Ex Parte Olson et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 29, 2019

13705130 - (D) (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. § 134. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 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
§ 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 under§ 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
§ 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. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
12