Ex Parte Moran et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 24, 201612095338 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/095,338 05/29/2008 59977 7590 03/28/2016 OSHA, LIANG LLP I SMITH TWO HOUSTON CENTER 909 FANNIN STREET, SUITE 3500 HOUSTON, TX 77010 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR David P. Moran 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 05516/261002 1871 EXAMINER MORRISON, JAY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2168 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): docketing@oshaliang.com bergman@oshaliang.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID P. MORAN, YASHODHAN GIDH, and LEI YAN Appeal2013-005523 Application 12/095,338 1 Technology Center 2100 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-21, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is Smith International, Inc. App. Br. 5. Appeal2013-005523 Application 12/095,338 Invention The claims are directed to a method for aggregating data that includes obtaining a log object including a log element, wherein the log element includes oilfield data obtained from a provider, obtaining an aggregation policy for the log element, and aggregating the log element into an aggregated object based on the aggregation policy. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method for aggregating data, comprising: obtaining a log object comprising a log element, wherein the log element comprises oilfield data obtained from a provider; obtaining an aggregation policy for the log element; [and] aggregating the log element into an aggregated object based on the aggregation policy into a single composite for a well. Applied Prior Art The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Harvey Dawe Guidry US 6,519,568 Bl US 2003/0142131 Al US 2005/0063251 Al 2 Feb. 11,2003 July 31, 2003 Mar. 24, 2005 Appeal2013-005523 Application 12/095,338 Rejections Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, 14, and 16-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dawe and Harvey. Claims 6, 12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dawe, Harvey, and Guidry. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own, ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis as follows. Group I - Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 First, Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, because Dawe is not analogous art. App. Br. 9 - 11. Appellants argue that Dawe is not in the same field of endeavor as the present application because it is concerned with converting information about a computer system to display the status of a program to a user, whereas "[t]he present application is concerned with the aggregation and transmission of oilfield data to create wellbore composites." App. Br. 9-10. Appellants further argue that Dawe is not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by 3 Appeal2013-005523 Application 12/095,338 the inventor because the problem identified by Dawe is not concerned with "accessing oilfield data through multiple proprietary interfaces." App. Br. 10-11. We, however, agree with the Examiner that Appellants' attempt to incorporate the features described in the Specification (i.e., proprietary systems) into the claimed invention is improper and that the claimed invention is directed to a method of aggregating data using an aggregation policy. Ans. 2-3. We also agree with the Examiner that Dawe is in the same field of endeavor because it is drawn to a computer system configured to receive and aggregate data by applying various rules as the claimed invention. Ans. 3 (citing Dawe i-f 19). We do not reach the issue of whether Dawe is pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor as our conclusion that Dawe is in the same field of endeavor is dispositive of the issue of analogous art. Second, Appellants contend that there is no motivation to combine Dawe and Harvey. App. Br. 12. We agree with the Examiner, however, that at the time the invention was made, networking between computers was widely used and one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that a computer could be easily networked with other computers. Ans. 4. Further, contrary to Appellants' characterization of Dawe, Dawe teaches receiving data from a remote location within a network such as a router, a switch in a network, or a proxy server. Ans. 4 (citing Dawe i-f 5); see also Dawe i-f 19. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that there is a reasonable basis to combine Dawe and Harvey because of the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and in the references themselves, to achieve "time-efficient data acquisition with real-time and/or immediate post-job 4 Appeal2013-005523 Application 12/095,338 interaction with oil and well data." Ans. 4; see also Fin. Rej. 4--5. Third, Appellants contend that the Examiner improperly read out the limitations "oilfield data" and "for a well" and that these limitations should be afforded patentable weight as they are neither nonfunctional descriptive material nor statements of intended use. App. Br. 14 - 16. We, however, agree with the Examiner that the "oilfield" and "well" data are nonfunctional descriptive material which are not entitled patentable weight. Ans. 5. In this case, the descriptive material (e.g., "oilfield data," "for a well") recited in the claims is not functional material. There is no evidence that the oilfield or well data functionally affects the process of obtaining and aggregating data into a single composite using an aggregation policy. Rather, the oilfield and well data are merely the types of information that could be inputted into a log object and outputted in an aggregated form, respectively. As the Examiner correctly points out, the method is carried out the same way regardless of what types of data are included in the log or the aggregated object. Ans. 5. It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan because modifying the combination to aggregate oilfield data instead of other data would not have been uniquely challenging or beyond the artisan's skill. We also agree with the Examiner that the phrase "for a well" indicates an intended use which is not required to be taught by the references. Ans. 6. The language does not add any functional limitation to the claim and merely describes the use or field for which the "single composite" is created, and thus can be reasonably construed as a statement of intended use or field of use. See MPEP §2103(I)(C) ("Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a 5 Appeal2013-005523 Application 12/095,338 particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation."). To the extent the collected data is separated and aggregated for a single item (e.g. a single well), aggregating data in that manner would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan. Fourth, Appellants contend Dawe does not teach obtaining oilfield data "from a provider" and aggregating the log element "into a single composite for a well." App. Br. 17 - 18. We agree with the Examiner, however, that Dawe's disclosure of receiving information from a log file from one or more data sources and aggregating the received information into a specific format or configuration reads on the disputed "oilfield data obtained from a provider" and "aggregating ... into a single composite for a well," respectively. Ans. 7 (citing Dawe i-fi-14, 6, 9 lines 1-3, 21lines1-12; see also Dawe i1 21 lines 15-24 stating that: Various aggregators may be used to reformat data received from various sources. Information received by art encapsulator 107 is preferably provided to aggregator 108 which applies any necessary rules. Rules may be used to strip or remove unnecessary data . . . normalize the format . . . combine information from various files ... perform similar manipulations on the data ... organize information into a plurality of categories. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. Group II - Claim 3 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 because Dawe does not teach "providing a requested aggregated element to a client." App. Br. 21. Appellants argue that paragraph 21 of Dawe merely describes that a data store may be used to store information prior to output. App. Br. 6 Appeal2013-005523 Application 12/095,338 21. We agree with the Examiner that Dawe' s disclosure of displaying stored information (e.g., information aggregated by the aggregator 108) to a computer operator reads on the disputed claim language of claim 3. Ans. 8 (citing Dawe i-fi-f 18, 21 ). Dawe teaches not only storing information prior to output, but also visually displaying that information to a computer operator. See Dawe i121 lines 25-30. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in finding Dawe teaches "providing a requested aggregated element to a client" as recited in claim 3. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of this claim. Group III - Claims 9, 13, and 14 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 because Dawe does not teach "a log object application programming interface that obtains a log element that comprises oilfield data obtained from a provider" or "an aggregation logic unit configured to aggregate a log element into a single composite for a well." App. Br. 22. Appellants also contend that, because the claim is drawn to a server comprising structural elements, the "oilfield" and "well" data are no longer non-functional. App. Br. 22. We agree with the Examiner, however, that 1) Dawe's encapsulator configured to receive data from a source (e.g., server log) reads on the "log object application programming interface that obtains a log element that comprises oilfield data obtained from a provider" and 2) Dawe's aggregator configured to aggregate data from multiple sources and identify a specific type of data to output (e.g., informative messages, debug level errors) reads on the "aggregation logic unit configured to aggregate a log element into a 7 Appeal2013-005523 Application 12/095,338 single composite for a well." Ans. 9-10 (citing Dawe ifif 19, 22); see also Dawe i-f 21 11. 15-24 stating: Various aggregators may be used to reformat data received from various sources. Information received by art encapsulator 107 is preferably provided to aggregator 108 which applies any necessary rules. Rules may be used to strip or remove unnecessary data . . . normalize the format . . . combine information from various files ... perform similar manipulations on the data ... organize information into a plurality of categories. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner on the issue of patentable weight afforded to the "oilfield" and "well" data. The Examiner correctly points out that "the storage of the elements in hardware would be done the same regardless of the content of the data and therefore the answers to the arguments to claim 1 still apply." Ans. 10. The oilfield and well data are merely types of information (data) that could be included in a log object and outputted in an aggregated form, respectively, and do not functionally affect the process carried out by the claimed server. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in finding Dawe teaches "a log object application programming interface that obtains a log element that comprises oilfield data obtained from a provider" and "an aggregation logic unit configured to aggregate a log element into a single composite for a well" as recited in independent claim 9, and similarly in claims 13 and 14. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. Group IV - Claim 10 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10 because Dawe does not teach "providing the aggregated element to a client." App. Br. 23. This is the same argument discussed with respect to claim 3, of 8 Appeal2013-005523 Application 12/095,338 which we sustained the Examiner's rejection. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Dawe teaches "provid[ing] an aggregated element ... to a client" as recited in claim 10. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of this claim. Group V - Claim 11 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 because Dawe does not teach the "aggregation logic unit [that] converts the log element into the aggregated element." App. Br. 23-24. The feature upon which Appellants rely (i.e., adding data to form an aggregated element) is not recited in claim 11. The claim merely recites converting a log element into an aggregated element without describing how the element is converted (e.g., adding data). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in finding Dawe teaches an "aggregation logic unit [that] converts the logic element into the aggregated element," as recited in claim 11. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of this claim. Group VI - Claim 16 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 16 because Dawe does not teach that "the aggregation policy comprises at least one condition and a corresponding method of aggregation for the log element." App. Br. 25-26. We agree with the Examiner, however, that Dawe' s aggregation rule, which specifies the type of message or error ("condition") to search for and 9 Appeal2013-005523 Application 12/095,338 highlight ("corresponding method of aggregation") among the messages and errors contained in the received information ("log element"), reads on the disputed claim language of claim 16. Ans. 12 (citing Dawe i-f 22). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in finding Dawe teaches that "the aggregation policy comprises at least one condition and a corresponding method of aggregation for the log element," as recited in claim 16. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of this claim. Group VII - Claim 17 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17 because neither Dawe nor Harvey teaches that "the aggregation policy stores a priority of the provider for the aggregated element for a particular client." App. Br. 26-27. Appellants argue Dawe individually while the Examiner relies on the combination of Dawe and Harvey. Ans. 13. We agree with the Examiner that Dawe's aggregation rule, combined with Harvey's access control mechanism, reads on the disputed claim language of claim 1 7. Ans. 13 (citing Dawe i-f 22; Harvey, col. 24 lines 33-56). In particular, Dawe's aggregation rule directed to the received information reads on the claimed "aggregation policy ... for the aggregated element for a particular client" because the rule specifies the types of data to collect among the received information ("aggregated element") and output to the computer operator ("for a particular client"). See Dawe i-fi-121, 22. Further, Harvey's access control mechanism reads on the claimed feature of storing "a priority of the provider" because the publishers can specify in the access control list user groups to whom the data access is granted. See Harvey, col. 2411. 33-56. 10 Appeal2013-005523 Application 12/095,338 Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Dawe and Harvey teaches "the aggregation policy stor[ing] a priority of the provider for the aggregated element for a particular client," as recited in claim 1 7. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of this claim. Group VIII - Claim 18 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18 because neither Dawe nor Harvey teaches that "the aggregating datastore server is a web-based server." App. Br. 27-29. We agree with the Examiner, however, that Harvey teaches the claimed "web-based server" as the global communications network ("web") data server capable of transmitting data to multiple remote delivery sites. Ans. 14--15 (citing Harvey, col. 4 lines 61-65). In view of both Dawe and Harvey's disclosure as referenced by the Examiner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that Dawe's data source and collector could be implemented in the well-known web-based environment suggested in Harvey. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Dawe and Harvey teaches "the aggregating datastore server is a web-based server," as recited in claim 18. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of this claim. Group IX - Claim 19 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19 because neither Dawe nor Harvey teaches that "the log element comprises a log element and a log value." App. Br. 29-31. Appellants argue: the log element (204a) is a parameter indicating a type of measurement that corresponds to a log value (e.g., 206a), which is 11 Appeal2013-005523 Application 12/095,338 the measured value. Dawe does not teach use of both a log element and a log value. The referenced portion of Dawe indicates that information from multiple sources may be combined; however, the combined information does not include independent values associated with the base information. . . . [A ]ctual sensor data that is procured during drilling operations does have independent values, and the values in the present application are saved as log values. App. Br. 31. The feature upon which Appellants rely (i.e., actual sensor data that is procured during drilling operations) is not recited in claim 19. The claim merely recites a log element and a log value without describing what the value actually represents (e.g., measurement from a sensor). Nor are the terms defined explicitly in the Specification. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's interpretation of the error message including a debug level as encompassing the claimed "log element and a log value." Ans. 15 (citing Dawe i-f 22). We further agree with the Examiner that Harvey's data relating to wells, geology, and seismic activity also reads on the disputed claim language. The claimed "log element comprising a log element and a log value" is taught by Harvey's wells, geology, and seismic data,. Ans. 16-17 (citing Harvey, col. 13, 11. 19-44). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Dawe and Harvey teaches the "log element compris[ing] a log element and a log value," as recited in claim 19. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of this claim. 12 Appeal2013-005523 Application 12/095,338 Group X - Claim 20 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20 because neither Dawe nor Harvey teaches that the "aggregated element comprises an aggregated element and an aggregated value." App. Br. 31-33. Appellants argue the concept already discussed with respect to claim 19, namely, data comprising an element and a value. We agree with the Examiner that Harvey's data relating to wells, geology, and seismic activity reads on this concept. Ans. 17 -18 (citing Harvey, col. 13 lines 19-44). Further, we agree with the Examiner that Harvey teaches combining and correlating data across multiple disciplines as the "aggregated element." Ans. 18. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Dawe and Harvey teaches the "aggregated element compris[ing] an aggregated element and an aggregated value," as recited in claim 20. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of this claim. Group XI - Claim 21 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 for the same reasons asserted with respect to claims 1 and 9. App. Br. 33-34. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 21 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 9. Group XII - Claims 6, 12, and 15 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 because the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness stems from impermissible hindsight reasoning. App. Br. 34--35. Appellants also argue that "the Examiner appears to be picking isolated disclosures within Dawe, Harvey, 13 Appeal2013-005523 Application 12/095,338 and Guidry as disclosing the claimed features." App. Br. 34. Appellants fail to persuasively explain why the Appellants believe the Examiner's reconstruction of the elements in the prior art references is based on impermissible hindsight reasoning. Merely arguing that "the Examiner appears to be picking isolated disclosures within Dawe, Harvey, and Guidry as disclosing the claimed features" does not persuade us that the Examiner's reasoning is improper, let alone that the disclosures from the references are "isolated." Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness with respect to claims 6, 12, and 15 is based on an impermissible hindsight reasoning. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 14 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation