HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 7, 2020

15034160 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 2020)

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.
15/034,160 05/03/2016 Robert S. Atkinson 063718.6366 1097
52239 7590 07/07/2020
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
1500 SAN JACINTO CENTER
98 SAN JACINTO BLVD
AUSTIN, TX 78701-4039
EXAMINER
TON, TRI T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2877
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/07/2020 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):
crystle.garbade@bakerbotts.com
jennifer.k.smith@bakerbotts.com
juli.tran@BakerBotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT S. ATKINSON, DAVID L PERKINS,
MICHAEL T. PELLETIER, CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL JONES,
WEI ZHANG, and LI GAO

Appeal 2019-005411
Application 15/034,160
Technology Center 2800
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
REN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-005411
Application 15/034,160

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9 and 20. See Non-Final Act. 3, 6.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
“The present disclosure relates to polycrystalline transparent ceramics
for use with a logging sensor or tool.” Spec. 1:5–6. The invention seeks to
provide downhole equipment with “a protective component that both
protects the sensing components and is transparent to electromagnetic
wavelengths sensed by the sensing components” to “withstand downhole
conditions.” Id. at 1:19–21. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A logging sensor or tool comprising:
an electromagnetic radiation source operable to emit at
least one wavelength of electromagnetic radiation;
a detector operable to detect the at least one wavelength
of electromagnetic radiation;
a polycrystalline transparent ceramic component
transparent to the at least one wavelength of radiation, wherein
the polycrystalline transparent ceramic component is disposed
in a housing, the housing comprising a metal; and

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc.” Appeal Br. 3.
2 The record shows that the Examiner previously issued at least a Final
Rejection on February 15, 2018, as well as a Non-Final Rejection on August
11, 2017.
Appeal 2019-005411
Application 15/034,160

3
a passage between the electromagnetic radiation source
and the detector having at least a portion of a wall formed from
the polycrystalline transparent ceramic component.
Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 13) (emphases added).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Name Reference Date
Moake US 2002/0121371 A1 Sept. 5, 2002
Christian US 2008/0078544 A1 Apr. 3, 2008
Berner US 2009/0158853 A1 June 25, 2009
Simonetti US 2012/0228472 A1 Sept. 13, 2012

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4–6, 8, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based
on Moake and Berner. Non-Final Act. 3.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Moake,
Berner, and Simonetti. Non-Final Act. 6.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Moake, Berner,
and Christian. Non-Final Act. 6.

OPINION
Claim 13
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Moake teaches or
suggests the recited device having “an electromagnetic radiation source,” “a

3 Appellant does not separately argue for the rejections of claims 2–9.
Claims 2–9 stand or fall with claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6–12;
Appeal 2019-005411
Application 15/034,160

4
detector,” and “a passage between the electromagnetic source and the
detector.” Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Berner teaches or
suggests the recited “polycrystalline transparent ceramic component . . .
disposed in a housing, the housing comprising a metal” and the recited
passage having “at least a portion of a wall formed from the polycrystalline
transparent ceramic component.” Id. In the Examiner’s Answer, the
Examiner additionally finds that Figure 7 of Berner shows metal sensor
casing 19, which teaches the recited “housing” that comprises “a metal.”
Ans. 6.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred because Berner “cannot
have . . . a ‘passage between the electromagnetic source and the detector.’”
Appeal Br. 9. This argument is not persuasive because it does not address
the Examiner’s fact findings in support of the rejection – that is, the
Examiner cites Moake instead of Berner for teaching the recited passage.
Non-Final Act. 4 (finding that Moake Figures 3, 4, as well as paragraphs 27
and 37 teach or suggest this limitation); see also Appeal Br. 9 (citing Non-
Final Act. at 4, which relies on Moake as teaching the claim limitation “a
passage between the electromagnetic radiation source and the detector
having at least a portion of a wall”).
Appellant next argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Berner
teaches or suggests the recited “housing” that comprises “a metal.” Appeal
Br. 9. More specifically, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation

37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2019-005411
Application 15/034,160

5
of “housing” is too broad because the structure in Berner “only encompasses
part of the polycrystalline ceramic component[.]” Reply Br. 8.4
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Appellant does not propose a
definition of the term “housing.” See Reply Br. 8. Appellant does not explain
why a proper interpretation of the claim term should exclude the structure in
Berner. See id. (“Because the metal casing 19 in Berner only encompasses
part of the ceramic material and has no contact with the optical fiber at all,
the Examiner failed to look to the specification for the proper interpretation
of what constitutes a ‘housing,’ and therefore has interpreted the term
beyond the broadest reasonable interpretation.”). Appellant’s argument is
not persuasive also because the Specification does not limit the recited
“housing” to any particular structure. See Spec. 5:7–9 (“Housing 70 and
other sensor housing described herein may be any material suitable for use
downhole, such as a metal, in particular titanium.”); see also Appeal Br. 5
(citing Spec. 5:6–9 as support for this claim limitation).
Appellant also argues that Berner does not teach or suggest the recited
passage having “at least a portion of a wall formed from the polycrystalline
transparent ceramic component.” Reply Br. 6. Appellant argues that the
medium in Berner’s passage “does not flow between the ceramics and the
source/detector” whereas “[t]he passage disclosed in Claim 1 is a passage
operable to permit the flow of a downhole fluid, the properties of which are

4 In the opening brief, Appellant additionally argues that Moake does not
teach or suggest the recited “housing” that comprises “a metal.” Appeal Br.
9. Given that Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
finding that Berner teaches the recited “housing” that comprises “a metal,”
the issue of whether Moake also teaches or suggests this limitation is not
dispositive on this appeal and we decline to address the issue.
Appeal 2019-005411
Application 15/034,160

6
analyzed by measuring the effects of the fluid on electromagnetic radiation
directly passing from the source to the detector.” Id. This argument is
unpersuasive because it does not structurally distinguish the recited
apparatus. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464,
1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what
a device does.”); see also In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982)
(holding that “appellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they
are not based on limitations appearing in the claims”).
Based on the prior art teachings, the Examiner finds that a skilled
artisan would have combined Moake with Berner based on Berner’s
teaching of “a new and useful metal sealing system for high pressure, high
temperature and corrosion resistant ceramic/sapphire based optical
diaphragm sensors for use in harsh applications.” Berner ¶ 2 (cited in
Non-Final Act. 4). Appellant does not address the Examiner’s rationale. See
Appeal Br. 10–11. Appellant, therefore, has not identified reversible error in
the Examiner’s “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appellant’s argument that the inclusion of a polycrystalline ceramic
“increases the possibility of leaks or other problems,” which “would render
Moake unsuitable for its intended purpose” (Appeal Br. 10) is unpersuasive
for lack of evidentiary support. “Attorneys’ argument is no substitute for
evidence.” Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Based on the foregoing, Appellant has not identified reversible error
in the Examiner’s fact findings in support of the rejection and the rejection
of claim 1 is sustained.
Appeal 2019-005411
Application 15/034,160

7
Claim 20
Claim 20 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites “wherein the
polycrystalline transparent ceramic component is bonded to the metal in the
housing by in situ formation in the housing.”
In support of the rejection of claim 20, the Examiner finds that various
elements in Berner Figure 7 “can be considered as being connected to, hold
together to, joined to, stick to the metal in the metal housing 19.” Ans. 7
(emphases removed).
The record before us, however, lacks a showing that the recited
ceramic component bonded “by in situ formation” is structurally
indistinguishable from the prior art. We, therefore, do not sustain the
rejection of claim 20.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed in part and reversed in part.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–6, 8, 9,
20
103 Moake, Berner 1, 4–6, 8, 9 20
2, 3 103 Moake, Berner,
Simonetti
2, 3
7 103 Moake, Berner,
Christian
7
Overall
Outcome:
1–9 20

Appeal 2019-005411
Application 15/034,160

8
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART