`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`McCLINTON ENERGY GROUP, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`MAGNUM OIL TOOLS INTERNATIONAL, Ltd.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,079,413
`Issue Date: December 20, 2011
`Title: BOTTOM SET DOWNHOLE PLUG
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2013-00231
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KEVIN TRAHAN
`
`I, Kevin Trahan, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am President of Trahan Oilfield Consulting LLC. I have a B.S. in
`
`Mechanical Engineering from Texas A&M University. I have considerable
`
`experience and expertise in the area of designing down-hole tools including, but
`
`not limited to packers, bridge plugs and frac plugs. I have experience and expertise
`
`in dealing with patented inventions. Additionally, I am a named inventor on 10
`
`U.S. Patents. My resume is attached describing in more detail my qualifications to
`
`provide an opinion in this matter.
`
`2. By my education, training, and experience, I am qualified to provide
`
`testimony on the understanding of persons of ordinary skill in the art regarding
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,079,413 (the ‘413 patent), the challenges asserted in this patent,
`
`the prior art being asserted against the '413 Patent, and the prosecution history of
`
`this patent.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter, but my compensation
`
`in no way effects my opinion or depends on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`4.
`
`I have reviewed the following in preparation of this declaration:
`
`1) The Petition for Inter Partes Review filed by MEGCO on April 2,
`2013, Paper 3.
`
`
`2) The Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley, Exhibit MEGCO [1020].
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3) The Decision, Institution of Inter Partes Review entered on
`September 23, 2013, Paper 16.
`
`
`4) Preliminary Response by Patent Owner Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`filed July 11, 2013, Paper 14.
`
`
`5) Markman Order; Magnum Oil Tools Int'l v. McClinton, et al, 2:12-cv-
`00099, U.S. District Court – Southern District of Texas, Corpus
`Christi Division; Honorable Judge Ramos Presiding, Exhibit MOTI
`[2001].
`
`
`6) Opening Expert Report of Dr. Gary R. Wooley dated September 13,
`2013; Magnum Oil Tools Int'l v. McClinton, et al, 2:12-cv-00099,
`U.S. District Court – Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi
`Division; Honorable Judge Ramos Presiding, Exhibit MOTI [3011].
`
`
`7) My Rebuttal Report to Opening Expert Report of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`dated October 11, 2013; Magnum Oil Tools Int'l v. McClinton, et al,
`2:12-cv-00099, U.S. District Court – Southern District of Texas,
`Corpus Christi Division; Honorable Judge Ramos Presiding.
`
`
`8) U.S. Patent No. 8,079,413 ("the '413 Patent").
`
`9) The file history of the '413 Patent.
`
`10) U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0151722 ("Lehr").
`
`11) U.S. Patent No. 4,437,516 ("Cockrell").
`
`12) U.S. Patent No. 4,595,052 ("Kristiansen").
`
`13) U.S. Patent No. 5,224,540 ("Streich").
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14) U.S. Patent No. 6,708,768 ("Slup").
`
`15) U.S. Patent No. 7,350,582 ("McKeachnie").
`
`5.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this declaration, I have considered:
`
`1) The documents listed above;
`
`2) The standard for obviousness as set forth in KSR International Co. v.
`
`Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), including the basis for supporting
`
`a prima facie showing of obviousness; and
`
`3) My education, training, and experience in the subject matter as
`
`described above.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. Qualifications and Experience
`
`6. My career began in 1992 following graduation from Texas A&M
`
`University. I was immediately employed by Baker Service Tools, a division of
`
`Baker Hughes, Inc., as design engineer trainee. In this capacity, I was involved in
`
`design reviews, drafting, and testing of many types of down-hole tools, including
`
`many types of packers and bridge plugs. During my first year with Baker Hughes,
`
`Inc. the divisional operating structure was reorganized by merging Baker Service
`
`Tools with Baker Oil Tools. The newly merged division retained the name of
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Baker Oil Tools. The new division included all of the production packers and all
`
`of the service packers and plugs.1 During this time, I designed and tested both
`
`production and service type packers and plugs.
`
`7.
`
`I was then transferred to Lafayette, Louisiana in order to gain experience
`
`with servicing and installing packers and plugs, as well as other types of down-
`
`hole tools. Within 3 months of arriving in the Lafayette operation I was installing
`
`packers and plugs in the field with no on-site supervision. Eventually, I was
`
`transferred back to the engineering department in Houston, Texas where I managed
`
`projects and designed and tested various types of liner hanger2, packer and
`
`plugging equipment. During this time it was important that I had thorough
`
`knowledge of how to research existing patents to ensure that any designs we
`
`planned to manufacture were not infringing existing patent claims.
`
`8. Within two years, I was promoted to the position of region engineer in
`
`New Orleans, Louisiana. In this capacity, I performed the function of technical
`
`support for the operations and sales departments. Tasks performed included
`
`trouble-shooting problem jobs, supporting salespeople in selling new technology
`
`
`1 A plug is a tool that most commonly utilizes a packer element for isolating an annular gap while providing a core
`that may be solid, or open to provide a flow path, which may incorporate a check valve or other obstruction. Plugs
`are typically utilized in the remediation or stimulation of a well.
`
`2 Liner hangers are tools that are utilized to hang and cement well casings inside of previously set casings. Liner
`hanger systems typically use slip, cone arrangements, and annular sealing arrangements similar to those used in
`service and production packers as well as bridge plug and frac plugs.
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that they did not understand, and installation of new packer and liner hanger
`
`technology used on high profile projects in the Gulf of Mexico.
`
`9.
`
`In approximately six months, I was promoted to the position of Gulf Coast
`
`operations engineering manager. In this capacity, I supervised 9 to 10 region
`
`engineers performing the same function that I previously performed as a region
`
`engineer. In approximately one year, I was promoted to the position of account
`
`sales manager. In this role, I managed a sales force of 7-10 people responsible for
`
`all Baker Oil Tools product lines for the largest Baker Oil Tools customer (within
`
`the United States) at the time, Shell Offshore.
`
`10. In 1998, EVI and Weatherford separately recruited me to help them grow
`
`their respective businesses. I went to work for EVI in a global business
`
`development role. Within one week, EVI acquired Weatherford and the new
`
`company retained the Weatherford name. In the new organization, I took on the
`
`business development role for the liner hanger business in the western hemisphere.
`
`Within one year, I was promoted to Gulf Coast region manager for all completion
`
`product lines, including packers, plugs and liner systems. Within another year, I
`
`was promoted to the position of global product line manager for liner systems,
`
`where I lead the strategic direction and marketing efforts for the liner systems
`
`product line.
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11. My next promotion was to the position of vice president, marketing
`
`(Weatherford Completion Systems division) where I lead the group of all global
`
`product line managers for Weatherford Completion Systems. One of my
`
`responsibilities in this role dealt with patents.
`
`12. The next position I accepted included a transfer to Calgary, Alberta,
`
`Canada, as the vice president of Canadian operations for Weatherford Completion
`
`Systems. In this role, I lead the effort of merging several packer and plug company
`
`acquisitions.
`
`13. In December 2001, the U.S. and Canada operations were combined from a
`
`management standpoint within Weatherford Completion Systems. I was promoted
`
`to the position of vice president of North American operations for Weatherford
`
`Completion Systems. The promotion included a transfer to Houston, Texas.
`
`14. In mid-2003, I left the "grind" of management in large corporations so that
`
`I could be a better father and husband, and so that I could chase my dream of being
`
`an entrepreneur. Since this time, I have designed numerous down-hole tools
`
`including packers, bridge plugs and frac plugs. I am the sole inventor on a packer
`
`sealing technology patent that I developed within Braveaux Services. It is one of
`
`at least ten U.S. patents for which I am an inventor. Braveaux Services was
`
`acquired by Allamon Tool Company in January 2005, at which time I started
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trahan Oilfield Consulting, LLC. Trahan Oilfield Consulting, LLC provides
`
`engineering, marketing, and management consulting services to oil and gas service
`
`companies, as well as expert services.
`
`15. Prior to this proceeding, I have served as an expert, or consultant, in
`
`several lawsuits. Some of these lawsuits dealt with patents and intellectual
`
`property, while others dealt with alleged tool failures and personal injury or
`
`fatality. I have given deposition testimony in at least six of these cases. I believe
`
`my education in mechanical engineering along with my direct and extensive
`
`experience in the design, management and oversight relating to packer and plug
`
`technology with Baker Hughes, Weatherford, and in my own businesses qualify
`
`me as an expert for this proceeding.
`
`
`
`II. Background of the '413 Patent
`
`16. The '413 patent details claims on what is referred to as a composite bridge
`
`or frac plug system. "Bridge plug" is a general term utilized within the oil and gas
`
`industry to describe a down-hole tool that upon setting acts as an isolation tool
`
`within the wellbore. A frac plug is a variation of a bridge plug in that it eventually
`
`isolates the wellbore in a single direction. A frac plug is most often applied when a
`
`well is "fraced".
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17. The '413 Patent was filed on July 29, 2011 by W. Lynn Frazier and issued
`
`as U.S. Patent No. 8,079,413 on December 20, 2011. The '413 Patent claims
`
`priority to U.S. Application Serial No. 12/317,497, filed on December 23, 2008,
`
`now issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,496,052.
`
`
`
`III. Claim Construction
`
`18. Unless otherwise stated herein, I have applied the claim construction
`
`provided by the U.S. District Court in Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd. v.
`
`McClinton, et al, U.S. District Court – Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi
`
`Division, Markman Order filed as Exhibit MOTI [2001]. Claim terms not
`
`construed by the Court have been given their broadest reasonable interpretation in
`
`light of the specification.
`
`
`
`IV. Analysis of the Proposed Grounds for Rejection
`
`19. The Petition for Inter Partes Review ("Petition") and Declaration of Dr.
`
`Gary R. Wooley ("Wooley Dec.") propose combinations of prior art that, in Dr.
`
`Wooley's opinion, render obvious the claimed invention of the '413 Patent. The
`
`Wooley Dec. asserts that combining various prior art references would lead to each
`
`and every element of the claims of the '413 Patent because the combination would
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`yield predictable results. I have analyzed each of the prior art references, alone,
`
`and in combination with each other, in order to provide the opinions contained
`
`herein.
`
`20. It is my understanding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB")
`
`has instituted inter partes review of claims 1-20 of the '413 Patent based on six
`
`proposed grounds of obviousness in view of Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, Streich,
`
`Slup, and McKeachnie.
`
`21. In summary, I disagree with Dr. Wooley's conclusions regarding the
`
`validity of the '413 Patent based on the prior art referenced in his declaration dated
`
`April 2, 2013 and conclude that the combination of the asserted prior art references
`
`against the claims of the '413 Patent do not contain each and every element of
`
`Claims 1-20 of the '413 Patent. I also conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the invention of the '413 Patent would not find it obvious to combine
`
`the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention. Further, I conclude that
`
`the Wooley Dec.'s proposed combination of references to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention does not yield predictable results.
`
`
`
`
`
`a. GROUND 1: Proposed rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 12, and 13 over
`the combination of Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen
`
`22. Based on my analysis of Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen, I have reached
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would not have found it obvious to combine the deformable disk of Lehr with the
`
`shear threads of Cockrell and the outer threads of Kristiansen to arrive at the claim
`
`invention of the '413 Patent.
`
`23. First, the deformable disk of Lehr cannot be modified in the same manner
`
`as the insert of Alpha. Lehr and Alpha are different in their components,
`
`structures, and methods of operation. Specifically, Alpha's insert and Lehr's
`
`deformable disk are completely different structures with no similarities. Therefore,
`
`the same rationale used to modify Alpha cannot be used to modify Lehr.
`
`24. Second, combining the deformable disk of Lehr with the shearable threads
`
`of Cockrell would not have been a simple substitution of one known element for
`
`another. Implementing the shearable threads of Cockrell into the plug of Lehr
`
`would require a complete redesign of the physical structure of the setting device of
`
`Lehr, as well as a change in Lehr's principle mode of operation.
`
`25. Lehr utilizes a thin disk shaped deformable release device that abuts the
`
`lower end of the mandrel and receives a plunger through a central opening that
`
`deforms the disk upon setting the plug to release the setting tool.
`
`26. Substituting the deformable disk of Lehr with the shearable threads of
`
`Cockrell would require substantial redesign of Lehr.
`
` Specifically,
`
`the
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`modifications would require the plunger to be redesigned to be threaded onto the
`
`release device. In addition, the mandrel of Lehr would have to be redesigned to
`
`accommodate for the release device to be inside the mandrel, as opposed to outside
`
`as Lehr discloses.
`
`27. Redesigning the release device of Lehr as proposed by the combination of
`
`Lehr and Cockrell would change the principle mode of operation since the
`
`deformable disk of Lehr depends on the bottom of the mandrel for support to
`
`deform upon setting to release the setting tool.
`
`28. Modifying the deformable disk of Lehr to be attached or secured to an
`
`inner surface of the body would render Lehr unsuitable for its intended purpose.
`
`29. For at least these reasons, substituting the deformable disk of Lehr for the
`
`shearable threads of Cockrell would not be a simple substitution of one known
`
`element for another.
`
`30. Third, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to
`
`combine Lehr and Cockrell with Kristiansen "because it would be combining prior
`
`art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of holding
`
`the plug in place, simplifying assembly," as Dr. Wooley opined. Wooley Dec. ¶
`
`78.
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`31. The deformable disk of Lehr (or plug as Dr. Wooley mistakenly called it)
`
`is already held in place with retaining pins. One of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`not look to Kristiansen for an element to perform a task that is already disclosed in
`
`Lehr.
`
`32. In addition, the Petition's rationale for combining Alpha and Cockrell is
`
`inapplicable to Lehr (contrary to the Petition's assertion) because Lehr's
`
`deformable release device does not fall down the wellbore.
`
`33. Further, the Petition and the prior art provide no explanation or evidence as
`
`to how Lehr would be modified in view of Cockrell and Kristiansen to physically
`
`arrive at the claimed invention or how the modifications would physically
`
`function, and thus provides no expectation of success.
`
`34. In my opinion, the proposed modifications to Lehr in view of Cockrell and
`
`Kristiansen are beyond the reasonable skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention. A person with the level of skill in the art of frac and bridge
`
`plugs, identified by Dr. Wooley in his declaration, at the time of the invention
`
`would not have been able to view Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen and arrive at the
`
`claimed invention of the '413 Patent.
`
`35. In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would not have found it obvious to combine Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen to
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`arrive at the claimed invention of the claims 1-3, 5-8, 12, and 13 for at least the
`
`reasons stated herein.
`
`
`
`b. GROUND 2: Proposed rejection of claims 4 and 9-11 over the
`combination of Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, and Slup
`
`
`36. Based on my analysis of Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, and Slup I have
`
`reached the conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention would not have found it obvious to combine the deformable disk of Lehr
`
`with the shear threads of Cockrell and the outer threads of Kristiansen with the ball
`
`and ball seat of Slup to arrive at invention in claims 4, 9, 10 and 11 of the '413
`
`Patent.
`
`37. Claim 4 of the '413 Patent includes all of the elements of claim 1, with the
`
`additional limitation of the body being adapted to receive a ball that restricts fluid
`
`flow through the body.
`
`38. As described above (see above ¶¶ 23-27) Cockrell cannot be combined
`
`with Lehr through simple substitution of elements to create an obvious
`
`embodiment containing all of the elements of claim 4, 9, 10 and 11 of the '413
`
`Patent.
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`39. For at least these reasons, substituting the deformable disk of Lehr for the
`
`shearable threads of Cockrell would not be a simple substitution of one known
`
`element for another.
`
`40. Because all of the elements of claim 1 of the '413 Patent are not rendered
`
`obvious by the combination of any elements of Lehr, Cockrell, and Kristiansen,
`
`then applying the ball and ball seat of Slup to any combination of Lehr, Cockrell,
`
`and Kristiansen does not render obvious all the elements of claim 4 of the '413
`
`Patent.
`
`41. Additionally, substituting the Slup ball and ball seat for the Lehr flapper
`
`valve would require significant redesign to the upper end of the Lehr mandrel.
`
`Because the flapper valve is continually retained in the mandrel, there is no design
`
`feature on upper end of the mandrel for ensuring a ball to be guided into place in
`
`the mandrel. Therefore, if the Lehr body were to be adapted for use with a ball
`
`dropped from surface, major redesign of the upper end of the mandrel would be
`
`required to ensure that the ball would not simply lay on the low side of the
`
`wellbore, but instead would be guided toward the centerline of the body while in
`
`the stream of fluid flow.
`
`42. Further, there is no expectation of success in substituting the Slup ball and
`
`ball seat for the Lehr flapper valve.
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`43. In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would not have found it obvious to combine Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, and Slup
`
`to arrive at the claimed invention of the claim 4 for at least the reasons stated
`
`herein.
`
`44. Claims 9, 10 and 11 of the '413 Patent include all of the elements of claim
`
`7, with additional limitations regarding the material utilized for the insert (claim 9)
`
`and the body (claims 10 and 11).
`
`45. Claim 7, and therefore claims 9,10 and 11 requires "an insert screwed into
`
`an inner surface of the body, proximate the second end of the body, insert adapted
`
`to receive a setting tool that enters the body through the first end thereof, wherein:
`
`the insert comprises one or more shearable threads… the one or more shearable
`
`threads are adapted to engage the setting tool…". Nowhere in Lehr, Cockrell,
`
`Kristiansen or Slup does it exist, describe, or otherwise disclose an insert with
`
`shearable threads for engagement to a setting tool.
`
`46. Cockrell's shearable threads do not engage a setting tool because no setting
`
`tool is used in Cockrell. The plug in Cockrell is set by use of a hydraulic piston
`
`which is an integral part of the plug. The shearable threads have nothing to do
`
`with setting the plug.
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`47. While it is true that shearable devices made from brass were known in the
`
`art prior to the date of the invention disclosed in the '413 patent, it is additionally
`
`true that the combination of all of the elements of claim 7 in concert with the insert
`
`being made of brass did not exist.
`
`48. Any combination of elements of Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, and Slup
`
`could not predict claim 9 of the '413 patent because none of the prior art references
`
`contain an insert with shearable threads for engagement with a setting tool.
`
`49. While it is true that plug bodies made from one or more composite
`
`materials were known in the art prior to the date of the invention disclosed in the
`
`'413 patent, it is additionally true that the combination of all of the elements of
`
`claim 7 in concert with the body made from composite materials did not exist.
`
`50. Any combination of elements of Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, and Slup
`
`could not predict claim 10 of the '413 patent because none of the prior art
`
`references contain an insert with shearable threads for engagement with a setting
`
`tool.
`
`51. In addition, the Petition and Dr. Wooley provide no support or evidence
`
`for any expectation of success in utilizing an insert located in the bottom of a
`
`composite plug.
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`52. Slup discloses a top set composite plug, not one with an insert located
`
`proximate the second end or bottom. This difference is significant because the
`
`force applied on the composite components is greater when setting a plug using a
`
`top set method as opposed to having the setting device or insert located proximate
`
`the bottom. This allows for the setting tool to enter the body through the top and
`
`pull on the insert located at the bottom to balance the axial forces applied during
`
`the setting process.
`
`53. While it is true that plug bodies made from aluminum were known in the
`
`art prior to the date of the invention disclosed in the '413 patent, it is additionally
`
`true that the combination of all of the elements of claim 7 in concert with the body
`
`made from aluminum did not exist.
`
`54. Any combination of elements of Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, and Slup
`
`could not predict claim 11 of the '413 patent because none of the prior art
`
`references contain an insert with shearable threads for engagement with a setting
`
`tool.
`
`55. In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would not have found it obvious to combine Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, and Slup
`
`to arrive at the claimed invention of the claim 9, 10, or 11 for at least the reasons
`
`stated herein.
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`c. GROUND 3: Proposed rejection of claims 14 and 16 over the
`combination of Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, and Streich
`
`56. Based on my analysis of Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, and Streich I have
`
`reached the conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention would not have found it obvious to combine the deformable disk of Lehr
`
`with the shear threads of Cockrell and the outer threads of Kristiansen, with the
`
`ball and valve holder arrangement of Streich to arrive at the claimed invention of
`
`the '413 Patent.
`
`57. Claims 14 and 16 include all the limitations of claim 7 in addition to the
`
`limitation of the passageway of the insert being adapted to receive an impediment
`
`for restricting flow (claims 14 and 16) as well as the limitation where the
`
`impediment is a ball (claim 16).
`
`58. None of disclosures or embodiments of Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen or
`
`Streich contain an insert with shearable threads for engaging the setting tool.
`
`Therefore, the combination of any elements of these prior art references cannot
`
`predict claims 14 and 16 of the '413 Patent.
`
`59. Combining Streich's ball and valve holder with Lehr's plug would render
`
`Lehr unusable. The ball and valve holder would block the internal passageway
`
`through the Lehr body, therefore making it impossible for the Lehr plunger to
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`access the Lehr deformable disk which abuts the lower end of the body. It is not
`
`readily apparent that any redesign, even a major redesign, could render the
`
`combination usable.
`
`60. Streich's valve holder does not meet the limitations of the claimed insert.
`
`At least Streich's valve holder does not: a) have shearable threads on its inner
`
`surface, b) have outer threads, c) engage a setting tool. Additionally, Lehr,
`
`Cockrell, Kristiansen and Streich do not provide disclosure of an insert with
`
`shearable threads for engagement with a setting tool.
`
`61. The Streich ball and valve holder cannot be added to the shearable
`
`threaded component of Cockrell because the Cockrell body extends through the
`
`shearable threaded component and there is not available surface in the threaded
`
`component for accepting the ball and/or valve holder.
`
`62. The Streich ball and valve holder may be able to be added to Kristiansen's
`
`embodiment which contains a passageway through an insert near the bottom of the
`
`plug body, however this embodiment requires a separate insert at the top of the
`
`body for engagement with a setting tool and that insert does not contain shearable
`
`threads and is not adapted for an impediment.
`
`63. In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would not have found it obvious, or possible, to combine Lehr, Cockrell,
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kristiansen and Streich to arrive at the claimed invention of the claims 14, and 16
`
`for at least the reasons stated herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`d. GROUND 4: Proposed rejection of claim 15 over the combination
`of Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, Streich, and McKeachnie
`
`64. Based on my analysis of Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, Streich and
`
`McKeachnie, I have reached the conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the invention would not have found it obvious to combine the
`
`deformable disk of Lehr with the shear threads of Cockrell and the outer threads of
`
`Kristiansen with the ball and valve holder of Streich with the decomposable ball of
`
`McKeachnie to arrive at the claimed invention of the '413 Patent.
`
`65. As discussed earlier in this declaration, it would not be possible, much less
`
`obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine various elements of Lehr,
`
`Cockrell, Kristiansen, and Streich to provide a plug containing an insert near the
`
`lower end of the body where the insert has shearable threads on its inner surface
`
`for engaging a setting tool and the insert is adapted for receiving an impediment
`
`for restricting flow through the body (see above ¶¶ 52-59 above).
`
`66. Adding, or substituting, elements of McKeachnie to any combination of
`
`elements from Lehr, Cockrell, Kristianen, and Streich does not provide a plug with
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`all of the elements contained in claim 15 (which is inclusive on all of the elements
`
`of claim 14, which is inclusive on all of the elements of claim 7).
`
`67. McKeachnie discloses use of a decomposable ball to temporarily restrict
`
`flow through its plug's body. McKeachnie's body is adapted to receive the
`
`decomposable impediment. McKeachnie contains no insert. The setting tool
`
`engages the upper end of the body and therefore there is no reason to have an
`
`insert.
`
`68. McKeachnie discloses use of a decomposable impediment for use in a
`
`plug, however this disclosure does not contain provision for all of the elements of
`
`claim 7 (14 and 15) regarding an insert with shearable threads for engagement to a
`
`setting tool.
`
`69. In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would not have found it obvious to combine Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, Streich
`
`and McKeachnie to arrive at the claimed invention of claim 15 for at least the
`
`reasons stated herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e. GROUND 5: Proposed rejection of claims 17-19 over the
`combinbation of Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, Slup, and Streich
`
`70. Based on my analysis of Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, Slup and Streich, I
`
`have reached the conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the invention would not have found it obvious to combine the deformable disk of
`
`Lehr with the shear threads of Cockrell and the outer threads of Kristiansen with
`
`the ball of Slup with the valve holder of Streich to arrive at the claimed invention
`
`of the '413 Patent.
`
`71. As described above (see above ¶¶ 23-27) the shearable threads of Cockrell
`
`is not a simple substitution for the deformable disk of Lehr.
`
`72. The deformable disk of Lehr (or plug as Dr. Wooley mistakenly called it)
`
`is already held in place with retaining pins. One of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`not look to Kristiansen for an element to perform a task that is already disclosed in
`
`Lehr.
`
`73. Slup discloses a ball residing in its body. If the embodiment disclosed for
`
`this type of arrangement were employed to Lehr, then Lehr would be inoperable.
`
`The ball located inside the upper end of the body blocks any path for the setting
`
`tool (plunger) to connect to the deformable disk, or insert in the lower end of the
`
`body. Therefore, no one of ordinary skill in the art would, or could apply the Slup
`
`disclosure to the Lehr plug.
`
`74. As described above (see above ¶ 55) Lehr combined with Streich results in
`
`an inoperable plug.
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`75. In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would not have found it obvious, or even possible, to combine Lehr, Cockrell,
`
`Kristiansen, Slup, and Streich to arrive at the claimed invention of the claims 17-19
`
`for at least the reasons stated herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`f. GROUND 6: Proposed rejection of claim 20 over the combination
`of Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, Slup, Streich, and McKeachnie
`
`76. Based on my analysis of Lehr, Cockrell, Kristiansen, Slup, Streich, and
`
`McKeachnie, I have reached the conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the invention would not have found it obvious to combine the
`
`deformable disk of Lehr with the shear threads of Cockrell and the outer threads of
`
`Kristiansen with the ball of Slup with the valve holder of Streich with the
`
`decomposable ball of McKeachnie to arrive at the invention of claim 20 of the '413
`
`Patent.
`
`77. Claim 20 of the '413 Patent includes all of the elements, or limitations, of
`
`claim 17.
`
`78. As described above (see above ¶¶ 23-27) the shearable threads of Cockrell
`
`is not a simple substitution for the deformable disk of Lehr.
`
`DECLARATION OF EXPERT KEVIN TRAHAN – Page 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`79. The deformable disk of Lehr (or plug as Dr. Wooley mistakenly called it)
`
`is already held in place with retaining pins. One of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`not look to Kristiansen for an element to perform a task that is already disclosed in
`
`Lehr.
`
`80. Slup discloses a ball residing in its body. If the embodiment disclosed for
`
`this type o