Hereinafter referred to as Sinor. Appeal 2010-005985 Application 10/888,354 4 (a) “[A]pplying the calculated wear rate to at least one cutter of the simulated fixed cutter drill bit”; (b) “[D]etermining a cutter-formation interaction force and a relative sliding velocity of a selected area”; (c) “[C]alculating a wear rate of the selected area”; and (d) “[C]ontinuing to simulate the fixed cutter drill bit with the at least one worn cutter drilling the earth formation”? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Warren, Matthias, Sinor, and Chen would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Warren, Matthias, Taylor, and Sinor teaches or suggests calculating the wear rate using the depth of the cut? ANALYSIS Claims 1-6, 19-22, and 49. Appellant selects claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1- 16, 19-22, and 49. App. Br. 16. First, Appellant argues that none of the references teach or suggest “applying the calculated wear rate to at least one cutter of the simulated fixed cutter drill bit,” as required by claim 1. The Examiner cites to Sinor to meet this particular limitation. Ans. 6. However, Appellant argues that Sinor, in column 1 (page 128), explicitly states that the model presented in Sinor does not predict performance or wear. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 6. As a result, Appellant argues that Sinor cannot be used to teach the disputed limitation. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 6. We disagree. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 15) that Appellant takes the cited statement out of context. The portion of the reference cited by Appellant is discussing the effects of balanced and unbalanced bits. Sinor, pg. 128, “Types of Appeal 2010-005985 Application 10/888,354 5 Wear.” The statement recited by Appellant indicates that the unbalanced force and direction is calculated, but that the force and direction of the unbalanced bit is not used to predict wear. Id. However, that statement does not mean that the entire publication does not predict wear. Especially in light of the fact that the Examiner has cited to figures and several other portions of Sinor which indicate that the wear rate is calculated. Ans. 14-15; See also Sinor, pg. 128-130 and Fig. 1. Second, Appellant argues that Warren does not teach or suggest determining a relative sliding velocity of a selected area and a cutter-formation interaction force, as required by claim 1, because Warren “assumes that the entire wear flat area is in contact with the formation” instead of “determining the geometric position of the cutter.” App. Br. 13. However, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 17) that Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim. Nowhere in the claim is it required that the geometric position of the cutter is determined. Additionally, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 17) that the claim does not preclude the interpretation that the “selected area” includes the entire wear flat area. Third, Appellant argues that Sinor does not teach or suggest using the wear rate calculation in the simulation in order to predict the performance of the bit as it wears because Sinor’s rate of penetration (ROP) is kept constant and a new cutter profile is not generated until after the simulation is completed, as seen in Figure 1. App. Br. 13. We disagree. We do not agree that the constant ROP precludes the use of the wear rate calculation. Additionally, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Figure 1 of Sinor suggests that the cutter wear is included in the simulation wear rate as it is calculated after every rotation and advancement of the bit during the simulation. Ans. 18-19. Appeal 2010-005985 Application 10/888,354 6 Fourth, Appellant argues that Matthias does not teach “calculating a wear rate of a selected area,” as required by claim 1, because Matthias is not enabling. App. Br. 13-14. We disagree, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 19-20) that Matthias explicitly discloses determining wear rate and one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to make that calculation. Fifth, Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine the references and the combination is based upon improper hindsight. App. Br. 15. We disagree and add the following for emphasis. First, as explained in In re McLaughlin: Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Our review of the record establishes that the Examiner’s case for obviousness is only based on knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the Appellant’s invention and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Appellant’s disclosure. Second, the Examiner identifies the relevant portions of each of the references relied on throughout the Examiner’s Answer. See Ans. 4-6. To the extent that the Examiner relies on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the references, this practice is consistent with current case law. For example, the Supreme Court explains: Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all Appeal 2010-005985 Application 10/888,354 7 in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. To facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (C.A.Fed.2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this case, the Examiner’s conclusions of obviousness are clearly articulated and are based on detailed factual findings that are supported by the references of record. See Ans. 4-6. Additionally, although not required, the Examiner finds a specific motivation to combine the references. Specifically, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to combine Warren and Matthias because “it is desirable when designing a drill bit[] to be able to make a reasonably accurate prediction of the rate of wear” (citing Taylor, col. 1, ll. 45- 49). Ans. 5. Additionally, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to combine Warren and Sinor “to gain a better understanding of the interaction of the variables that determine the success or failure of a particular bit run” (citing Sinor, Introduction). Ans. 6. We find the Examiner’s motivation to be reasonable, and Appellant fails to address the Examiner’s specific findings. Thus, we agree with the Examiner. For all of the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-16, 19-22, and 49. Appeal 2010-005985 Application 10/888,354 8 Claims 17 and 18. Appellant argues that the references do not teach the formula for calculating wear rate which includes depth of the cut, as required by claims 17 and 18, because none of the references discuss the use of depth in a wear rate calculation. App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 4-6. In response, the Examiner cites to Sinor, on page 134, which describes Figure 19. Ans. 23. The Examiner finds that this figure and portion of the reference shows that depth is involved in the calculation of the wear rate. Ans. 23. We disagree. Figure 19 charts depth, but the Examiner does not direct our attention to any place in the reference or figure that states that wear rate is calculated using the depth. Additionally, the Sinor reference, on page 128, indicates that the wear rate is a function of contact stress and temperature, but makes no mention of depth. As a result, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and 18. Claims 23, 24, 27-47, and 50. Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to claims 23, 24, 27-47, and 50 as with claim 1. App. Br. 19-20. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23, 24, 27-47, and 50 for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1. Claims 25 and 26. Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to claims 25 and 26 as with claims 17 and 18. App. Br. 21-22. As such, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25 and 26 for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 17 and 18. Appeal 2010-005985 Application 10/888,354 9 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Warren, Matthias, Taylor, and Sinor teaches or suggests: (a) “[A]pplying the calculated wear rate to at least one cutter of the simulated fixed cutter drill bit;” (b) “[D]etermining a cutter-formation interaction force and a relative sliding velocity of a selected area;” (c) “[C]alculating a wear rate of the selected area;” and (d) “[C]ontinuing to simulate the fixed cutter drill bit with the at least one worn cutter drilling the earth formation.” The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Warren, Matthias, Sinor, and Chen would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Warren, Matthias, Taylor, and Sinor teaches or suggests calculating the wear rate using the depth of the cut. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-16, 19-24, 27-47 and 49-50 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17, 18, 25, and 26 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation