Ex Parte Kavaklioglu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 24, 2012

11050637 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 24, 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.
11/050,637 02/03/2005 Kadir Kavaklioglu R11.12-0833 7899
27367 7590 01/24/2012
WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A.
SUITE 1400
900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
FITZGERALD, JOHN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2856
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/24/2012 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 KADIR KAVAKLIOGLU and MARCOS PELUSO
____________________

Appeal 2010-000446
Application 11/050,637
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and DENISE M. POTHIER,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000446
Application 11/050,637

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-17. Claim 18 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Claims
Claims 1 and 14 are independent. Claim 1 recites a system for
detecting outer annulus plugging in a gas-lift oil well, including a pressure
transmitter (24 in Fig. 1, 102 in Fig. 2) and a controller (108 in Fig. 2)
configured to receive a signal from the pressure transmitter and obtain a
plurality of temporally spaced pressure measurements. Dependent claims 2-
13 ultimately depend from claim 1 and also recite a system for detecting
outer annulus plugging in a gas-lift oil well. Claim 14 recites a method of
determining whether an outer annulus of a gas-lift oil well is at least partially
plugged, including obtaining a plurality of temporally spaced pressure
measurements. Dependent claims 15-17 depend from claim 14 and also
recite a method of determining whether an outer annulus of a gas-lift oil well
is at least partially plugged.
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphasis added,
reads as follows:

1. A system for detecting outer annulus plugging in a gas-lift oil well,
the system comprising:

a pressure transmitter operably coupleable to the outer annulus of the
gas-lift oil well, the pressure transmitter being adapted to provide a signal
related to pressure within the outer annulus; and
Appeal 2010-000446
Application 11/050,637

3

a controller configured to receive the signal and obtain a plurality of
pressure measurements relative to the outer annulus, which measurements
are temporally spaced, the controller being configured to calculate a
parameter indicative of annulus plugging based on the plurality of pressure
measurements.

Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-17 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (Fig. 1; Spec. 1:27-
3:14) (hereinafter, “AAPA”) and Eryurek (US 6,654,697 B1).
1
Ans. 3-4.
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend (App. Br. 10-14; Reply Br. 1-2) that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over AAPA and
Eryurek for numerous reasons including:
(1) AAPA fails to disclose a controller configured to monitor a
plurality of temporally spaced pressure measurements, as recited in claim 1
(App. Br. 10-14);
(2) impulse lines typically have a diameter on the order of less than
half an inch, while outer annuli of gas-lift oil wells may approach one foot in
diameter, and the internal bore within an impulse line cannot be equivalent
to an annulus (i.e., ring-shaped space) (App. Br. 12);
(3) no reason other than improper hindsight exists to combine AAPA
and Eryurek (App. Br. 13); and

1
Separate patentability under § 103(a) is not argued for claims 2-13 (see
App. Br. 14) or claims 15-17 (see App. Br. 15) .
Appeal 2010-000446
Application 11/050,637

4
(4) Eryurek measures fluid flow using differential pressure by finding
the difference between two pressure measurements, unlike the recited
pressure measurement within the outer annulus (App. Br. 12).
Appellants contend (App. Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 1-2) that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over AAPA and
Eryurek for numerous reasons including:
(1) the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 14 for the same reasons
argued with respect to claim 1, discussed supra (App. Br. 15);
(2) multiple temporally spaced pressure measurements have never
been used to provide an indication of plugging with respect to an outer
annulus of a gas-lift oil well (App. Br. 15);
(3) even if the combination of AAPA and Eryurek were proper, it
would only provide enhanced diagnostics with respect to impulse lines
within the pressure transmitter coupled to monitoring pressure of the outer
annulus (App. Br. 15);
(4) it is non-obvious to use multiple pressure measurements to infer a
plugging condition relative to the outer annulus (App. Br. 15); and
(5) there is no motivation or reason to support combining AAPA and
Eryurek, and the Examiner has failed to provide articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness
(Reply Br. 2).
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the following issue is presented for
appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-17 as being obvious
because Eryurek and AAPA are (1) not properly combinable, and/or (2) the
Appeal 2010-000446
Application 11/050,637

5
combination of Eryurek and AAPA fails to teach or suggest a controller
configured to obtain temporally spaced pressure measurements as recited in
claim 1, or obtaining temporally spaced pressure measurements as recited in
claim 14?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The
Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 10-15) and the Reply Br. (1-2) that
the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken, as well as the Advisory Action (Advisory Action
mailed Sept. 22, 2006 at 2), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 3-
8). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
The Examiner has provided a factual basis and articulated reasoning
with a rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness with
Appeal 2010-000446
Application 11/050,637

6
regard to claims 1-17 (see Ans. 3-4). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Both
AAPA (see Fig. 1; Spec. 1:27-3:14) and Eryurek (see Figs. 3 and 6; col. 9, ll.
29-45) pertain to the field of pressure sensing used to detect plugging of a
pipe or line in which fluid is flowing. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4)
that it would have been obvious to employ Eryurek’s statistical and
deterministic methods to modify AAPA’s gas-lift oil well system (Fig. 1)
predictably yielding a method and system able to diagnose and monitor
operating conditions (i.e., to detect plugging). Accordingly, we cannot agree
with Appellants’ assertions (App. Br. 13 and 15; Reply Br. 2) that there is no
motivation to combine AAPA with Eryurek.
Because both AAPA and Eryurek sense pressure in a line or conduit
to detect fluid flow, and thus plugging, we disagree with Appellants’
argument (App. Br. 12) that the internal bore within an impulse line (as in
Eryurek) cannot be equivalent to an annulus (as recited in claims 1 and 14).
Both Eryurek’s impulse line 30 and Appellants’ annulus 22 (Fig. 1) define
spaces for fluid flow that are measured for pressure to indicate plugging.
Moreover, the Examiner has relied on AAPA, not Eryurek, as teaching a
gas-lift oil well system/method (Fig. 1) including an outer annulus 22 and
pressure transmitter 24, and has cited Eryurek for the limited purpose of
including a microprocessor system 88 (i.e., controller) to monitor pressure,
fluid flow, and other parameters using various techniques within the AAPA
gas-lift oil system. See Ans. 3-4.
We agree with the Examiner that (i) analog to digital converters and
sensors in digital process loop systems make measurements based on
sequential time steps (Ans. 3), and (ii) “one of ordinary skill in the art would
be well aware of all types of flow diagnostic/measurement
Appeal 2010-000446
Application 11/050,637

7
techniques/methods and is quite capable of applying such techniques in any
type of flow system” (Ans. 7). We also agree with the Examiner (Advisory
Action mailed Sept. 22, 2006 at 2) that operating a system having a
controller and differential pressure sensor is within the general knowledge of
one having ordinary skill in the art. Eryurek’s analog to digital converter 84
(see Fig. 3), which receives inputs from differential pressure sensor 31, is
disclosed as “isolat[ing] signal components in the sensor signal such as
frequencies, amplitudes or signal characteristics which are related to a
plugged impulse line” (col. 9, ll. 31-34). One common sense method or
technique for detecting flow is to measure pressure in a line or conduit at
different times in order to detect a change or a pressure over a certain
threshold. In view of the foregoing, Eryurek’s system (Fig. 3) discloses or
suggests isolating signal components, e.g., sensed pressure, over time.
We are not persuaded that measuring pressure at different times (i.e.,
by using plural temporally spaced pressure measurements) to detect
plugging in a line or conduit was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one
of ordinary skill in the art” at the time of Appellants’ invention (see
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418)). In fact, Appellants state that Eryurek
generates a differential pressure that is measured by impulse lines and
requires at least two measurements (App. Br. 12), and this suggests
measuring at different times or providing temporally spaced measurements.
Appellants’ contention (App. Br. 15) that multiple temporally spaced
pressure measurements have never been used to provide an indication of
plugging with respect to an outer annulus of a gas-lift oil well are not
persuasive because Appellants have provided no evidence on this record to
Appeal 2010-000446
Application 11/050,637

8
support this assertion apart from mere conclusory statements. It is well
settled that mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory statements, which are
unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d
699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In view of the foregoing, Appellants have not sufficiently shown that
the Examiner erred in finding that (i) it would have been obvious to modify
AAPA with the teachings and suggestions of Eryurek, or (ii) the
combination of Eryurek and AAPA teaches or suggests the system recited in
claims 1-13 and method recited in claims 14-17. Accordingly, we will
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1-17 based upon the combined
teachings and suggestions of Eryurek and AAPA.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1 and 14 as being
obvious, because (a) Eryurek and AAPA are (1) not properly combinable,
and (2) the combination of Eryurek and AAPA teaches or suggests a
controller configured to obtain temporally spaced pressure measurements as
recited in claim 1, and obtaining temporally spaced pressure measurements
as recited in claim 14.
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-17 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 1-17 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-17 is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-000446
Application 11/050,637

9
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

ELD