Ex Parte Fraignac et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 2, 2018

14127584 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/127,584 01107/2014 Alexandre Fraignac
22850 7590 07/05/2018
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
425836US41PCT 5629
EXAMINER
ADNAN, MUHAMMAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2018 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
oblonpat@oblon.com
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDRE FRAIGNAC and
Y ANNICK MFOULOU 1
Appeal2017-011709
Application 14/127,584
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
20-3 8, 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 Appellants, the real party in interest is Vallourec Drilling
Products France. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 1-19 were canceled by amendment on February 4, 2016.
Appeal2017-011709
Application 14/127,584
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to a drill string element that includes a
body with a set of antennae distributed around the periphery of the body,
where an actuator is capable of selectively connecting each antenna to a set
of operating electronics depending on an evaluation of a reception quality
parameter. See Spec. 3 :20-4:4. Claim 20 illustrates the appealed subject
matter and reads as follows:
20. An element for a drill string, comprising:
a body with a generally axisymmetric appearance; and
a wave type communication device installed in the body,
wherein the communication device comprises:
a set of antennae including a plurality of antennae
distributed at a periphery of the body, about an axis of symmetry
thereof, and configured to operate in transmission and in
reception;
operating electronics configured to organize transfer of
data, in transmission and in reception;
an actuator configured to selectively connect the antennae
of the set to the operating electronics;
an antenna monitor configured to regularly evaluate a
reception quality parameter for at least one sub-assembly of the
set of antennae, to repetitively select one or more antennae of the
set as a function of reception quality parameters derived from the
sub-assembly, and to command the actuator to connect the
selected antenna or antennae to the operating electronics.
2
Appeal2017-011709
Application 14/127,584
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 20-22, 27, 29, 31, 32, and 34--38 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li (US 2007/0030167 Al;
Feb. 8, 2007) and Ohashi (US 5,799,245; Aug. 25, 1998).
Claims 23 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Li, Ohashi, and Sasaki (US 5,815,112; Sept. 29, 1998).
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Li, Ohashi, and Viorel (US 200710173303 Al; July 26,
2007).
Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Li, Ohashi, Puro (US 2010/0214121 Al; Aug. 26, 2010),
and Runyon (US 2009/0027260 Al; Jan. 29, 2009).
Claims 30 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Li, Ohashi, and MacDougall (US 2007/0137869 Al; June
21, 2007).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's obviousness rejections in light of
Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with
Appellants' contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own:
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner regarding the
obviousness rejections in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is
taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner regarding the
obviousness rejections in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
3
Appeal2017-011709
Application 14/127,584
Appeal Brief. We concur with the Examiner's conclusions regarding the
obviousness rejections. We highlight the following additional points.
Regarding independent claim 20, Appellants contend Ohashi does not
teach selecting among first and second antennae, and that Ohashi does not
disclose three or more antennae. App. Br. 6-7. We disagree with
Appellants because Ohashi discloses "[t]he antenna switch circuit 10
switches the first and second antennas 11 and 12 to connect one of them to
the transmit/receive switch circuit." Ohashi, col. 7, 11. 26-28. Further, we
note claim 20 does not require three or more antennae. Rather, claim 20
recites "a set of antennae including a plurality of antennae" where an
antenna monitor evaluates a reception quality parameter for "at least one
sub-assembly of the set of antennae" to select "one or more antennae of the
set" based on the reception quality parameter. Based on this claim language,
the "set of antennae" requires no more than two antennae.
Appellants also contend Ohashi does not "regularly evaluate a
reception quality parameter for at least one sub-assembly of the set of
antennae, to repetitively select one or more antennae of the set as a function
of reception quality parameters derived from the sub-assembly." App. Br. 7;
Reply Br. 2. Rather, Appellants assert Ohashi merely switches antennae
based on an antenna switch requiring factor. Id. We disagree with
Appellants because Ohashi describes switching antennae "when an antenna
switch requiring factor occurs, for example, ... when the data receiving
level is low on the receiver side." Ohashi, col. 8, 11. 37--42. We agree with
the Examiner that Ohashi' s "data receiving level" is a "reception quality
parameter" under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
limitation.
4
Appeal2017-011709
Application 14/127,584
Additionally, regarding the combination of references, Appellants
assert Ohashi relates to an improvement in a space diversity method for
indoor radio communications systems, while Li relates to an outdoor
communication system and does not implement a space diversity method.
App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 1-2. Accordingly, Appellants contend one would
not have combined Ohashi with Li. See id. We disagree with Appellants
that Ohashi's teachings are limited to use in an indoor environment. Ohashi
describes that "in indoor radio communication systems ... where the radio
wave environment is especially complicate[ d], the transmission route of
radio waves obtained by switching antennas [ o Jn only one of the receiver
and transmitter sides is too restrictive to obtain the effect of the space
diversity sufficiently." Ohashi, col. 1. 11. 38--43. Here, Ohashi merely
suggests a benefit to using switching antennae on both receiver and
transmitter sides of an indoor communication system to achieve space
diversity. Ohashi does not suggest that using switching antennae on only a
receiver side of a communication system would fail to achieve space
diversity outdoors. Further, we disagree with Appellants that one would not
have combined Ohashi with Li because Li does not implement space
diversity. Ohashi switches between two antennae that "are disposed at
positions different from each other to effect the space diversity" when a data
receiving level is too low with respect to a current antenna. See Ohashi, col.
7, 11. 22-33; col. 8, 11. 37--42. Li describes that "azimuthally redundant
antennas on the rotating drive string will minimize dead spots or weak spots
of the wireless link." Li, i-f 43. Accordingly, both Ohashi and Li use
multiple antennae spaced apart to ensure a received signal of acceptable
quality, and are combinable for at least this reason.
5
Appeal2017-011709
Application 14/127,584
Appellants also contend Li teaches away from Ohashi because rather
than switching among multiple antennae, Li operates multiple antennae
redundantly. App. Br. 6. We disagree with Appellants because Li does not
"criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution" described in
Ohashi. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Li
simply teaches a different way of using multiple antennae to improve the
chances of receiving a signal of acceptable quality.
Appellants also contend there is no teaching or suggestion in the
applied art to combine Ohashi with Li, and, therefore, the Examiner has not
established why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the
references to arrive at the claimed subject matter. See App. Br. 6. However,
Appellants have not specifically explained any shortcomings with the
Examiner's statement that it would have been obvious to combine the
references "because it would decrease [the] number of retransmissions
which in tum can improve [the] time utilizing efficiency of data
transmissions as suggested by Ohashi." Final Act. 4. In any case, the
Supreme Court in KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. rejected a strict application
of the teaching/suggestion/motivation test in determining whether a
combination of references would have been obvious. 550 U.S. 398, 415
(2007). Here, replacing the redundant antennae on Li's drill string kelly
with a set of selectable antennae, as taught by Ohashi, would have been a
simple substitution of one antenna arrangement for another known to one of
ordinary skill in the wireless communication field. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416
("[W]hen a[ n] [application] claims a structure already known in the prior art
that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in
the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.").
6
Appeal2017-011709
Application 14/127,584
Lastly, Appellants contend Ohashi's evaluation of a data receiving
level for determining whether to switch to a different antenna would not
necessarily be compatible with the rotational speed of Li's transceiver, in
contrast to claim 20 in which "the connection rate is generally correlated
with the rotational speed of the element." App. Br. 8. We are not persuaded
by this argument because 1) claim 20 does not recite any limitations
regarding the rotational speed of the element being correlated with a
connection rate, and 2) Appellants provide no evidence that Ohashi could
not evaluate a data receiving level fast enough to be compatible with the
rotational speed of Li's transceiver.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 20, and dependent claims 21-29, 31, 32, and 34 not
specifically argued separately. Although Appellants separately argue
dependent claims 30 and 33, the arguments are directed solely to Li, and do
not address the MacDougall reference upon which the Examiner relies for
disclosing the limitations of claims 30 and 33. See App. Br. 12-13; Final
Act. 12-13. Accordingly, we are also not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting dependent claims 30 and 33.
Appellants separately argue independent claim 35, but the arguments
presented are similar to those presented for independent claim 20. See App.
Br. 8-12. Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 35, and dependent claims 36-38, for the same reasons
discussed above.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 20-3 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Appeal2017-011709
Application 14/127,584
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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8