Ex Parte Gleitman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2013

11051762 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DANIEL D. GLEITMAN
____________

Appeal 2010-006610
Application 11/051,762
Technology Center 2100
____________

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

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-76. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2010-006610
Application 11/051,762

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to methods for detecting at
least one downhole condition (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of collecting and analyzing one or more
pressures, the method implemented, at least in part, in a
computer system comprising at least one processor, the
method comprising:

measuring pressures at a plurality of locations along a
drillstring, the drillstring comprising a drillpipe, and
where at least one pressure is measured along the
drillpipe; and

detecting at least one downhole condition based, at least
in part, on at least one measured pressure.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-76 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based
upon the teachings of Hache (US 6,220,087 B1, issued April 24, 2001).
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 28, 32, 35, and 49 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based upon the teachings of Shahin (US 6,279,392 B1, issued
August 28, 2001).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 28, 32, 35, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Shahin
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 28, 32, 35, and 49 as anticipated by
Shahin. The Examiner finds Shahin’s Figure 8 as well as its corresponding
Appeal 2010-006610
Application 11/051,762

3
description teaches the limitations of claims 1, 28, 32, 35, and 49 (Ans. 3,
10, 11, 12, and 16).
We find the Examiner’s statement of the rejection is broad in making
the anticipation rejection over Shahin and we are left to speculate as to the
precise details of how each argued claim limitation is expressly or inherently
described by the portions of Shahin identified by the Examiner. We note the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board is a reviewing body and not a place of initial
examination. Moreover, it is our view that the more rigorous requirements of
§ 102 essentially require a one-for-one mapping of each argued limitation to
the corresponding portion of the reference, which the Examiner must
identify with particularity. As the Federal Circuit has stated:
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set
forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
described, in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631
(Fed. Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).
The Examiner has made no such finding. Thus, we reverse the
rejection of claims 1, 28, 32, 35, and 49 as anticipated by Shahin.
Claims 1-76 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Hache
Appellant contends the Examiner is incorrect in finding “along” a
drillstring can mean not only “on” a drillstring but “near” a drillstring, as
“Hache does not disclose measuring pressures at any drillpipe locations”
(emphasis omitted) (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 2-3). “Along” is defined as “in a
line matching the length or direction of ; also: at a
Appeal 2010-006610
Application 11/051,762

4
point or points on .”1 Thus, the Examiner is correct
in finding the term “along” is not limited to “on,” but can include “near.”
Appellant also contends Hache does not measure pressures at a
plurality of locations as claimed, but rather discloses measuring pressures at
a bottom hole assembly (BHA). Appellant also asserts Hache does not
disclose “measuring pressure at [at] least one drillpipe location” (App. Br.
11). Further, Appellant contends Hache does not “disclose sensing pressure
at multiple locations on the drillstring” (App. Br. 11). That is, Hache only
measures at “one location along the drillstring, even thought[sic] the
drillstring is at a different location in the borehole” (App. Br. 11; see also
Reply Br. 3 (Hache discloses “taking pressure measurement at different
locations in the borehole where the drillstring is disposed” and not “at
multiple locations on the drillstring”)).
We disagree. Hache teaches taking various pressure measurements at
various locations ((see col. 15, ll. 39-46; col. 17, ll. 8-9, pressure amplitudes
β1 and β2, and rate of pressure change with time β3). Additionally, Hache
teaches measuring downhole pressure measurements at strategically selected
locations on a downhole pressure trace and recording the times and locations
of these measurements (col. 5, l. 67-col. 6, l. 5). Appellant’s claim 1 only
requires “measuring pressures at a plurality of locations along a drillstring.”
Hache teaches these limitations. Therefore, we see no error in the
Examiner’s findings that Appellant’s claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 26, and
27, argued together (App. Br. 9) read on Hache’s teaching of measuring
downhole pressure measurements at strategically selected locations on a
drillstring.

1 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/along
Appeal 2010-006610
Application 11/051,762

5
With respect to claims 4-6, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
the term “downhole condition” is broad enough to encompass any
measurable condition in the downhole environment (Ans. 26).
With respect to claim 9, the same arguments apply as those with
respect to claim 1 (See Hache, col. 15, ll. 39-46; col. 16, ll. 26-28; Ans. 26).
With respect to claim 10, Appellant contends Hache does not teach
“two pressures are measured at different wellbore sections” (App. Br. 17).
However, Hache teaches “a]s drilling progresses, additional joints of
drillpipe must be connected to the drillstring at the surface to extend the
reach of the drilling rig towards deeper objectives. During each pipe
connection, several transients contribute to the downhole pressure” (col. 2,
ll. 12-45). Additionally, Hache teaches “measuring additional downhole
pressure measurements occurring at other strategically selected locations on
the downhole pressure trace” (col. 5, l. 67-col. 6, l. 11). Thus, Appellant’s
claim 10 limitations read on Hache.
With respect to claims 11 and 12, Appellant contends Hache does not
teach a measured value set of at least one pressure and a corresponding
depth (App. Br. 17). Hache teaches “d]ownhole annular pressure
measurements can be used to determine equivalent mud density by dividing
the measured pressure by true vertical depth (TVD)” (col. 5, ll. 47-50; see
also col. 5, l. 67-col. 6, l. 11; col. 8, ll. 22-32). Thus, Appellant’s claims 11
and 12 limitations read on Hache.
With respect to claim 13, which recites at least three measured
pressures and corresponding depths, we find Hache teaches these features
for the reasons set forth above with respect to claims 10-12.
Appeal 2010-006610
Application 11/051,762

6
With respect to claims 14-17, Appellant contends Hache does not
teach an “expected-value set of pressure versus depth” (App. Br. 19).
Appellant appears to ignore Hache’s column 5, line 66 through column 6,
line 3, which states measuring pressure at other strategically selected
locations on the downhole pressure trace and recording the times or
locations where the measurements were made (see Ans. 27).
With respect to claims 18-20, 22, 24, and 25, Appellant contends
Hache does not disclose “pore pressure/fracture gradients” (App. Br. 21, 23-
26). The Examiner finds and we agree Hache’s, column 15, lines 48-56
teaches these limitations (Ans. 28).
With respect to claims 21 and 23, Appellant asserts Hache does not
teach “detection of a downhole condition based on one or more gradient
differences” (App. Br. 22). However, this feature is not in either of claims 21
or 23. Claims 21 and 23 recite identifying or locating “at least one downhole
condition from a group consisting of: . . . fluid phase change.” As the
Examiner finds, column 13 of Hache, lines 30-31, states “a fast decay
(indicating an influx of formation fluid, or a kick)” (Ans. 28). Appellant
does not argue that a “kick” is not the same as fluid phase change. Thus, we
find that Hache teaches this claimed limitation.
With respect to the remaining claims 28-76, the features in these
claims are substantially the same as those in claims 1-25, and substantially
the same arguments were provided by Appellant (App. Br. 27-53). Thus, we
find these claims are anticipated by Hache for the reasons set forth above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 28, 32, 35, and 49 under
Appeal 2010-006610
Application 11/051,762

7
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Shahin is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-76 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Hache 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

llw