Ex Parte Gleitman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 2012

11072795 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2012)

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.
11/072,795 03/04/2005 Daniel D. Gleitman 063718.0785 7211
7590 07/30/2012
Bradley S. Bowling
Baker Botts L.L.P.
910 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002-4995
EXAMINER
WONG, ALBERT KANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2012 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 DANIEL D. GLEITMAN
____________

Appeal 2010-005443
Application 11/072,795
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005443
Application 11/072,795

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 7-9, 11-20, and 22-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is method and computer program of
collecting downhole data (Spec. [0002]).
Independent claim 7, reproduced below, is illustrative.
7. A borehole analysis method, comprising:

measuring at two or more depths along a drillstring at
least one property that is subject to perturbation, where at least
one of the depths corresponds to the location of a drillpipe; and;

recording a time when each property is measured at each
depth; and

generating a property versus depth versus time profile
based on the property measurements.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Meyer (US Patent No. 5,581,024, December 3,
1996).
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 9, 11-17, 19, 20, and 22-26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Meyer and Fincher (US Patent
Application No. 2005/0024231 A1, February 3, 2005).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Meyer teaches
Appeal 2010-005443
Application 11/072,795

3
the measurement of the property along a drillstring by using
sensors located at the drillstring while the drillstring is moving
within the wellbore. When each measurement is made, the time
of measurement is recorded. Since the drillstring is moving at a
constant rate, the time is correlated to the depth. Instead of
recording the depth directly, the system records the time of
measurement and then deduces the depth by calculation

(Ans. 6-7). Further, the Examiner finds that “while Meyer teaches either
time or depth there is no reason why both cannot be represented at the same
time so that the user can have both values at a glance” (Ans. 7).
Appellant contends the Examiner is incorrect. Appellant asserts
Meyer discloses acquiring data as a function of time rather than depth and
the time is then converted to depth at a later time (Meyer, col. 7, l. 63-col. 8,
l. 7; App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 3). Therefore, “at no time is the property data of
Meyer represented in both time and depth simultaneously,” as claimed (App.
Br. 4).
We agree with Appellant. Meyer does not record depth. Meyer
correlates time data to depth data rather than recording time data when each
property is measured at each depth to generate a “property versus depth
versus time profile based on the property measurements” as claimed. Thus,
as Meyer does not suggest property data represented in both time and depth
simultaneously, we conclude Appellant’s claimed invention is not obvious
over Meyer.
As Fincher does not cure the deficiencies of Meyer, we also conclude
Appellant’s claimed invention is not obvious over the combination of Meyer
and Fincher.

Appeal 2010-005443
Application 11/072,795

4
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7-9, 11-20, and 22-26 is
reversed.

REVERSED

tkl