GYRODATA, Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 11, 2020

14301123 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2020)

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.
14/301,123 06/10/2014 Graham Arthur McElhinney GYRO0138 1175
65134 7590 03/11/2020
Ari Pramudji
Pramudji Law Group PLLC
800 Gessner, Suite 975
Houston, TX 77024
EXAMINER
BLOSS, STEPHANIE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/11/2020 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):
ari.pramudji@pro-ip.com
paralegal@pro-ip.com
samantha@pro-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GRAHAM ARTHUR MCELHINNEY,
GARY WILLIAM UTTECHT, ERIC WRIGHT, and
JOHN LIONEL WESTON
Appeal 2019-002717
Application 14/301,123
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, LILAN REN, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
REN, 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, 3–13, and 27–33. See Final Act. 2.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Gyrodata,
Incorporated.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002717
Application 14/301,123

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method “for determining the
relative and absolute spatial positions of multiple subterranean wellbores for
drilling the wellbores in close proximity to each other for a substantial part
of their length, for the avoidance of collisions between wellbores, or for
interceptions of the wellbores at all angles.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for steering a drill string spaced from an existing
first wellbore, the drill string drilling a second wellbore, the
method comprising:
using at least one sensor module disposed on the drill
string to measure a magnetic field and to generate at least one
first signal indicative of the measured magnetic field;
using the at least one sensor module to gyroscopically
measure an azimuth, an inclination, or both of the at least one
sensor module and to generate at least one second signal
indicative of the measured azimuth, inclination, or both;
using the at least one first signal and the at least one second
signal to calculate a distance between the existing first wellbore
and the at least one sensor module, a direction between the
existing first wellbore and the at least one sensor module, or both
a distance and a direction between the existing first wellbore and
the at least one sensor module; and
steering the drill string based on the calculated distance,
the calculated direction, or combinations thereof.

Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 21) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Morris US 4,072,200 Feb. 7, 1978
McElhinney US 2012/0139530 A1 June 7, 2012

Appeal 2019-002717
Application 14/301,123

3
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3–13, and 27–33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Morris in view of McElhinney. Final Act. 2.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for reversible error based upon the
issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After having
considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s
contentions, we are not persuaded that reversible error has been identified,
and we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection for the reasons expressed in
the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for
emphasis.
The Examiner rejects claim 12 finding that all limitations are taught or
suggested by Morris and McElhinney. Final Act. 3. Among others, the
Examiner finds that column 27, lines 33 to 35 of Morris teach or suggest a
method “using the at least one sensor module to gyroscopically measure an
azimuth, an inclination, or both of the at least one sensor module . . .” as
recited in claim 1. Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner reversibly erred and asserts,
without elaboration, that Morris’s teaching of “a gyroscope disposed in the

2 Appellant does not separately argue for the rejection of claims 3–13, 27–
33. See Appeal Br. 16–19. We select claim 1 as representative for this
appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-002717
Application 14/301,123

4
downhole tool to determine the orientation of the housing with respect to a
geographical heading” (Morris 27:33–35) does not teach or suggest the
limitation at issue. Appeal Br. 17. Such “mere statements of disagreement . .
. do not amount to a developed argument.” SmithKline Beecham Corp. v.
Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it does not address the
Examiner’s fact findings on which the rejection is based and, therefore, does
not identify error in the Examiner’s factual findings. See Appeal Br. 12; see
also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been
the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in
the examiner’s rejections . . . .”). Appellant’s argument instead discusses
column 11, lines 11 to 43 of Morris and column 30, lines 39 to 44 of Morris
only, which does not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s findings
with regard to column 27, lines 33 to 35 of Morris in support of the
rejection. See Appeal Br. 17.
We further note that the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer, defines
azimuth as “an angle or direction to a compass or geographical heading”
(Ans. 3) from which Appellant does not provide a different definition. Reply
Br. 1–3. Appellant instead argues that column 27, lines 33 to 35 of Morris
should be “inferred [to teach] that that the gyroscope is used down hole to
determine this rotational orientation, as opposed to an azimuth” as found by
the Examiner. Id. at 3. We are not persuaded by this argument because
Appellant – on the one hand, does not disagree with the Examiner’s
definition of azimuth or Morris’s teaching of the gyroscope to determine a
geographical heading– yet, on the other hand, does not sufficiently explain
how rotational orientation discussed in Morris distinguishes the claim.
Appeal 2019-002717
Application 14/301,123

5
Appellant also argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Morris
teaches or suggests a method to “calculate a distance between the existing
first wellbore and the at least one sensor module, a direction between the
existing first wellbore and the at least one sensor module, or both . . .” as
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 18. Similar to the limitation discussed above,
Appellant argues that Morris does not teach or suggest a “signal indicative
of the measured azimuth, inclination, or both” which is addressed supra and
found unpersuasive of reversible error.
Moreover, we again note that Appellant’s “mere statements of
disagreement . . . do not amount to a developed argument,” SmithKline, 439
F.3d at 1320, and do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s finding
that column 4, lines 52 to 55 of Morris teaches or suggests this limitation.
Compare Appeal Br. 18, with Final Act. 3 (citing Morris Abstract, 4:15–16,
4:52–55 as support). Appellant discusses column 4, lines 14 to 28 of Morris
but does not address column 4, lines 52 to 55 of Morris, which the Examiner
cites as support for the rejection. Compare Appeal Br. 19, with Final Act. 3.
Because the finding based on column 4, lines 52 to 55 of Morris is
reasonable and the Appellant has not challenged it, we accept it as fact. See
In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA 1964). Appellant’s argument
is unpersuasive because it is not based on the Examiner’s fact finding in
support of the rejection and, therefore, does not identify error thereof. See
Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
More specifically,
Appeal 2019-002717
Application 14/301,123

6
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–13,
27–33
103 Morris, McElhinney 1, 3–13,
27–33

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