Ex Parte Mese et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 15, 2012

11288826 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________
Ex parte ALI MESE, SYED HAMID,
DINGDING CHEN, HARRY D. SMITH JR,
JOHN HOWARD, and NEAL SKINNER
____________________

Appeal 2010-003923
Application 11/288,826
Technology Center 2800
__________________

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

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003923
Application 11/288,826

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
2 and 4-42. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a method of reservoir characterization and
delineation based on observations of displacements at the earth's surface
(Spec.1).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter on appeal:
1. A method of characterizing a subterranean reservoir,
the method comprising the steps of:

detecting a response of the reservoir to a stimulus, the
stimulus causing a pressure change in the reservoir, and the
detecting step further including measuring the response as a set
of displacements of a surface of the earth; and

determining a characteristic of the reservoir from the
response to the stimulus, the reservoir characteristic comprising
at least one of shape, location, presence, permeability, porosity,
a location of fluid transfer, fluid viscosity, fluid mobility,
compressibility, and a thermal characteristic.

THE REFERENCE and THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 4-42 under 35 U.S.C §102(b)
as being anticipated based upon the teachings of Vasco, et al. “Using surface
deformation to image reservoir dynamics,” Geophysics, Vol., 65, No. 1
(January-February 2000); pp, 132-147.

Appeal 2010-003923
Application 11/288,826

3

ISSUES
The pivotal issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding
that Vasco teaches:
1. the limitation of “determining a characteristic of the
reservoir from the response to the stimulus, the reservoir
characteristic comprising at least one of shape, location,
presence, permeability, porosity, a location of fluid transfer,
fluid viscosity, fluid mobility, compressibility, and a thermal
characteristic” as recited in claim 1;
2. using a response of a reservoir to a “tidal loading stimulus” as the
basis for determining the reservoir characteristic;
3. determining the total volume;
4. permeability changes in the reservoir, porosity changes, changes in
location of fluid transfer, a change in compressibility, a change in
viscosity, and thermal characteristics;
5. virtual intelligence technique; and
6. a virtual intelligence system which is at least one of a genetic
algorithm, neutral network, or fuzzy logic.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification,
limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Appeal 2010-003923
Application 11/288,826

4
ANALYSIS
Analysis with respect to claims 1, 2, 4-11, 16, 21, 34, 35, 37, 38, and 42
Appellants argue that Vasco does not describe the step of
“determining a characteristic of the reservoir from the response to the
stimulus, the reservoir characteristic comprising at least one of shape,
location, presence, permeability, porosity, a location of fluid transfer, fluid
viscosity, fluid mobility, compressibility, and a thermal characteristic” as
recited in independent claim 1 (App. Br. 9). Appellants explain that Vasco
clearly does not teach determining the specific reservoir characteristics
because Vasco already knows the characteristics of the reservoir, and merely
uses these characteristics, along with the surface displacements, to compute
volume or mass change in the reservoir (App. Br. 9).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We adopt the
Examiner’s findings and reasoning in the Answer (Ans. 5-6). In particular,
we agree with the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 5-6) that Vasco (starting at the
last paragraph of page 132 through the first paragraph of page 133) reaffirms
no prior knowledge of the characteristic of the reservoir. Vasco explains
that to examine and illustrate the usefulness of surface deformation
measurements in monitoring reservoir volume changes, surface
displacements have been used to determine properties (i.e., characteristics),
such as orientation (last paragraph of p. 132). We also agree with the
Examiner’s reasoning that orientation implies location (Ans. 6).
Accordingly, Vasco does teach a “reservoir characteristic comprising
at least one of . . . location” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2010-003923
Application 11/288,826

5
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2, 4-11, and
21 from claim 1 which Appellants did not separately argue (see App. Br. 10-
11).
Appellants repeat the same arguments for claims 34, 35, 37, 38, and
42 (App. Br. 20-21). Accordingly, we also affirm the rejections of these
claims.
For the same reasons we affirm the rejection of claim 16 for which
Appellants raised substantially the same argument (App. Br. 14). We also
adopt the Examiner’s finding regarding the 3D grid of values (Ans. 8) which
would also indicate support determining a change in shape.

Analysis with respect to claims 12, 26, and 36
Appellants argue that Vasco does describe use of “tidal gauge
recorders” to measure surface subsidence, but that this is not the same as
using a response of a reservoir to a “tidal loading stimulus” as the basis for
determining the reservoir characteristic (App. Br. 12, 18, and 21) as recited
in claims 12, 26, and 36 respectively.
We agree with Appellants. Vasco describes recorded tidal influences
being used to measure surface displacement (p. 139), as opposed to using
surface displacements to determine reservoir characteristics as required by
claim 1.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 26,
and 36.

Appeal 2010-003923
Application 11/288,826

6
Analysis with respect to claims 13 and 41
Appellants argue that Vasco describes estimating change in mass or
volume in a reservoir, rather than the total volume (App. Br. 12). We agree
with Appellants (App. Br. 12) that there is a difference between determining
a total volume and estimating a change in mass or volume. The Examiner’s
rationale that the total volume “can be computed” from the displacement
induced in a poroelastic medium could have been a viable reasoning under
an obviousness rejection—not anticipation. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 13.
For the same reasons we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 41
for which Appellants raised the same argument (App. Br. 22-23).

Analysis with respect to claim 15
At the outset we note that Appellants argue claim 15 stating that there
is no shape determination in Vasco, is considered a harmless error as claim
15 pertains to determining “multiple reservoirs.” The “multiple reservoirs”
argument was made with regard to claim 14, not claim 15. However, claim
14 pertains to a change in volume, for which we find no arguments in the
Appeal Brief. Thus, for all intended purposes, no arguments were presented
with respect to claim 14.
We agree with Appellants that there is no disclosure in Vasco (p. 136)
about determining the presence of multiple reservoirs (App. Br. 13).
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15.

Appeal 2010-003923
Application 11/288,826

7
Analysis with respect to claims 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23
We agree with Appellants’ arguments that Vasco does not determine
permeability changes in the reservoir (App. Br. 14) or porosity changes
(App. Br. 15) or changes in location of fluid transfer (App. Br. 15) or a
change in compressibility (App. Br. 15) or a change in viscosity (App. Br.
16) or thermal characteristics (App. Br. 16).
We note that the Examiner does not substantively address Appellants’
arguments and labels some of these factors, such as density, as inherent. We
find no support for such assertions.
Accordingly we reverse claims 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23.

Analysis with respect to claims 24, 25, 27-29, 30, 32, 33, 39
Appellants argue with respect to claims 24, 25, 27-29 and 33 that
Vasco does not implement a virtual intelligence technique, but rather
mathematical equations, and describes various examples from the
Specification including neural networks and fuzzy logic (App. Br. 17).
Appellants rely on the same argument for claims 30, 31, 32, and 39 (App.
Br. 19, 22). We do not agree because we do not import limitations, such as
neural networks and fuzzy logic, from the Specification into the claims. See
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184.
As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner that Vasco teaches
determining the characteristic of the reservoir from the surface
displacements with the reservoir characteristics being shape (see discussion
of claim 1). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the virtual
intelligence technique is a modeling technique that is not specific to a
particular model and Vasco teaches a model for forward problem prediction
Appeal 2010-003923
Application 11/288,826

8
of surface deformation (i.e., virtual intelligence) given reservoir fluid
volume changes and an inverse problem of estimating reservoir volume
changes based on surface displacement data (see Vasco, page 133,
“Methodology” and Ans. 10). Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 10) that the model uses Green's Theorem to find a solution for some of
the modeling character equation (Ans. 10).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24, 25, 27-
29, 30, 32, 33 and 39.

Analysis with respect to claims 31 and 40
Appellants argue that claim 40 claims a virtual intelligence system
which is at least one of a genetic algorithm, neutral network, or fuzzy logic
and Vasco does not teach these features (App. Br. 22). We agree.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 40.
For the same reason we also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim
31.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding that Vasco teaches:
1. the limitation of “determining a characteristic of the
reservoir from the response to the stimulus, the reservoir
characteristic comprising at least one of shape, location,
presence, permeability, porosity, a location of fluid transfer,
fluid viscosity, fluid mobility, compressibility, and a thermal
characteristic” as recited in claim 1; and
2. virtual intelligence technique under the broadest reasonable
interpretation.
Appeal 2010-003923
Application 11/288,826

9
The Examiner erred in finding that Vasco teaches:
1. using a response of a reservoir to a “tidal loading stimulus” as the
basis for determining the reservoir characteristic;
2. determining the total volume;
3. determining permeability changes in the reservoir, porosity
changes, changes in location of fluid transfer, a change in
compressibility, a change in viscosity, and thermal characteristics;
and
4. a virtual intelligence system which is at least one of a genetic
algorithm, neutral network, or fuzzy logic.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-11, 16, 21, 24, 25,
27-29, 30, 32-35, 37- 39, and 42, is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 12-15, 17-20, 22, 23, 26, 31, 36, 40, and 41 is reversed.
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)(2010).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART.

tkl