Ex Parte Schmitt

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2016

11854370 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111854,370 09/12/2007
23718 7590 03/15/2016
Schlumberger Technology Center
Intellectual Property Counsel
Houston Formation Evaluation Intergration
200 Gillingham Lane MD-9
Sugar Land, TX 77478
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Benoit Schmitt
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.
21.1445 4756
EXAMINER
KIM,JOHNK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2834
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2016 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):
SMarckesoni@slb.com
jalverson@slb.com
USDOCKETING@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BENOIT SCHMITT
Appeal2014-004010
Application 11/854,370
Technology Center 2800
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BETH Z. SHAW, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 20-27, 29, and 30. Claims 1-19 and 28
have been canceled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Schlumberger
Technology Corporation. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-004010
Application 11/854,370
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's Invention
Appellant's invention generally relates to electric motors and their use
in downhole tools, such as, for example, downhole tools used in the
exploration and production of hydrocarbons. Spec. i-f 1. An understanding
of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 20-24,
26, and 27, which read as follows:
20. An electric motor, comprising:
a plurality of motor sub-units, each motor sub-unit
compnsmg:
a housing;
a stator winding disposed inside the housing;
a shaft disposed inside the housing;
a rotor disposed on the shaft and aligned with the
one or more stators;
a power and control system configured to separately
power and control said motor sub-unit;
a plurality of articulated connections and associated
housings, each articulated connection and its associated housing
configured to respectively connect the shafts and housings of
two neighboring motor sub-units so that the plurality of motor
sub-units are operated in a stacked configuration to increase the
torque output by the electric motor;
wherein each articulated housing defines an interior
space isolated from an external space outside the articulated
housing.
21. An electric motor as claimed in claim 20, wherein the
electric motor consists of said plurality of motor sub-units and
said plurality of articulated connections and associated
housings.
2
Appeal2014-004010
Application 11/854,370
22. An electric motor as claimed in claim 20, wherein each
articulated connection comprises a homocinetic coupling such
that the instantaneous angle between the rotor and associated
stator is substantially identical for each motor sub-unit.
23. An electric motor as claimed in claim 22, wherein the
power and control systems are arranged to drive the phases of
the motor sub-units together.
24. An electric motor as claimed in claim 23, wherein each
power and control system is arranged to apply an equal current
to its associated motor sub-unit.
26. An electric motor as claimed in claim 25, wherein the
power and control systems are arranged to drive the phases of
the motor sub-units independently.
27. An electric motor as claimed in claim 26; wherein each
power and control system is arranged to detect a failure of its
associated motor sub-unit and disconnect the motor sub-unit
from the rest of the motor sub-units upon detection of such
failure.
Rejection
Claims 20-27, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Driver (US 4,227 ,584, issued Oct. 14, 1980), Baran
(US 3,326,008, issued June 20, 1967), and Scarsdale (US 2005/0034871 Al,
published Feb. 17, 2005). Final Act. 6-12. 2
2 The rejections of claims 20-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, have been withdrawn. Ans. 2.
3
Appeal2014-004010
Application 11/854,370
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Driver, Baran,
and Scarsdale teaches or suggests "a power and control system configured to
separately power and control said motor sub-unit," as recited in claim 20?
Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Driver, Baran,
and Scarsdale teaches or suggests "wherein the electric motor consists of
said plurality of motor sub-units and said plurality of articulated connections
and associated housings," as recited in claim 21?
Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Driver, Baran,
and Scarsdale teaches or suggests "wherein each articulated connection
comprises a homocinetic coupling such that the instantaneous angle between
the rotor and associated stator is substantially identical for each motor sub-
unit," as recited in claim 22?
Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Driver, Baran,
and Scarsdale teaches or suggests "wherein the power and control systems
are arranged to drive the phases of the motor sub-units together," as recited
in claim 23?
Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Driver, Baran,
and Scarsdale teaches or suggests "wherein each power and control system
is arranged to apply an equal current to its associated motor sub-unit," as
recited in claim 24?
Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Driver, Baran,
and Scarsdale teaches or suggests "wherein the power and control systems
are arranged to drive the phases of the motor sub-units independently," as
recited in claim 26?
4
Appeal2014-004010
Application 11/854,370
Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Driver, Baran,
and Scarsdale teaches or suggests "wherein each power and control system
is arranged to detect a failure of its associated motor sub-unit and disconnect
the motor sub-unit from the rest of the motor sub-units upon detection of
such failure," as recited in claim 27?
ANALYSIS
Claims 20 and 29
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
Appeal Brief. Final Act. 6-12; Ans. 2-5. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellant argues independent claims 20 and 29 together. Br. 9-10.
We select claim 20 as representative. Accordingly, claim 29 stands or falls
with claim 20. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant contends the combination of Driver, Baran, and Scarsdale
does not teach or suggest "a power and control system configured to
separately power and control said motor sub-unit," as recited in claim 20.
Br. 9-10. Particularly, Appellant contends "while the electrical power line 8
[of Driver] does provide electrical power to the electric motors 3, Driver is
silent as to separate control systems configured to separately control each
motor 3." Br. 9-10. Appellant contends "Baran merely teaches one motor
20 ... and does not even consider the concept of multiple motor sub-units,
5
Appeal2014-004010
Application 11/854,370
much less the individual powering and controlling of multiple motor sub-
units." Br. 10. Appellant acknowledges Scarsdale teaches multiple power
and control systems that are each configured to separately power and control
a submersible pumping system, but contend each submersible subsystem
includes multiple motors and Scarsdale does not teach separate power and
control systems for each motor included in each submersible subsystem.
Br. 10. Appellant contends, therefore, "Driver, Baran, and Scarsdale each
independently fail to teach multiple motor sub-units each comprising a
motor and a separate power and control system." Br. 10.
We do not find Appellant's contentions persuasive. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, "Scarsdale teaches two motor sub-units (22, 24) are
separately powered by cables 38 and 39, and discloses that said two sub-
units (22, 24) are independently powered and controlled." Ans. 3 (citing
Scarsdale i-f 16) (internal citations omitted). The Examiner finds, and we
agree, Scarsdale also teaches that each sub-unit can include one or more
motors (e.g., one motor). Ans. 3 (citing Scarsdale i-fi-1 14, 15, 26). Scarsdale
therefore teaches or suggests a power and control system configured to
separately power and control each motor sub-unit, as required by claim 20.
As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Scarsdale
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 20; claim 29 which falls with claim 20; and claims 25 and 30, which
depend from claims 20 and 29 and are not separately argued. See Br. 9-13.
6
Appeal2014-004010
Application 11/854,370
Claim 21
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 because
the Examiner interpreted the transitional term "consists," recited in the
preamble of claim 21, to mean "comprises." Br. 10. Appellant does not
dispute the Examiner's findings but, instead, contends that "the transitional
term 'consists' excludes any element not specif[ ied] in the claim" and in
addition to a plurality of motor sub-units and a plurality of articulated
connections and associated housings, Driver's device also includes a
plurality of supports. Br. 10-11. Appellant contends Driver, therefore,
"does not teach that the downhole flexible drive system 1 consists of a
plurality of motor sub-units (3) and a plurality of articulated connections (7)
and associated housings ( 6)," as required by claim 21. Br. 11 (emphasis
added).
We do not find Appellant's contention persuasive. As correctly noted
by the Examiner (Ans. 3), claim 20, from which claim 21 depends, recites
the transitional term "comprising." The recitation of "comprising" in the
independent claim means that the claimed "electric motor," to which claims
20 and 21 are directed, can include other elements in addition to the
elements recited in claim 21. See In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed.
Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 21.
Claim 22
Appellant contends the combination of Driver, Baran, and Scarsdale
does not teach or suggest "wherein each articulated connection comprises a
7
Appeal2014-004010
Application 11/854,370
homocinetic coupling such that the instantaneous angle between the rotor
and associated stator is substantially identical for each motor sub-unit," as
recited in claim 22. Br. 11. According to Appellant, the Specification
describes a homocinetic coupling as two universal joints and, therefore,
Baran's teaching of a single universal joint does not teach or suggest the
claimed "homocinetic coupling." Br. 11.
We do not find Appellant's contention persuasive. Appellant's
Specification provides:
There are two possibilities for the articulated joints 32a-c:
homocinetic couplings or non-homocinetic couplings. In
homocinetic couplings (e.g. two universal joints) the tool
behaves essentially the same way as the embodiment of Figure 1
described above and can be controlled in a likewise manner. In
non-homocinetic couplings (e.g. flexible joints), the
instantaneous angle of the rotor and its stator is not considered as
identical for every motor sub-unit 20.
Spec. i-f 20 (emphasis added). The Examiner's interpretation of Appellant's
Specification as indicating an example homocinetic coupling as being one
universal joint is reasonable and is consistent with the Specification's
description of example non-homocinetic couplings as being "flexible joints"
and not a singular flexible joint, as would be consistent with Appellant's
proffered construction.
Appellant further contends that Baran's universal joint does not teach
the claimed "homocinetic coupling" because "Baran does not teach or
suggest that the universal joint 12 allows the instantaneous speed and angle
between the rotor and its stator to be identical on every motor sub-unit" and
"because the universal joint 12 in Baran does not couple adjoining motors
together, but instead merely couples adjoining casings together." Br. 11.
8
Appeal2014-004010
Application 11/854,370
We do not find Appellant's contention persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that claim 22 does not require the homocinetic coupling to allow
the instantaneous speed to be the same. Ans. 4. Instead, claim 22 only
requires "that the instantaneous angle between the rotor and associated stator
is substantially identical for each motor sub-unit." Baran teaches that the
universal joint allow for universal angular adjustment between adjacent
elements. Baran 4:44--48. Further, the test for obviousness is not whether
the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into another
reference. In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). The relevant
inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to
those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Driver
teaches that the shafts of the electric motors are connected by flexible shafts
forming a flexible coupling between the electrical motors. The ordinary
artisan would, therefore, find motivation to modify the device of Driver to
include the well-known means of Baran's universal joint to flexibly couple
the shafts of Driver's electric motors. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.").
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 22.
Claim 23
Appellant contends the combination of Driver, Baran, and Scarsdale
does not teach or suggest "wherein the power and control systems are
9
Appeal2014-004010
Application 11/854,370
arranged to drive the phases of the motor sub-units together," as recited in
claim 23. Br. 11-12. Particularly, Appellant contends the applied
references fail to teach or suggest this limitation because:
[T]he fact that a single cable powers the motor units
simultaneously does not necessitate that the corresponding
power and control systems are arranged to drive the phases of the
motor units together. Appellants also note that Scarsdale fails to
even mention the word "phase" in its entire disclosure.
Moreover, the Examiner has provided no documentary evidence
supporting this allegation that multiple motors powered by a
single cable are necessarily driven in-phase.
Br. 11.
We do not find Appellant's contention persuasive. Scarsdale teaches
"when the motors are sequentially started, the non-operating system may
tum as fluid is forced through the system by the operating pump" and
"[t]herefore, it may be beneficial if the motor controller associated with the
drive of the non-operating system has the capability of 'catching a spinning
motor' to facilitate starting of the motor." Scarsdale i-f 18. Scarsdale,
therefore, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 23.
Claim 24
Appellant contends the combination of Driver, Baran, and Scarsdale
does not teach or suggest "wherein each power and control system is
arranged to apply an equal current to its associated motor sub-unit," as
recited in claim 24. Br. 12. Particularly, Appellant contends the applied
references fail to teach or suggest this limitation because:
10
Appeal2014-004010
Application 11/854,370
[T]he fact that a single cable powers similar motors does not
necessitate that equal current is applied to each motor.
Appellants also note that Driver and Scarsdale each fail to even
mention the word "current" in their entire disclosures.
Moreover, the Examiner has provided no documentary evidence
supporting this allegation that multiple motors powered by a
single cable are necessarily driven by the same current.
Br. 12.
We do not find Appellant's contentions persuasive. The Examiner
finds Driver teaches that each motor sub-unit is of a same kind or type of
motor sub-unit. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds Scarsdale teaches
simultaneously powering the motors via a single cable. Id. (citing Scarsdale
Figs. 1, 3, 4; i-f 16). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes it
would be obvious to "configure the currents being equal for predictable
results of balanced drive with multiple number[] of motors." Id.
Appellant's contentions fail to address the Examiner's express findings
regarding obviousness and, therefore, are unpersuasive of error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 24.
Claim 26
Appellant contends the combination of Driver, Baran, and Scarsdale
does not teach or suggest "wherein the power and control systems are
arranged to drive the phases of the motor sub-units independently," as
recited in claim 26. Br. 12. Particularly, Appellant contends the applied
references fail to teach or suggest this limitation because:
Scarsdale merely teaches that the surface drives 40/41 are
arranged to drive the submersible pumping systems 22/24
independently, and fails to teach or suggest that the motors
11
Appeal2014-004010
Application 11/854,370
within one of the submersible pumping systems 22/24 may be
driven independently, whether with respect to phase, current, or
otherwise. Each submersible pumping system may comprise
multiple motors 26/32, but the multiple motors within either
submersible pumping system 22/24 do not each comprise a
separate power and control system configured to separately
power and control each motor 26/32. Again, Appellants also
note that Scarsdale fails to even mention the word "phase" in its
entire disclosure.
Br. 12.
We do not find Appellant's contentions persuasive. As discussed
supra, contrary to Appellant's contention, Scarsdale teaches that electric
submersible pumping systems 22, 24 are independently powered and
controlled by a motor controller contained in a switch placed in each line of
a split cable extending into the well to a motor of each system. Scarsdale
i-f 16. Based on this teaching, the Examiner finds it would be obvious to
drive the phases of the motor sub-units independently, as required by claim
26. Ans. 4--5. Appellant's contentions fail to address the Examiner's
express findings regarding obviousness and, therefore, are unpersuasive of
error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 26.
Claim 27
Appellant contends the combination of Driver, Baran, and Scarsdale
does not teach or suggest "wherein each power and control system is
arranged to detect a failure of its associated motor sub-unit and disconnect
the motor sub-unit from the rest of the motor sub-units upon detection of
such failure," as recited in claim 27. Br. 13. Particularly, Appellant
12
Appeal2014-004010
Application 11/854,370
contends the applied references fail to teach or suggest this limitation
because:
[T]he Examiner asserts that it is inherent to detect a failure of a
unit and disconnect it from other units to provide motor
protection. However, the Examiner has provided no
documentary evidence supporting this allegation. Moreover, as
described above, the Examiner states in paragraph "5[]" that
motors are not typically connected in series by those skilled in
the art, because failure of one motor will stop all of the connected
motors. Appellants contend that if motors are not typically
connected in series by those skilled in the art, then it is not
inherent to detect the failure of a motor connected in a series of
motors.
Br. 13.
We do not find Appellant's contention persuasive. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Scarsdale teaches that the motor controller switches the
motor for protection. Ans. 5 (citing Scarsdale i-f 16). The Examiner finds it
would have been obvious "to comprise at least a means for controlling the
switch for protection, such as [an] over-current relay or [a] breaker that
detect[s] failure of the circuit." Id. Appellant's contention does not address
the Examiner's finding of obviousness and, therefore, is unpersuasive of
error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 27.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 20-27, 29, and 30.
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).
13
Appeal2014-004010
Application 11/854,370
AFFIRMED
14