Ex Parte 7,032,662 B2 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2015

95002144 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2015)

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.
95/002,144 09/06/2012 7,032,662 B2 COR-1026-USCP-RE 4954
87627 7590 03/24/2015
Mossman, Kumar & Tyler PC
P.O. Box 421239
Houston, TX 77242
EXAMINER
XU, LING X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3991
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

SPECTRUM TRACER SERVICES, LLC.
Requester

v.

CORE LABORATORIES LP
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________________

Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
RAE LYNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

GUEST, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

2
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
This is a decision on appeal by Core Laboratories LP (hereinafter
“Patent Owner”)1 from the Patent Examiner’s decision to reject pending
claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 13-21 in an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent
7,032,662 B2 (hereinafter, “the ’662 Patent”). The Board’s jurisdiction for
this appeal is under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b), 134(b), and 315(a).
The ’662 patent is related to U.S. Patent 6,659,175 B2 (“the ’175
Patent”), which is the subject of Reexamination Control 95/002,141, also
currently on appeal. The ’175 Patent and the ’662 Patent are the subjects of
a litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
styled Core Laboratories LP v. Spectrum Tracer Services, LLC, Case No.
11-cv-1157-M. The litigation is stayed pending the outcome of these
reexamination proceedings.
We concurrently heard oral arguments from Patent Owner and
Requester concerning the reexaminations of the ’175 Patent and ’662 Patent
on February 11, 2015, a written transcript of which will be entered into the
electronic record in both cases in due course.
We AFFIRM.

II. BACKGROUND
The ’662 Patent issued April 25, 2006, to Scott Malone et al. A
request for inter partes reexamination under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–318 and 37
C.F.R. §§ 1.902–1.997 for the ’175 Patent was filed September 6, 2012 by a
Third-Party Requester, Spectrum Tracer Services, LLC, (hereinafter

1 See Patent Owner’s Supplemental Appeal Brief, filed June 13, 2014 (“App.
Br.”) 2.
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

3
“Requester”). Request for Inter Partes Reexamination 1; Requester’s
Respondent Brief, filed May 23, 2014 (hereinafter “Res. Br.”) 1.
Claims 1–21 were original to the ’662 patent. Claims 11 and 12 were
not subject to reexamination, and claim 8 was cancelled during this
proceeding. Claims 1–7, 9, 10 and 13–21 stand rejected and are currently
appealed. Right of Appeal Notice mailed February 7, 2014 (hereinafter
“RAN”) 1; App. Br. 3.
The ’662 Patent relates to a method for determining the extent of
recovery of materials injected into an oil well during oil and gas exploration
and 4production using chemical tracers. ’662 Patent, col. 1, ll. 19–25.
Claims 1 and 14 are representative of the claims on appeal and reads
as follows, (with underlining showing language added during reexamination
and indentations added for clarity).
1. A method for determining the extent of recovery of
materials injected into an oil well comprising:
a) admixing a material to be injected into an oil well with
a chemical tracer compound at a predetermined concentration,
wherein the material injected into the oil well is a hydraulic
fracturing fluid;
b) injecting the admixture into an oil well or an offset
well associated with an oil well;
c) recovering from the oil well a production fluid;
d) analyzing the production fluid for a concentration of
the chemical tracer present in the production fluid; and
e) calculating the amount of admixture recovered from
the oil well using the concentration of the chemical tracer
present in the production fluid as a basis for the calculation.
14. A method for determining the extent of recovery of a
material of interest injected into an oil well or a subsurface
formation associated with a bore of the oil well comprising:
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

4
a) introducing a material of interest into the oil well or
into the subsurface formation associated with the bore of the oil
well, wherein the material of interest injected into the oil well is
a material useful for hydraulically fracturing the oil well;
b) introducing a tracer into the oil well or into the
subsurface formation associated with the bore of the oil well;
c) recovering from the oil well a production fluid;
d) analyzing the production fluid for a concentration of
the chemical tracer present in the production fluid; and
e) calculating the amount of material of interest
recovered from the oil well using the concentration of the
chemical tracer present in the production fluid as a basis for the
calculation.
App. Br. 8–92 and Claims App’x; RAN 4. The Examiner maintains the
following rejections on appeal. See App. Br. 6–7.
I. The Rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 14, 17 and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Hinkel3 in view of
Deans.4 See Ground I, RAN 5–8.
II. The Rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 17 and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Hinkel in view of Hall.5
See Ground IX, RAN 20–22.

2 On page 8 of Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief, Patent Owner states that the
language added to claim 1 reads “wherein the material injected into the oil
well is a material useful for hydraulically fracturing the oil well.” However,
this statement is inconsistent with the amendment of record (see Patent
Owner Response, dated January 22, 2013, 2; see also RAN 4) and with
Patent Owner’s statement that “[t]he newly-added limitation was originally
present in dependent Claim 8. See ’662 Patent at 9:64–65.” App. Br. 9.
3 US 6,192,985 B1, issued Feb. 27, 2001, to Hinkel et al.
4 US 4,090,398, issued May 23, 1978, to Deans et al.
5 EP 0 282 232 A2, published Sep. 14, 1988, listing Christopher Hall as
inventor.
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

5
III. The Rejection of claims 2–4, 10, and 15–21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Hinkel and Deans and further in view
of Dugstad.6 See Ground II, RAN 8–10.
IV. The Rejection of claims 2–4, 10, and 15–17 and 19–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hinkel and Hall and further
in view of Dugstad. See Ground X, RAN 22–24.
V. The Rejection of claims 5–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Hinkel and Deans and further in view of Chen,7
Hoots,8 or Greenkorn9 or Hinkel and Hall and further in view of
Chen or Hoots. See Grounds III, IV, VI, XI, and XII, RAN 11–
13, 15–16, and 24–27.
VI. The Rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Hinkel and Deans and further in view of
Teasdale.10 See Ground V, RAN 14–15.
VII. The Rejection of claims 2–4 and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Hinkel, Deans, and Teasdale or
Greenkorn, and further in view of Bowman.11 See Grounds
VII, VIII, RAN 16–20.

6 Dugstad, et al., “Application of Tracers to Monitor Fluid Flow in the
Snorre Field: A Field Study,” Society of Petroleum Engineers, Publication
No. SPE 56427 (1999).
7 US 4,303,411, issued Dec. 1, 1981 to Chen et al.
8 US 4,783,314, issued Nov. 8, 1988 to Hoots et al.
9 Greenkorn, Robert A., “Experimental Study of Waterflood Tracers,”
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Publication No. SPE 169 (January 1962).
10 US 4,223,725, issued Sep. 23, 1980 to Teasdale et al.
11 Bowman, R.S., “Evaluation of Some New Tracers for Soil Water
Studies,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48:987–993 (1984).
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

6
VIII. The Rejection of claims 2–4, 15–17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Hinkel and Hall, further in view of
Bowman. See Ground XIII, RAN 27–28.
IX. The Rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Hinkel, Deans and Hall. See Ground XIV, RAN 29–30.

Patent Owner relies on the testimony of J. Thomas Hampton. See
Rule 132 Technical Declaration of J. Thomas Hampton, dated January 15,
2013 (hereinafter the “First Hampton Declaration”) (App. Br. 14); Rule 132
Technical Declaration of J. Thomas Hampton, dated September 1, 2013
(hereinafter the “Supplemental Hampton Declaration”) (App. Br. 10).12
Patent Owner also relies on the testimony of Dr. Gary Wooley. See Rule 132
Technical Declaration of Gary Wooley, dated January 15, 2013 (hereinafter
the “First Wooley Declaration”); Rule 132 Supplemental Technical

12 With the Appeal Brief filed June 13, 2014, Patent Owner submitted a
“Rule 132 Technical Declaration of J. Thomas Hampton,” dated January 15,
2013 as the “First Hampton Declaration,” which includes no exhibits, and a
second “Rule 132 Technical Declaration of J. Thomas Hampton,” which is
also dated January 15, 2013, as the “Second Hampton Declaration,” which
includes Exhibits A–K. It is clear from the record that Patent Owner
intended to submit the “Second Hampton Declaration,” dated January 15,
2013 as the “First Hampton Declaration” because of the citations in the
Appeal Brief to Exhibits A–K of the “First Hampton Declaration.” It is also
clear from the record that Patent Owner intended to submit an entirely
different declaration as the “Second Hampton Declaration,” namely, the
“Rule 132 Supplemental Technical Declaration of J. Thomas Hampton” that
was executed on September 1, 2013, and made of record on September 16,
2013. The error is apparent because Patent Owner specifically identifies the
separate declarations by execution date (see App. Br. 10 and 14) and refers
to paragraph numbers and Exhibits consistent therewith.
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

7
Declaration of Gary Wooley, dated September 16, 2013 (hereinafter the
“Second Wooley Declaration) (App. Br. 10). Patent Owner also relies on the
testimony of Mr. Michael J. Flecker, dated September 16, 2013 (referred to
by Patent Owner as the “Flecker Declaration”) (App. Br. 17).
Requester relies on the testimony of Alfred Roy Jennings, Jr. See
Declaration of Alfred Roy Jennings, Jr., P.E., dated February 20, 2013
(hereinafter “First Jennings Declaration”) (Res. Br. 5); Supplemental
Declaration of Alfred Roy Jennings, Jr., P.E., dated October 3, 2013
(hereinafter “Supplemental Jennings Declaration”) (Res. Br. 9).

A. Hinkel and Deans (Ground I, RAN 5–7)
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 14, 17 and 19
The dispositive issue on appeal is:
Does a preponderance of the evidence support Patent Owner’s
contention that the Examiner erred in determining that it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use tracer data to determine the
extent of recovered material that has been injected into an oil well, as taught
by Deans, in a hydraulic fracturing operation in which recovery of all of the
injected fracturing fluid is necessary for optimum hydrocarbon recovery, as
described in Hinkel? We answer this question in the negative.
Patent Owner initially argues that the Examiner erred in interpreting
the language added during reexamination to claim 1, namely “wherein the
material injected into the oil well is a hydraulic fracturing fluid,” and to
claim 14, namely “the material injected into the oil well is a material useful
for hydraulically fracturing the oil well.” According to Patent Owner, this
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

8
language, read in light of the disclosure of the ’662 Patent, indicates that the
claim is limited to a method of determining the extent of recovery of
hydraulic fracturing fluid in a hydraulic fracturing operation. App. Br. 8–18.
The Examiner determined that the claim is not limited to a hydraulic
fracturing operation. RAN 4–5 and 32; Res. Br. 2–3.
Even assuming that the claim is limited to hydraulic fracturing, Hinkel
discloses an admixture of a hydraulic fracturing fluid and a tracer used in a
hydraulic fracturing operation. See RAN 5–6 (“Hinkel further discloses that
tracers can be added to the various fracturing fluid stages in actual field
applications so that a tracer study can be performed to verify the
effectiveness of the fracture clean–up process (see Example 4).”); Res. Br. 8
(“Hinkel teaches the use of a tracer study in a staged fracturing operation
and provides clear and repeated motivation for determining the amount of
fracturing fluid recovered.”). Hinkel teaches admixing a tracer and a
hydraulic fracturing fluid. Col. 3, ll. 9-19; Ex. 4.
Patent Owner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have looked to the tracer study of Deans, which teaches the steps of (e)
analyzing the production fluid for the concentration of the chemical tracer
and (f) calculating the amount of admixture recovered from the oil well
using the concentration of the chemical tracer, for use in the hydraulic
fracturing operation of Hinkel. App. Br. 21–22. Patent Owner argues that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to look to Deans
because (a) Deans’ water flooding operation is non-analogous art to Hinkel’s
hydraulic fracturing operation, (b) Deans’ tracer study is for a different
purpose than Hinkel’s tracer study, and (c) Deans teaches away from a
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

9
hydraulic fracturing operation. App. Br. 20–23. Thus, Patent Owner argues
that hydraulic fracturing and water flooding operations are not in the same
field of endeavor. App. Br. 22–23. Dr. Wooley explains the differences
between these two operations. Wooley First Decl. ¶ 12–14; see also Wooley
Second Decl. ¶ 15, 19, and 20. Nonetheless, Dr. Wooley admits that “it is
true that both operations require the injection of materials into an oil well,”
Wooley Second Decl. ¶ 19.
Whether a prior art reference is “analogous” is a question of fact. In re
Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “The analogous-art test requires
that the Board show that a reference is either in the field of the applicant’s
endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor
was concerned in order to rely on that reference as a basis for rejection.” In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986–987 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). “The rationale behind this rule
precluding rejections based on combination of teachings of references from
nonanalogous arts is the realization that an inventor could not possibly be
aware of every teaching in every art. Thus, we attempt to more closely
approximate the reality of the circumstances surrounding the making of an
invention by only presuming knowledge by the inventor of prior art in the
field of his endeavor and in analogous arts.” In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032,
1036 (CCPA 1979). The question is not whether the combined art is
analogous to each other, but whether the combined references are each
analogous to the “applicant’s endeavor.” Id.
We are not persuaded that the field of endeavor of the ’662 Patent is
limited to hydraulic fracturing. Rather, the inventor’s field of endeavor is
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

10
determined by the disclosure of the ’662 Patent. See Wood, 599 F.2d at
1036. The ’662 Patent is not limited to hydraulic fracturing, but rather is
related to any operation in which materials injected into an oil well during
oil and gas exploration and production are recovered. See ’662 Patent, col.
1, ll. 19–25 and col. 1, l. 46 to col. 2, l. 2. Both water flooding and hydraulic
fracturing operations require recovery of material injected into an oil well
and both are operations that occur during oil and gas exploration and
production.
Even if the field of endeavor is properly limited to determining
amount of fracturing fluid recovered from a hydraulic fracturing operation,
as argued by Patent Owner, both Hinkel and Deans are reasonably pertinent
to the problem with which the inventor was concerned. “A reference is
reasonably pertinent if ... 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. If a reference disclosure has the same purpose as
the claimed invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and that
fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness rejection.” Innovention
Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(quoting Clay, 966 F.2d at 659); see also In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348
(Fed. Cir. 2011). “References are selected as being reasonably pertinent to
the problem based on the judgment of a person having ordinary skill in the
art.” Kahn, 441 F.3d at 986-987.
Hinkel would have been reasonably pertinent because it relates to
recovery of fracturing material in a hydraulic fracturing process and using
tracer studies to evaluate the effectiveness of the recovery. Patent Owner
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

11
argues that Deans is not related to determining the amount of fluid
recovered, but rather to determining the fluid saturations of immobile fluid
phase and a mobile fluid phase in a subterranean reservoir. Reb. Br. 12.
However, Deans teaches that not only can return tracer concentrations be
used to determine “the dissolved immobile fluid concentration,” but that the
return tracer concentration can also be used to determine “when the total
volume of fluid injected into the formation has been produced.” Deans, col.
6, ll. 22–28. According to Deans, “knowledge of when the volume of
injected fluid has been produced can be determined either by knowing the
total injected fluid volume or by measuring the tracer concentration profile
in the produced fluid and determining the injected fluid volume using
general engineering principles.” Id. at ll. 28–33. Thus, Deans would also be
reasonably pertinent since it teaches a method to determine the extent of
recovery of a fluid injected into an oil well, i.e. the volume of fluid injected
into the formation that has been produced, using recovered tracer
concentrations, which is the same purpose of the tracer as in the claimed
invention. Accordingly both Hinkel and Deans are analogous art to the
present invention.
Therefore, we turn to the question of whether it would have been
obvious to a skilled artisan to use the recovery evaluation procedure of
Deans to determine the full extent of recovery of the hydraulic fracturing
fluid in the hydraulic fracturing operation of Hinkel.
Patent Owner argues that the purpose of the tracer in Hinkel is
different than the purpose of the tracer in Deans, and that the processes are
too different for the skilled artisan to expect success in using the tracer study
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

12
of Deans in a hydraulic fracturing operation such as Hinkel. App. Br. 22–
23.
The Examiner stated that it would have been obvious to use the tracer
study of Deans in the hydraulic fracturing operation of Hinkel “in order to
determine the effectiveness of the fracture clean-up process disclosed in
Hinkel.” RAN 7-8. Hinkel explains the importance of deliberately
removing the fracturing fluid from the fracture, i.e. “clean-up,” for example,
to avoid the presence of fluid acting as a barrier to the migration of
hydrocarbon from the formation. Hinkel, col. 2, l. 44 to col. 3, l. 38. While
the diagnostics discussed in Hinkel are directed to the improvement in
removing fluid retained in the distal-most portion of the fracture from the
wellbore (id.), the Examiner is relying on the diagnostics of Deans not the
diagnostics of Hinkel. RAN 7–8. Hinkel nonetheless teaches the
importance of ensuring maximum recovery of injected hydraulic fracturing
material. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Hinkel provides
sufficient reason for the skilled artisan to evaluate the extent of admixture
recovered.
Patent Owner has not persuasively demonstrated by a preponderance
of the evidence that the tracer study of Deans would be either incapable of
working or not expected to work in the hydraulic fracturing operation of
Hinkel. Since Hinkel uses known tracers in hydraulic fracturing operations,
one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the extent of
recovery could be determined using tracer measurements and material
balances described in Deans.
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

13
Finally, Patent Owner argues that Deans “teaches away” from a
hydraulic fracturing operation by requiring an injection rate of the brine
material that is low enough to avoid fracturing the formation. App. Br. 21–
22; see Deans, col. 7, ll. 42–43. A reference “teaches away” when it
suggests that the developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to
produce the objective of the Appellants’ invention. See In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131–32 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Additionally, a
reference may “teach away” from a use when that use would render the
result inoperable. McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1354
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (“If references taken in combination would produce a
“seemingly inoperative device,” we have held that such references teach
away from the combination and thus cannot serve as predicates for a prima
facie case of obviousness.”).
Patent Owner’s argument that Deans teaches away from the claimed
invention is directed to the injection rate of brine in Deans, while the
rejection of record is directed to the hydraulic fracturing operation of Hinkel.
Dr. Wooley discusses the difference between the injection processes of
Hinkel and Deans. Wooley First Decl. ¶ 12–15. However, any difference in
the injection rate of the brine material in the method for determining fluid
saturation of Deans does not amount to a teaching away from applying the
tracer study of Deans to the rejection or to the fracturing process of Hinkel.13

13 Nonetheless, Deans’ teaching that the injection rate should not be so high
that the formation will fracture (Deans, col. 7, ll. 42–43) is evidence that
brine materials might be substituted for other known fracturing fluids in a
fracturing operation provided that the brine material is injected at a high
enough flow rate.
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

14
As discussed above, Patent Owner has directed us to no persuasive
evidence that the tracer study evaluations of Deans would not be reasonably
expected to work in the hydraulic fracturing operation of Hinkel or would
somehow make the hydraulic fracturing operation inoperable. In fact, the
evidence as a whole supports otherwise because Hinkel clearly discloses
tracer materials successfully used and recovered during hydraulic fracturing
operations. Therefore, we are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the
art would be dissuaded from applying the tracer study of Deans to the
hydraulic fracturing operation disclosed in Hinkel.

Secondary Considerations of Non-obviousness
Patent Owner relies on the First and Second declarations of Mr. J.
Thomas Hampton, the declaration of Mr. Michael J. Flecker, and the Second
Declaration of Dr. Wooley as evidence of non-obviousness based on
secondary consideration, namely that ProTechnics’ SpectraChem service
satisfied a long felt but unmet need in the art, was copied, received industry
praise, and was commercially successful. App. Br. 15–19.
For objective evidence to be accorded substantial weight, Patent
owner must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the
claimed invention. In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(appellant offers no evidence that the market reaction to appellants’
invention is rooted in the subject matter claimed). Put another way,
commercial success or other secondary considerations may presumptively be
attributed to the claimed invention only where “the marketed product
embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.” Ormco Corp.
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

15
v. Align Tech. Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1311–12 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 229 F.3d 1120,
1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
The Examiner found that there was insufficient evidence to find a
nexus between the SpectraChem service offered by ProTechnics and the
claimed method for the evidence to having meaningful weight in an
obviousness analysis. See RAN 44. In particular, the Examiner determined
that the evidence did not support a finding that the SpectraChem service
included the step of “calculating the amount of admixture recovered from
the oil well using the concentration of the chemical tracer present in the
production fluid as a basis for the calculation.” See RAN 75.
Mr. Hampton testifies that the SpectraChem service provided by
ProTechnics corresponds to the subject matter of Amended Claims 1 and 8.
See First Hampton Decl. ¶ 11.14 To corroborate this testimony, Mr.
Hampton points to Exhibit H, which is a claim chart prepared by Mr.
Hampton, and Exhibit I, which is a brochure of ProTechnics’ services. In
Exhibit H, Mr. Hampton states
The attached brochure verifies that Step f) is performed.
SPECTRACHEM tracers are routinely used to quantify
and profile frac fluid clean-up and flowback efficiency over
time.
ProTechnics performs this step by either using a mass
balance approach or a relative rate of recovery.

14 While Dr. Wooley and Mr. Flecker provide additional testimony of
secondary considerations of non-obviousness, they provide no persuasive
testimony regarding the nexus between ProTechnics’ SpectraChem service
and the claimed method.
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

16
First Hampton Decl., Exhibit H, p. 1–2. The second sentence is a quote
from the fourth page of the brochure submitted as Exhibit I. Mr. Hampton
then cites to a Markman ruling in a district court litigation involving the ’662
Patent. Mr. Hampton further testifies that he had explained during a
preliminary injunction hearing that ProTechnics performs step f) by either a
mass balance approach or a relative rate of recovery approach and that “the
tracer concentrations were used to determine the amounts of fluid that were
flowing back.” See Supplemental Hampton Decl. ¶ 20 (citing Exhibit A to
the Declaration, 29, l. 1 to 32, l. 5).15 Accordingly, Patent Owner is relying
on the testimony of Mr. Hampton as an expert in the field. See App. Br. 17
(“The Examiner either discounted or ignored Mr. Hampton’s declaration
testimony that Appellant’s services do include the ‘calculating’ step. See,
e.g., Second [Supplemental] Hampton Dec. ¶ 20 (testifying that ‘the tracer
concentrations were used to determine the amounts of fluid that were
flowing back.’).”
Although Mr. Hampton, as president of the ProTechnics division of
Core Laboratories, would have personal knowledge of the services provided
by ProTechnics, we decline to give substantial weight to the testimony of
Mr. Hampton without corroborating evidence that ProTechnics performs the

15 During the Preliminary Injunction Hearing, Mr. Hampton testified that the
Report demonstrates tracer concentration recovery per stage of operation and
total tracer concentration recovery. When asked “Can you explain how the
relative rate of recovery satisfies the claim element of calculating the amount
of admixture recovered?” Mr. Hampton points to where in the Report “we
just add the amount of chemical coming back from each stage so that you
can see the total amount of chemical tracer coming back on that particular
job.” Exhibit A, filed with Patent Owner’s Response to the Action Closing
Prosecution on September 16, 2013, 29, l. 1 to 32, l. 5.
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

17
additional step of calculating the amount of admixture recovered from the
tracer concentration data. See, e.g., Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
at 1368 (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that
the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed
in the declarations.”); In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859–60 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(opinion affidavit asserting the reference disclosed obsolete technology was
correctly characterized by the board “as merely representing opinion[]
unsupported by facts and thus entitled to little or no weight”) (citing In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472–73 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052 (CCPA 1976)).
The language of the SpectraChem brochure (First Hampton Decl.,
Exhibit I) fails to describe steps being performed with sufficient specificity
so as to ascertain whether the SpectraChem service meets the requirements
of the claimed invention, particularly the “calculating step” thereof.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the SpectraChem brochure is
insufficient corroborating evidence of a step of calculating of the amount of
admixture (including both the injected fluid and tracer) recovered.
Patent Owner further argues that the term “calculating” was
interpreted by the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to
include both a mass balance approach and relative rate of recovery approach.
According to Patent Owner, plotting returned tracer concentration over
time,16 as evidence by the Report cited by Mr. Hampton (Patent Owner’s

16 We note that this claim interpretation does not affect the Examiner’s prima
facie case of obviousness because the Examiner relies on Dean’s teaching of
using tracer data for “mass balance purposes,” which Patent Owner seems to
agree involves “calculating” even under a narrow interpretation.
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

18
Comments of September 16, 2013, Exhibit G), is a calculation within the
meaning of the term because it traces the relative rate of recovery. Reb. Br.
8–9.
The District Court determined that the term “calculating” means
“determining by mathematical process” and that the phrase “calculating the
amount . . . recovered” means “determining by mathematical process the
amount . . . recovered.” First Hampton Decl., Exhibit K, p. 13–14. The
District Court acknowledged that Patent Owner argues that “calculating”
encompasses both the mass balance approach and the relative rate of
recovery approach and that Defendants “disagree with Core’s position that
simply plotting tracer concentration over time satisfies the calculation step
of the relative rate of recovery approach. Id. However, the District Court
did not clearly reject either the Patent Owner or the Defendant’s contentions
or apply the definition in the Markman order so as to determine whether
plotting tracer concentration over time constitutes “determining by
mathematical process” an amount of injected material that is recovered. Id.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the District Court necessarily
“rejected Respondent’s proposal, adopting instead Appellant’s proposal,” as
argued by Patent Owner (Reb. Br. 9), since both parties included a
“mathematical” element in their proposed definitions, which is all the
District Court expressly adopted. Id.
As noted by Patent Owner, the Board is not bound by the District
Court’s claim interpretation because, unlike District Court, the Board
operates under a broadest reasonable interpretation standard. See In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (claims . . .
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

19
are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.”)
(quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The ’662 Patent does not expressly define the word “calculating.”
However, the Specification states:
In the practice of the present invention, the recovered
materials are tested for tracer concentration and the amount of
material recovered determined. At this point, the well operator
can make an informed decision regarding whether to continue
clean up or begin production.
The extent of recovery of materials injected including a
tracer of the present invention is preferably determined by using
a mass balance approach. Therein, the total amount of tracer
admixed with the injected material is a known. [sic] A
homogenous sample of production fluid is tested for tracer
concentration and the amount of tracer recovered is thereby
determined. The amount of injected admixture recovered is then
determined using the formula:
AMTr=((Tr/Ti)xAMTi)
wherein AMTr is the amount of injected admixture
recovered, Ti is the amount of tracer injected; Tr is the amount
of tracer recovered; and AMTi is the amount of materials
injected. Tr is determined by multiplying the concentrations of
the tracer in the production fluid by the total quantity of
production fluid recovered.
Where a mass balance approach is not possible or
desirable, a relative rate of recovery can also be determined by
measuring the concentration of tracer in the production fluids
recovered from an oil well as a function of time. In a process
such as this, samples of production fluid being recovered from
the well are taken, analyzed for tracer concentration that is then
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

20
plotted against time and/or flow rates. This can also be a
desirable way for an operator to decide when to begin
production from an oil well.
’662 Patent, col. 5, l. 52 to col. 6, l. 20. In the Example, the ’662 Patent
states that “[t]he flow back is tested for the presence and relative
concentration of each tracer using a GC-mass spectrometer.” Id., col. 8, l.
66 to col. 9, l. 1.
The language of the claim recites “calculating the amount of
admixture recovered.” The ’662 Patent explains that by determining the
amount of material recovered, “the well operator can make an informed
decision regarding whether to continue clean up or begin production.” Id.,
col. 5, ll. 52–56. The ’662 Patent exemplifies determining the “amount of
admixture recovered” or “extent of recovery of materials injected” only by
using a mass balance approach. The ’662 Patent explains that the relative
rate of recovery “can also be a desirable way for an operator to decide when
to begin production from an oil well.” Id., col. 6, ll. 11–20. (emphasis
added.)
While the ’662 Patent indicates that determining the amount of
material recovered and determining the relative rate of recovery are both
useful in determining when to begin production from an oil well, the ’662
Patent does not reasonably support a finding that an amount of admixture
recovered can be determined by plotting the concentration of tracer in the
production fluids recovered from an oil well as a function of time.
According to the ’662 Patent, plotting concentration over time only
determines “a relative rate of recovery” and not the amount of material
recovered. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that a service that provides
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

21
only plotting tracer concentration as a function of time includes the step of
using the tracer concentration for calculating the amount of admixture
recovered.
Since tracer concentration data over time (either per stage or total
concentration) is all that was provided in the Report cited by Mr. Hampton
(see Patent Owner’s Response to the Action Closing Prosecution of
September 16, 2013, Exhibits A, F, and G), the evidence is insufficient to
corroborate Mr. Hampton’s testimony that a step of calculating the amount
of admixture recovered was performed by ProTechnics.
Accordingly, Patent Owner has not met the burden of establishing that
the evidence related to a long felt need met by, commercial success of,
industry praise for, and copying of ProTechnics’ SpectraChem services is
relevant because it has failed to establish a nexus by preponderance of the
evidence between ProTechnics’ SpectraChem services and the claimed
invention. In particular, Patent Owner has failed to establish by
preponderance of the evidence that ProTechnics’ SpectraChem services
includes a step of “calculating the amount of admixture recovered from the
oil well using the concentration of the chemical tracer present in the
production fluid as a basis for the calculation.”
Considering the evidence as a whole, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 14, 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hinkel and Deans.
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

22

B. Hinkel, Deans, and Dugstad (Ground II, RAN 8–10)
Claims 2–4, 10, and 15–21
The Examiner relies on Dugstad as evidence that the specific tracers
recited in claims 2–4 and 15 and 16 were known in the art, namely
fluorinated benzoic acid. The Examiner notes that Dugstad identifies
fluorinated benzoic acids as tracers with a good recovery rate in water. See
RAN 9 and 10 (citing Dugstad, p. 2). The Examiner also relies on Dugstad
as teaching “the same mass balance approach as described in the ’662 patent
and in claims 10 and 21 to calculate the ratio of the amount of injected fluid
recovered based on the tracer concentration profile.” Id. at 10.
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to use
the specific tracers recited in Dugstad in the tracer study taught by Deans.
To do so would have been no more than the predictable use of a known
tracer according to its established function as tracer material injected into an
oil well. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (The
question to be asked is “whether the improvement is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.”). Moreover, Deans teaches that
The trace chemicals suitable for use in one embodiment
of this invention can be selected from a wide category of known
and available substances. In making such a selection the
purpose of the trace chemical and the particular manner in
which it is to be used should, or [sic] course, be kept in mind.
Deans, col. 7, ll. 11–16. In other words, the skilled artisan would have been
capable of selecting a preferred tracer from known tracer chemicals for a
particular purpose. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1368
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

23
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The fact that [the salt recited in the claim] was the best of
the seven [] salts actually tested proves nothing more than routine
optimization that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art.”) (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955) (“[E]ven though
applicant’s modification results in great improvement and utility over the
prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within the
capabilities of one skilled in the art.”)); In re Swain, 156 F.2d 246, 247–48
(C.C.P.A. 1946) (“In the absence of a proper showing of an unexpected and
superior result over the disclosure of the prior art, no invention is involved in
a result obtained by experimentation.”).
Likewise, it would have been obvious to use the particular mass
balance formula recited in Dugstad as the method of determining the amount
of admixture recovered because Deans states that such a determination could
be made using “general engineering principles.” Id., col. 6, ll. 28–33. In
other words, the skilled artisan would have been aware of the mass balance
principles of Dugstad, as they are general engineering principles.
Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not have found it obvious to combine Dugstad with the teachings of Hinkel
and Deans because Dugstad teaches a substantially different application
from hydraulic fracturing operations and because the tracer study in Dugstad
is substantially different and for a different purpose than the tracer study of
the ’662 Patent. App. Br. 23–24; Second Wooley Decl. ¶ 17(c).
Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons
discussed above with respect to the combination of Hinkel and Deans.
Dugstad is relied upon for the purpose of showing that certain tracers were
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

24
known for use in combination with fluid injected into an oil well. While we
understand that the conditions and studies are different in Hinkel and
Dugstad, merely pointing out the differences is insufficient in light of the
Examiner’s reasoning. See Second Wooley Decl. ¶ 17(c). Patent Owner has
provided no persuasive reasoning or evidence that the skilled artisan would
not have expected the tracer of Dugstad to function similarly as a successful
tracer in the hydraulic fracturing operation described in Hinkel. Similarly,
Patent Owner has provided no persuasive reasoning or evidence that the
skilled artisan would not have expected to be able to use the mass balance
equation cited in Dugstad as the general engineering principle for
determining the amount of admixture recovered as described in Deans.
Considering the evidence as a whole, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2–4, 10, and 15–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hinkel, Deans, and Dugstad.

C. Hinkel, Deans, and Chen (Ground III, RAN 11–12)
Claims 5–7
The Examiner relies on Chen as evidence that the use of tracers in the
concentrations recited in claims 5–7 were known in the art. The Examiner
found that Chen shows successful tracer determination at concentrations as
low as 3ppm for water-soluble alkali metal salts of inorganic or organic
compounds having fluorine in the anion by 19FNMR spectroscopy. Chen,
col 1, ll. 39–50 and col. 2, ll. 53–55. According to the Examiner, “it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use sufficiently small
amount of the tracer compounds, as suggested by Chen, in the injected fluids
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

25
disclosed in Hinkel and Deans in order to lower the operation cost and also
reduce the negative effects that the tracers cause to the environment.” See
RAN 12.
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the very low tracer
concentration recited in Chen in a tracer study for an economical benefit, as
taught by Chen. The Examiner found that Deans teaches that the
concentration of trace chemicals in the injected fluid can be established by
one of ordinary skill in the art using general engineering principles and
Deans, like Chen, encourages the use of small amounts of tracer chemicals
“as a matter of economics.” RAN 11–12; Deans, col. 7, ll. 30–35.
Accordingly, it is within the skill of the ordinary artisan to select from
known tracers those that can be detected in small quantities for their
economic benefits.
Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not have found it obvious to combine Chen with the teachings of Hinkel and
Deans because Chen teaches a substantially different application from
hydraulic fracturing operations and because the tracer study in Chen is
substantially different and for a different purpose than the tracer study of the
’662 Patent. App. Br. 24–25; Second Wooley Decl. ¶ 17(d).
Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons
discussed above with respect to the combination of Hinkel and Deans. Chen
is relied upon for the purpose of showing that certain very low tracer
concentrations can be detected after injected into an oil well admixed with a
fluid. While we understand that the conditions and studies are different in
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

26
Hinkel and Chen, merely pointing out the differences is insufficient in light
of the Examiner’s reasoning. See Second Wooley Decl. ¶ 17(d). Patent
Owner has provided no persuasive reasoning or evidence that the skilled
artisan would not have expected the tracer of Chen to function successfully
in similarly low concentrations in the hydraulic fracturing operation
described in Hinkel.
Considering the evidence as a whole, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 5–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hinkel, Deans, and Chen.

C. Hinkel, Deans, and Hall (Ground XIV, RAN 29–30)
Claim 13
The Examiner relies on Hall as evidence that the use of encapsulated
tracers, as recited in claim 13, were known in the art. Hall shows that it was
known in the art to inject tracers in the form of pellets of calcium carbide
enclosed in a water-proof container, which is smashed at the drill bit and
reacted with water to form a detectable gas. Hall, col 1, ll. 4–15. As with
any tracer, the “lag time” (i.e., surface injection to return production time) of
an injectable material can be calculated between the time injected and the
detection of the gas at the surface upon return. According to the Examiner,
“it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use tracers
in the form of encapsulated solid or liquid in the process of Hinkel and
Deans in order to determine the fluid flow characteristics of the drilling mud
(e.g. lag time) in the well, as taught by Hall.” See RAN 30.
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

27
Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not have found it obvious to combine Hall with the teachings of Hinkel and
Deans because Hall is “not analogous art to either Hinkel, Deans, or the
claimed method.” App. Br. 31.
Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons
discussed above with respect to the combination of Hinkel and Deans. Hall
is relied upon for the purpose of showing that encapsulated tracer
concentrations can be detected after injected into an oil well admixed with a
fluid. While we understand that the conditions and studies are different in
Hinkel, Deans and Hall, merely pointing out the differences is insufficient in
light of the Examiner’s reasoning. Patent Owner has provided no persuasive
reasoning or evidence as to why Hall is not analogous art or that the skilled
artisan would not have expected the encapsulated tracer of Hall to function
successfully in the hydraulic fracturing operation described in Hinkel.
Considering the evidence as a whole, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hinkel,
Deans, and Hall.

V. REMAINING REJECTIONS
Because our decision is dispositive regarding the unpatentability of all
the claims, we need not reach the merits of the cumulative obviousness
rejections based on other references. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338
(Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that obviousness rejections need not be reached
upon affirming a rejection of all claims as anticipated); cf. Beloit Corp. v.
Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (having decided a single
Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

28
dispositive issue, the ITC was not required to review other matters decided
by the presiding officer).

V. CONCLUSION
On the record before us and for the reasons presented above, we
affirm the following rejections.
I. The Rejection of claims 1, 5–6, 9, 14, 17 and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Hinkel in view of Deans;
II. The Rejection of claims 2–4, 10, and 15–21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Hinkel and Deans and further in view
of Dugstad;
III. The Rejection of claims 5–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Hinkel and Deans in view of Chen; and
IV. The Rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Hinkel, Deans and Hall.
Since we affirm rejections of each claim on appeal, we decline to
address the merits of additional grounds of rejection maintained by the
Examiner and appealed by the Patent Owner.

In the event neither party files a request for rehearing within the time
provided in 37 C.F.R. § 41.79, and this decision becomes final and
appealable under 37 C.F.R. § 41.81, a party seeking judicial review must
timely serve notice on the Director of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983.

Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

29
AFFIRMED

Appeal 2015-001257
Reexamination Control 95/002,144
Patent 7,032,662 B2

30

ack

FOR PATENT OWNER:

MOSSMAN, KUMAR & TYLER PC
P.O. BOX 421239
HOUSTON, TX 77242

FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:

BROWN PATENT LAW, PLLC
2700 N. HEMLOCK CT.
SUITE 111E
BROKEN ARROW, OK 74012