Ex Parte Knudsen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2014

13423366 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KJETIL A. KNUDSEN and FREDRIK VARPE
____________

Appeal 2014-000884
Application 13/423,366
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.

GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2014-000884
Application 13/423,366

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kjetil A. Knudsen and Fredrik Varpe appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1 is the independent claim on appeal. Claim 1 is representative
of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
1. A method of controlling standpipe pressure in a drilling
operation, the method comprising:
comparing a measured standpipe pressure to a desired
standpipe pressure while elongating a wellbore; and
automatically adjusting a choke in response to the
comparing, thereby reducing a difference between the measured
standpipe pressure and the desired standpipe pressure.
App. Br. 16, Claims App’x.
References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Wilson US 3,552,502 Jan. 5, 1971
Lovorn US 2011/0139506 A1 Jun. 16, 2011
Standifird US 2011/0290562 A1 Dec. 1, 2011
Shayegi US 2012/0186873 A1 Jul. 26, 2012
Appeal 2014-000884
Application 13/423,366

3
Rejections
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:1
I. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over any one of Shayegi, Standifird, or
Lovorn; and
II. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over any one of Shayegi, Standifird, or
Lovorn, and Wilson.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
OPINION
Rejection I
As indicated in footnote 1, the Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 7, 9-11,
14, 17, and 18, and withdrew the rejection as applied to claims 7, 9-11, 14,
17, and 18. Ans. 5. On the record before us, however, it does not appear that
the Examiner withdrew the rejection as applied to claims 1-4. See generally
Ans. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over any one of Shayegi, Standifird, or Lovorn is still before
us.
As the Examiner’s new ground of rejection, discussed infra,
recognizes, “Shayegi, Standifird, and Lovorn fail to specifically disclose that
the automatically adjusted choke is adjusted to reduce the difference

1 The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, 14, 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over any one of Shayegi, Standifird, or Lovorn
(Fin. Off. Act. (mailed Feb. 27, 2013) at 2-4), but withdrew the rejection of
claims 7, 9-11, 14, 17, and 18 in the Answer (Ans. 5).
Appeal 2014-000884
Application 13/423,366

4
between the measured standpipe pressure and a desired standpipe pressure.”
Id. at 4. Accordingly, we do not sustain Rejection I.
Rejection II
As a new ground of rejection, the Examiner concluded that the
combination of one of Shayegi, Standifird, or Lovorn, and Wilson would
have rendered the subject matter of claims 1-4 obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of invention. Id. at 3-5. In particular, the
Examiner found that “Wilson . . . discloses a system for controlling the
pressure in a wellbore during drilling.” Id. at 4.
Appellants raise several arguments in response to the Examiner’s new
ground of rejection, including that Wilson “describes that drilling is ceased
prior to adjusting standpipe pressure.” Reply Br. 10. In other words,
Appellants contend that Wilson “does not describe comparing a measured
standpipe pressure to a desired standpipe pressure while elongating a
wellbore.” Id. at 11.
Claim 1 recites a method of controlling standpipe pressure in a
drilling operation comprising “comparing a measured standpipe pressure to a
desired standpipe pressure while elongating a wellbore.” App. Br. 16,
Claims App’x (emphasis added).
Wilson is directed to “methods and apparatus for killing oil and gas
wells when the formation pressure at the bottom of the hole exceeds the
hydrostatic pressure of the mud column within the hole and formation fluids
flow into the well bore.” Wilson, col. 1, ll. 5-8.
The Examiner’s new ground of rejection does not identify any specific
citation as to where Wilson discloses performing this comparison “while
Appeal 2014-000884
Application 13/423,366

5
elongating a wellbore.” See Ans. 3-5. Nor are we able to discern that
Wilson discloses this step of the claimed methods.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, the Examiner has not
established by a preponderance of the evidence that Wilson discloses this
step of the claimed methods. Thus, we do not sustain Rejection II.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4.

REVERSED

mls