Ex Parte Shah et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 5, 2009

10287744 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 5, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte PIYUSH C. SHAH and KERRY L. KENDRICK
__________

Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744
Technology Center 2100
__________

Decided: October 5, 2009
__________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
JOHN A. JEFFERY, and STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-46. Claim 12 has been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

The Invention
The disclosed invention relates generally to estimating multiphase
fluid flow rates in a subterranean well (Spec. 1).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of estimating multiphase fluid flow rates in a
subterranean well comprising the steps of:
inputting initial condition data of the subterranean well;
inputting transient well data of the subterranean well;
modeling the subterranean well using said initial condition data;
and
estimating multiphase fluid flow rates by iteratively comparing
the transient well data with the model for the well.

The References
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Roe US 2002/0067373 A1 June 6, 2002
Haddad US 6,789,937 B2 Sept. 14, 2004
Gurpinar US 2005/0149307 A1 July 07, 2005

The Rejections
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-11, 13, 14, 16-21, 23-26, 28, 29, and
42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Gurpinar.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 15, 27, and 30-41 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Gurpinar and Roe.
Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

3
3. The Examiner rejects claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gurpinar and Haddad.
4. The Examiner rejects claims 43-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gurpinar, Roe and Haddad.

ISSUE 1
Appellants assert that “Gurpinar does not describe any method of
estimating multiphase fluid flow in a well” (App. Br. 7) because, according
to Appellants, Gurpinar fails to disclose estimating fluid flow “which
includes a step of inputting initial condition data of the subterranean well”
(id. at 9), “the use of . . . transient data” (id. at 11), “modeling a well using
. . . static . . . well conditions” (id.), or “estimating multiphase fluid flow
rates in a well.” (Id. at 12).
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Gurpinar discloses features recited in claim 1?

ISSUE 2
Appellants assert that Gurpinar fails to disclose “inputting well
conditions from multiple locations within a well” (App. Br. 16) as recited in
claim 2.
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Gurpinar discloses inputting well conditions from a plurality of locations
within a well?

Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

4

ISSUE 3
Appellants assert that Gurpinar fails to disclose “computing an effect
of temperature or pressure variation in a step of modeling a well” (App. Br.
17) as recited in claim 4 or claim 6.
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Gurpinar discloses computing the effect of temperature or pressure
variation?

ISSUE 4
Appellants assert that Gurpinar fails to disclose “that multiphase fluid
production rates at the wellhead are input” (App. Br. 17) as recited in claim
7.
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Gurpinar discloses inputting multiphase fluid production rates at the
wellhead?

ISSUE 5
Appellants assert that Gurpinar fails to disclose “use of a well model
to estimate flow rates for multiple locations within a well” (App. Br. 18) as
recited in claims 8, 18, and 43.
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Gurpinar discloses providing estimated flow rates for a plurality of selected
well locations?

Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

5
ISSUE 6
Appellants assert that Gurpinar fails to disclose “use of a well model
to estimate flow rates for multiple locations within a well, or of iteratively
comparing transient data for a well with a well model” (App. Br. 19).
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Gurpinar discloses providing estimated flow rates for a plurality of locations
in a well by iteratively comparing transient well data with a model for the
well?

ISSUE 7
Appellants assert that Gurpinar fails to disclose “use of a well model
to estimate multiphase fluid flow rates within a well and in real time” (App.
Br. 22) as recited in claim 19.
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Gurpinar discloses estimating flow rates in real time?

ISSUE 8
Appellants assert that Gurpinar fails to disclose “inputting wellhead
fluid temperature or pressure in a step of modeling a well” (App. Br. 23) as
recited in claim 20 or claim 21.
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Gurpinar discloses inputting wellhead fluid temperature or pressure for use
in modeling?

Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

6
ISSUE 9
Appellants assert that Gurpinar fails to disclose “any simulation
model which calculates a plurality of mass flow rates from multiphase fluids
flowing in a subterranean well” (App. Br. 25) as recited in claims 24, 29,
and 34-36.
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Gurpinar discloses calculating a plurality of mass flow rates from multiphase
fluids flowing in a well?

ISSUE 10
Appellants assert that “claim 25 recites that a data path extends into
the subterranean well from the computer, and that a plurality of temperature
and pressure sensors are coupled to the data path for delivering temperature
and pressure data from the well to the computer via the data path” (App. Br.
25), which “are not . . . inherent in the teachings of Gurpinar.” (Id. at 26).
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Gurpinar discloses a data path and temperature and pressure sensors coupled
to the data path, and the delivery of data from the well to the computer via
the data path?

ISSUE 11
Appellants assert that “claim 26 recites that an interface is coupled to
the computer and provides a coupling mechanism to the data path” (App. Br
26), which “are not . . . inherent in the teachings of Gurpinar.” (Id.).
Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

7
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Gurpinar discloses an interface coupled to the computer and providing a
coupling mechanism to a data path?

ISSUE 12
Appellants assert that Roe fails to disclose or suggest “the tolerance
level selecting and modeling step reiterating steps of claim 15” (App. Br. 27)
because Roe, according to Appellants, “is related to producing a reservoir
model, instead of a well model.” (Id.).
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Gurpinar and Roe discloses or suggests selecting a tolerance
level for a match between a model response and a measured well behavior
and reiterating the modeling step?

ISSUE 13
Appellants assert that Roe fails to disclose or suggest “anything at all
regarding a model inversion algorithm” (App. Br. 28) as recited in claim 27.
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Gurpinar and Roe discloses or suggests a model inversion
algorithm?

ISSUE 14
Appellants assert that the combination of Gurpinar and Roe fails to
disclose or suggest estimating “values of multiphase flow rates at a plurality
of locations in the well” (App. Br. 29) as recited in claim 30.
Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

8
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Gurpinar and Roe discloses or suggests estimating values of
multiphase flow rates at a plurality of locations in a well?

ISSUE 15
Appellants assert that the combination of Gurpinar and Roe fails to
disclose or suggest using “a simulation model to calculate well conditions
resulting from a flow transient” (App. Br. 30) as recited in claims 37-39.
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Gurpinar and Roe discloses or suggests a simulation model
for calculating well conditions resulting from a flow transient?

ISSUE 16
Appellants assert that the combination of Gurpinar and Haddad fails
to disclose “inputting conductive and convective heat flow rate” (App. Br.
30) as recited in claim 22.
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Gurpinar and Haddad discloses or suggests inputting
conductive and convective heat flow rates?

ISSUE 17
Appellants assert that the combination of Gurpinar, Roe, and Haddad
fails to disclose or suggest using temperature measurements “for estimating
multiphase fluid flow rates in a well” (App. Br. 32) or “producing a
computer model of temperature profile in a well” (Id.) as recited in claims
43 and 45.
Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

9
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Gurpinar, Roe, and Haddad discloses or suggests inputting
temperature measurements into a model and producing a computer model of
a temperature profile in a well?

ISSUE 18
Appellants assert that the combination of Gurpinar, Roe, and Haddad
fails to disclose or suggest “including in the computer model the pressure
profile in the well as a function of the flow of oil, water and gas flowing
through the well to the wellhead” (App. Br. 33) as recited in claims 44 and
46.
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Gurpinar, Roe, and Haddad discloses or suggests including a
pressure profile in a computer model of the well as a function of the flow of
oil, water, and gas flowing through the well to the wellhead?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Facts (FF) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. Gurpinar discloses a “single well or regional/several well production
model” that is “verified and/or updated.” (¶ [0116]).
2. Gurpinar discloses measuring “readings of well or surface pressures
and oil-water-gas flow rates from each well” (¶ [0114]) and updating
the well model “to include the latest measurements of oil, gas and
water saturation distribution around the well.” (¶ [0116]).
Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

10
3. Gurpinar discloses reviewing “Trends and Well-Regional
Performance” including measuring trends in “surface flowing
pressures, multi-phase flow rates, etc . . . to indicate the degree to
which the single well . . . is meeting production potential.”
(¶ [0115]).
4. Gurpinar discloses utilizing well parameters such as “a review of
bottom-hole and surface flowing pressures, multi-phase flow rates,
etc, that are used to indicate the degree to which the single well or
several wells is meeting production potential.” (¶ [0115]).
5. Gurpinar discloses “using well known pressure gauges, temperature
sensors, flow-rate devices and separators” (¶ [0114]) in the
“evaluation of a single well or regional/several wells.” (¶ [0115]).
6. Gurpinar discloses comparing the data to “the single well or
regional/several well production model . . . to include the latest
measurements of oil, gas and water saturation distribution around the
well” (¶ [0116]).
7. Gurpinar discloses “well known pressure gauges [and] temperature
sensors” to obtain “readings of well or surface pressures and oil-
water-gas flow rates from each well.” (¶ [0114]).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
35 U.S.C. § 102
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

11
Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim
at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference. In other words, if
granting patent protection on the disputed claim would allow
the patentee to exclude the public from practicing the prior art,
then that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether it also
covers subject matter not in the prior art.
Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(citation omitted) (citation omitted).
Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18 (1966).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal with respect to the rejections of claims 1-11 and 40-42 with
respect to issue 1 on the basis of claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants contend that Gurpinar fails to disclose “inputting initial
conditions of the subterranean well” (App. Br. 7) or “modeling the
subterranean well” (App. Br. 11) using the initial condition data because,
according to Appellants, Gurpinar merely discloses “an ‘initial reservoir
Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

12
characterization.’” (App. Br. 7). However, we find that contrary to
Appellants assertion, Gurpinar discloses a well model that is verified and/or
updated based on observed measurements (FF 1). We agree with the
Examiner that generating a well model as in the Gurpinar reference includes
inputting parameters into the model (i.e., “initial condition data”).
Appellants also argue that Gurpinar fails to disclose “‘inputting
transient well data of the subterranean well.’” (App. Br. 9). However, as set
forth above, Gurpinar discloses measuring flow rates in a well and updating
a well model based on the measurements (FF 2). Construing “transient data”
broadly but reasonably to include any variable data, we agree with the
Examiner that the readings of data from the well (e.g., well or surface
pressures or flow rates) constitute “transient data” and that such transient
data of Gurpinar is “input” in order to verify or update the well model. As
such, we disagree with Appellants contention that Gurpinar supposedly fails
to disclose inputting transient well data.
Appellants also argue that Gurpinar fails to disclose “‘estimating
multiphase fluid flow rates by iteratively comparing the . . . transient well
conditions with the model for the well.’” (App. Br. 12). However, as set
forth above, Gurpinar discloses evaluating trends in well measurement
parameters, such as “surface flowing pressures, multi-phase flow rates, etc.”
(¶ [0115]). By measuring and observing trends in changes of flow rates,
Gurpinar “estimates” flow rates (among other parameters) since trends in the
changes of such data provide an estimate of, for example, how a well “is
meeting production potential.” (¶ [0115]).
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

13
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or of
claims 2-11 and 40-42, which fall therewith with respect to issue 1.

Issue 2
As set forth above, Gurpinar discloses reviewing well measurements
at different locations in a well, such as bottom-hole and at the surface (FF 4).
Because Gurpinar explicitly discloses utilizing well conditions (e.g., flowing
pressures, multi-phase flow rates, etc.) at different locations in the well (e.g.,
bottom-hole and surface locations), we disagree with Appellants’ contention
that Gurpinar supposedly fails to disclose this feature.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 with
respect to issue 2.

Issue 3
As set forth above, Gurpinar discloses measuring pressure and
temperature in a well using a pressure gauge and temperature sensor,
respectively (FF 5). Since Gurpinar uses pressure gauges and temperature
sensors that are used for measuring pressure and temperature changes,
respectively, and such readings are used to verify or update the well model
(FF 5), we disagree with Appellants’ contention that Gurpinar supposedly
fails to disclose computing a temperature or pressure variation effect in a
well.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

14
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 6
with respect to issue 3.

Issue 4
As set forth above, Gurpinar discloses reviewing surface flowing
pressures (FF 4). Since a wellhead is at the surface where Gurpinar
discloses determining flow rates to indicate the degree of meeting
production potential (i.e., “production rates”), we disagree with Appellants’
contention that Gurpinar supposedly fails to disclose fluid production rates
at a wellhead.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 with
respect to issue 4.

Issue 5
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal with respect to the rejections of claims 8, 18, and 43 with respect
to issue 5 on the basis of claim 8 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
As described above, Gurpinar discloses utilizing well parameters from
multiple locations to verify or update values in a well model. Since
parameters provided by the well model of Gurpinar are verified, such
parameters (including flow rates) must also be provided by the well model.
This is particularly true since if the well model of Gurpinar did not provide
the parameters, then the parameters would not be available to be verified.
Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

15
Since Gurpinar discloses that the parameters are verified, then it follows that
the parameters (e.g., estimated flow rates) are provided by the well model.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the well model of Gurpinar provides
an estimate of well parameters, such as flow rates.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8, or of
claims 18 and 43, which fall therewith with respect to issue 5.
Issue 6
As above, we disagree with Appellants’ contention that Gurpinar
supposedly fails to disclose estimating flow rates for multiple locations
within a well. In addition, Gurpinar discloses obtaining parameters from
multiple locations in a well (e.g., bottom-hole and surface flowing pressures,
multi-phase flow rates, etc” (FF 4) and comparing the data to “the single
well or regional/several well production model . . . to include the latest
measurements of oil, gas and water saturation distribution around the well”
(FF 6). We find no distinction, and Appellants have not demonstrated a
distinction, between Gurpinar’s disclosure and the disputed claim features.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 with
respect to issue 6.

Issue 7
As above, we disagree with Appellants’ contention that Gurpinar
supposedly fails to disclose estimating flow rates within a well. In addition,
Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

16
Gurpinar discloses that such readings are “the latest measurements” (FF 6).
If the measurements, such as pressure or temperature readings in the well,
are the “latest measurements,” it stands to reason that estimates based on the
measurements (e.g., “trends”) are being evaluated in real-time (i.e., readings
obtained at the actual time that they are measured with only the “latest”
readings used in verifying or updating the model). Indeed, it is unclear how
such “latest” readings taken in Gurpinar could not be utilized in real-time,
nor have Appellants demonstrated how such “latest” readings are utilized in
anything but real-time.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 with
respect to issue 7.

Issue 8
As described above, Gurpinar discloses modeling a well. Gurpinar
also discloses measuring “surface flowing pressures” (FF 4) which indicates
that measurements of the well are taken at the surface. Because a wellhead
is located at the surface, we agree with the Examiner that Gurpinar discloses
obtaining measurements at a wellhead (i.e., at the surface). Because we do
not find a distinction, and Appellants have failed to demonstrate a distinction
between the Gurpinar reference and the disputed claimed features, we cannot
agree with Appellants’ contention.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

17
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 20 and 21
with respect to issue 8.

Issue 9
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal with respect to the rejections of claims 24, 29, and 31-36 with
respect to issue 9 on the basis of claim 24 alone. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue that Gurpinar at “FIGS. 1-16B (items 31, 42e21,
42a2, 42a3, 42e2) and paragraphs 0007-0011 . . . clearly do not describe any
simulation model which calculates a plurality of mass flow rates from
multiphase fluids flowing in a subterranean well.” (App. Br. 25). As set
forth above, we agree with the Examiner that Gurpinar discloses “multi-
phase flow rates” in a well (¶ [0115]). Appellants have not pointed out any
differences between Gurpinar’s multi-phase flow rates and the recited mass
flow rates, nor do we find any distinction between the two apparently
identical elements. Since Appellants have provided no rationale as to how
Gurpinar’s multi-phase flow rates are distinct from the claimed “mass flow
rates,” we cannot agree with Appellants’ contention.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24, or of
claims 29 and 31-36, which fall therewith with respect to issue 9.

Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

18
Issue 10
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal with respect to the rejections of claims 25 and 28 with respect to
issue 10 on the basis of claim 25 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
As above, Gurpinar discloses pressure gauges and temperature sensors
to obtain “readings of well or surface pressures.” (FF 7). This data is
returned to a user to perform “a review of bottom-hole and surface flowing
pressures, multi-phase flow rates, etc” and to verify or update “the single
well or regional/several well production model.” (FF 4). We do not find an
explicit definition of the term “data path” in the Specification and Appellants
have not provided such a specific definition. As such, we construe the term
“data path” based on the plain meanings of the terms themselves to indicate
any route or course along which data is transmitted. Because the pressure
gauges (that measure pressure) and temperature sensors (that measure
temperature) of Gurpinar are disposed within the well and return data from
the well, we agree with the Examiner that the temperature and pressure
readings are being returned from the well along a data path (on which the
sensors are located within the well). Appellants have not demonstrated a
discernible difference between the Gurpinar disclosure and the disputed
claimed features.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25, or of
claim 28, which falls therewith with respect to issue 10.

Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

19
Issue 11
As described above, Gurpinar discloses measuring temperature,
pressure, or other parameters from within a well using sensors within the
well and returning the data (along a “data path”) for comparison to a well
model. Appellants argue that Gurpinar fails to disclose an interface coupled
to the “data path,” and that such a feature is not inherent in Gurpinar. We
find no specific definition of the term “interface” in the Specification, and
Appellants have not provided such a specific definition. As such, we
construe the term “interface” based on a common and ordinary definition of
the term to indicate any point of connection or interaction between two (or
more) entities. Because the data, once received from the sensors in the well,
must be received via a point of connection or interaction, we agree with the
Examiner that Gurpinar either discloses such a feature or such a feature
would be inherent. Appellants merely assert that the interface is “merely
one of many possible ways” of operation. However, we do not find, nor
have Appellants provided an alternative method of receiving data from the
sensors other than via a connection or interaction between entities. Indeed,
there appears to be none, since without a connection or interaction, the data
could not be received.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26 with
respect to issue 11.

Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

20
Issue 12
As described above, Gurpinar discloses a well model. Therefore, we
find Appellants’ argument that Roe supposedly fails to disclose a well model
to be unpersuasive, even assuming such an argument to be true. One cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 with
respect to issue 12.

Issue 13
The Examiner finds that “Gurpinar et al. in combination of Roe et al.
substantially provide the teachings of an inversion model algorithm.” (Ans.
33). Appellants argue that “portions of Roe do not describe anything at all
regarding a model inversion algorithm” and that Gurpinar also fails to
disclose or suggest “a model inversion algorithm as recited in claim 27.”
(App. Br. 28). The Examiner articulates reasoning with some rational
underpinning to find that the combination of Gurpinar (Fig. 6, ¶ [0123]) and
Roe (¶ 0061-0065, 0095) (Ans. 8, 33) is at least suggestive of a model
inversion algorithm. While Appellants merely assert that Roe and Gurpinar
supposedly fail to disclose or suggest a model inversion algorithm,
Appellants have failed to provide any arguments supporting this contention
by demonstrating at least one distinction between the claimed model
Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

21
inversion algorithm and the cited references. In the absence of a showing of
any specific differences between the cited references and the disputed claim
features, we cannot agree with Appellants’ contention.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27 with
respect to issue 13.

Issue 14
As described above, Gurpinar discloses estimating flow rates at a
plurality of locations in a well. Therefore, we find Appellants argument that
Roe supposedly fails to disclose this feature to be unpersuasive, even
assuming the argument to be true. One cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. In re Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30 with
respect to issue 14.

Issue 15
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal with respect to the rejections of claims 37-39 with respect to issue
15 on the basis of claim 37 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants assert that Gurpinar discloses “part of a reservoir model”
(App. Br. 29) and “is not adapted at all for calculating well conditions” (id.)
Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

22
and that Roe does not “describe anything at all regarding how to use a
simulation model to calculate well conditions resulting from a flow
transient.” (Id. at 30). As set forth above, we find that Gurpinar discloses
calculating well conditions, such as, for example, “bottom-hole and surface
flowing pressures, multi-phase flow rates, etc” (FF 4). Therefore, we find
Appellants’ argument that Roe supposedly fails to disclose this feature to be
unpersuasive, even assuming the argument to be true. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. In re Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
In addition, while the Examiner provides articulated reasoning to
justify the finding that Roe discloses or suggests the disputed features,
Appellants merely assert that Roe fails to disclose or suggest the disputed
features without identifying or alleging any specific differences, if any. In
view of Appellants’ lack of showing of any differences between Roe (or
Gurpinar) and the disputed claim features, we cannot agree with Appellants’
contention.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 37, or of
claims 38 and 39, which fall therewith, with respect to issue 15.

Issue 16
The Examiner finds that Haddad discloses or suggests “transfer of
heat between wellbore and formation,” “estimating the wellbore fluid
temperature and the original formation temperature,” and calculating “the
value of heat flow rates.” (Ans. 36). However, while Haddad appears to
Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

23
disclose heat transfer in general, the Examiner has not demonstrated that
Haddad (or Gurpinar) also discloses or suggests inputting conductive and
convective heat flow rates. We disagree with the Examiner’s statement that
“convective heat flow rate input is merely a transfer of heat from one place
to another.” (Ans. 36-37). Even assuming convective heat flow is “merely a
transfer of heat from one place to another,” the Examiner has not accounted
for both conductive and convective heat flow rates recited in claim 22.
Accordingly, we conclude that Appellants have met their burden of
showing that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 22 with respect to issue
16.

Issue 17
Appellants argue that “Haddad does not teach measuring a
temperature profile in the well” (App. Br. 32) or a temperature profile “as a
function of the flow of oil, water and gas flowing through the well” (App.
Br. 34), as recited in claims 43 and 45. The Examiner finds that “Haddad et
al. teaches producing a computer model of temperature profile in the well as
a function of the flow of oil, water and gas flowing through the well to the
wellhead (fig. 4-7).” (Ans. 12). However, we do not find that Haddad
provides such a disclosure. Rather, Haddad appears to merely disclose
temperature readings as a function of radius from wellbore (Fig. 4) or time
(Fig. 6), rather than as a function of the flow of oil, water, and gas flowing
through the well, as required by the claim.
Accordingly, we conclude that Appellants have met their burden of
showing that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 43 and 45 with respect
to issue 17.
Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

24

Issue 18
Appellants argue that Roe fails to disclose or suggest “any description
of a pressure profile which is a function of multiphase flow through a well to
a wellhead” (App. Br. 33) or a “pressure profile in the well as a function of
the flow of oil, water and gas flowing through the well to the wellhead”
(App. Br. 35) as recited in claims 44 and 46. We agree. While the
Examiner finds that Roe discloses “a pressure profile (see fig. 20A for
example)” (Ans. 39), even assuming Fig. 20A of Roe constitutes a “pressure
profile” as the Examiner finds, Fig. 20A of Roe illustrates pressure as a
function of time (i.e., x-axis) rather than pressure as a function of the flow of
oil, water, and gas flowing through the well to the wellhead.
Accordingly, we conclude that Appellants have met their burden of
showing that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 44 and 46 with respect
to issue 18.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in:
1. finding that Gurpinar discloses features recited in claim 1 (issue
1);
2. finding that Gurpinar discloses inputting well conditions from a
plurality of locations within a well (issue 2);
3. finding that Gurpinar discloses computing the effect of
temperature or pressure variation (issue 3);
Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

25
4. finding that Gurpinar discloses inputting multiphase fluid
production rates at the wellhead (issue 4);
5. finding that Gurpinar discloses providing estimated flow rates
for a plurality of selected well locations (issue 5);
6. finding that Gurpinar discloses providing estimated flow rates
for a plurality of locations in a well by iteratively comparing transient well
data with a model for the well (issue 6);
7. finding that Gurpinar discloses estimating flow rates in real
time (issue 7);
8. finding that Gurpinar discloses inputting wellhead fluid
temperature or pressure for use in modeling (issue 8);
9. finding that Gurpinar discloses calculating a plurality of mass
flow rates from multiphase fluids flowing in a well (issue 9);
10. finding that Gurpinar discloses a data path and temperature and
pressure sensors coupled to the data path, and the deliver of data from the
well to the computer via the data path (issue 10);
11. finding that Gurpinar discloses an interface coupled to the
computer and providing a coupling mechanism to a data path (issue 11);
12. finding that the combination of Gurpinar and Roe discloses or
suggests selecting a tolerance level for a match between a model response
and a measured well behavior and reiterating the modeling step (issue 12);
13. finding that the combination of Gurpinar and Roe discloses or
suggests a model inversion algorithm (issue 13);
14. finding that the combination of Gurpinar and Roe discloses or
suggests estimating values of multiphase flow rates at a plurality of locations
in a well (issue 14); and
Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

26
15. finding that the combination of Gurpinar and Roe discloses or
suggests a simulation model for calculating well conditions resulting from a
flow transient (issue 15).
However, Appellant has demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Gurpinar and Haddad discloses or suggests
inputting conductive and convective heat flow rates (issue 16); finding that
the combination of Gurpinar, Roe, and Haddad discloses or suggests
inputting temperature measurements into a model and producing a computer
model of a temperature profile in a well (issue 17); and finding that the
combination of Gurpinar, Roe, and Haddad discloses or suggests including a
pressure profile in a computer model of the well as a function of the flow of
oil, water, and gas flowing through the well to the wellhead (issue 18).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-11, 13, 14, 16-
21, 23-26, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and claims 15, 27, and 30-41
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 22 and 43-46
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Appeal 2008-004205
Application 10/287,744

27

erc

SMITH IP SERVICES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 997
ROCKWALL, TX 75087