Ex Parte BOURNE

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 22, 2016

12523340 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/523,340 04/01/2010 Stephen James BOURNE
23632 7590 07/26/2016
SHELL OIL COMPANY
PO BOX 2463
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2463
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.
TS6869(US) 9039
EXAMINER
PIERRE LOUIS, ANDRE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2016 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):
USPatents@Shell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN JAMES BOURNE
Appeal2015-002116
Application 12/523,340
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 13-20, which are all the claims pending in this
application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Shell Oil Company.
(App. Br. 2.)
2 Claims 1-12 and 21 were previously cancelled. (App. Br. 8-9.)
Appeal2015-002116
Application 12/523,340
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention relates to "a method of investigating an
underground formation underneath the earth's surface." (Spec. 1.) Claim 13
is illustrative, and is reproduced below:
13. A method of investigating an underground formation
underneath the earth's surface, which method comprises
- obtaining a first data set representing change in a
predetermined seismic parameter over a period of time for a
plurality of points in the underground formation, which first data
set is derived from a time-lapse seismic survey of the
underground formation spanning the period of time;
- obtaining a second data set representing geodetic
deformation over substantially the same period of time at a
plurality of locations on the earth's surface, which second data
set is derived from a geodetic survey spanning the period of time;
- jointly processing the first and second data sets on a
computer so as to obtain a map of a parameter related to volume
change in the underground formation; and
- postulating a geomechanical model of the underground
formation, which model is used in the joint processing of the first
and second data sets;
- wherein the underground formation comprises a
reservoir region having a temperature, and the volume change
takes place in the course of production of fluid from, or injection
of a fluid into, the reservoir region, or in the course of modifying
the temperature of the reservoir region; and
- the map of a parameter related to volume change in the
underground formation is a map of one of compaction,
expansion, fluid depletion, fluid enrichment, or temperature
change, of the reservoir region;
- wherein the method further comprises the step of
obtaining from a production history a parameter related to a net
change of pore volume in the reservoir region in the course of the
fluid production or injection and using this parameter together
with the first and second data sets to obtain the map of the
2
Appeal2015-002116
Application 12/523,340
parameter related to volume change m the underground
formation.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Van Den Beukel (WO 2005/040858 Al; pub. May 6,
2005) ("Van Den Beukel") in view ofRiieger (Overview of Geodetic
Deformation Measurements of Dams; 2006) ("Rueger"). (See Final Office
Action (mailed Dec. 16, 2013) ("Final Act.") 13-20.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13-20.
Claim 13
Argument One
Neither Van Den Beukel Nor Rueger Teaches
"Obtaining a Second Data Set Representing Geodetic Deformation"
With respect to claim 13, the Examiner finds Van Den Beukel teaches
the "obtaining a second data set ... "limitation:
second data sets is acquired representing displacements of
regions spinning [sic] the period of time at which the seismic sets
of data was obtained page 6 lines 1-2; the stress/deformation data
are obtained by way ofRFT [(Remote Field Test)] measurement,
page 18 line 1 and lines 17-30, the Examiner respectfully notes
the geodetic data is merely deformation obtained during
measurement using remote field testing such as the RTF describe
by Van Den Beukel, Global positioning system, sensor etc.
(Final Act. 5, emphasis added; Ans. 2.) Appellant, however, contends that
the Examiner erred in making these determinations. (Apr. 3, 2014 Response
3
Appeal2015-002116
Application 12/523,340
after Final Office Action ("Response") 4--5; App. Br. 3--4.) According to
Appellant, "the calculated change in position of boundaries [taught in Van
Den Beukel] is in the subsurface formation [and] the RFT measurements
mentioned in Van Den Beukel are likely not geodetic and that there is no
indication that such measurements are used to represent locations on the
earth's surface." (Response 4--5; App. Br. 3--4.)
With regard to Appellant's contention that the stress data obtained by
RFT is not geodetic, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred.
As discussed above, the Examiner finds that
geodetic data is merely deformation data (such as
horizontal/vertical stress data) obtained during measurement
using remote field testing (RFT) such as global position system
(GPS), which Van Den Beukel suggests (see Van Den Beukel
page 5 line 31-page 6 lines 2, stress distribution in the subsurface
formation ...
(Ans. 2; see also Final Act. 5.) Appellant's assertion that "the RFT
measurements mentioned in Van Den Beukel are likely not geodetic," does
not address the specific findings by the Examiner, and is mere attorney
argument, which is unsupported by factual evidence. Thus, this argument is
entitled to little probative value. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation
of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements
were not found in the prior art."); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With regard to Appellant's contention "that there is no indication that
such measurements are used to represent locations on the earth's surface,"
4
Appeal2015-002116
Application 12/523,340
Appellant has also not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. (Response 4--
5; App. Br. 3--4.) According to Appellant, there is no "obtaining a second
data set ... at plurality of locations on the earth's surface" because "the
calculated change in position of boundaries [taught in Van Den Beukel] is in
the subsurface formation ... and that there is no indication that such
measurements are used to represent locations on the earth's surface."
(Response 4--5, emphasis in original; App. Br. 3--4.) The Examiner
disagrees and finds that Van Den Beukel also teaches measuring stress in
two or more locations on the earth's surface:
. . . Van Den Beukel suggests (see Van Den Beukel page 5 line
31-page 6 lines 2, stress distribution in the subsurface formation,
the representation of change in stress in the subsurface formation
further suggest that the stress is measured at least in two or more
locations of the model, at page 17 line 3 0-page 18 line 3, Van Den
Beukel further states that the stress is estimated in both vertical
and horizontal direction (i.e. non-vertical stress measurements
obtained from RFT measurement, and is clearly similar that
claimed by the Appellant.
(Ans. 2, emphasis added.) Specifically, Van Den Beukel teaches that
"[i]nitial stresses and pore pressures ... calculations ... can be
estimated ... from microfrac tests, leak off tests and experienced drilling
losses (horizontal initial stress)." (Van Den Beukel, 17:30-18:3.) Appellant
has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred and we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Van Den Beukel teaches the limitation at issue.
5
Appeal2015-002116
Application 12/523,340
With respect to Rueger, Appellant contends that "R[u]eger was
not cited as providing teachings relating to 'obtaining a second data set
representing geodetic deformation' prior to the Advisory Action" and
therefore the Examiner has not "give[ n] Appellant reasonable time in
which to respond." (App. Br. 4.) The Examiner, however, clarifies that
Rueger was not used for the limitation at issue. (Ans. 2-3.)
Argument Two
No Rationale for Combination of Van Den Beukel and Rueger
The Examiner determines that while:
Van Den Beukel et al. does not expressly state that the reservoir
region having temperature. R[u]eger substantially teaches the
reservoir region having at least a temperature during geodetic
deformation measurements (see Introduction lines 13-17).
Van Den Beukel and R[u]eger are analogous art because
they are from the same field of endeavor and that the model
analyzes by R[u]eger is similar to that of Van Den Beukel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled
in the art to combine the method of R[u]eger with the method of
Van Den Beukel because R[u]eger teaches the improvement of
geodetic deformation network (page 10 lower right paragraph).
(Final Act. 7.) Appellant, however, contends that Van Den Beukel and
Rueger are not analogous art and that the Examiner has provided "no
rationale for modification of V[a]n Den Beukel in view of R[u]eger or vice
versa." (App. Br. 4---6.) Specifically, according to Appellant,
"The present invention relates to a method of investigating an
underground formation underneath the earth's surface." It is
unclear how R[u]eger-a paper relating to deformation
measurements of dams falls within such a field. Deformation
measurements relating to dams are not typically used to
investigate anything "underneath the earth's surface," and
certainly not "underground formations."
6
Appeal2015-002116
Application 12/523,340
(App. Br. 6.) The Examiner, on the other hand, determines that "Beukel and
R[u]eger are clearly analogous art because they are from the same field of
endeavor reservoir/underground formation survey and deformation
measurement." (Ans. 3--4.) Appellant has not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred because Appellant's assertion in this regard is mere attorney
argument, which is unsupported by factual evidence. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
at 1470; In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 705. We agree with the Examiner's
finding that Van Den Beukel and Rueger are analogous art "directed to the
same field of endeavor reservoir/underground formation survey and
deformation measurement." (Ans. 3.) Moreover, even assuming arguendo
that Van Den Beukel and Rueger relates to different fields, as Appellant
suggests, "[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, we agree with the Examiner's findings that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to Rueger for "insight[ s] into
the quality and safety of the reservoir model ... as accurate measurement of
[geodetic] deformation caused by changes in reservoir water level and
temperature." (Ans. 3.)
With regard to Appellant's contention that the Examiner has provided
"no rationale for modification of V[a]n Den Beukel in view of R[u]eger or
vice versa," the Examiner notes that "it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skilled in the art to combine the method of R[u]eger with the
method of Van Den Beukel because R[u]eger teaches the improvement of
7
Appeal2015-002116
Application 12/523,340
geodetic deformation network." (App. Br. 4---6; Final Act. 7.) As discussed
above, we are not persuaded by Appellant's contention that "Van Den
Beukel does not mention a geodetic deformation network." (App. Br. 5.)
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner's finding that one of ordinary
skilled in the art would look to Rueger to improve the geodetic deformation
network in Van Den Beukel because Rueger provides "insight[ s] into the
quality and safety" of geodetic deformation due to "water level and
temperature." (Ans. 3.) Therefore, the result of the combination is an
obvious improvement over the original system of Van Den Beukel. See KSR
Int'! Co., v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ("The combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results."). Here, the Examiner has set
forth "'an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
the legal conclusion of obviousness."' KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 418.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of claim 13. Thus, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 13, as well as dependent claims 14--17, 19, and 20, which are not
argued separately.
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites "wherein the geodetic deformation data includes at
least one of subsidence, or non-vertical deformation of the earth's surface."
Appellant contends that Van Der Beukel "fails to provide the claim features
for which it was cited." (App. Br. 6.) As discussed above, however, Van
Der Beukel teaches measuring non-vertical stress: "[i]nitial stresses and pore
pressures ... calculations . . . can be estimated ... from microfrac tests,
8
Appeal2015-002116
Application 12/523,340
leak off tests and experienced drilling losses (horizontal initial stress)."
(Van Den Beukel, 17:30-18:3; see Ans. 4.) Therefore, we are not persuaded
of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 18 and sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 18.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 13-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9