Ex Parte VENKATARAMANAN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2016

13543393 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/543,393 07/06/2012
37003 7590 03/28/2016
SCHLUMBERGER-DOLL RESEARCH
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lalitha VENKATARAMANAN
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.
60.1970-US-CNT 4692
EXAMINER
VAR GAS, DIXOMARA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2866
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):
USDocketing@slb.com
jalverson@slb.com
JScott19@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LALITHA VENKA TARAMANAN, TAREK M. HABASHY, and
DENISE E. FREED
Appeal2014-003812
Application 13/543,393
Technology Center 2800
Before JON M. JURGOVAN, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Schlumberger
Technology Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-003812
Application 13/543,393
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to estimating fluid or rock properties
from NMR measurements. A modified pulse sequence is provided that can
directly provide moments of relaxation-time or diffusion distributions. This
pulse sequence can be adapted to the desired moment of relaxation-time or
diffusion coefficient. The data from this pulse sequence provides direct
estimates of fluid properties such as average chain length and viscosity of a
hydrocarbon. In comparison to the uniformly-spaced pulse sequence, these
pulse sequences are faster and have a lower error bar in computing the fluid
properties. Abstract.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method to estimate properties of a material, comprising:
measuring exponentially decaying data of the material;
determining moments of a variable from the measured
exponentially decaying data; and
determining properties from the moments.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-6, 8, 10-17, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hurlimann (US 6,891,369 B2, May 10,
2005).
2. Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hurlimann and Madio (US 2008/0143330 Al, June 19,
2008).
3. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hurlimann and Cheng (US 7,301,339 Bl, Nov. 27, 2007).
2
Appeal2014-003812
Application 13/543,393
ANALYSIS
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants in the Briefs are
considered in this Decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the
Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.37(c)(l)(iv).
A. Determining Moments of a Variable from the Measured
Exponentially Decaying Data
Appellants argue:
The Examiner asserts the claim limitation to determining
moments of a variable from the measured exponentially decaying
data is described by Hurlimann Figure 4. However, a careful
review of Hurlimann Figure 4 does not support this analysis, it
is a plot of signal strength as a function of initial echo spacing
that may be used to select a first portion time spacing (column 9,
lines 48-67). The Examiner's analysis, "the curve 'gas'
exponentially fit through the data points and decaying to zero
over time," is not supported by the text or other analysis.
App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 7.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds
that Hurlimann discloses "measuring exponentially decaying data of the
material" and "determining moments of a variable from the measured
exponentially decaying data." Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Hurlimann col. 8, 11.
60-68, Fig. 4). Appellants simply repeat the description of Figure 4 and
conclude the Examiner's analysis is not supported by Hurlimann without
explaining why the Examiner's findings are unsupported. See App. Br. 8.
Appellants have, therefore, not provided persuasive argument sufficient to
rebut the Examiner's findings. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (noting that an
argument that merely points out what a claim recites is unpersuasive);
accord In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)('[T]he Board
3
Appeal2014-003812
Application 13/543,393
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art."').
B. The Combination of Hurlimann and Madia
Appellants further argue:
the motivation to combine Hurlimann and Madia, "Hurlimann et
al ('369)'s NMR apparatus is for fluid analysis and is capable of
analysing the gas chromatography data obtained from the fluid
parameter as taught by Madio et al ('330)," is not precise.
Nothing in Madia implies using any data related to exponential
decay.
App. Br. 8.
As before, Appellants repeat the Examiner's reason for combining
Hurlimann with Madio and conclude that such reason is not precise without
sufficient explanation as to why such a reason to combine is improper.
Moreover, we agree that the Examiner has articulated a reason with rational
underpinning for combining Hurlimann and Madio. See Final Act. 5-6
(stating that Madio is analogous art relating to estimating properties of fluid
parameters and adding the advantage of providing a more complete analysis
of the environment of the rock formation.)
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4