Ex Parte Sponchia

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2014

12140742 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BARTON SPONCHIA
____________

Appeal 2012-003643
Application 12/140,742
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-003643
Application 12/140,742

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Barton Sponchia (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
1. A system for production of petroleum from an earth
formation, the system comprising:
an injection assembly disposable within a first borehole
for injecting a thermal source into the formation, the injection
assembly including an injector extending from a distal end of
the assembly; and
a production assembly disposable within a second
borehole for recovering material including the petroleum from
the formation, the production assembly including a collector
extending from a distal end of the assembly,
at least one of the injector and the collector including at
least a first conduit and at least a second conduit concentric
with the first conduit, the first conduit having a first distal end
and the second conduit having a second distal end, the first and
second distal ends located at different locations along a length
of at least one of the first and second borehole.
App. Br. 10, Claims App’x.
Reference
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art reference:
Heins US 2006/0032630 A1 Feb. 16, 2006
Appeal 2012-003643
Application 12/140,742

3
Rejection
Appellant seeks review of the following rejection:
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Heins.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
OPINION
The Examiner found that Heins discloses each and every element of
claims 1-20, including “at least a first conduit and at least a second conduit
concentric with the first conduit.” Ans. 4-5. The Examiner found that “[t]he
boreholes (Fig. 5 surrounding 16 and 30) reflect the hole surrounding first
conduits 16 and 30, where the inner conduits in each reflect the second
conduit, which are concentrically located within the first conduits.” Id. at 5.
The Examiner also provided an annotated version of Heins’ Figure 5
showing “[t]he inner conduits end[ing] at a distal location different from the
distal location of the outer conduits.” Id.
Appellant asserts that Heins does not disclose a well including a first
conduit and at least a second conduit concentric with the first conduit.
App. Br. 5-6. Appellant contends that Figures 1-6 of Heins show only a
single conduit through which fluid can flow. Id. at 6.
We interpret the claim language, where necessary, giving the claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification. In re
Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In determining the ordinary
and customary meaning of the claims as viewed by a person of ordinary skill
in the art, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition for
Appeal 2012-003643
Application 12/140,742

4
guidance. Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348
(Fed. Cir. 2010).
The ordinary and customary meaning of “conduit” is “[a] channel,
pipe, tube or duct through which a fluid, a liquid or a gas, may pass.” See
Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (2001), accessed at
http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/chambdict/conduit/0?searchI
d=ac9039c6-ab16-11e3-92df-0aea1e3b2a47&result=0 (last visited Mar. 13,
2014). Appellant’s Specification is consistent with the ordinary and
customary meaning of the term “conduit.” For example, the Specification
explains that, as shown in Figure 2, the injection assembly 18 includes
“conduit 22[, which] includes three concentric conduits or strings 40, 42 and
44, which are each separately injectable with steam from the valve assembly
which has three separate input ports 46, 48, 50.” Spec. para. [0027]; fig. 2.
Thus, while concentric, each conduit is capable of separately carrying steam.
Heins discloses “[a] process for treating produced water to generate
high pressure steam.” Heins, Abstract. Heins discloses that high pressure
steam is injected via steam injection well 16. Id. at para. [0004]. Heins’
Figure 5 shows a conduit in dashed lines inside of injection well 16 starting
at well head 48. Id. at fig. 5. We understand the Examiner to refer to
injection well 16 as disclosing the claimed “first conduit” and the dashed
lines within injection well 16 as disclosing the claimed “second conduit.”
See Ans. 5.
Heins’ minimal disclosure regarding injection well 16 fails to indicate
that well 16 is a channel, pipe, tube or duct through which a fluid may pass.
While there is a conduit shown within injection well 16, well 16 is not
similarly described. Accordingly, in light of the record before us, the
Appeal 2012-003643
Application 12/140,742

5
Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Heins
discloses a second conduit as claimed.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20.

REVERSED

llw