Schexnaider, Neil Patrick. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 28, 2020

13985964 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 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.
13/985,964 08/16/2013 Neil Patrick Schexnaider 2011-IP-042106 US 6443
15604 7590 07/28/2020
Baker Botts L.L.P.
910 Louisiana Street, One Shell Plaza
Houston, TX 77002
EXAMINER
FITZGERALD, JOHN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2861
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2020 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):
debie.hernandez@bakerbotts.com
susan.stewart@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NEIL PATRICK SCHEXNAIDER and
MATT HAY HENDERSON
Appeal 2019-005189
Application 13/985,964
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal 2019-005189
Application 13/985,964

2
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7. Appeal Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to a method and system that can continuously
collect a fluid sample from a pressurized system while remaining
independent from that system. See Spec. 2, ll. 18–19. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter with emphasis added to
highlight disputed claim terms (Appeal Br., Claims Appendix 15):
1. A method of analyzing a fluid comprising:
directing the fluid to an inline fluid extraction body,
wherein a first flow meter is coupled between a first inlet and
the inline fluid extraction body, wherein the fluid comprises
one or more dissolved gasses in a liquid;

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed August 16, 2013 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed December 17,
2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed April 2, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed June 14, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed
June 25, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). The Reply Brief does not contain numbered
pages. As such, our references to pages in the Reply Brief are taken from
the first page being numbered as page 1 and the following pages numbered
consecutively thereafter.
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Halliburton
Energy Services, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005189
Application 13/985,964

3
wherein the inline fluid extraction body comprises a
screen, a suction tube assembly, a first outlet and a second
outlet;
wherein the suction tube assembly comprises a first pipe
of a first diameter and the second outlet comprises a second
pipe of a second diameter, and wherein the second diameter
is larger than the first diameter;
directing a portion of the fluid through the first outlet of
the inline fluid extraction body;
wherein the portion of the fluid directed through the first
outlet is directed through a second flow meter to a separator;
directing a portion of the fluid through the second outlet
of the inline fluid extraction body;
wherein the second outlet of the inline fluid extraction
body is fluidically coupled through a flange to the screen and
the suction tube assembly;
pulling, by a pump, the portion of the fluid directed
through the second outlet of the inline fluid extraction body;
wherein the pump coupled to the second outlet pulls the
portion of the fluid through a pressure regulated normally
closed valve coupled to the second outlet of the inline fluid
extraction body;
directing the portion of the fluid directed through the
pressure regulated normally closed valve to an Inline TEE,
wherein the Inline TEE provides a bypass to an extraction
system;
directing an amount of the portion of the fluid directed
through the second outlet of the inline fluid extraction body
to the extraction system via a second outlet of the Inline Tee,
wherein the extraction system extracts the one or more
dissolved gasses from the amount of the portion of the fluid
directed through the second outlet of the Inline Tee;
analyzing the gas by a gas analyzer;
Appeal 2019-005189
Application 13/985,964

4
pumping the amount of the portion of the fluid directed
through the second outlet of the Inline Tee to an outlet of the
extraction system; and
directing the portion of the fluid via the Inline TEE to a
first outlet of the Inline Tee to bypass the extraction system.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Engle et al.
hereinafter “Engle”
US 2,923,151 February 2, 1960
Horeth US 3,241,371 January 25, 1962
Price et al.
hereinafter “Price”
US 3,429,186 October 11, 1966
Moore US 3,386,286 June 4, 1968
Griffin, III et al.
hereinafter “Griffin”
US 4,010,012 March 1, 1977
Steger et al.
hereinafter “Steger”
US 5,101,670 April 7, 1992
Reintjes et al.
hereinafter “Reintjes”
US 2009/0211379 A1 August 27, 2009
Evrard US 2011/0094736 A1 April 28, 2011
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claim 1 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Steger, Horeth, Engle, Griffin, and Price.
Final Act. 4–10.
Appeal 2019-005189
Application 13/985,964

5
2. The Examiner rejected claims 2–4 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Steger, Horeth, Engle, Griffin, Price,
and Evrard. Id. at 10–11.
3. The Examiner rejected claim 5 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Steger, Horeth, Engle, Griffin, Price, and
Reintjes. Id. at 11–13.
4. The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 7 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Steger, Horeth, Engle, Griffin, Price,
and Moore. Id. at 13–14.

OPINION
Rejection 1
The Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Steger, Horeth, Engle, Griffin,
and Price, the Examiner found, inter alia, that Steger discloses a method of
analyzing a fluid including directing the fluid into an inline fluid extraction
body including a suction tube assembly with a first pipe having a first
diameter, a second outlet including a second pipe of a second diameter,
wherein the second diameter is larger than the first diameter. Final Act. 4,
citing Steger, Fig. 1; see Ans. 12–13. The Examiner’s mapping of certain
limitations of claim 1 to Steger is depicted below by way of a portion of
Steger’s Figure 1 as annotated by the Examiner.3 Ans. 12.

3 Appellant contends the Examiner’s annotated Figure 1 of Steger, as well as
other positions set forth by the Examiner in the Answer amount to a new
ground of rejection. See Reply Br. 2–4. Nevertheless, Appellant requests
the appeal be maintained and responds to the Examiner’s positons in the
Answer. Id. at 4.
Appeal 2019-005189
Application 13/985,964

6

The reproduced portion of the block diagram for the sampling system
in Figure 1 depicts a portion of a fluid stream (12, reference number not
shown) to be sampled. Steger, col. 4, ll. 31–33, col. 5, ll. 2–4; Fig. 1. The
Examiner has annotated Figure 1 with a dashed box to indicate the portions
of the apparatus disclosed in Steger the Examiner found to correspond to the
inline fluid extraction body recited in claim 1. The dashed box includes
screen 11 (Steger, col. 5, ll. 55–56) and pipe extending downward (duct 13,
see Steger, Fig. 1), which the Examiner has annotated as the second outlet
and the suction tube assembly recited in claim 1. The Examiner has
annotated the left side of the fluid stream as the first inlet, which is to the left
of the dashed box and probe 16 (Steger, col. 5, ll. 23–26), the probe 16 (the
recited first flowmeter) being located outside the left side of the dashed box.
The Examiner annotated the right side of the fluid stream as the first outlet
recited in claim 1. Ans. 12.
The Examiner determined the remaining steps recited in claim 1 were
disclosed in Steger, rendered obvious by Steger, or rendered obvious
Appeal 2019-005189
Application 13/985,964

7
through the combination of Steger, with Horeth, Engle, Griffen, and Price.
Final Act. 4–10; Ans. 6, 16–17, 21.

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant argues, inter alia that Steger does not disclose an inline
fluid extraction body as recited in claim 1, because as the Examiner has
interpreted Steger, the suction tube assembly is a second outlet and not a
separate and distinct component or element. Reply Br. 4–5. Appellant
contends the second outlet must also comprise a second pipe of a second
diameter that is larger than the first diameter of the first pipe, which is not
disclosed in Steger. Id. at 5.

Issue
The dispositive issue with respect to this rejection is:
Did the Examiner reversibly err in determining Steger discloses a
suction tube assembly where a second outlet must also comprise a second
pipe of a second diameter that is larger than the first diameter of the first
pipe as recited in the method of analyzing a fluid including the inline fluid
extraction body in claim 1?

Discussion
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Steger fails to
disclose an inline fluid extraction body comprising a suction tube assembly
including a first pipe having a first diameter and a second outlet comprising
a second pipe of a second diameter, where the second diameter is larger than
the first diameter as recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2019-005189
Application 13/985,964

8
Steger discloses withdrawing samples through screen 11 into duct 13.
Steger, col. 5, ll. 55–56; Fig. 1. In the Examiner’s annotated version of
Steger’s Figure 1, reproduced above, the Examiner appears to label the
suction tube assembly as the combination of screen 11 and duct 13 (not
labeled in annotated Figure 1) and has also indicated duct 13 as the “second
outlet.” Taking the combination of screen 11 and duct 13 together as the
“suction tube assembly” recited in claim 1 with the second outlet as
indicated, the Examiner has not provided sufficient support for the position
that Steger discloses a “first pipe” as recited in claim 1, much less an
arrangement where the suction tube assembly includes a second outlet
including a second pipe of a second diameter that is larger than a first pipe
having a first diameter as also recited in claim 1. The Examiner relies only
on Figure 1 of Steger for these limitations. Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 12–13. The
Examiner has not annotated the “first pipe” of the suction tube assembly, nor
does the Examiner point to any specific portions of Steger that might
disclose this arrangement. Id.
Even if we were to read the Examiner’s annotation of a “first outlet”
in Figure 1 of Steger as somehow relating to the first pipe of the suction tube
assembly (the pipe associated with fluid stream 12, see Steger Fig. 1), this
disclosure would result in the opposite configuration of pipe diameters from
the arrangement of pipe diameters recited in claim 1. That is, the pipe
diameter associated with the first outlet or first pipe (fluid stream 12) is
larger than the second diameter of pipe associated with the second outlet
(duct 13).
As a result, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.

Appeal 2019-005189
Application 13/985,964

9
Rejections 2–4
In rejecting claims 2–7, which depend from claim 1, the Examiner
relied on the same base combination of Steger, Horeth, Engle, Griffin, and
Price. The Examiner’s further citation to Evrard, Reintjes, and Moore does
not cure the deficiencies discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–7 for similar
reasons as discussed above for Rejection 1 of claim 1.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 103
Steger, Horeth,
Engle, Griffin,
Price
1
2–4 103
Steger, Horeth,
Engle, Griffin,
Price, and Evrard
2–4
5 103
Steger, Horeth,
Engle, Griffin,
Price, Reintjes
5
6, 7 103
Steger, Horeth,
Engle, Griffin,
Price, Moore
6, 7
Overall
Outcome 1–7

REVERSED