Ex Parte Mueller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2017

14446987 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2017)

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.
14/446,987 07/30/2014 Stephan Mueller TEL4-57881-US
(INT0603US)
1424
44639 7590 09/22/2017
TANTOR TOT RTTRN T T P- RAKFR HTTrTHFS INFORPOR ATFF)
EXAMINER
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
NGUYEN, LEON VIET Q
Hartford, CT 06103 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2017 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHAN MUELLER, INGO RODERS, MARTIN
FOLBERTH, and KAI SCHOENBORN
Appeal 2017-005226
Application 14/446,9871
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 5, and 9—14, which are all the claims pending in this
application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Baker Hughes
Incorporated. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 2-4 and 6—8 were canceled by amendment on May 26, 2016.
Appeal 2017-005226
Application 14/446,987
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to a drillstring communication system
for a drilling rig that uses a communication sub with an antenna to
communicate downhole information to a leaky feeder antenna vertically
arranged on the drilling rig. See Spec. 7—8, 15, 24—25. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A drillstring communications system, the system
including:
a drilling rig;
one or more pipe segments;
a communication sub coupled to the pipe segment that
includes a communication sub antenna; and
a leaky feeder antenna in communication with the
communication sub antenna, wherein the leaky feeder antenna is
arranged vertically and physically attached along a portion of the
drilling rig.
The Examiner s Rejection
Claims 1, 5, and 9—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Moore (US 8,544,564 B2; Oct. 1, 2013), Bartram
(US 5,465,395; Nov. 7, 1995), andPuro (US 2010/0214121 Al; Aug. 26,
2010).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner’s combination would not result in
the claimed invention, namely, a leaky feeder antenna vertically arranged
2
Appeal 2017-005226
Application 14/446,987
and physically attached to a drilling rig. App. Br. 4—5; Reply Br. 2—3.3 We
are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
Moore teaches a drilling environment where a drillstring includes an
instrument hub 115 with an antenna 204 in communication with a remote
antenna 190 located at a ground station 192. Moore, col. 3,11. 47—59; Figs. 1
and 2. Puro teaches a drilling operation where a surface assembly relays
downhole sensing information from downhole sensing equipment to an
uphole sensor-transmitter 4, which in turn transmits the information to a
coordinator 15. Puro, 22—23. Puro’s coordinator 15 is “a fixed location
radio or antenna that is located in close proximity to the drill rig (e.g., 10
feet).” Puro, 123. The Examiner finds Puro’s Figure 2 shows the
coordinator 15 vertically arranged and physically attached to the drilling rig
(Final Act. 4), and Appellants do not contest this finding.
Bartram teaches a leaky feeder cable for use as an antenna. Bartram,
col. 2,11. 7—20; Fig. 1. In view of these teachings, the Examiner’s rejection
proposes to modify Moore by substituting Bartram’s leaky feeder cable
antenna for Moore’s antenna 190, and to further modify this combination of
Moore and Bartram by locating the leaky feeder cable antenna on the drill
rig in a vertical arrangement in accordance with Puro’s placement of the
coordinator 15. See Final Act. 3^4. We find the Examiner’s combination
teaches or suggests the claim 1 limitation “a leaky feeder antenna in
communication with the communication sub antenna, wherein the leaky
3 Appellants’ argument does not address a specific claim (see App. Br. 4—5).
Thus, we deem all claims 1,5, and 9—14 to stand or fall together, and we
select independent claim 1 as representative.
3
Appeal 2017-005226
Application 14/446,987
feeder antenna is arranged vertically and physically attached along a portion
of the drilling rig.”
Appellants assert the Examiner’s combination would not result in the
claimed invention, but rather would result in Bartram’s leaky feeder antenna
being located outside Moore’s drilling rig and Puro’s coordinator being
located on Moore’s drilling rig. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2—3. However, this
arrangement is contrary to the Examiner’s proposed combination as
described above, and contrary to Appellants’ own acknowledgment of that
combination: “Moore and B[a]rtram teach placing an antenna outside of the
rig. The Examiner then asserts that because a wireless network enabled
coordinator 15 is shown attached [to] a drilling rig in Puro, that one o[f]
ordinary skill would move the leaky feeder from outside the rig to on it.”
App. Br. 4. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s combination
would not have resulted in the claimed invention.
Further, Appellants do not present persuasive arguments or evidence
explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
motivated to so combine the references, or why there would not have been a
reasonable expectation of success of such combination. Although
Appellants argue in the Reply Brief that “the skilled artisan would not place
the antenna[] on the rig because to do so would ignore the explicit teaching
of Moore to place it outside the rig” (Reply Br. 2), Appellants have not
shown Moore teaches away from placing an antenna on the rig. Moreover,
Puro’s placement of the coordinator 15 would have suggested attaching an
antenna to a drilling rig to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Final Act. 4;
Puro, Fig. 2.
4
Appeal 2017-005226
Application 14/446,987
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 5 and 9—14 not specifically argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5, and 9—14.
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
5