2019006915 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2021)

LANDMARK GRAPHICS CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 5, 2021

2019006915 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 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. 14/901,984 12/29/2015 Florin Mugur Anghelescu 061429-0973157 3975 59891 7590 04/05/2021 Halliburton / Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 EXAMINER HAILU, TADESSE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2173 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/05/2021 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): KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FLORIN MUGUR ANGHELESCU and DAVID CRAWSHAY Appeal 2019-006915 Application 14/901,984 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, 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, 3–6, 8–11, 13–16 and 18–20. See Final Act. 1. Claims 2, 7, 12, and 17 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 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 Landmark Graphics Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-006915 Application 14/901,984 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a displaying data for a preferred well. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for displaying data for a preferred well on a mobile device, which comprises: determining geographical coordinates for the mobile device using a satellite system of the mobile device; locating the preferred well in a list of wells by comparing geographical coordinates for each well in the list of wells with the geographical coordinates for the mobile device and automatically designating a well with geographical coordinates closest to the geographical coordinates for the mobile device as the preferred well when the geographical coordinates for the mobile device are determined; and displaying the data for the preferred well on the mobile device. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Rempe US 2015/0090496 A1 Apr. 2, 2015 REJECTION Claims 1, 3–6, 8–11, 13–16 and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rempe. OPINION 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) “A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention ‘such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.’” In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re LeGrice, Appeal 2019-006915 Application 14/901,984 3 301 F.2d 929, 936 (CCPA 1962)). Of course, anticipation “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Akzo N.V. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 & n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “An anticipatory reference . . . need not duplicate word for word what is in the claims.” Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259–60 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad reading of the claim term adopted by the examiner. And it is not simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with the specification. It is an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is ‘consistent with the specification.’ In re Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).” In re Smith Int’l, Inc. 871 F.3d 1375, 1383–1384 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Appellant argues that independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 are not anticipated by the Rempe reference because claim 1 requires that “a preferred well in a list of wells be located by comparing geographical coordinates for each well in the list of wells.” Appeal Br. 5–7; see generally Reply Br. 2–5. Appellant further contends that the portions of the Rempe reference relied upon by the Examiner disclose a single mapped Appeal 2019-006915 Application 14/901,984 4 route of a drilling operation in Figures 5 and 6. Appeal Br. 7–8. Appellant also contends that Figure 17 of the Rempe reference does not illustrate several bore paths, but rather a single drill string at three different times during the single drilling operation. Appeal Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 5–6. The Examiner provides limited responses to Appellant’s arguments in the Examiner’s Answer and finds that the Rempe reference is not limited to a single well, as shown in several Figures 5–7, 11, and 17, and the Rempe reference discloses one or more wells in paragraphs 52, 54, 61, and 110– 112. Ans. 12. We disagree with the Examiner and find that the Examiner has not shown that the Rempe reference discloses more than a single well in a list and has not identified that the Rempe reference discloses a “list of wells” in the claimed step of “locating the preferred well in a list of wells by comparing geographical coordinates for each well in the list of wells with the geographical coordinates for the mobile device.” Moreover, the Examiner finds that “the claims are simply reciting locating the mobile device (i.e. GPS installed) and locate a corresponding well if found at the mobile geographical coordinate location.” Ans. 12. The Examiner merely identifies paragraph 13 of the Rempe reference in the grounds of the rejection for the claimed “locating the preferred well in a list of wells by comparing geographical coordinates for each well in the list of wells with the geographic coordinates for the mobile device.” We find no disclosure of a “list of wells” and find that paragraph 13 of the Rempe reference discloses “calculating an approximate location of a sonde based on a direction and distance from a drilling rig, and placing a locator device at the approximate location using a global positioning system.” As a result, we cannot agree with the Examiner of the Rempe Appeal 2019-006915 Application 14/901,984 5 reference discloses the invention as recited in independent claim 1 and it’s respective dependent claims. Because independent claim 6 contains corresponding claim language, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 6 and its dependent claims. Independent claims 11 and 16 have a slightly different limitations directed to “locating a preferred well in a list of wells by comparing geographical coordinates for each well in the list of wells with the geographical coordinates for the system,” but the Examiner relies upon the same disclosure of paragraph 13 of the Rempe reference, which we find does not disclose a “list of wells.” See Ans. 9, 11. Therefore, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 11 and 16 for the same reasons discussed above. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–6, 8–11, 13–16 and 18–20 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–6, 8– 11, 13–16, 18–20 102(a)(1) Rempe 1, 3–6, 8– 11, 13–16, 18–20 REVERSED