Stefan Wessling et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 15, 2021

2020002590 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 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.
14/031,877 09/19/2013 Stefan Wessling DDE4-54601-
US(INT0498US2)
6074
44639 7590 03/15/2021
CANTOR COLBURN LLP-BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY, LLC
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
HAGOS, EYOB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2021 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEFAN WESSLING, ANNE BARTETZKO, and
PHILIPP TESCH
Appeal 2020-002590
Application 14/031,877
Technology Center 2800
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, 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 1–14 and 17–25. See Final Act. 1.
Claims 15 and 16 have been objected to. Id. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

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 the
assignee, Baker Hughes, a GE company, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002590
Application 14/031,877

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method to predict overpressure
uncertainty from normal compaction trendline uncertainty. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for predicting a pressure window for drilling a
borehole in a formation, the method comprising:
obtaining pore pressure related data values of the
formation using a data acquisition tool;
identifying at least two sets of pore pressure related data
values, the at least two sets of pore pressure related data values
each comprising at least two pore pressure related data values,
the two sets of pore pressure related data values being different
in at least one pore pressure related data value using a processor;
defining at least two trendlines through the at least two sets
of pore pressure related data values using a processor, wherein
each of the at least two trendlines spans a same depth interval of
interest and one of the at least two trendlines has a slope that is
different from the slope of another of the at least two trendlines;
predicting pore pressure uncertainty from the at least two
trendlines using a processor;
estimating uncertainty of a pressure window for drilling
fluid using the predicted pore pressure uncertainty using a
processor;
applying the estimated uncertainty to the pressure window
to provide a modified pressure window using a processor; and
drilling into the formation using a drilling tool and the
modified pressure window for the drilling fluid.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Weakley US 5,128,866 July 7, 1992
Leuchtenberg US 2002/0112888 A1 Aug. 22, 2002
Malinverno ’486 US 6,826,486 B1 Nov. 30, 2004
Appeal 2020-002590
Application 14/031,877

3
Alberto Malinverno et al., Integrating Diverse Measurements to Predict
Pore Pressure with Uncertainties While Drilling, SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc., 1–11,
(Sept. 26–29, 2004) (“Malinverno”).
REJECTIONS
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–9, 11–14, 17 103 Leuchtenberg,
Malinverno ’486,
Weakley
10 103 Leuchtenberg,
Malinverno ’486,
Weakley, Malinverno
18–25 103 Leuchtenberg,
Malinverno ’486

OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We
are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1–14 and 17. However, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims
18–25.
Claims 18–25
Appellant does not address the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18–25.
“If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue—or, more
broadly, on a particular rejection—the Board will not, as a general matter,
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.” Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Accordingly, we
summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18–25.
Appeal 2020-002590
Application 14/031,877

4
Claims 1–14 and 17
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “defining at least two trendlines through
the at least two sets of pore pressure related data values using a processor,
wherein each of the at least two trendlines spans a same depth interval of
interest and one of the at least two trendlines has a slope that is different
from the slope of another of the at least two trendlines.” Appeal Br. 9
(Claims App.) (emphasis added). Claim 1 further recites that “the at least
two sets of pore pressure related data values each compris[e] at least two
pore pressure related data values.” Id.
The Examiner finds Weakley teaches the defining step recited above.
Final Act. 13–14; Ans. 8–10. Specifically, the Examiner finds that although
“Weakley may not explicitly discloses trendlines span the same depth
interval,” it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the
art to have “at least two trendlines [spanning] the same depth interval.”
Final Act. 14 (citing Weakley 4:1–4, Figs. 9, 34, and 52); accord Ans. 10
(“Weakley may not explicitly discloses trendlines span the same depth
interval. . . . [H]aving at least two trendlines span the same depth interval
would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the
teaching of Weakly.”).
Appellant argues that although Weakley teaches multiple trendlines,
each of those trendlines “cover a selected depth interval and not spanning
the same depth interval.” Appeal Br. 6. For example, Appellant points to
Figure 33 which illustrates a series of trendlines in series. Id. (citing
Weakley 16:56–58).
Appellant further argues that Figure 52 illustrates an Interval Transit
Time curve and not a trendline. Reply Br. 4. Appellant also argues that the
Appeal 2020-002590
Application 14/031,877

5
various parallel normal trendlines relate “to various pore pressures [and] are
drawn where one of those trend lines that most closely matches the ITT can
be selected for predicting pore pressure.” Id.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred.
Although Weakley teaches multiple trendlines (see Weakley 3:67–4:6), the
Examiner does not demonstrate that those multiple trendlines “spans a same
depth interval of interest” as recited in claim 1. Instead, for example, as
shown in Figure 33, each of the trendlines show a different depth interval.
See Weakley Fig. 32, 16:55–58. This is consistent with the Examiner’s
finding that Weakley does not teach multiple trendlines spanning the same
depth interval. See Final Act. 14; Ans. 10.
We are also not persuaded that the Examiner has sufficiently shown
that it would have been obvious to have multiple trendlines spanning the
same depth interval of interest. See Final Act. 14; Ans. 10. None of the
sections cited by the Examiner sufficiently demonstrate why a person having
ordinary skill would have modified the trendlines so that multiple trendlines
span the same depth interval of interest. For example, although column 1,
lines 8–17 (cited by the Examiner) discusses predicting pore pressure over
known depth intervals, the Examiner does not provide any explanation why
that would motivate a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify
Weakley to use multiple trendlines spanning the same depth interval of
interest. The Examiner’s additional citations are similarly lacking any
explanation as to why they would have motivated a person having ordinary
skill in the art is not apparent.
Moreover, to the extent that the Examiner pointed to parallel
trendlines (see, e.g., Weakley 14:61–67, Fig. 23), the Examiner has not
Appeal 2020-002590
Application 14/031,877

6
sufficiently explained why those trendlines have different slopes.
Additionally, the Examiner has not offered sufficient evidence to support a
finding that those multiple, parallel trendlines are “through the at least two
sets of pore pressure related data values” as recited in claim 1; rather, at
most, the Figure has only a single pore pressure related data value. See
Weakley 14:61–65. Because the Examiner’s findings are not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner
erred. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Examiner’s
burden of proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence);
see also In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“The Patent
Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It
may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to
speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply
deficiencies in its factual basis.”).
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of dependent
claims 2–9, 11–14 and 17. Moreover, because the Examiner has not shown
that Malinverno cures the foregoing deficiencies regarding the rejection of
the independent claims, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 10 for the same reason.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–14 and 17 is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 18–25 is affirmed.
Appeal 2020-002590
Application 14/031,877

7
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 11–14,
17
103 Leuchtenberg,
Malinverno ’486,
bnWeakley
1–9, 11–
14, 17
10 103 Leuchtenberg,
Malinverno ’486,
Weakley, Malinverno
10
18–25 103 Leuchtenberg,
Malinverno ’486
18–25
Overall
Outcome
18–25 1–14, 17

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 IN PART