throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Ian Donald, et al.
`In re Patent of:
`8,540,018 Attorney Docket No.: 29188-0024IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`September 24, 2013
`
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 13/536,433
`
`Filing Date:
`June 28, 2012
`
`Title:
`APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR RECOVERING
`FLUIDS FROM A WELL AND/OR INJECTING FLUIDS
`INTO 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 44
`
`1
`
`FMC 1003
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 1
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`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 44
`
`2
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 2
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`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 44
`
`3
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 3
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`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. 8,540,018 and its accompanying prosecution history (“the
`
`’018 Patent”, Exs. 1001, 1002)
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 4,589,493 (“Kelly”, Ex. 1004)
`
` U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2002/0070026 (“Fenton”, Ex. 1005)
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,481,504 (“Gatherar”, Ex. 1006)
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 5,010,956 (“Bednar”, Ex. 1007)
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 4,190,114 (“Fisher”, Ex. 1008)
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 8,776,893 (“Donald”, Ex. 1010)
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 2,638,917 (“Clair”, Ex. 1011)
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,782,949 (“Cove”, Ex. 1012)
`
`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 ’018 Patent. I received no compensation for this declaration beyond my normal
`
`Page 4 of 44
`
`4
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 4
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`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
`
`’018 Patent.
`
`III. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`12.
`
`I am familiar with the content of the ’018 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 ’018 Patent at the time of the invention, which for the
`
`purposes of this analysis I am treating as 2004 (although in many cases the same
`
`analysis would hold true even at an earlier time). I believe that a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the ’018 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.
`
`Page 5 of 44
`
`5
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 5
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`IV. Claim Construction
`
`13.
`
`I understand that, for the purposes of my analysis in this matter, the
`
`claims of the ‘018 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
`
`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. Kelly
`
`14. Kelly describes a subsea system, and in particular, “subsea wellhead
`
`production apparatus including a retrievable subsea choke.” Kelly, Abstract. The
`
`choke is landable and retrievable. Kelly, 1:60-65. A choke is a type of valve that
`
`controls the flow by constricting a flow area. Historically, pressure drop across a
`
`choke was used to measure the flow rate.
`
`15. Kelly’s system includes a manifold that communicates with the bore
`
`of the well. In particular, Kelly describes a “Christmas tree 18.” Kelly 2:21-22. A
`
`Christmas tree can be called a manifold, and typically includes a production branch
`
`and an annulus branch in communication with the well bore. This is true of Kelly’s
`
`Page 6 of 44
`
`6
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 6
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`tree. The tubing defining the production and annulus branches of Kelly’s tree are
`
`unnumbered, but shown extending left to right in FIG. 2. Kelly shows a “subsea
`
`choke assembly 26” on the production branch. The production and annulus
`
`branches are called “branches,” because they are like branches of a tree that branch
`
`out from its trunk. In FIG. 1, the concentric circles on the “Christmas tree 18” and
`
`its branches represent valves. I can see several valves in FIG. 2, as well as a
`
`crossover valve spanning between the production and annulus branches. Kelly’s
`
`“Christmas tree 18” is connected to the well’s “casing 12.” Kelly 2:16-29. Inside
`
`that casing are concentric strings of pipe, some of which communicate with the
`
`production reservoir; thus Kelly’s “Christmas tree 18” is connected to the well
`
`bore.
`
`16.
`
`In operation, fluids flow upwardly from the well through “well casing
`
`12,” into the vertical portion of “Christmas tree 18,” laterally out through the
`
`production branch from the “Christmas tree 18” and into “line 20” and a “collet
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 44
`
`7
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 7
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`body 22.” Kelly, 2:22-27. The flow of fluids is turned by the bend in “line 20” and
`
`directed by “collet body 22” to flow into “subsea choke assembly 26.” Fluids
`
`exiting “subsea choke assembly 26” are returned by “collet body 22” to the branch
`
`at “line 24.” Fluids flowing through the branch are directed, i.e. diverted, away
`
`from the branch by “line 20” and “collet body 22” such that the fluids must pass
`
`through “subsea choke assembly 26,” before fluids are returned to the branch at
`
`“line 24.” “Line 20” and “collet body 22” are directly coupled to the “Christmas
`
`tree 18” and “line 24.”
`
`17. As I mentioned above, a choke is a type of valve that controls flow by
`
`constricting a flow area. Kelly’s choke, for example, constricts flow between a
`
`“valve member 80” and a “valve seat 78.” Kelly, 1:43-54; 2:66-3:9; 3:13-19. In
`
`other words, “valve member 80” of “subsea choke assembly 26” is adjustable to
`
`control the fluid flow and pressure of the production fluids. As such, Kelly’s
`
`“subsea choke assembly 26” is a processing apparatus, because it processes fluid
`
`by reducing fluid flow and pressure. Additionally, Kelly’s choke processes fluid by
`
`operating as a gas separator. Chokes are used to reduce the pressure of the high
`
`pressure fluids produced from the well. Kelly concerns oil and gas, where the
`
`fluids are multiphase, i.e., liquid and gas, and include water, oil and natural gas.
`
`The pressure and temperature change experienced by the fluid passing through the
`
`choke flashes the fluid and changes the ratio of liquid to gas. Also, because the
`
`Page 8 of 44
`
`8
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 8
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`fluid received into Kelly’s choke passes near the fluid leaving the choke, the higher
`
`temperature fluid entering the choke heats the fluid exiting the choke, which has
`
`been flashed and is at a lower temperature. Changing the gas to liquid ratio and
`
`heating the fluid are, in my opinion, processing the fluid.
`
`18.
`
` “Line 20” and “collet body 22” include internal passages that allow
`
`fluid to pass from the branch to “subsea choke assembly 26” and back to the
`
`branch at “line 24.” The internal passages are in fluid communication with the
`
`branch to allow such fluid flow.
`
`19. Kelly describes “line 24 connects from collet body 22 to the subsea
`
`flowline,” and provides a branch outlet where “line 24” connects to the flowline.
`
`Kelly, 2:22-25; FIG. 2. The flow path through the assembly provided at least by
`
`portions of “inlet 68,” “passage 94,” “passage 74,” and “outlet 70,” is in fluid
`
`communication with the branch outlet at the outlet of line 24. Fluid flows from
`
`“line 20” and “collet body 22” through the passage through the “subsea choke
`
`assembly 26” and back to the branch at “line 24” before fluids proceed through
`
`“line 24” to the branch outlet.
`
`Page 9 of 44
`
`9
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 9
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`
`
`20.
`
` “Collet body 22,” and the web of solid material of “collet body 22”
`
`between passages 64 and 66, functions as a barrier that separates a branch inlet at
`
`an interface between the vertical portion of “Christmas tree 18” and the horizontal
`
`tubing of “Christmas tree 18,” and a branch outlet at an interface between “line 24”
`
`and the “flowline.” Due at least in part to the separate flow paths of passages 64
`
`and 66 defined by “collet body 22,” produced fluids must flow from “passage 64”
`
`to “subsea choke assembly 26” before entering “passage 66” and continuing to
`
`“line 24.” Kelly, 2:22-65. The separate flow paths of “collet body 22” prevent
`
`direct flow between the branch inlet and the branch outlet by directing flow into
`
`“subsea choke assembly 26” and from there to a portion of the branch near the end
`
`of “line 24” in communication with the branch outlet.
`
`Page 10 of 44
`
`10
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 10
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`21. The assembly defined by “line 20” and “collet body 22” is sealed
`
`between first and second regions of the branch to block direct fluid communication
`
`between the first and second regions. If it were not sealed, the fluids passing
`
`through the branch would leak into the surrounding sea.
`
`22. As discussed previously, fluids are directed by “line 20” and “collet
`
`body 22” into “subsea choke assembly 26” before returning to the branch at “line
`
`24” and continuing to the branch outlet at an interface between “line 24” and the
`
`“flowline.” During construction of Kelly’s system, “line 20” and “collet body 22”
`
`are installed into the flow path.
`
`VI. Kelly and Fenton
`
`23. Both Kelly and Fenton describe subsea well systems that include
`
`retrievable choke components. As discussed previously, Kelly describes a
`
`“Christmas tree 18” connected to “subsea choke assembly 26” (i.e., a retrievable
`
`processing apparatus). Adjustable choke assemblies, such as "choke assembly 77"
`
`described by Fenton, were traditionally used in the art for controlling flow and
`
`pressure in subsea well equipment, and were widely used with temperature and
`
`pressure sensors to monitor fluid flow to allow the choke to be appropriately
`
`adjusted. See Fenton, Abstract; [0005]-[0007].
`
`24. Fenton describes a “production module 61” having a “tree connector
`
`63 on its lower end” and adapted to land on a Christmas tree. Fenton, Abstract;
`
`Page 11 of 44
`
`11
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 11
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`[0003]; [0007]; [0011-0014]; [0017]. “Production module 61” includes one or
`
`more devices “for controlling or measuring flow, such as a choke, a pressure or
`
`temperature sensor, or a flow meter.” Fenton, [0018].
`
`
`
`25.
`
`In practice, Kelly’s “subsea choke assembly 26” would have included
`
`upstream and downstream temperature and pressure sensors, and the pressure drop
`
`would have been used to measure the flow rate through the assembly. In my
`
`opinion, one of ordinary skill would have understood Kelly’s subsea choke
`
`assembly to include temperature and pressure sensors, like the sensors taught by
`
`Fenton, that provide information on the fluid flow through the subsea choke
`
`assembly, which would, in turn, allow precise control of the choke to achieve
`
`target flow characteristics. See Fenton, [0018]. Fenton’s “production module 61”
`
`includes both an “upstream pressure and temperature sensor 79 locate[d] on the
`
`Page 12 of 44
`
`12
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 12
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`upstream side of choke 77,” and a “downstream pressure and temperature sensor
`
`81 locate[d] on the downstream side of choke assembly 77,” allowing flow
`
`characteristics to be monitored on each side of choke assembly 77. Such an
`
`arrangement is commonplace in subsea choke devices to monitor the pressure drop
`
`and temperature drop across the choke. See, e.g., Fenton, [0005]; Cove, 2:18-31.
`
`26. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill would position the one or
`
`more sensors within “subsea choke assembly 26” (i.e. instead of elsewhere on
`
`Kelly’s subsea production wellhead apparatus) in order to measure the parameters
`
`at the relevant locations in the flow, i.e., near the flow constriction caused by the
`
`choke. Additionally, providing the sensors within the “subsea choke assembly 26”
`
`would facilitate retrieval and maintenance of the sensors. Fenton, in fact, advocates
`
`positioning the components that are “more active and more susceptible to failure,”
`
`including “choke 77, flow meter controls 83 and the pressure and temperature
`
`sensors 79, 81,” in “production module 61.” Fenton, [0022]. Accordingly, a person
`
`of ordinary skill would likewise position one or more sensors in Kelly’s “subsea
`
`choke assembly 26,” which similarly can be “retrieved from its connection to a
`
`subsea wellhead independent of the remainder of the components to which it is
`
`connected.” Kelly, 1:55-59.
`
`27. As an alternative, a person of ordinary skill would have readily
`
`substituted the entire “subsea choke assembly 26” of Kelly with the entire
`
`Page 13 of 44
`
`13
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 13
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`“production module 61” of Fenton. See Fenton, [0014]-[0020]. For example,
`
`similar to Kelly’s description of “subsea choke assembly 26,” Fenton describes
`
`that “production module 61” includes a “[c]hoke assembly 77” for “variably
`
`restricting the flow of production fluid flowing through cross-over passage 73” and
`
`that may be “readily retrieved.” Fenton, [0018]; [0022]. In part because Fenton’s
`
`“production module 61” is so similar to Kelly’s “subsea choke assembly 26,” the
`
`person of ordinary skill would readily know to replace “subsea choke assembly
`
`26” with “production module 61” to provide the added functionality of one or more
`
`temperature, pressure or flow sensors for improved flow monitoring and/or more
`
`precise control of fluid flow and pressure parameters. Furthermore, the structure of
`
`“production module 61” facilitates easy substitution with “subsea choke assembly
`
`26.” “Production module 61” includes a connector on its lower end similar to that
`
`of “subsea choke assembly 26” and suitable for connection with the existing
`
`“collet body 22” described by Kelly. “Production module 61” of Fenton is
`
`described as having an “upward-flow passage 71” and a “downward-flow passage
`
`75” oriented to be aligned with upward-flow and downward-flow production
`
`passages 37 and 51 of tree 31 that could readily be aligned with passages 64 and 66
`
`of Kelly. See Fenton, FIG. 2; [0014]; [0015]; [0021]; Kelly, FIG. 3; 2:34-3:35.
`
`Given the similarities in connection between “subsea choke assembly 26” and
`
`“production module 61,” hardly any further adjustments are necessary to ensure a
`
`Page 14 of 44
`
`14
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 14
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`sealed connection and could be readily anticipated by a person of ordinary skill to
`
`prevent fluid leakage into the subsea environment.
`
`28. Fenton’s “production module 61” includes a “flow loop” defined by
`
`an “upward-flow passage 71,” “cross-over passage 73,” and “downward-flow
`
`passage 75.” Fenton, [0017]. The choke and sensors are positioned “in
`
`communication with the flow loop of module 61,” which allows fluid
`
`communication between the well bore and flowline.
`
`29. Kelly describes that, “[w]hen body 30 has been landed on collet body
`
`22, passage 64 is aligned with inlet 60 and passage 66 is aligned with outlet 70.”
`
`Kelly, 2:61-63. “[S]uitable sealing means, as shown, are provide to maintain sealed
`
`communication between these connections.” Kelly, FIG. 3; 2:63-65. The seal
`
`(unnumbered) between “passage 64” and “inlet 60” connects the passages 64 and
`
`60, sealing against leakage between “subsea choke assembly 26” and the “collet
`
`body 22.” The seal between “passage 66” and “outlet 70” connects the passages 66
`
`and 70, sealing against leakage between “subsea choke assembly 26” and the
`
`“collet body 22.” The seals would be associated with and carried by the “subsea
`
`choke assembly 26,” during retrieval and landing, to allow the seals to be replaced
`
`when the “subsea choke assembly 26” is retrieved. Such seals are generally not
`
`reusable, and even if they were, if the seal were somehow damaged and it was not
`
`Page 15 of 44
`
`15
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 15
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`retrieved, the “subsea choke assembly 26” could not be re-landed without further
`
`remediation.
`
`VII. Kelly and Bednar
`
`30. Bednar describes another manner of incorporating a choke to a subsea
`
`tree. Bednar, 2:57-61; see also Abstract; 2:3-39; 3:60-4:10; 4:58-17. In Bednar’s
`
`system, fluid from the well is directed through the tree, out the tree cap to a choke
`
`assembly, and returned to a connector on the wing of the tree. Bednar, 2:66-3:2;
`
`5:15-17; FIG. 2. The flow of fluids through the system can be altered by
`
`selectively opening and closing various valves. Produced fluids can either pass
`
`through and out the wing branch, “production line 32,” through valves 56 and 34,
`
`or can instead be directed upwards through the tree cap and choke assembly before
`
`returning to “production line 32” by closing “flow loop isolation valve 56,” and
`
`opening “production crown valve 22” and “hub isolation valve 54.” See Bednar,
`
`2:66-3:2; 5:15-17; FIG. 2.
`
`Page 16 of 44
`
`16
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 16
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`
`
`31. A selectively accessible alternative flow path in parallel with a
`
`retrievable choke to allow the production of fluids without passing through the
`
`choke, was well known, as illustrated by Bednar. In my opinion, a person of
`
`ordinary skill would have readily modified the system of Kelly to include such a
`
`flow path between Kelly’s “line 20” and “line 24” in parallel with “subsea choke
`
`assembly 26,” as taught by Bednar. For example, a person of ordinary skill would
`
`have incorporated an additional conduit and a series of valves, such as Bednar’s
`
`“production crown valve 22,” “hub
`
`isolation valve 54,” and “flow loop
`
`isolation valve 56.” The additional
`
`valves could readily be incorporated
`
`in “line 20,” “line 24” and a line
`
`Page 17 of 44
`
`17
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 17
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`connecting “line 20” and “line 24,” or incorporated in “collet body 22” itself. The
`
`modified figure, embedded here, was prepared by Counsel based on my
`
`explanation and shows what I think the modification to Kelly might look like.
`
`32. Modifying Kelly’s subsea wellhead production apparatus by adding a
`
`fluid flow path in parallel with “subsea choke assembly 26,” for example, would
`
`provide an alternative to the flow path through “subsea choke assembly 26.” The
`
`results of such a combination would have been predictable to a person of ordinary
`
`skill, because adding a flow path parallel to a component that could experience
`
`failure was common in the art, as taught by Bednar. See, e.g., Bednar, 5:5-17.
`
`Kelly recognized the problem of “high wear rates” presented by chokes, and
`
`Bednar expressly described that an advantage of its flowpaths is allowing
`
`production “even after subsea choke 38 experiences a failure.” Kelly, 1:17-19;
`
`Bednar, 5:7-11. Including a direct path from “line 20” to “line 24” would improve
`
`reliability and flexibility in Kelly’s subsea wellhead production apparatus by
`
`allowing fluid to flow directly to the flowline in the event “subsea choke assembly
`
`26” has failed or is absent. Moreover, providing the valves as in Bednar is
`
`necessary to make full use of the alternate flowpath, and would further allow a
`
`shorter portion of the internal flowpaths of Kelly’s subsea wellhead production
`
`apparatus to be exposed to seawater when the “subsea choke assembly 26” is
`
`Page 18 of 44
`
`18
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 18
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`absent, and thus reduce the amount of clean up flushing required when retrieving
`
`and installing the “subsea choke assembly 26.”
`
`33. Kelly’s system modified like Bednar, as discussed above, includes a
`
`diverter assembly provided by Kelly’s “collet body 22,” and “production crown
`
`valve 22,” (which functions as an inlet isolation valve), “hub isolation valve 54,”
`
`(which functions as an outlet isolation valve), “flow loop isolation valve 56,” and
`
`the flow paths proximate valves 22 and 54, incorporated as taught by Bednar. With
`
`the valves selectively opened or closed, fluids may alternatively be directed away
`
`from the branch through “collet body 22” into “subsea choke assembly 26,” or
`
`flow directly from “line 20” to the branch and on to the “flowline.” For example,
`
`when “valve 56,” positioned along a path in parallel with “subsea choke assembly
`
`26,” is in a closed positioned, fluids are directed upwards into “collet body 22” and
`
`through “subsea choke assembly 26,” instead of flowing directly to “line 24”
`
`towards a branch outlet without passing through “subsea choke assembly 26.”
`
`34.
`
` Kelly describes a flow path through “subsea choke assembly 26”
`
`provided by “inlet 68,” “passage 94,” “passage 74,” and “outlet 70.” See Kelly,
`
`2:58-3:11; 3:20-28. In the combination of Kelly’s and Bednar’s systems discussed
`
`above, the “subsea choke assembly 26” bypasses the branch flow path between
`
`“line 20” and “line 24,” and is thus a bypass conduit that bypasses a portion of the
`
`branch.
`
`Page 19 of 44
`
`19
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 19
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`35. As discussed previously, fluids may flow either directly from “line
`
`20” through the branch and to the flowline, or alternatively may flow through
`
`“collet body 22” to “subsea choke assembly 26” such that fluids bypass a portion
`
`of the branch. The embodiment described by the ’018 Patent with reference to FIG.
`
`34, for example, is nearly identical to the system of Kelly modified like Bednar.
`
`The ’018 Patent indicates that “[t]his embodiment therefore enables fluids to travel
`
`between the well bore and the aperture 1118 of the wing branch 1114, whilst
`
`bypassing the wing branch 1114 itself,” and may be “especially [useful] in wells in
`
`which the wing branch valve V2 has stuck in the closed position.” ’018 Patent,
`
`31:27-31. The system of Kelly modified like Bednar provides similar advantages
`
`by allowing flow directly between “line 20” and the flowline if “subsea choke
`
`assembly 26” experiences a failure. See Bednar, 5:5-17.
`
`36. Kelly modified like Bednar as described above includes a valve in the
`
`branch, analogous to Bednar’s “valve 56,” that provides an internal passage of the
`
`diverter assembly that extends within the interior of the branch. “Valve 56” is in
`
`fluid communication with the branch flow path, allowing fluid to flow directly to
`
`the “flowline” without passing through “subsea choke assembly 26,” when “valve
`
`56” is in an open position.
`
`37. As discussed previously, Kelly describes “line 24 connects from collet
`
`body 22 to the subsea flowline,” and provides a branch outlet where “line 24”
`
`Page 20 of 44
`
`20
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 20
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`connects to the flowline. Kelly, 2:22-25; FIG. 2. The flow path through Kelly’s
`
`subsea choke assembly provided at least by portions of “inlet 68,” “passage 94,”
`
`“passage 74,” and “outlet 70,” and providing a bypass conduit as discussed
`
`previously, is in fluid communication with the branch outlet, in the system of Kelly
`
`modified like Bednar.
`
`38. Kelly modified like Bednar includes a valve, analogous to Bednar’s
`
`“flow loop isolation valve 56,” in parallel with “subsea choke assembly 26.” When
`
`in a closed position, “valve 56” provides a barrier that prevents fluid flow directly
`
`from “line 20” to the “flowline,” and may be selectively opened to allow fluids to
`
`pass to the “flowline” if “subsea choke assembly 26” has failed or is absent. See
`
`Bednar, 5:15-17. In my opinion, the arrangement disclosed by Kelly in view of
`
`Bednar is functionally equivalent with respect to the elements of claim 4 to the
`
`embodiment described by the ’018 Patent with reference to FIG. 34. The ’018
`
`Patent indicates that fluids “cannot pass [to] the wing branch 1114 because of the
`
`V2 valve which is closed, and they are instead diverted into the cap 1140.” ’018
`
`Patent, 31:12-20. “Valve 56” positioned in parallel with “subsea choke assembly
`
`26,” when in a closed position, would similarly prevent passage of fluid directly to
`
`the “flowline” without first passing through “subsea choke assembly 26.”
`
`39.
`
`“Flow loop isolation valve 56,” positioned in parallel with “subsea
`
`choke assembly 26” in Kelly’s apparatus modified like Bednar, is sealed between a
`
`Page 21 of 44
`
`21
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 21
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`portion of the branch and blocks fluid communication between the first region of
`
`the branch adjacent “Christmas tree 18” and the second rejoin adjacent the outlet,
`
`when in a closed position.
`
`40.
`
` Kelly modified in view of Bednar, as discussed previously, includes
`
`“flow loop isolation valve 56” positioned in parallel with “subsea choke assembly
`
`26” between first and second regions of the branch. Furthermore, during
`
`installation of the system, “flow loop isolation valve 56” is installed into the flow
`
`path in parallel with “subsea choke assembly 26.” “Valve 56” thus separates first
`
`and second regions of the branch and prevents fluid from flowing directly from the
`
`well head to the branch outlet when in a closed position.
`
`VIII. Kelly, Bednar and Fenton
`
`41. One of skill in the art would readily modify the system taught by
`
`Kelly and Bednar, discussed above, with Fenton to incorporate one or more
`
`pressure, temperature or flow sensors. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill
`
`would be motivated to incorporate Fenton’s sensors or “production module 61”
`
`into the system of Kelly, modified in view of Bednar, for the same reasons as set
`
`forth above with respect to Kelly alone modified in view of Fenton.
`
`IX. Bednar
`
`42. As discussed above, Bednar describes another manner of
`
`incorporating a choke to a subsea tree. Bednar, 2:57-61; see also Abstract; 2:3-39;
`
`Page 22 of 44
`
`22
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 22
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`3:60-4:10; 4:58-5:17. Fluid from the well is directed through the tree, out the tree
`
`cap to a choke assembly, and returned to a connector on the wing of the tree.
`
`Bednar, 2:55-3:2; 5:15-17; FIG. 2. The flow of fluids through the system can be
`
`altered by selectively opening and closing various valves. Produced fluids can
`
`either pass through and out the wing branch, “production line 32,” through valves
`
`56 and 34, or can instead be directed upwards through the tree cap and choke
`
`assembly before returning to “production line 32” by closing “flow loop isolation
`
`valve 56,” and opening “production crown valve 22” and “hub isolation valve 54.”
`
`See Bednar, 2:66-3:2; 5:15-17; FIG. 2.
`
`43. Bednar’s subsea tree has multiple flow paths including a “tree flow
`
`passage 18” and a “tree annulus passage 26,” with a branch provided by
`
`“production line 32.” Bednar, FIG. 2. As I have said before, a Christmas tree can
`
`be called a manifold, and Bednar’s tree is no exception.
`
`44.
`
` Fluid “flows through tree flow passage 18 and valves 20 and 22 into
`
`tree cap 24,” through “choke 38,” and to “production line 32” through “choke
`
`return hub connection 50,” “choke return line 52,” and “hub isolation valve 54.”
`
`Bednar 4:1-3; Bednar, 4:13-24. In a closed position, “flow loop isolation valve 56”
`
`prevents flow directly into “production line 32,” and instead fluid is diverted
`
`through “tree cap 24” and “choke 38.” Bednar's system, with respect to the
`
`elements of the ’018 Patent’s claim 1, is functionally equivalent to the embodiment
`
`Page 23 of 44
`
`23
`
`OSS Exhibit 2020, pg. 23
`FMC vs. OSS
`IPR2016-00467
`
`

`
`described by the ’018 Patent with reference to FIG. 34. The '018 Patent describes
`
`that "tree 1116 h

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