throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Ian Donald, et al.
`In re Patent of:
`8,776,893 Attorney Docket No.: 29188-0025IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`July 15, 2014
`
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 13/591,443
`
`Filing Date:
`August 22, 2012
`
`Title:
`APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING
`FLUIDS FROM A WELL
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT HERRMANN
`
`I.
`
`Personal Work Experience and Awards
`
`1. My name is Robert P. Herrmann. I am currently an industry
`
`consultant in the field of offshore oil operations and a Licensed Professional
`
`Engineer. In addition to the below summary, a copy of my current curriculum vitae
`
`more fully setting forth my experiences and qualifications is submitted herewith as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`2.
`
`I have more than 42 years of professional experience in Mechanical
`
`Engineering, particularly in the area of offshore oil operations. I received a B.S. in
`
`Mechanical Engineering from the University of Houston in 1972 and a M.S. in
`
`Mechanical Engineering from the University of Houston in 1973. Further, I have
`
`authored numerous published technical papers, delivered lectures and moderated
`
`professional conferences in the area of offshore oil operations. In 2015, I was
`
`inducted into the Ocean Energy Offshore Hall of Fame.
`
`Page 1 of 28
`
`FMC 1003
`
`

`
`3.
`
`From 1973-1990, I held various positions with Sonat Offshore
`
`Drilling, working on several deep water design projects including all aspects of
`
`offshore oil operations. From 1973-1976, I was Project Manager for the design and
`
`construction of the Discoverer Seven Seas deep water drillship. From 1976 to
`
`1977, I was Technical Supervisor, managing operation of a dynamically positioned
`
`drillship, identifying and developing solutions to technical issues. From 1977 to
`
`1979, I was Engineering Manager and Managing Director for Sonat’s foreign
`
`branch. From 1979 to 1984, I was Division Manager, Discoverer Seven Seas,
`
`managing all aspects of offshore operations for a dynamically positioned drilling
`
`vessel, including developing new operations and techniques to improve
`
`performance and efficiency in deepwater operations. From 1984 to 1985, I was
`
`Operations Manager-Contracts, providing technical and operational input for all
`
`project bids. From 1985 to 1988, I was Senior Contracts and Sales Representative,
`
`directing engineering, planning and supervision of offshore operation for various
`
`deepwater installations. From 1989 to 1990, I was International Contracts & Sales
`
`Manager, managing bids internationally.
`
`4.
`
`In 1991, I served as a consultant to Conoco, Wilrig, Huthnance and
`
`Odfjell in the area of offshore oil operations.
`
`5.
`
`From 1991 to 1993 I was General Manager at Wilrig, running a two
`
`rig deep water drilling operation off Brazil.
`
`Page 2 of 28
`
`

`
`6.
`
`From 1993 to 2015, I served as a Consult in the field of offshore oil
`
`operations to a number of companies including BPAmoco, Transocean, Repsol,
`
`Encana, Petrobras, Japan Drilling Co. and Cobalt International, providing expertise
`
`in areas such as flow assurance and field development concepts, running flowlines
`
`and other subsea equipment from drillships, drillship design, field development,
`
`well extension, and subsea tree and jumper design, installation and operation.
`
`7.
`
`In 1990, I served as an expert witness in a dispute involving
`
`ConocoPhillips and Reading & Bates Corporation in the field of offshore oil
`
`operations.
`
`8.
`
`Throughout my career, I have been actively involved in numerous
`
`professional organizations. I was the Session Chairman/Session Moderator for the
`
`Deep Ocean Technology Conferences in Spain (1981), Malta (1983), Italy (1985),
`
`and Monaco (1987). I was a member of the American Bureau of Shipping British
`
`Technical Committee and United States Congressional Committee of the Office of
`
`Technology Assessment - Subcommittee for Deepwater Drilling Evaluation.
`
`9.
`
`Based on my above-described 42 years of experience in Mechanical
`
`Engineering in the area of offshore oil operations, and the acceptance of my
`
`publications and professional recognition by societies in my field, I believe that I
`
`am considered to be an expert in the field of offshore oil operations.
`
`Page 3 of 28
`
`

`
`II. Materials Considered
`
`10.
`
`In writing this Declaration, I have considered the following: my own
`
`knowledge and experience, including my work experience in the field of offshore
`
`oil operations; my industry experience this field; and my experience in working
`
`with others involved in this field. I have also analyzed the following publications
`
`and materials, in addition to other materials I cite in my declaration:
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 8,776,893 and its accompanying prosecution history (“the
`
`’893 Patent”, Exs. 1001, 1002)
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 4,589,493 (“Kelly”, Ex. 1004)
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 2,638,917 (“Clair”, Ex. 1005)
`
` WO 00/47864 (“Andersen”, Ex. 1006)
`
`11.
`
`I am not currently and have not at any time in the past been an
`
`employee of FMC, Inc. I have been engaged in the present matter to provide my
`
`independent analysis of the issues raised in the petition for inter partes review of
`
`the ’893 Patent. I received no compensation for this declaration beyond my normal
`
`hourly compensation based on my time actually spent studying the matter, and my
`
`compensation does not depend on the outcome of this inter partes review of the
`
`’893 Patent.
`
`Page 4 of 28
`
`

`
`III. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`12.
`
`I am familiar with the content of the ’893 Patent. Additionally, I have
`
`reviewed the other references cited above in this declaration. Counsel has informed
`
`me that I should consider these materials through the lens of one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art related to the ’893 Patent at the time of the invention, which for the
`
`purposes of this analysis I am treating as 2007 (although in many cases the same
`
`analysis would hold true even a year or two or more earlier). I believe that a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art of the ’893 Patent (“POSITA”) would have had a
`
`Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering with at least two years of
`
`related work experience in subsea oil and gas production systems. Individuals with
`
`different education and additional experience could still be of ordinary skill in the
`
`art if that additional experience compensates for a deficit in their education stated
`
`above. I base my evaluation of a person of ordinary skill in this art on my own
`
`personal experience, including my knowledge of colleagues and related
`
`professionals at the time of interest.
`
`IV. Claim Construction
`
`13.
`
`I understand that, for the purposes of my analysis in this matter, the
`
`claims of the ’893 Patent must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`consistent with the specification. Stated another way, it is contemplated that the
`
`claims are understood by their broadest reasonable interpretation except where
`
`Page 5 of 28
`
`

`
`construed in the specification. I also understand that this “broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation” is with respect to how one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`interpret the claim language. I have followed these principles in my analysis. In a
`
`few instances, I have discussed my understanding of the claims in the relevant
`
`paragraphs below.
`
`V. Christmas trees are used in a subsea environment.
`
`14. Subsea Christmas trees having subsea production flowlines were well
`
`known and deeply rooted in the oil and gas field by 2007. For example, Kelly and
`
`Andersen each discuss subsea Christmas trees with subsea production flowlines.
`
`See, e.g., Kelly at 2:16-33, see also “Christmas tree 18” of Figs. 1 and 2; see also
`
`Andersen at: 21:16-20, see also “christmas tree 242” of Fig. 24. I have personally
`
`had experience with subsea trees and subsea production flowlines dating back into
`
`the 1980s. Thus, the person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that
`
`these generic elements, such as trees and flowlines, could be integrated in a subsea
`
`installation using routine techniques and associated components. The adaptations
`
`necessary to do so were conventional and well within the ordinary skill of the time.
`
`VI. A production choke is a processing apparatus.
`
`15. A choke is a type of valve that controls fluid flow by constricting a
`
`flow area. Kelly’s choke, for example, constricts the flow area between a valve
`
`member 80 and a valve seat 78. Kelly at 1:43-54; 2:66-3:9; 3:13-19. Thus, the
`
`Page 6 of 28
`
`

`
`valve member 80 of the subsea choke assembly 26 is adjustable to control the fluid
`
`flow, and therefore the pressure of production fluids. As such, Kelly’s subsea
`
`choke assembly 26 is a “processing apparatus,” because it processes fluid by
`
`affecting (e.g., reducing) fluid flow and pressure. Indeed, chokes are routinely
`
`used to reduce the pressure of the fluids produced from a high pressure wellbore.
`
`Thus, a choke can be considered a specific type of processing apparatus – namely,
`
`a “pressure regulation apparatus” as referred to in claim 7 and elsewhere in the
`
`’893 patent. Clair similarly describes a choke that constricts the flow area between
`
`a choke seat 15 and a moving valve 16. Clair at 4:27-59.
`
`16.
`
`It is also important to appreciate that oil wells or gas wells do not
`
`typically produce just oil or gas, but rather produce a multiphase fluid that is some
`
`part oil, some part gas and some part other constituents (e.g., water or sand). The
`
`pressure drop through a choke flashes the multiphase fluid, changing its ratio of oil
`
`and gas, as well as decreasing the temperature of the multiphase fluid. In fact,
`
`Clair’s choke is specifically designed to reduce hydrate formation and freezing of
`
`the multiphase fluid resulting from the temperature drop. Clair at 1:6-14. Indeed,
`
`according to Clair, production fluid that flows through the inner expansion
`
`chamber 12 is warmed by production fluid flow through the concentric outer
`
`warming chamber 5. Clair at 1:22-31 and 5:15-51. Thus, Clair’s reduction choke
`
`Page 7 of 28
`
`

`
`provides a processing apparatus operable to regulate the temperature, pressure, and
`
`fluid flow parameters of flowing production fluid.
`
`17. Freezing, and more acutely, hydrate formation is a formidable
`
`problem faced by the designers of subsea well systems, because the downstream
`
`choke pressure of subsea wells is higher due to the hydrostatic pressure in the
`
`flowline riser and the cooler temperatures at the seabed. Clair’s non-freezing
`
`reduction choke is well suited for a subsea environment, as it addresses the
`
`freezing and hydrate formation experienced subsea. Thus, one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would readily apply Clair’s non-freezing reduction choke to a subsea tree.
`
`VII. Kelly
`
`18. Kelly described a “subsea wellhead production apparatus including a
`
`retrievable subsea choke.” Kelly at Abstract. The choke is independently landable
`
`on, and retrievable from, subsea wellhead equipment (e.g., a subsea Christmas
`
`tree) as a pre-packaged assembly (choke assembly 26). Kelly at 1:60-65; see also
`
`Fig. 1. To say that something is “landable on” and “retrivable” from a tree
`
`indicates that it is configured to be installed and removed from the tree while the
`
`tree is installed on the well. Kelly’s apparatus includes a Christmas tree 18
`
`connected to the upper end of the well casing 12 that receives production fluid
`
`from the well in a production bore (often called a “trunk”). Kelly at 2:16-22. As
`
`shown in Figs. 1 and 2 of Kelly, a laterally oriented port of the trunk leads to a sub-
`
`Page 8 of 28
`
`

`
`assembly of production branch components including a fluid line 20. Kelly at
`
`2:22-25. The production branch also includes a production wing valve (not
`
`numbered or discussed, but represented schematically in Kelly’s Fig. 1 by
`
`concentric circles) located immediately adjacent the lateral port of the tree trunk.
`
`The wing valve’s actuator is shown extending towards the bottom of the page in
`
`Kelly’s Fig. 2, where the leader for reference number 18 points. These lateral
`
`production branch components are directly attached to the tree 18, and form a
`
`production fluid flowpath extending from the trunk of the tree 18 to the choke
`
`assembly 26. So, considered collectively, these components (i.e., the Christmas
`
`tree 18 and the line 20) provide “a subsea tree,” with the branch components
`
`providing a “production line” of the subsea tree.
`
`19. Another fluid line 24 extends from the collet body 22 to a subsea
`
`flowline. Kelly at 2:22-25. Both the line 24 and the subsea flowline to which it
`
`extends are downstream fluid conduits that receive fluids produced from the
`
`wellbore and processed by the choke assembly 26 mounted to the “subsea tree.”
`
`As such, the line 24 and the subsea flowline are each “production flowlines.”
`
`Thus, Kelly’s choke assembly 26 is capable of being mounted between an
`
`upstream “subsea tree” and a downstream “production flowline.” In fact, this is
`
`the exact arrangement shown in Figs. 1 and 2 of Kelly.
`
`Page 9 of 28
`
`

`
`
`
`20. The choke assembly 26 includes a choke body 30, a remotely
`
`controlled collet connector 28, and a choke actuator 36.” Kelly at 2:34-37. A
`
`collet flange 32 surrounds the lower surface 34 of the choke body 30. The choke
`
`body 30 itself includes a valve chamber 76 defining a valve seat 78 for receiving a
`
`valve member 80, with the valve member 80 mounted to move towards and away
`
`from the valve seat 78 to control the flow of production fluids. Kelly at 2:66 to
`
`3:4; see also Fig. 3. The choke assembly 26, which as I noted above is
`
`independently landable on, and retrievable from the “subsea tree” as a package,
`
`provides a “module.” And the choke body 30, the valve member 80, and other
`
`associated components provide a “production choke” included in the pre-packaged
`
`module. Notably, while Kelly’s retrievable module includes a production choke
`
`including a valve member 80, it does not include a production wing valve. Instead,
`
`Page 10 of 28
`
`

`
`as I discussed above, Kelly’s wing valve is integrated on the production branch of
`
`the Christmas tree 18.
`
`21. As I discussed in detail above, the “production choke” functions as
`
`“processing apparatus” that processes production fluid by regulating fluid flow rate
`
`and pressure. The module and its packaged components (including the
`
`components forming the production choke/processing apparatus) are “on the
`
`production flowline,” when the choke assembly 26 is landed on the collet body 22.
`
`Here, the module’s production choke would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art as being “on the production flowline” from two perspectives – first, the
`
`production choke is physically coupled to the production flowlines via the collet
`
`body 22, and second, it is placed in the flowpath leading to the production
`
`flowlines via the collet body 22. The production choke would also be interpreted
`
`by the person of ordinary skill as being “disposed on the subsea tree,” because the
`
`choke is physically supported on tree’s lateral branch and receives fluid flow from
`
`the tree via the collet body 22.
`
`22. As shown in Kelly’s Fig. 3, when the choke assembly 26 is landed on
`
`the collet body 22 of the Christmas tree 18, the internal fluid passages 64 and 66 of
`
`the collet body 22 are aligned with the internal fluid passages 68 and 70 of the
`
`choke body 30. Kelly at 2:58-65. Through this alignment, the choke body 30 is
`
`placed in fluid communication with the “production line” (i.e., the fluid line 20 and
`
`Page 11 of 28
`
`

`
`the collet body 22) via passages 68 and 64, and the “production flowlines” (i.e., the
`
`fluid line 24 and the subsea flowline) via passages 70 and 66.
`
`23. As I noted above, the collet body 22 is part of a lateral production
`
`branch extending from the trunk of the Christmas tree 18. Therefore, when the
`
`choke body 30 is aligned with the collet body 22, the sealing means and the sleeve
`
`84 are disposed on a lateral branch of the “subsea tree.” Here, these sealing means
`
`would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art as being “disposed on the
`
`lateral branch” from two perspectives – first, they are physically supported on the
`
`branch via the collet body 22, and second, they receive flow from the branch via
`
`the collet body 22.
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 28
`
`

`
`24. The choke body 30 includes an inlet 68, passages 94 and 74 leading
`
`from the inlet 68 to a valve chamber 76, and an outlet 70 leading from the valve
`
`chamber. Kelly at 2:66 to 3:19. When the choke body 30 has been landed on the
`
`collet body 22, and the respective fluid passages are aligned (as I discussed above),
`
`the inlet 68, passages 94 and 74, valve chamber 76 and outlet 70 form a fluid flow
`
`passageway for conveying production fluid from the collet body 22 through the
`
`choke body 30. As a practical matter, because the choke assembly 26 is located in
`
`Kelly’s apparatus between the “subsea tree” and the “production flowline” (see
`
`discussion above and Kelly’s Figs. 1 and 2), there can be no fluid communication
`
`between these upstream and downstream components without the choke assembly
`
`26 being landed on the collet body 22. Stated simply, when Kelly’s subsea choke
`
`assembly 26 is connected on the collet body 22, it completes the fluid path between
`
`the tree and the production flowline. Kelly at 2:16-33. Accordingly, the subsea
`
`choke assembly 26 provides access to the upstream “subsea tree” (via the collet
`
`body 22) by various other downstream “members” of the installation, such as the
`
`subsea flowline and any other components connected to the subsea flowline,
`
`including the production platform. Kelly at 1:7-10 and 1:20-24.
`
`VIII. Kelly and Andersen
`
`25. Both Kelly and Andersen described subsea installations featuring
`
`retrievable choke components. As previously discussed, Kelly described a subsea
`
`Page 13 of 28
`
`

`
`wellhead production apparatus including a retrievable subsea choke assembly 26,
`
`which is mountable between an upstream subsea tree and a downstream flowline.
`
`Kelly’s apparatus further includes a collet body 22 and associated seal assemblies
`
`that provide the necessary components for fluidically coupling the choke assembly
`
`26 between a “subsea tree” and a “production flowline.” Similar to Kelly,
`
`Andersen described a subsea completion apparatus including a wellhead and a flow
`
`control package removably located externally of the wellhead. Andersen at 4:6-8
`
`and 16:10-17. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`immediately recognize that the apparatus described by Andersen is designed to
`
`function very similarly to Kelly’s. For example, the flow control package is
`
`described by Andersen as comparable component to Kelly’s subsea choke
`
`assembly. In fact, Andersen’s flow control package would be considered an
`
`upgraded unit, including not only a production choke, but also any other
`
`processing equipment needed to control or monitor flowing production fluid.
`
`Andersen at 5:29 to 6:9. For example, the flow control package may include “flow
`
`meters, detectors, sensors and chemical injection ports.” Andersen at 6:7-9. Like
`
`Kelly’s choke assembly 26, Andersen’s flow control package 83 carrying the
`
`production choke is structurally integrated into the subsea apparatus between an
`
`upstream production line leading from the main bore of the tree and a downstream
`
`flowline, such that these upstream and downstream components are only in fluid
`
`Page 14 of 28
`
`

`
`communication when the module is installed. Further, similar to Kelly’s
`
`description of the subsea choke assembly 26, Andersen’s flow control package 83
`
`is shown in Fig. 17 as being installed offset from the main bore of the wellhead 10
`
`and disposed on a lateral branch. Andersen at 16:16:10.
`
`26. Andersen’s flow control package 83 is coupled at one end to the
`
`wellhead 10 via a hub connector 84, which is complementary to a corresponding
`
`wellhead hub connector 34. Andersen at 16:10-17; see also 10:9-15, 11:20-21, and
`
`12:30 to 13:4. The flow control package 83 is coupled at an opposite end to a
`
`downstream flowline 178 via a flowline connector 180. Andersen at 16:18-21.
`
`Further, while not shown in the illustrative Figure 17, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would certainly appreciate that Andersen’s flowline 178 also includes a
`
`corresponding hub for coupling with the flowline connector 180 to provide a
`
`connection between the flowline 178 and the flow control package 83. Thus,
`
`Andersen provides a module including a “production line connector” and
`
`“production flowline connector,” along with corresponding “hubs” on the upstream
`
`production line a downstream flowline for mating with those connectors.
`
`Page 15 of 28
`
`

`
`
`
`27. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, in view
`
`of Andersen, to provide a module mountable between an upstream subsea tree and
`
`a downstream production flowline with connectors and hubs at opposing sides of
`
`the module, in lieu of Kelly’s arrangement with both connectors near the same
`
`location at the lower end of the module. For example, the person of ordinary skill
`
`would have been motivated to modify Kelly’s choke assembly 26 to include the
`
`production line and production flowline connectors on opposing sides of the
`
`module, because the modified arrangement provides a predictable improvement to
`
`the choke assembly. The skilled person would have recognized that such a
`
`modification would have maintained the benefits achieved by Kelly – a pre-
`
`packaged module independently landable on, and retrievable from, a subsea tree –
`
`Page 16 of 28
`
`

`
`and provided the further benefit of increased flexibility, allowing the subsea
`
`flowline to be connected and disconnected from the module separately from
`
`connecting and disconnecting the module from the tree. Such separate
`
`connectablity would facilitate installation of the system by allowing the tree,
`
`module and flowline to be installed as smaller, more easily handled, separate
`
`pieces. As another example, the ordinarily skilled person would have considered
`
`modifying Kelly’s apparatus by simply substituting the entire subsea choke
`
`assembly 26 of Kelly with the entire flow control package 83 of Andersen –
`
`including, of course, the requisite hubs and connectors. Here, the person of
`
`ordinary skill would have been motivated to pursue this substitution in order to
`
`obtain the added functionality provided by Andersen’s upgraded flow package 83,
`
`which includes further processing apparatuses – e.g., one or more flow monitoring
`
`devices that would enable more precise control of the choke because fluid flow and
`
`pressure parameters would be known.
`
`28. A further modification of Kelly’s choke assembly 26 in view of
`
`Andersen that would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would be to simply upgrade the choke assembly by incorporating one or more flow
`
`measuring devices (e.g., flow meters, detectors, and/or sensors – see Andersen at
`
`6:7-9). Historically (and well before 2007), pressure drop across a choke was used
`
`to measure the flow rate of production fluid at the discharge end of the choke.
`
`Page 17 of 28
`
`

`
`Indeed, those of skill in the art would appreciate that it would be very difficult to
`
`operate a subsea adjustable choke without flow measuring devices. Thus, the
`
`ordinarily skilled person would have plainly foreseen the predictable improvement
`
`of Kelly’s choke assembly 26 by incorporating the further measurement
`
`functionality of Andersen’s flow control package 83. Indeed, providing the
`
`additional flow meters, detectors and sensors described by Anderson, would enable
`
`more precise control of Kelly’s production choke, because fluid flow and pressure
`
`parameters would be known. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan considering
`
`the modification of Kelly in view of Andersen would position the flow
`
`measurement devices within the subsea choke assembly in order to facilitate
`
`convenient retrieval of these relatively delicate devices for repair or replacement.
`
`Indeed, Kelly discussed that subsea choke assembly is installed or retrieved
`
`independently of other completion components specifically to facilitate repair or
`
`replacement. Kelly 1:6-34. As such, the person of ordinary skill would likewise
`
`position one or more flow-monitoring devices directly on the subsea choke
`
`assembly described by Kelly, so that the device can be conveniently installed and
`
`retrieved as a comprehensive and self-contained modular package.
`
`IX. Clair
`
`29. Clair described a non-freezing reduction choke for use in oil and gas
`
`well systems. Clair at 1:1-5. As shown in Figures 2 and 6 of Clair, the non-
`
`Page 18 of 28
`
`

`
`freezing reduction choke (which provides a “processing apparatus,” as I discussed
`
`above) can be applied to a Christmas tree 31 of an oil or gas well as a pre-packaged
`
`“module” Kelly at 23-31 and Clair 5:52-56. As shown in Fig. 6, the tree 31
`
`includes a production bore (or “trunk”) and a wing branch including a production
`
`wing valve extending laterally from the trunk (similar to Kelly’s tree 18). The
`
`production wing valve is shown in Clair’s Figure 6 as a circular structure located
`
`on the branch (and therefore, not on the reduction choke/module) immediately
`
`adjacent a lateral port of the trunk. The wing branch receives production fluid
`
`from the trunk, and therefore provides a “production line.” In this arrangement,
`
`the reduction choke receives fluid from the production line of the tree 31 and
`
`discharges the fluid through a discharge pipe 14. Clair at 5:9-15. In my opinion,
`
`the Christmas tree 31 corresponds to a “subsea tree” and the discharge pipe 14
`
`corresponds to a “subsea production flowline.” As I discussed above, subsea trees
`
`having subsea production flowlines were well known and deeply rooted in the oil
`
`and gas field by 2007. So, even though Clair is silent as to whether the Christmas
`
`tree 31 and discharge pipe 14 are deployed in a “subsea” environment or on land,
`
`the person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement
`
`Clair’s non-freezing reduction choke in a subsea installation including a subsea
`
`tree and a subsea flowline/discharge pipe. Moreover, as Clair’s non-freezing
`
`reduction choke addresses hydrate formation in the production fluids (freezing),
`
`Page 19 of 28
`
`

`
`problems often encountered when producing from subsea wells, the person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have particularly sought to implement Clair’s non-
`
`freezing reduction choke on a subsea tree with a subsea production flowline.
`
`
`
`30. Clair’s modular reduction choke includes an inlet connection 4
`
`coupled to the laterally extending production line of the tree 31. Clair at 4:5-8 and
`
`5:53-56. Therefore, the inlet connection 4 provides a “production line connector”
`
`that is disposed on a lateral branch of the tree. The reduction choke further
`
`includes a header 7 coupled to the discharge pipe 14 (i.e., the “production
`
`flowline”). Clair at 4:5-8 and 5:53-56. Therefore, the header 7 provides a
`
`Page 20 of 28
`
`

`
`“production flowline connector.” Similar to the discussion above regarding Kelly,
`
`Clair’s inlet connection 4 (i.e., the “production line connector”) would be
`
`interpreted by one or ordinary skill in the art as being “disposed on the lateral
`
`branch,” because it is physically coupled to the branch and also receives fluid flow
`
`from the branch. Clair’s Figure 7 illustrates complementary hub structures that
`
`mate with the inlet connection 4 and header 7 to provide respective couplings for
`
`conveying fluid from the subsea tree to the reduction choke, and from the
`
`reduction choke to the production flowline.
`
`31. As previously discussed, Clair’s apparatus includes a non-freezing
`
`reduction choke coupled between a subsea tree 31 and a discharge pipe 14
`
`providing a downstream flowline extending from the tree. Similar to Kelly’s
`
`choke assembly 26, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the reduction
`
`choke as being “on the production flowline,” because it is physically coupled to the
`
`discharge pipe 7 and placed in a flowpath leading to the production flowpath (as
`
`discussed below). The reduction choke would also be interpreted by the ordinarily
`
`skilled person as being “disposed on the subsea tree,” because the choke is
`
`physically coupled to the tree’s lateral branch and receives fluid flow from the tree
`
`via the inlet connection 4.
`
`32. Figure 7 of Clair depicts a serious of arrows illustrating the fluid
`
`flowpath through the choke. As shown, Clair’s reduction choke receives
`
`Page 21 of 28
`
`

`
`production fluid from the tree at the inlet connection 4 of the cylindrical warming
`
`chamber 5. Clair at 4:74 to 5:15. The production fluid is then directed in a spiral
`
`path around the tubular expansion chamber 12 by the spiral baffle 11 and received
`
`by the turn tube 10. Clair at 4:74 to 5:15. The turn tube 10 conveys the fluid into
`
`the choke cylinder 8 where it is introduced to the choke valve 16. Clair at 4:74 to
`
`5:15. After passing through the choke valve 16, the fluid is directed to the
`
`discharge pipe 14 via the expansion chamber 12. Clair at 4:74 to 5:15. Again,
`
`similar to Kelly’s choke assembly 26, Clair’s reduction choke is structurally
`
`integrated into the apparatus between an upstream production line leading from the
`
`main bore of the tree and a downstream flowline, meaning that the fluid flow
`
`passageway through the reduction choke provides the only fluid communication
`
`between the tree 31 and the discharge pipe 14, and fluid communication is only
`
`possible when the reduction choke is installed. Further, because the reduction
`
`choke completes the fluid path between the upstream tree and the downstream
`
`flowline, it provides access to the tree by various other downstream “members” of
`
`the installation (e.g., the flowline itself and other downstream structures).
`
`X. Clair and Andersen
`
`33. Both Kelly and Andersen described completion apparatuses featuring
`
`modular choke components that are offset from the production bore of the tree. As
`
`previously discussed, the apparatus described by Clair includes a non-freezing
`
`Page 22 of 28
`
`

`
`reduction choke coupled between a tree 31 and a discharge pipe 14. Similar to
`
`Clair, Andersen described a completion apparatus featuring a flow control package
`
`located between a wellhead and a flowline. Andersen at 4:6-8 and 16:10-17.
`
`34. Andersen further described a manifold 162 downstream of a flow
`
`control package 82 that has access to a wellhead 10 via a jumper 166 connecting
`
`the manifold 162 to the flow control package 82. Andersen at 16:1-8; see also Fig.
`
`16. This downstream manifold 162 is “member” of the completion apparatus that
`
`is separate and distinct from the “module” (i.e., the flow control package 82), yet
`
`has access to the wellhead 10 through a physical connection with the module.
`
`Indeed, such multi-module configurations were commonly used in subsea wellhead
`
`installations prior to 2006, and it would have been obvious to provide a second
`
`module (e.g., a manifold downstream of Clair’s reduction choke in view of the
`
`disclosure of Andersen. In my opinion, the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have plainly recognized that modifying Clair’s apparatus to include the
`
`manifold 162 and the jumper 166 as taught by Andersen is merely a combination
`
`of well-known subsea installation components that perform the same function in
`
`combination as they did separately. Indeed, the ordinarily skilled person would
`
`have appreciated that this routine combination of conventional components would
`
`be an obvious way to improve the performance of the apparatus described by Clair,
`
`because it permits production fluid from multiple wells in a field to be gathered at
`
`Page 23 of 28
`
`

`
`a common manifold hub after local fluid processing at has been completed at the
`
`individual wells. Accordingly, Andersen notes that one favored solution is where
`
`several single wells are drilled and completed with respective flowlines extending
`
`to a centrally located manifold unit placed on the seabed. Andersen at 2:11-19.
`
`35. Similar to Kelly’s choke assembly 26, a further modification of
`
`Clair’s reduction choke in view of Andersen that would have been obvious to the
`
`person of ordina

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket