2020002203 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2021)

Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 8, 2021

2020002203 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2021)

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. 15/749,585 02/01/2018 Mark W. Roberson 7523.1456US01 9572 27683 7590 09/08/2021 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP IP Section 2323 Victory Avenue Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75219 EXAMINER BENLAGSIR, AMINE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2685 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/08/2021 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): ipdocketing@haynesboone.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APRAMMEREAL BOARD Ex parte MARK W. ROBERSON Appeal 2020-002203 Application 15/749,585 Technology Center 2600 Before CATHERINE SHIANG, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Final Rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9, 11–13, 15–19, 21, and 23–28, which constitute all pending claims. See Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 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 is Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-002203 Application 15/749,585 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to performing multi-frequency communications in wellbore operations. Abstr.; Spec.21:17–20, 4:23–6:14; Figs. 1–3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the claimed subject matter (emphases added): 1. A method for performing multi-frequency communications in wellbore operations, the method comprising: performing data communication involving a plurality of nodes located along a casing in a wellbore, and by using multiple frequencies for the data communication; wherein the data communication involving the plurality of nodes is performed simultaneously. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). REFERENCES Prior art relied upon by the Examiner: Name Reference Date Prammer et al. US 2005/0030021 A1 Feb. 10, 2005 Roddy et al. US 2011/0186290 A1 Aug. 4, 2011 Graf et al. US 2015/0002307 A1 Jan. 1, 2015 REJECTION Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9, 11–13, 15–19, 21, and 23–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Roddy, Graf, and Prammer. Final Act. 5–10. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief that the Examiner has 2 Specification, filed Feb. 1, 2018 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2020-002203 Application 15/749,585 3 erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief. Arguments which Appellant could have made, but did not make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). As discussed below, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contentions of Examiner error. In our analysis below, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis. In the Final Action, the Examiner finds the combination of Roddy, Graf, and Prammer teaches the limitations of claim 1, and provides a reason to combine the teachings to result in claim 1. Final Act. 5–6 (citing Roddy ¶ 161, Figs. 22a–22c; Graf ¶ 23, Fig. 1; and Prammer ¶¶ 90, 98, 105, 109). In particular, the Examiner finds the combination of Roddy and Graf does not disclose the claim 1 limitation “wherein the data communication involving the plurality of nodes is performed simultaneously” (emphasis added; also referred to as “disputed limitation”). Id. at 6. The Examiner finds Prammer discloses the method wherein the data communication involving the plurality of nodes is performed simultaneously. Id. (citing Prammer ¶¶ 90, 98, 105, 109). The Examiner determines [o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of the Roddy, Graf and Prammer references since all pertain to the field of input devices with touch sensitive area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the input device of Roddy to implement a simultaneous communication as taught by Prammer to gain the functionality of performing data communication within the borehole system using simultaneous multiple frequencies in order to avoid overlapping of the transmitted data and to transmit in parallel the data communication using different frequency channels. Id. Appeal 2020-002203 Application 15/749,585 4 Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Prammer teaches the disputed limitation of claim 1. Appeal Br. 4–5. Appellant argues Prammer' s nuclear magnetic resonance ("NMR") coils have nothing to do with data communications and a skilled communications artisan had no reason to look to Prammer’s NMR formation NMR sensors. Id. at 4 (citing Prammer ¶¶ 68–72). Appellant argues Prammer does not teach simultaneous “communication” because Prammer describes how the field response (i.e., how magnetic field patterns look) from the quadrants resonates simultaneously. Id. (citing Prammer ¶ 90). According to Appellant, this resonance has nothing to do with communication, as the field response is not related to communications. Id. Appellant argues This phenomenon (field response) impacts the measurement of the formation with the antenna system. In Prammer Pars. [0098] and [0105] he states “measurements can be performed in a quasi-simultaneous state” i.e. measurements of the formation properties. In Prammer Par. [0109], the NMR echoes are received through the coils simultaneously. The coils are measuring relaxation times of the hydrogen protons. Different relaxation times corresponded to different formation properties. Thus, clearly the field response is used to measure formation properties - not to perform data communications. Id. at 4–5. Appellant additionally argues the Examiner errs by applying impermissible hindsight reasoning because there is no teaching or suggestion of simultaneous communication in a downhole data communications system in Prammer. Id. at 5. According to Appellant, the rejection cherry picks a purported simultaneous “NMR sensing” feature, then applies it to a fundamentally different technical art (data communications) and concludes Appeal 2020-002203 Application 15/749,585 5 one ordinarily skilled in the art would have made the technical leap between the technologies. Id. Appellant argues neither the cited art nor the rejection explains any rational way in which such a combination could work, as NMR technology is fundamentally different from data communications. Id. Appellant additionally argues the Examiner errs because the combination of Roddy, Graf, and Prammer is improper as the combination would render Roddy inoperable for its intended purpose. Id. According to Appellant, Roddy teaches a data communications system using active nodes that either receive data, transmit data or both at some frequency. Prammer, in contrast, is directed toward a NMR tool having an antenna and magnets to evaluate formations. The magnets generate the static magnetic field, while the antenna transmits RF pulses into the formation to further align the hydrogen protons already effected by the static magnetic field. The antenna system is then used to measure the characteristic relaxation times. No component of the NMR tool is used for data communication. In addition, the permanent magnets are passive - meaning the magnetic field is produced continuously due to the fundamental nature of the material without a system actively controlling it. To modify Roddy with the system of Prammer would render Roddy inoperable for a number of reasons. First, replacing Roddy's active nodes (intended to operate at some frequency) with Prammer's passive magnets would mean Roddy's nodes now operate at O frequency - thus rendering Roddy's system inoperable. Second, Prammer's system is used for formation evaluation, i.e., taking measurements. Modifying Roddy's data communication system to obtain measurements would also render it inoperable. Lastly, although the Final Action may argue the first and second points are irrelevant because Prammer was cited only to teach the "simultaneous" feature, it is improper to separate the "simultaneous" feature from Prammer's overall intended use of such a feature - which is to conduct formation evaluation/measurements and not the claimed data communication. Nevertheless, the combination of Roddy and Appeal 2020-002203 Application 15/749,585 6 Prammer simply makes no technical sense and Appellant requests the rejection of claims 1, 13 and 26 be overturned. Id. at 5–6. In the Answer, The Examiner finds Roddy, Graf, and Prammer share similar core concepts that are the basis of claim 1. Ans. 3. According to the Examiner, these concepts include (1) Wellbore environment and wellbore operations, (2) Electromagnetic devices such as sensors and antennas used for electromagnetic medium as a data communication and (3) Frequency as a parameter in the equation of data communication. Id. Regarding data communications, the Examiner finds Roddy discloses the concept of performing data communication involving a plurality of nodes located along a casing in a wellbore, wherein the MEMS sensors 52 technically equivalent to a plurality of nodes, are configured to transmit MEMS sensor data to neighboring MEMS sensors 52 technically equivalent to 'data communication involving the plurality of nodes', as denoted by double arrows 632, as well as to transmit MEMS sensor data to the regional communication units 610 in their respective vicinities, as denoted by single arrows 634. Further, Roddy discloses the MEMS sensors 52 technically equivalent to a plurality of nodes may sense at least one wellbore parameter and transmit data regarding the at least one wellbore parameter to the regional communication units 710b, either via neighboring MEMS sensors 52 technically equivalent to 'data communication involving the plurality of nodes' as denoted by double arrow 734, or directly to the regional communication units 710 as denoted by single arrows 736. The regional communication units 710b may communicate wirelessly with the primary or master communication unit 720b, which may in turn communicate wirelessly with equipment located at the surface (or via telemetry such as casing signal telemetry) and/or other regional communication units 720a and/or other primary or Appeal 2020-002203 Application 15/749,585 7 master communication units 720a. (fig 6:52, par [0113], [0114] and fig 9:52, par[0118]). Id. at 3–4. Regarding “simultaneously,” the Examiner finds Within the same telemetry area and electromagnetic environment the primary reason of using the prior art “Prammer” is to implement the feature of performing simultaneously in the wellbore operations as it was mentioned in the motivation for combining the Prammer reference with Roddy and Graf references, wherein Prammer discloses in figure 1 a borehole tool that comprises a transceiver RF antenna 110 that includes four different volume antennas that generate and perform different measurements simultaneously, and in which each of the volume antenna is interfaced to a transmitter and receiver 120/130 and a sensor 185 (fig 1:110 ‘antenna’, 120 ‘receiver’, 130 ‘transceiver’, 185 ‘sensor’) technically having a structure of a node. Further, Prammer discloses each volume antenna operates at different frequency by selection, wherein such an arrangement is advantageous because by changing the operating frequency, a different sensitive volume antenna of the antenna 110 is selected, and by using multiple volumes one at a time, more signals can be accumulated in less time and/or different NMR measurements can be performed in a quasi- simultaneous fashion (par [0098]. Id. at 4. Regarding motivation to combine and hindsight, the Examiner identifies specific teachings of Roddy, Graf, and Prammer and articulates reasons to combine these teachings. Ans. 6–9. In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues the Examiner’s citation to Prammer for “simultaneously” is error because “simply citing a reference to teach "performing simultaneously" in the abstract fails to teach or suggest the claimed “simultaneous data communication.” Reply Br. 2 (citing Ans. 4). According to Appellant, there could be any number of downhole Appeal 2020-002203 Application 15/749,585 8 functions in conventional wellbores that are “performed simultaneously,” so a more detailed teaching must be cited to support a showing of obviousness. Id. Appellant reiterates Prammer provides no teaching on data communication at all, much less any simultaneous data communication as claimed. Id. Appellant argues simply citing a reference that essentially teaches “it[‘]s possible to perform operations simultaneously downhole” is not sufficient to support an obviousness rejection. Id. Appellant argues the Examiner errs in stating Prammer is “within the same field of telemetry . . .” because Prammer is primarily directed to nuclear magnetic resonance - not telemetry. Id. (citing Ans. 6). According to Appellant, although a telemetry system could be used in conjunction with Prammer s NMR tool, Prammer is not directed to telemetry. Id. Appellant argues the Examiner errs in citing Prammer's antenna configuration 500 as being technically equivalent to the claimed system because Prammer's NMR tool uses configuration 500 to implement nuclear magnetic resonance - not data communication. Id. Appellant reiterates NMR is a fundamentally different technology which operates on different principles and the Examiner’s comparison overly simplifies NMR technology. Id. Appellant argues the Answer fails to address Appellant’s inoperability argument. Id. (citing Ans. 7). Appellant argues pages 8–14 of the Answer repeat arguments without addressing Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief. As discussed below, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and agree, instead, with the findings and conclusions of the Examiner. During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation when reading claim language in light of the Specification as it Appeal 2020-002203 Application 15/749,585 9 would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although we interpret claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Our reviewing court states that “the words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citation omitted). However, the broadest reasonable interpretation differs from the broadest possible interpretation. In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is “an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is ‘consistent with the specification.’” Id. at 1382–83 (quoting In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). The disputed limitation recites “wherein the data communication involving the plurality of nodes is performed simultaneously (emphasis added).” Roddy teaches wellbore operations employing Micro- ElectroMechanical System (MEMS) sensors and acoustic sensors to develop and communicate data. Roddy, Abstr. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Roddy teaches “performing data communication.” Final Act. 5; Roddy ¶ 161. Appellant presents no persuasive argument that “data communications” should not be given their ordinary meaning of performing data communication. Appeal 2020-002203 Application 15/749,585 10 Graf teaches wellbore operations employing antennas for communication within the wellbore. Graf, Abstr. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Graf teaches “performing data communication using multiple frequencies for the data communication.” Final Act. 6; Graf ¶ 23. Prammer teaches NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) logging, including well logging and wellbore operations. Prammer ¶¶ 3, 4, 8; Abstr. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Prammer teaches “performed simultaneously.” Prammer ¶¶ 90, 98, 105, 109; Final Act. 6; Ans. 4–5. In particular, Prammer teaches the benefit of “more signals can be accumulated in less time and/or different NMR measurements can be performed in a quasi-simultaneous fashion.” Ans. 19; Prammer ¶ 98 (quoting). Additionally, Prammer employs “data communication” in wireline and logging while drilling. Prammer, Abstr., ¶ 96, Fig. 1. Appellant’s arguments are based on unreasonably narrow interpretation of the disputed limitation, and unreasonably narrow interpretation of the cited references as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. We note much of Appellant’s arguments are unsupported by factual evidence. Mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blouse, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Ex parte Belinne, Appeal 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843, at *3–4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative). The Examiner provides sufficient evidence why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Roddy, Graf, and Prammer without impermissible hindsight. The Examiner explains why Roddy, Graf, Appeal 2020-002203 Application 15/749,585 11 and Prammer are analogous. A prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection must be based on: [S]ome articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Regarding Appellant’s argument of inoperability of Roddy as a result of the proposed combination with Prammer, we note that the Examiner’s findings are based on the Prammer teaching that “simultaneous” provides value in a logging environment. Appellant’s argument applies an inapplicable bodily incorporation standard. We note: [t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appeal 2020-002203 Application 15/749,585 12 In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Roddy, Graf, and Prammer, and the rejection of independent claims 13 and 26 as these claims are not argued separately. Appeal Br. 5. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3, 9, 12, 13, 15–19, 21, 23–25, 27, and 28 as these claims are not argued separately. The § 103 Rejection of dependent claims 4, 5, 7, and 11 over Roddy, Graf, and Prammer Claim 4 is set forth below 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: configuring a first node of the plurality of nodes to use a first resonant frequency for the data communication; and configuring a second node of the plurality of nodes to use a second resonant frequency for the data communication, the first resonant frequency is lower than the second resonant frequency. The Examiner finds Graf in view of Prammer teaches the claim limitations except the first resonant frequency is lower than the second resonant frequency.” Final Act. 6–7 (citing Prammer ¶¶ 89, 98). The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust different frequencies within a certain level, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Id. (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 458 (CCPA 1955). Appellant argues the Examiner errs because, although Prammer’s coil antennas can operate at different frequencies, the coil antennas are used to manipulate the hydrogen protons and measure relaxation times - neither the Appeal 2020-002203 Application 15/749,585 13 coil antennas nor magnets are used to perform data communication. Appeal Br. 6. In the Answer, the Examiner reiterates that Roddy is relied upon for performing data communication involving a plurality of nodes. Ans. 9; see also Final Act. 5. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because the arguments do not address the Examiner’s findings. Additionally, we note Appellant does not address the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 in the Reply Brief. Appellant fails to persuasively respond to the Examiner’s findings and, therefore, fails to show Examiner error. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 4. Claim 5 is set forth below 5. The method of claim 4, wherein: a first propagation range for the data communication associated with the first node is longer than a second propagation range for the data communication associated with the second node; or a first bandwidth for the data communication associated with the first node is smaller than a second bandwidth for the data communication associated with the second node (emphasis added). The Examiner finds Prammer teaches magnets that are equivalent to nodes with different magnetic field propagation ranges and different bandwidths. Final Act. 7–8 (citing Prammer ¶¶ 52–54, 56, 69, 71, 89, 98). The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust different Appeal 2020-002203 Application 15/749,585 14 propagation ranges and bandwidths within a certain value, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Aller, 220 F.2d at 458. Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding node magnets 210 and 220 are technically equivalent to nodes because the magnets are not technically equivalent to nodes. Appeal Br. 6–7. According to Appellant, the magnets are permanent magnets that operate at O Hz because they produce a static magnetic field. Id. Appellant argues the permanent magnets cannot receive data or communicate data - thus they are not nodes. Id. In the Answer, the Examiner reiterates and finds that Prammer’s antenna configuration includes four different volume antennas which interface to a transmitter and receiver, technically having a structure of a node. Ans. 11–12. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Additionally, we note Appellant does not address the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 in the Reply Brief. Appellant fails to persuasively respond to the Examiner’s findings and, therefore, fails to show Examiner error. Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 5. Claim 7 recites 7. The method of claim 4, wherein: configuring the first node comprises wrapping first turns of coil around the casing and configuring the second node comprises wrapping second turns of coil around the casing, the first turns of coil comprises more turns of coil around the casing than the second turns of coil; or Appeal 2020-002203 Application 15/749,585 15 the method further comprises configuring the first node and the second node as toroidally wound coils (emphasis added). In the Final Action, the Examiner, in addition to the claim 4 findings, supra, finds Prammer teaches wrapping the first and second coils with the first turns of coils more turns of coils than the second turns of coils. Final Act. 8 (citing Prammer ¶¶ 57, 80). The Examiner additionally finds Roddy teaches the claim 4 or limitation “configuring the first node and the second node as toroidally wound coils.” Id. (citing Graf ¶¶ 23, 24, 30). Appellant argues, as in the claim 5 argument, supra, Prammer magnets are not nodes. Appeal Br. 7. According to Appellant, the coils wrapped around the magnets in Prammer act independently of the function of the permanent magnet. Id. Appellant argues the coils in Prammer (fig 4A:425,440) serve as RF transceiver antennas for formation evaluation and serve no role in data communication as claimed by Appellant. Id. In the Answer, the Examiner reiterates and includes the findings regarding claim 4, supra, and the antennas. Ans. 12–14. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments as they are similar to claim 4 arguments discussed supra. Also, Appellant does not address the Examiner’s finding regarding the or limitation of claim 7 “(toroidally wound coils”). Additionally, we note Appellant does not address the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 in the Reply Brief. Appellant fails to persuasively respond to the Examiner’s findings and, therefore, fails to show Examiner error. Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 7. Claim 11 recites Appeal 2020-002203 Application 15/749,585 16 11. The method of claim 1, wherein performing the data communication involving the plurality of nodes comprises: performing the data communication by simultaneously transmitting, from a set of adjacent nodes of the plurality of nodes, signals having non-overlapping frequency bandwidths (emphasis added). In the Final Action, the Examiner finds Prammer teaches signals having non-overlapping frequency bandwidths. Final Act 10 (citing Prammer ¶¶ 90, 98, 105, 109). Appellant argues the Office has maintained Prammer’s magnets are equivalent to nodes and, applying the Office Action's interpretation, since these are permanent magnets producing a static field, it is impossible for the magnets (nodes) to have non-overlapping frequency bandwidths because the magnets all operate at O frequency (i.e., they overlap). Appeal Br. 7. Appellant notes that these same arguments are applicable to claim 26. Id. In the Answer, the Examiner provides detailed findings regarding Roddy, Graf, and Prammer. Ans. 14–16. The Examiner finds Prammer discloses in figure 3A, fig 3B and fig 3C with the signals having non- overlapping frequency bandwidths, wherein the Magnets 210 and 220 are preferably polarized in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the magnetic assembly 200 and mounted with like magnetic poles facing each other, and for each magnet 210 and 220, the magnetic field lines travel as shown in FIG. 3B. Id. at 14. The Examiner finds Prammer teaches four 90 degree antenna quadrants which process data. Id. at 16. In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that Prammer’s static field Bo is just that - a static field, and a static field has no frequency. Reply Br. 2–3. According to Appellant, multiple static fields would all have the same Appeal 2020-002203 Application 15/749,585 17 "overlapping" frequency of zero. Id. at 3. Appellant argues FIGS. 3A-3C of Prammer simply show flux lines that generate this static field having a O overlapping frequency. Id. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner’s findings are reasonable and not fully addressed by Appellant. Additionally, Appellant’s arguments are unsupported by factual evidence. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 113. CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9, 11–13, 15–19, 21, and 23–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roddy, Graf, and Prammer is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–5, 7, 9, 11–13, 15–19, 21, 23–28 103 Roddy, Graf, Prammer 1, 3–5, 7, 9, 11–13, 15–19, 21, 23–28 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)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2018). AFFIRMED 3 Independent claim 26 is not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 4–7. To the extent the claim 11 limitation is recited in claim 26, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that this limitation is taught by the cited references.