`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED
`and
`BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`______________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ SUR-SURREPLY
`
`
`
`36653426.1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`On page 4 of its Surreply, Rapid Completions LLC (“RC”) cites to the
`
`second deposition of Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Daneshy (Ex. 2053), as supporting the
`
`highlighted contention below:
`
`Moreover, Ellis’s description of the screenout problem is
`entirely consistent with Mr. McGowen’s testimony regarding a
`POSITA’s views in 2001. Mr. McGowen explained that a POSITA in
`2001 would have believed that initiating multiple fractures too close
`together would influence the stress field in the formation and create
`complex fracture geometries known as “near wellbore tortuosity.”
`Resp. at 17. This tortuosity was believed to result in reduced
`production and screenouts. Ex. 2034 at 25; Ex. 2039 at 2. To avoid
`these problems in multi-stage fracturing jobs a POSITA would
`space the perforations far enough apart to avoid fracture
`complexity (“reduced density perforations”). Ex. 2034 at 25; Ex.
`2039 at 2; Ex. 2053 at 89:11-22. Thus, Mr. McGowen explained that
`a POSITA would not attempt open hole multistage because the lack of
`casing prevents a POSITA from controlling the fracture initiation
`points.
`
`RC cites lines 11-22 of page 89 of Dr. Daneshy’s deposition as if that testimony
`
`concerns perforation-spacing/density or otherwise supports RC’s argument that a
`
`POSITA would not have attempted open-hole muti-stage fracturing because the
`
`lack of casing prevents a POSITA from controlling the fracture initiation points.
`
`It does not. Instead, as the testimony reveals, Dr. Daneshy was merely asked
`
`whether, prior to 2001, a person of skill in the art would try and avoid “complex
`
`36653426.1
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`fractures.” He responded, “Yes, when we fractured vertical wells, we did not want
`
`to create complex fractures.” Ex. 2053 at 89:11-22. Dr. Daneshy was not asked in
`
`any subsequent questioning whether the pre-2001 desire not to create “complex
`
`fractures” “when we fractured vertical wells” was one that required the use of any
`
`particular perforation spacing or density in casing.
`
`Moreover, when Dr. Daneshy used the term “complex” in his page 89
`
`testimony, which RC then re-used in its cited questions, Dr. Daneshy explained
`
`that the term was one that the industry uses today to refer to the result—today—of
`
`creating “a hundred fractures every 50 feet” or “20, 30, 40 of these together”:
`
`Q.· I thought you had said that a person of ordinary skill in the art’s
`expectations of how a fracture behaves has changed between the time
`before 2001, well before it, and today.· I still don’t understand -- can you
`explain what change has occurred in those expectations?
`
`MR. GARRETT:· Same objections [form, FRE 611(b), relevance].
`
`A.· The details of how we fracture wells.· Today in horizontal wells, when
`you put a hundred fractures every 50 feet, these single fractures every 50
`feet do not look like that because these fractures are so close to each
`other.· That tells you what a fracture, single fracture – that’s why I
`modified what you said.· That’s what a single fracture would have looked
`like.· When you put 20, 30, 40 of these together, then they don’t look like
`that.
`
`Q.· What do they look like?
`
`MR. GARRETT:· Same objections.
`
`36653426.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`A.· Today the industry uses the term “complex” because they don’t really
`know what it looks like.
`
`Ex. 2053 at 87:4-23 (emphasis added). RC did not ask Dr. Daneshy, and Dr.
`
`Daneshy did not testify about, whether such “complex” fractures resulted in the
`
`“reduced production and screenouts” that RC characterized as “[t]hese problems”
`
`in the highlighted sentence above.
`
`Furthermore, Dr. Daneshy testified about fracture spacing—which is the
`
`concept RC is arguing drives perforation spacing (see POR at 17; Ex. 2034 at
`
`24:20-25:10) in the highlighted sentence above—and explained that, while there
`
`may have been a handful of experts in the entire world who would have
`
`appreciated the issue of close fractures potentially growing into each other, a
`
`POSITA likely would not have. Ex. 2053 at 73:8-75:15.
`
`May 2, 2017
`
`/Mark T. Garrett/
`Mark T. Garrett
`
`
`36653426.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on May 2,
`
`2017, a complete copy of PETITIONERS’ SUR-SURREPLY was served on Patent
`
`Owner’s Exclusive Licensee via email (by consent), as follows:
`
`hhamad@caldwellcc.com
`bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com
`jnemunaitis@caldwellcc.com
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`rapid@caldwellcc.com
`
`
`
`/Mark T. Garrett/
`Mark T. Garrett(Reg. No. 44,699)
`
`
`
`36653426.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`