Ex Parte Chen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 12, 2012

10393641 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/393,641 03/21/2003 Dingding Chen 1391-393.01 4702
36177 7590 06/13/2012
KRUEGER ISELIN LLP (1391)
P O BOX 1906
CYPRESS, TX 77410-1906
EXAMINER
COUGHLAN, PETER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2122
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DINGDING CHEN, JOHN A. QUIREIN, JACKY M. WIENER,
JEFFERY L. GRABLE, SYED HAMID, and HARRY D. SMITH, JR.

___________

Appeal 2009-010299
Application 10/393,641
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before THOMAS S. HAHN, ERIC B. CHEN, and JOHN A. EVANS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-010299
Application 10/393,641

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 27-39, 41, 42, 49, and 50. Claims 51 and 52 have been indicated to
be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Claims 1-26, 40, 43-48, and
53-59 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to oil and gas wells. The claimed
subject matter selects a training data set from a set of multidimensional
geophysical input data samples for training a model to predict target data.
The input data is divided into clusters and actual target data from a training
well is linked to the clusters. The linked clusters are analyzed to select a
portion of each cluster to include in a training set. The reduced set is used to
train a model (e.g., an artificial neural network) such that the trained model
may be used to produce synthetic open hole logs in response to inputs of
cased hole log data. (Abstract.)
Claims 36 and 38 are exemplary, with disputed limitation in italics:
36. A method for predicting open borehole geophysical
measurements from actual cased borehole geophysical measurements,
comprising:
collecting open hole geophysical measurements,
collecting cased borehole geophysical measurements,
selecting a subset of the cased borehole measurements and
corresponding open hole measurements as a training data set,
training a predictive model with the selected measurements, and
using the trained predictive model to predict open hole
geophysical measurements in response to cased borehole geophysical
measurements.
Appeal 2009-010299
Application 10/393,641

3

38. A method for producing a synthetic log of at least one
geophysical parameter for a well, comprising:
collecting a first log of a plurality of geophysical parameters,
including the at least one geophysical parameter, in a first well, the
log comprising a plurality of multidimensional data samples,
dividing the data samples into a set of clusters based on the
geophysical parameters other than the at least one geophysical
parameter,
selecting data from each cluster,
training a predictive model with the selected data,
collecting a second log of the plurality of geophysical
parameters, excluding the at least one geophysical parameter, in a
second well, and
inputting the second log to the predictive model to produce a
synthetic log of the at least one geophysical parameter for the second
well.

Claims 38, 39, 41, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Hampson (Daniel P. Hampson et al., Use of
Multiattribute Transforms to Predict Log Properties from Seismic Data, 66
GEOPHYSICS 220-36 (2001)).
Claims 27-33, 36, 37, 49, and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Hampson and Plumb (U.S. Patent
No. 5,517,854).
Claims 34 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
obvious over Hampson, Plumb, and Wisler (U.S. Patent No. 6,272,434 B1).

Appeal 2009-010299
Application 10/393,641

4
ANALYSIS
§ 102 Rejection – Hampson
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 9-11) that
Hampson does not describe the limitation “a set of clusters,” as recited in
independent claim 38.
The Examiner found that the training example “{A11, A21, A31, L1}” of
Hampson corresponds to the claimed “set of clusters” and that the attribute
“A1j” of Hampson corresponds to the claimed “cluster.” (Ans. 4; Hampson,
p. 225, col. 1.)
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, we agree with the
Examiner that Hampson discloses the claimed “cluster.” A relevant plain
meaning of “cluster” is “[a] group of the same or similar elements gathered
or occurring closely together.” THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 352 (4th ed. 2000). According to Hampson, “Aij is
the jth sample of the ith attribute” (p. 235) (e.g., amplitude envelope,
amplitude-weighted cosine phase, amplitude weighted frequency (p. 228,
Table 1)). Because the attribute “A1j” includes j samples of the first
attribute, as enumerated in Table 1 of Hampson, “A1j” is grouped by the
same element, and therefore, forms a “cluster” according to this first
attribute.
Appellants admit that “no explicit definition appears in the
specification” but argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand “cluster” to mean “cluster analysis.” (App. Br. 10 (emphasis in
original).) However, Appellants have not provided any persuasive evidence
to support the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
“cluster” to mean “cluster analysis.” Arguments of counsel cannot take the
Appeal 2009-010299
Application 10/393,641

5
place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang,
100 F.3d 135, 139-140 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Appellants also argue that “Hampson’s Aij values when grouped by
index (i=n) do not form a cluster because: (1) clusters are formed based on
similarity (or some measure of ‘nearness’) and (2) Aij values having
different indices (Aij and Anj, where i does not equal n) cannot be
meaningfully compared to ascertain similarity.” (App. Br. 10-11.)
However, as discussed previously, the attributes “A1j” form a “cluster”
because they are grouped by the same first attribute.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Hampson describes the
limitation “a set of clusters,” as recited in independent claim 38.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 38 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 39, 41, and 42 depend from claim 38, and
Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with
respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 39, 41,
and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), for the same reasons discussed with
respect to independent claim 38.

§ 103 Rejection – Hampson and Plumb
Claims 27-33
Independent claim 27 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 38, which was rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hampson. With respect to claim 27,
Appellants merely argues that Plumb does not cure the deficiencies of
Hampson. (App. Br. 11-12.) We are not persuaded by this argument for the
same reasons discussed with respect to claim 38. Claims 28-33 depend from
Appeal 2009-010299
Application 10/393,641

6
claim 27, and Appellants have not presented substantive arguments with
respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claim 27, as well as
claims 28-33, which depend from claim 27, for the same reasons discussed
with respect to claim 38.

Claims 36, 37, 49, and 50
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 12-13) that
the combination of Hampson and Plumb fails to render obvious independent
claim 36, which includes the limitation “using the trained predictive model
to predict open hole geophysical measurements in response to cased
borehole geophysical measurements.”
The Examiner acknowledged that Hampson does not disclose
“collecting open hole geophysical measurements” and “collecting cased
borehole geophysical measurements” (Ans. 10) and, therefore, cited Plumb
for teaching a modular sonde, i.e., probe, configured for measurements in
open or cased boreholes (Ans. 10-11, 20-21; Plumb, Abstract). The
Examiner concluded that independent claim 36 would have been obvious
over the combination of Hampson and Plumb. (Ans. 10-11.) We agree with
the Examiner.
Hampson “describe[s] a new method for predicting well-log
properties from seismic data.” (Abstract.) Plumb teaches a modular sonde
configured for measurements in open or cased boreholes. (Abstract.)
The combination of Hampson and Plumb is nothing more than
incorporating the known method of Hampson for predicting well log
properties from seismic data with the known method of Plumb for measuring
properties in open or cased boreholes, to yield predictable results. See KSR
Appeal 2009-010299
Application 10/393,641

7
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Because Plumb teaches
that obtaining measurements from both open and cased boreholes, this
combination would result in “using the trained predictive model to predict
open hole geophysical measurements in response to cased borehole
geophysical measurements,” as recited in independent claim 36.
Appellants argue that “seismic data generally lacks the accuracy and
resolution of a well log, but compensates with a long-range volumetric view
of the reservoir” and “[t]hose skilled in the art do not consider seismic data
to be equivalent to, or a substitute for, a well log.” (App. Br. 12.) However,
this argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 36, because the
claim recites “geophysical measurements,” which is broad enough to
encompass the seismic data of Hampson. Furthermore, Appellants have not
provided persuasive evidence to support the position that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not “consider seismic data to be equivalent to, or a
substitute for, a well log” (id.). Again, arguments of counsel cannot take the
place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., Huang, 100 F.3d
at 139-140.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Hampson
and Plumb would have rendered obvious independent claim 36, which
includes the limitation “using the trained predictive model to predict open
hole geophysical measurements in response to cased borehole geophysical
measurements.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Independent claims 37 and 49 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 36, and Appellants have not
Appeal 2009-010299
Application 10/393,641

8
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain the rejection of claims 37 and 49, as well as claim 50, which
depends from claim 49, for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 36.

§ 103 Rejection – Hampson, Plumb, and Wisler
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 34 and 35 separately (App. Br. 14), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants summarily allege that
“Wisler makes no mention of clustering.” (Id.) We are not persuaded by
these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 27, from
which claims 34 and 35 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 27-39, 41, 42, 49, and 50 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rwk