Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`In re patent of FRAZIER
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,459,346
`
`Issued: June 11, 2013
`
`Title: BOTTOM SET
`DOWNHOLE PLUG
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 2700032-5
`
`Customer No.:
`
`Real Party in Interest: McClinton
`Energy Group, L.L.C.
`
`
`27683
`
`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`I, Gary R. Wooley, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of McClinton Energy
`
`Group L.L.C., in the matter of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No
`
`8,459,346 (“the ‘346 Patent”) to Frazier.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter. My
`
`compensation in no way depends upon the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`(1) The ‘346 Patent, Exhibit 1001;
`
`(2) The prosecution history of the ‘346 Patent, Exhibit 1002;
`
`(3) U.S. Patent No. 8,079,413 (the “‘413 Patent”), Exhibit 1003;
`
`
`
`–1–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`(4) District Court’s Markman Order for ‘346 Patent terms (Dkt. No. 249),
`
`Ex. 1004.
`
`(5) U.S. Patent No. 6,796,376 (the “‘376 Patent”), Exhibit 1005;
`
`(6) U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0151722 to Lehr et al.
`
`(“Lehr”), Exhibit 1006;
`
`(7) Alpha Oil Tools Catalog (“Alpha”), Exhibit 1007;
`
`(8) Clean version of Alpha instructions for wireline equipment, Exhibit
`
`1008;
`
`(9) Clean version of Alpha Standard Frac Plug, Exhibit 1009;
`
`(10) Clean version of Alpha Model “A” Ball Check Cement Retainer,
`
`Exhibit 1010;
`
`(11) U.S. Patent No. 4,595,052 to Kristiansen (“Kristiansen”), Exhibit
`
`1011;
`
`(12) U.S. Patent No. 4,437,516 to Cockrell et al. (“Cockrell”), Exhibit
`
`1012;
`
`(13) U.S. Patent No. 6,708,768 to Slup et al. (“Slup”), Exhibit 1013;
`
`(14) U.S. Patent No. 7,350,582 to McKeachnie et al. (“McKeachnie”),
`
`Exhibit 1014;
`
`(15) U.S. Patent No. 5,224,540 to Streich et al. (“Streich”), Exhibit 1015;
`
`(16) U.S. Patent No. 3,094,166 to McCullough (“McCullough”), Exhibit
`
`
`
`–2–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`1016;
`
`(17) U.S. Patent No. 3,473,609 to Allen ("Allen"), Exhibit 1017;
`
`(18) U.S. Patent No. 7,185,700 to Collins et al. (“Collins”), Exhibit 1018;
`
`(19) U.S. Patent No. 7,021,389 to Bishop et al. (“Bishop”), Exhibit 1019;
`
`(20) U.S. Patent No. 2,714,932 to Thompson (“Thompson”), Exhibit 1020;
`
`(21) U.S. Patent No. 6,902,006 to Myerley et al. (“Myerley”), Exhibit
`
`1021;
`
`(22) U.S. Patent No. 7,428,922 to Fripp et al. (“Fripp”), Exhibit 1022;
`
`(23) U.S. Patent No. 7,762,323 to Frazier (“‘323 Patent”), Exhibit 1023;
`
`(24) MEA Winners: Remediation, Individual Equipment: Python
`
`Composite Bridge Plug, Harts E&P (April 2003) (“Python Composite
`
`Article”), Exhibit 1024;
`
`(25) Baker Hughes youtube video of fracking process, Exhibit 1025; and
`
`(26) October 24, 2011 Examiner’s Comment in ‘413 Patent File History,
`
`Exhibit 1027.
`
`4.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`(1) The documents listed above,
`
`(2) The relevant legal standards, including the standard for obviousness
`
`provided in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and
`
`any additional authoritative documents as cited in the body of this
`
`
`
`–3–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`declaration, and
`
`(3) My knowledge and experience based upon my work in this area as
`
`described below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`–4–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Qualifications and Professional Experience .................................................... 7
`I.
`Relevant Legal Standards ................................................................................ 8
`II.
`III. Background Of ‘346 Patent ............................................................................. 9
`A.
`Background of Fracking Process........................................................... 9
`B. Well Known Prior Art Plug Configuration ......................................... 11
`C. Well Known Prior Art Method for Setting Plugs ............................... 14
`D. Well Known and Interchangeable Prior Art Shearable Release
`Elements .............................................................................................. 15
`E. Well Known Prior Art Method for Flow Control Mechanism ........... 19
`F. Well Known Prior Art Anti-rotation Features For Removal of
`Frac Plugs ............................................................................................ 22
`G. Well Known Prior Art Method for Using Composite Materials ......... 24
`H.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 25
`IV. Challenges showing that the claims of the ‘346 Patent would have
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art ............................................. 26
`Claims 1-38 are anticipated or obvious in view of the teachings
`A.
`of Lehr by itself or in combination with well known elements or
`other prior art references ..................................................................... 26
`CHALLENGE #1: Claims 1-3, 5-21, 23-35, and 37-38
`1.
`are anticipated by Lehr .............................................................. 27
`CHALLENGE #2: Claims 1-38 are obvious over Lehr in
`view of the well known prior art ............................................... 77
`CHALLENGE #3: Claims 1-38 are obvious over Lehr in
`view of Slup .............................................................................. 90
`CHALLENGE #4: Claims 1-38 are obvious over Lehr in
`view of Cockrell ........................................................................ 99
`CHALLENGE #5: Claims 1-38 are obvious over Lehr in
`view of Cockrell and in view of Slup. ....................................105
`CHALLENGE #6: Claims 16, 17, 21-24, 33, 34, 36, 37
`are obvious over Lehr in view of Kristiansen .........................105
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`–5–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`CHALLENGE #7: Claims 1-38 are obvious over Lehr in
`7.
`view of Cockrell and Kristiansen ............................................115
`CHALLENGE #8: Claims 1-38 are obvious over Lehr in
`view of Cockrell, Kristiansen and Slup ..................................116
`CHALLENGE #9: Claim 4 is obvious over Lehr in view
`of Cockrell, Slup and McKeachnie .........................................117
`10. CHALLENGE #10: Claims 21, 22, 36, 37 are obvious
`over Lehr in view of Cockrell, Slup, Kristiansen and
`Streich .....................................................................................121
`Claims 1-38 are obvious in view of the teachings of Alpha in
`combination with other well known prior art references ..................125
`CHALLENGE #11: Claims 1-38 are obvious over Alpha
`1.
`in view of the well known art. ................................................125
`CHALLENGE #12: Claims 1-38 are obvious over Alpha
`in view of Cockrell in view of Slup. .......................................155
`CHALLENGE #13: Claims 16, 17, 21-24, 33, 34, 36,
`and 37 are obvious over Alpha in view of Slup in view of
`Cockrell in view of Kristiansen. .............................................156
`CHALLENGE #14: Claims 21, 22, 36, and 37 are
`obvious over Alpha in view of Slup in view of Cockrell
`in view of Kristiansen in view of Streich. ..............................159
`CHALLENGE #15 Claim 4 is obvious over Alpha in
`view of Cockrell in view of Slup in view of McKeachnie. ....160
`Claims 1-38 are obvious in view of the teachings of Kristiansen
`in combination with other well known prior art references ..............161
`CHALLENGE #16: Claims 1-38 are obvious over
`1.
`Kristiansen in view of Cockrell in view of Slup .....................161
`CHALLENGE #17: Claim 4 is obvious over Kristiansen
`in view of Cockrell, Slup and McKeachnie ............................203
`CHALLENGE #18: Claims 21, 22, 36, 37 are obvious
`over Kristiansen in view of Cockrell, Slup and Streich ..........204
`V. Declaration ...................................................................................................205
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`–6–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`I.
`Qualifications and Professional Experience
`5. My qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a copy of
`
`which is provided as an appendix to this report. As set forth in my curriculum
`
`vitae, I have over 44 years of experience working in the petroleum industry,
`
`including drilling and completing oil and gas wells and hydraulic fracture
`
`stimulation. Part of my 44 years of experience in the petroleum industry includes
`
`27 years as a petroleum and mechanical engineering consultant with Wooley &
`
`Associates, Inc.
`
`6.
`
`I have experience with designing, analyzing, testing, evaluating and
`
`using packers, cement retainers, bridge plugs and frac plugs. Frac plugs are used
`
`during the fracture stimulation of an oil and gas well. In addition I have conducted
`
`failure analyses of frac plugs, and I have served as an expert witness in patent and
`
`trade secret litigation involving frac plugs.
`
`7.
`
`I am familiar with the knowledge and capabilities one of ordinary skill
`
`in the frac plug design and engineering arts in 2008. Specifically, my work (1)
`
`with engineers and others designing and selecting packers, bridge plugs and frac
`
`plugs and (2) with engineers and rig personnel allowed me to become personally
`
`familiar with the level of skill of individuals and the general state of the art.
`
`8.
`
`Unless otherwise stated, my testimony below refers to the knowledge
`
`of one of ordinary skill in the frac plug design and engineering arts during the
`
`
`
`–7–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`2006-2008 time period, prior to the priority date of the ‘346 Patent and the ’497
`
`Frazier application.
`
`9.
`
`In my opinion, the level of ordinary skill in the art for the ‘346 Patent
`
`is a bachelor’s degree in an engineering discipline, such as mechanical
`
`engineering, or equivalent training and experience combined with two years of
`
`work experience with frac plugs used in the fracture stimulation of oil and gas
`
`wells.
`
`II. Relevant Legal Standards
`10.
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the
`
`claims of the ‘346 Patent would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, in light of the prior art. It is my
`
`understanding that, to anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a reference must
`
`teach every element of the claim. Further, it is my understanding that a claimed
`
`invention is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the
`
`invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art to which the subject matter pertains. I also understand that the
`
`obviousness analysis takes into account factual inquiries including the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claimed subject matter.
`
`
`
`–8–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`11.
`It is my understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness
`
`of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the following:
`
`combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results; simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results; a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`
`functions; applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results; choosing from a finite number
`
`of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; and
`
`some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. My analysis of the’346 Patent is set
`
`forth below.
`
`III. Background Of ‘346 Patent
`A. Background of Fracking Process
`12. The ‘346 Patent describes a plug for use in drilling an oil or natural
`
`gas well. For decades, drillers have used plugs in connection with oil and natural
`
`gas wells. More recently, drillers have used these plugs during “fracking”
`
`processes that are behind the recent boom in oil and natural gas extraction.
`
`13. The fracture stimulation process begins with a wellbore drilled deep
`
`
`
`–9–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`into the earth to reach hydrocarbons trapped in shale formations. A “perforating”
`
`gun or other device is then used to create small holes in the wellbore wall to access
`
`the shale formation. These holes are then exposed to high pressure hydraulics that
`
`create large fractures in the shale formations, thus unlocking the oil or natural gas
`
`trapped within. Typically oil and gas operators will fracture stimulate one
`
`productive zone of a wellbore at a time based on the wellbore geometry.
`
`14.
`
`In a horizontal shale well there are often multiple hydraulic fracture
`
`treatments beginning at the bottom / end of the well. A frac plug is set below the
`
`zone to be fractured to control the fluid flow in one or both directions, but usually
`
`to seal off the wellbore below. The production casing is perforated above the frac
`
`plug, and then frac fluid and proppant (in most cases, sand) are pumped through
`
`the perforations to create fractures in the productive formation through which oil
`
`and gas can flow. The frac plug prevents frac fluid and proppant from reaching
`
`casing perforations and zones farther downhole that were previously treated.
`
`15. After the fracture stimulation treatment is finished, the frac fluid is
`
`allowed to flow back from the formation. The process is then repeated by running
`
`another frac plug and setting it above the zone just treated. The plug-perforate-
`
`stimulate process may be repeated a dozen or more times in one horizontal well
`
`drilled through a shale formation. Therefore a dozen or more frac plugs may be
`
`used in one well.
`
`
`
`–10–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`16. After all zones have been fracture stimulated, a drill bit is run on the
`
`end of drill pipe to drill out the frac plugs, exposing all the fracture stimulated
`
`zones to the wellbore for flow of oil and gas to the surface. During the process of
`
`drilling out the plugs, drillers prefer plugs that will drill out in the least amount of
`
`time. As described in more detail below, minimizing the time it takes to drill out
`
`the plugs is a well known consideration.
`
`17. A good description of the fracking process as it existed in 2007/2008
`
`is found on the Baker Hughes video (Ex. 1025), which, according to
`
`www.youtube.com, was uploaded in October 2010. See
`
`http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPgZnZqp87k.
`
`18. Other downhole tools, such as cement retainers and packers are used
`
`during the well completion process. Based on the well conditions, bridge plugs
`
`may be used as part of the fracking process. Accordingly, the components of
`
`packers, cement retainers, frac plugs and bridge plugs are similar.
`
`B. Well Known Prior Art Plug Configuration
`19. The ‘346 Patent (Exhibit 1001) issued on June 11, 2013, on U.S.
`
`Application No. 13/329,077 filed by W. Lynn Frazier, on December 16, 2011,
`
`claiming priority as a continuation of U.S. Application No. 13/194,871, filed on
`
`July 29, 2011, now the ‘413 Patent (Exhibit 1003) which is a continuation-in-part
`
`of U.S. Application No. 12/317,497, filed on December 23, 2008.
`
`
`
`–11–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`20. The ‘346 Patent relates to a “Bottom Set Downhole Plug” (the ‘346
`
`Patent, Title). In general, the ‘346 Patent describes a bottom set downhole frac
`
`plug having standard frac plug components, including a mandrel or body, and
`
`malleable sealing elements that are deformable when axially compressed to
`
`radially expand and seal against an inner wall of a tubular casing, and with slips
`
`which radially expand along a conical member to engage the inner wall of the
`
`casing and secure the plug in place. ‘346 Patent col.5, ll.29-41, col.5, l.66 -
`
`col.6, l.59.
`
`21. Fig. 2A from the ‘346 Patent, annotated below, shows some standard
`
`components of a plug including a body, a malleable or sealing element, slips,
`
`conical members, and a head member with anti-rotation feature found in nearly all
`
`frac plugs and described in the ‘346 Patent:
`
`
`
`–12–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`
`Slip (240)
`
`Slip (245)
`
`Head member (270)
`with anti-rotation
`feature (285)
`
`Body (210)
`
`Conical
`member (230)
`
`Malleable
`element (250)
`
`Conical
`member (235)
`
`Insert (100)
`
`
`
`22. As discussed above, all of the basic plug components mentioned
`
`above are common to these products. A number of the prior art plugs discussed
`
`below including Lehr, Alpha, Kristiansen, Slup, McKeachnie and the ‘376 Patent
`
`contain and show the basic plug elements including a body having a first end and a
`
`
`
`–13–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`second end, at least one slip disposed about the body, at least one conical element
`
`disposed about the body, and at least one sealing/malleable element disposed about
`
`the body. See, e.g.: Alpha, p. 6; Lehr, Fig. 4C, McKeachnie, Fig. 2; ’376 Patent,
`
`Fig. 2; Kristiansen, Fig. 1; and Slup, Fig. 23.
`
`23. Fig. 2A above also shows an insert 100 in the bottom of the frac plug
`
`arranged to connect with and release a setting tool to expand the malleable element
`
`and slips to set the plug in place in the well casing. ‘346 Patent col.9, ll.3-21.
`
`24. Fig. 1A shows the insert 100 in greater detail. ‘346 Patent, Fig. 1A.
`
`25. Fig. 1A, annotated below, shows the insert 100 in greater detail with
`
`elements of the insert 100 described in the ‘346 Patent:
`
`Shearable threads (130)
`
`Outer threads (120)
`
`
`C. Well Known Prior Art Method for Setting Plugs
`26. The process of expanding the plug is called “setting,” and involves a
`
`setting tool exerting a force against the outer, upper end of the plug in a downward
`
`
`
`–14–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`direction which allows the slips and malleable elements to expand and engage the
`
`wellbore. ‘346 Patent col.9, ll.4-21; Ex. 1025.
`
`27. The top end of the setting tool faces uphole and connects to the wire
`
`that lowers equipment down the wellbore. The bottom end is connected to the
`
`plug.
`
`28. For some plugs (called top-set plugs), the setting tool connects near
`
`the top of the plug.
`
`29. For “bottom-set” plugs such as the ones disclosed in at least Lehr,
`
`Alpha and Kristiansen, the setting assembly fits inside a passageway within the
`
`body of the plug and connects to an insert near the bottom of the tool. See, e.g.:
`
`Alpha, p. 6; Lehr, Fig. 4A-C; and Kristiansen, Fig. 1.
`
`30. After firing and setting the plug, the setting tool must be removed
`
`from the plug. In a typical plug, the opposing upward/downward forces that set the
`
`plug are also sufficient to shear the setting tool free from the insert of the plug.
`
`‘346 Patent, col.9, ll.21-36; Ex. 1025.
`
`31. As explained in the next sub-section, prior to the priority date of the
`
`‘346 Patent, there were a variety of well known shearable release mechanisms, and
`
`it was also well known that these could be interchangeable.
`
`D. Well Known and Interchangeable Prior Art Shearable Release
`Elements
`32. Most prior art plugs disclose one or more of the very well known prior
`
`
`
`–15–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`art mechanisms for engaging and releasing a plug, e.g., shearable threads, shear
`
`rings, shear studs, shear screws, shear pins.
`
`33. Prior to the priority date of the ‘346 Patent, I recognized, and others
`
`having ordinary skill in the art recognized that a shear ring that deforms by
`
`shearing at a predetermined force was equivalent to and interchangeable with
`
`threads that deform by shearing at a predetermined force, e.g., shearable threads.
`
`The use of shear threads to release at predetermined forces was well known and
`
`those in the industry knew how to determine shear failure to establish the
`
`predetermined failure limits.
`
`34. The use of shearable threads for plug inserts has been well known in
`
`the industry for at least fifty years prior to the priority date of the ‘346 Patent. For
`
`example, U.S. Patent No. 3,094,166 (“McCullough”), which was filed in 1960,
`
`describes a plug that is connected to a setting tool (a “power tool device”) by insert
`
`57:
`
`
`
`McCullough col.3, ll.9-23, Fig. 3. In McCullough, the plug is set by applying an
`
`upward force to the body of the plug. McCullough col.3, ll.9-23. McCullough
`
`states that after the plug is set, “the shear threads 72 fail, thereby separating the
`
`
`
`–16–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`power tool device from the packer device.” McCullough col.3, ll.22-23.
`
`35. U.S. Patent No. 4,437,516 (“Cockrell”) is another reference that
`
`teaches using shearable threads for a plug insert. Cockrell recites, “a frangible
`
`release member 136 comprising a cylindrical sleeve which includes respective
`
`external and internal threads 138 and 140.” Cockrell, col.5, ll.43-47, Fig. 1c).
`
`36. There are a number of other examples showing that the
`
`interchangeability of the different deformable release mechanisms, e.g. shearable
`
`threads interchanged with shear rings or other shearable elements was well known
`
`in the industry for decades. For example, U.S. Patent No. 3,473,609 to Allen
`
`(“Allen”), which published on October 21, 1969 specifically states that “[i]nsofar
`
`as the choice of a particular shearable member is concerned, the invention is not
`
`restricted to the use of a shear ring 21, and as desired one or more shear pins 37
`
`such as are shown in FIG. 2, or shearable threads 38 as shown in FIG. 3 can be
`
`substituted.” Allen col.4, ll.33-37. U.S. Patent No. 7,185,700 to Collins et al.
`
`(“Collins”) specifically states that any “form[] of shearable members may be
`
`employed in the release member 115, as long as they are capable of shearing at a
`
`predetermined force[, for] example, a threaded connection (not shown) may be
`
`employed.” Collins col. 4, ll. 37-40.
`
`37. Further, U.S. Patent No. 7,021,389 to Bishop et al. (“Bishop”)
`
`indicates that a “shear pin” can be interpreted to include “pins, dogs, threads,
`
`
`
`–17–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`springs, C-ring, solenoids, and other restraining devices.” Bishop col. 8, ll.15-24
`
`(emphasis added). Likewise, U.S. Patent No. 6,902,006 to Myerley et al.
`
`(“Myerley”) discloses shear threads and states that “[o]ther retainers that
`
`selectively release such as shear pins or collets can be used instead of thread 30 as
`
`contemplated in alternative forms of the present invention.” Myerley col. 3, ll.35-
`
`40 (emphasis added). U.S. Patent No. 3,094,166 to McCullough (“McCullough”)
`
`also discloses threads that shear to release a setting tool. McCullough col. 3, ll.9-
`
`23. U.S. Patent No. 7,428,922 to Fripp et al. (“Fripp”) that discloses release
`
`mechanisms relying on “shear pins or the shear of threads.” Fripp col. 7, ll.11-13
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`38. Most importantly, the Patentee has also admitted that replacing a
`
`shear stud release mechanism with a release ring mechanism with shearable
`
`threads would have been a “simple substitution.” Ex. 1002 at p. 61 (February 21,
`
`2013 Response for ‘346 Patent) (“At best, the combination of Baker, Slup, and
`
`McCullough suggests replacing the release mechanism (i.e., the shear stud 43) of
`
`Baker with the release mechanism (i.e., the release ring 57) of McCullough. This
`
`would have been a ‘simple substitution’...”) (emphasis added).
`
`39. Further, during the prosecution of the ‘413 Patent, the Patent Office
`
`has also recognized that interchangeability of these elements is obvious: “[I]t
`
`would have been considered obvious to replace the shear pin of Bonner with
`
`
`
`–18–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`shearable threads, as this would have amounted to simple substitution of well
`
`known equivalent shear release mechanisms.” Ex. 1027 at p. 7 (October 24,
`
`2011 Examiner’s Comments from ‘413 Patent prosecution history).
`
`40.
`
`In addition, the PTO has interpreted any thread to be “shearable
`
`threads.” Ex. 1027 at pp. 6-7 (October 24, 2011 Examiner’s Comments from ‘413
`
`Patent prosecution history) ("Thompson discloses a plug having a body (10), a
`
`malleable element (30, 31), a slip (32), a conical element (33, 34), and an insert
`
`(15). The insert has "shearable" threads on an exterior surface (14) and on an
`
`interior surface (22), the interior threads engaging a setting tool (26). Note that
`
`Thompson does not explicitly state that the threads shear, but examiner interprets
`
`any threaded connection to be shearable since the threads could shear if acted
`
`upon by a large enough force.”).
`
`41. Further, there was a well known preference for certain types of
`
`shearable release mechanisms that would leave less debris in the wellbore after
`
`deforming. A potential problem with using release devices such as a release stud
`
`or shear pin is that debris from the release device remains in the wellbore after the
`
`device has released. Lehr, [0010]. Deformable release mechanisms that provide
`
`less debris after deforming, such as shearable or deformable threads, are preferred.
`
`Lehr, [0013].
`
`E. Well Known Prior Art Method for Flow Control Mechanism
`
`
`
`–19–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`42. Frequently, frac plugs have passageways that allow fluid to flow from
`
`one side of a plug to the other. These passages must be sealed before the
`
`application of hydraulic pressure to restrict flow in at least one direction through
`
`the plug. Typically, these passages are sealed with some type of valve.
`
`43. Valves for sealing the plug or restricting the flow in at least one
`
`direction through the plug were well known prior to the priority date of the ‘346
`
`Patent. It was also well known that these valves could be part of the body or even
`
`used within, or as part of, the insert.
`
`44. Valves such as a flapper valve, cage-ball valve, or ball valve would be
`
`common choices for this use by one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would know that these types of valves were interchangeable, and the
`
`‘346 Patent also recognizes that ball valves and flapper valves are interchangeable.
`
`‘346 Patent col.5, ll.60-65; col.10, ll.3-43.
`
`45. A typical ball valve incorporates dropping a ball from the top of the
`
`wellbore which subsequently seats on a ball seat within or on the plug, creating a
`
`one-way flow valve. The ball prevents fluid above the plug from flowing through
`
`the plug, but allows fluid to flow upward through the plug. See also, Slup col.7,
`
`ll.9-14. These plugs are called “ball drop” plugs. The Alpha standard frac plug is
`
`an example of a ball drop plug and discloses a well known ball valve:
`
`
`
`–20–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`
`Ex. 1007, p.6.
`
`46. McKeachnie also shows a prior art ball valve located inside the plug:
`
`
`
`
`
`McKeachnie, Fig. 1.
`
`47. These ball valves were well known in the art, and McKeachnie further
`
`discloses that it was well know that the balls used in the ball valves may be
`
`degradable or decomposable under predetermined well conditions.
`
`48. Depending on the well conditions, fracking processes use a number of
`
`different flow control mechanisms. Frequently, the processes require sealing fluid
`
`passages temporarily for fracking and subsequently allowing the fluid passage to
`
`open. Degradable balls as discussed in McKeachnie were common in the art as
`
`ways to control flow by opening previously closed passages.
`
`49. Other types of valves were well known in the art. It was well known
`
`that these valves or modified inserts could be used as flow control mechanisms
`
`
`
`–21–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`including for restricting flow in at least the downhole direction to allow the uphole
`
`zone to be isolated and/or fracked. For example, Lehr discloses a flapper valve
`
`that controls the fluid flow through the passage. In addition, Kristiansen discloses
`
`inserts of various geometries, some that have valves and others that include a
`
`blocked passageway which completely prevent fluid flow through a bore such as a
`
`bridge plug or bull plug configuration.
`
`50. As noted above, it was also well known that these different flow
`
`control mechanisms were interchangeable.
`
`F. Well Known Prior Art Anti-rotation Features For Removal of
`Frac Plugs
`51. As noted above, drillers must remove plugs by drilling through them
`
`to allow oil and gas to flow to the surface. This milling (or drilling) process works
`
`well as long as the slips anchor the plug inside the wellbore.
`
`52. After the tool cuts through the slips, however, the remaining bottom
`
`end of the plug is free to move through the well casing and is difficult, if not
`
`impossible to drill/mill until its rotation is stopped by the next plug below.
`
`53.
`
`It has long been very well known in the art that the top end of a
`
`downhole plug should interlock with the bottom end of an uphole plug to prevent it
`
`from rotating during the milling process.
`
`54. The ends of the plugs include what are referred to as “anti-rotation”
`
`features. Preventing rotation is important because the milling tool cannot
`
`
`
`–22–
`
`MEGCO Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley
`________________________________________________________________________
`effectively cut through a rotating plug head. Anti-rotation features were well
`
`known in the prior art for many years and minimize time to drill out the plugs.
`
`55. For example, the Patentee’s own prior patent (the ‘376 Patent)
`
`discloses and claims a specific anti-rotation feature. ‘376 Patent col.3, ll.22-26).
`
`Kristiansen, Slup, and Lehr also disclose a variety of anti-rotation features and all
`
`of these prevent rotation of materials during the drill out process. Kristiansen
`
`col.6, ll.40-46, Fig. 1; Slup Fig. 24; Lehr Fig. 4C.
`
`56. The anti-rotation feature of Lehr and Slup includes complementary
`
`slanted end