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 IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`___________________
`
`
`
`EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE RAPID COMPLETIONS LLC’S
`RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Overview of the Patented Technology ............................................................ 2
`
`III. Claim Interpretation ......................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Solid Body Packer ................................................................................. 3
`
`Fracturing Fluid ..................................................................................... 7
`
`Plug ........................................................................................................ 7
`
`The Second Annular Wellbore Segment ............................................... 7
`
`IV. Obviousness Analysis ...................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................. 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Aware of a Variety of Different
`Completion Techniques. ...........................................................11
`
`A POSITA Would Have Expected Multi-Stage Hydraulic
`Fracturing Operations to Require Cemented Casing. ...............14
`
`A POSITA Would Carefully Weigh the Risks, Reliability, and
`Economics of a Proposed Completion. .....................................17
`
`Petitioners Improperly Assume that a POSITA Would Be
`Motivated to Act Contrary to the Conventional Wisdom in the
`Field...........................................................................................19
`
`Petitioners Fail to Acknowledge that a POSITA Would Be
`Motivated to Act in a Commercially Reasonable Way. ...........20
`
`B.
`
`The Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness ........................................21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Claimed Technology Operates Contrary to the Accepted
`Wisdom That Prevailed at the Time of the Invention and it
`Demonstrated Unexpected Results. ..........................................22
`
`The Claimed Technology Has Received Industry Praise and
`Recognition. ..............................................................................25
`
`3.
`
`Petitioners Copied the Claimed Technology. ...........................30
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`The Claimed Technology Has Enjoyed Significant Commercial
`Success. .....................................................................................35
`
`There Is a Nexus Between the Claimed Technology and Its
`Commercial Success. ................................................................38
`
`C.
`
`The Scope and Content of the Prior Art ..............................................41
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Thomson Describes a Cased Hole Fracturing Operation, Not
`Fracturing Through Open Hole Segments. ...............................41
`
`Ellsworth Describes Water Shut-Off Operations, Not
`Hydraulic Fracturing. ................................................................43
`
`D.
`
`The Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claimed Invention ...44
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioners Fail to Show that Thomson Discloses Various Open
`Hole Limitations of the ’774 Claims. .......................................44
`
`Petitioners Fail to Show That Ellsworth Discloses Various
`Fracturing Related Limitations of the ’774 Claims. .................45
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Opinions of Learned Experts ...............................................................48
`
`Overall Conclusions on Obviousness ..................................................51
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`As a Matter of Law, Petitioners Have Failed to Meet Their
`Burden of Showing that Each Limitation Was Present in the
`Prior Art. ...................................................................................52
`
`Petitioners Fail to Provide a “Rational Underpinning” to
`Support Their Obviousness Theories. .......................................53
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion .....................................................................................................57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Servs., Inc.
`
`344 F.3d 1186 (Fed.Cir.2003) .......................................................................30
`
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc.
`
`601 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ....................................................................... 6
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
`
`No. 2015-1171, 2016 WL 5864573 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 7, 2016) ................. 32, 36
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.
`
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................52
`
`Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.
`
`776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .......................................................................35
`
`Black & Decker, Inc. v. Positec USA, Inc.
`
`No. 2015-1646, 2016 WL 2898012 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2016) .............. 50, 54
`
`Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc.
`
`229 F.3d 1120 (Fed.Cir.2000) .......................................................................39
`
`Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
`
`598 F.3d 1294 (Fed.Cir.2010) ................................................................ 22, 50
`
`Dunnhumby USA, LLC v. Emnos USA Corp.
`
`No. 13-CV-0399, 2015 WL 1542365 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 1, 2015) ....................... 5
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc.
`
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .....................................................................53
`
`Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of California
`
`713 F.2d 693 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................10
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`
`Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
`
`110 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .....................................................................39
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City
`
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .......................................................................................9, 48
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended–Release Capsule Patent Litig.
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ....................................................................... 9
`
`
`In re Hedges
`
`783 F.2d 1038 (Fed.Cir.1986) .......................................................................22
`
`In re Kahn
`
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed Cir. 2006) ........................................................................53
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.
`
`2016 WL 3974202 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..............................................................53
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc'ns, Inc.
`
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................. 48, 50
`
`Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol Ltd.
`IPR2014-00309, Paper 83 (PTAB March 23, 2014) .............................. 22, 40
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
`
`550 U.S. 398 (2007).......................................................................................53
`
`McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc.
`
`262 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .....................................................................21
`
`Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc. v. MD/Totco
`
`IPR2013-00265, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2013) .........................................38
`
`Orthopedic Equipment Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc.
`
`707 F.2d 1376 (Fed.Cir.1983) ......................................................................... 9
`
`
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.
`
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .....................................................................53
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC
`
`815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................39
`
`Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.
`
`566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................51
`
`Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp.
`
`214 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ....................................................................... 7
`
`Ring Plus, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless, LLC
`
`No. CIV.A. 2:06-CV-159DF, 2007 WL 5688765 (E.D. Tex. July 9, 2007) ... 6
`
`Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.
`
`774 F.2d 448 (Fed.Cir.1985) .........................................................................10
`
`Star Scientific, Inc., v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
`
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .....................................................................21
`
`Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc.
`
`744 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................... 6
`
`W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.
`
`721 F.2d 1540 (Fed.Cir. 1983) ............................................................... 22, 49
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.
`
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .....................................................................30
`
`X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. Intern’l Trade Comm.
`
`757 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................... 6
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Exhibit List
`Description
`A. Casero, Open Hole Multi-Stage Completion System in
`Unconventional Plays: Efficiency, Effectiveness and
`Economics, SPE 164009 (2013)
`Encyclopedia of Hydrocarbons, Chapter 3.1: Upstream
`technologies
`D. Lohoefer, Comparative Study of Cemented versus
`Uncemented Multi-Stage Fractured Wells in the Barnett
`Shale, SPE 135386, Society of Petroleum Engineers (2010)
`R. Seale et al., Effective Stimulation of Horizontal Wells—A
`New Completion Method, SPE 106357, Society of Petroleum
`Engineers (2006)
`Exploration and Development, Alberta Oil Magazine
`Leading the Way: Multistage fracking pioneer Packers Plus
`plays major role in cracking the tight oil code, Canadian
`OilPatch Technology Guidebook (2012)
`Financial Post, “Entrepreneur of the Year: National Winner”
`Innovation—Groundbreaking Innovation in Calgary, Calgary
`Herald (Feb. 12, 1014)
`J. Chury, Packers Plus Technology Becoming the Industry
`Standard, The Oil Patch Report (Dec. 2010/Jan. 2011)
`P. Roche, Open-Hole or Cased and Cemented, New
`Technology Magazine (Nov. 2011)
`R. Ghiselin, Qittitut Consulting, Sleeves vs. Shots—The
`Debate Rages (Aug. 2011)
`Van Dyke, Kate, “Fundamentals of Petroleum,” Fourth Ed.
`(1997)
`“Proven Performance: Read how Packers Plus systems and
`solutions have delivered results around the world,” Packers
`Plus Energy Services Inc., accessed May 24, 2016,
`http://packersplus.com/proven-performance/?type=case-
`study&system=stackfrac-hd-system&pag=3%20#p3
`reserved
`reserved
`Ali Daneshy Deposition Transcript (11/9/2016)
`Packers Plus advertising brochure (2010)
`
`- vi -
`
`Exhibit
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`2006
`
`2007
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Baker Hughes, “FracPoint Completion System Isolated
`Openhole Horizontal Well in Lower Huron Shale” (2011)
`Baker Hughes, “Enhancing Well Performance Through
`Innovative Completion Technologies,” presentation, (Sept.
`10-12, 2012)
`Canadian Society for Unconventional Resources, Press
`Release, “Unconventional Industry Awards Innovative
`Thinking” (Oct. 3, 2012)
`BH00364675, CONFIDENTIAL Ball activated sliding
`sleeves report
`Rigzone, Schlumberger Acquires Stake in Packers Plus (Nov.
`22, 2005)
`Britt, L. and Smith, M., Horizontal Well Completion,
`Stimulation Optimization, and Risk Mitigation, SPE 125526
`(2009)
`BH00363808, CONFIDENTIAL Baker Hughes Engineering
`Materials
`RC_PAC00019434, CONFIDENTIAL Packers Plus
`Engineering Drawing
`Baker Hughes 2008 10-K Shareholder Report
`Baker Hughes 2010 10-K Shareholder Report
`Baker Hughes 2013 10-K Shareholder Report
`Packers Plus case study, StackFRAC system provides
`superior production economics
`Packers Plus Case Study, StackFRAC HD system enables
`high stimulation rates
`Packers Plus StackFRAC Video,
`http://packersplus.com/solution/stackfrac-hd-system/
`Baker Hughes FracPoint Video,
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5ZQCRRZzXE
`Business News Network Packers Plus Feature
`UN-REDACTED H. McGowen Declaration
`UN-REDACTED J. J. Girardi Declaration
`REDACTED H. McGowen Declaration
`REDACTED J. J. Girardi Declaration
`Ingersoll, C, “BP and the Deepwater Horizon Disaster of
`2010” (Apr. 3, 2012)
`
`- vii -
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`2027
`2028
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`2034
`2035
`2036
`2037
`2038
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`2039
`
`2040
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2045
`
`Crosby, D.G., “Methodology to Predict the Initiation of
`Multiple Transverse Fractures from Horizontal Wellbores”
`(2001)
`Kaiser, P., “Hydraulic Fracturing Mine Back Trials – Design
`Rationale and Project Status” (2013)
`Stoltz, L.R., “Probabilistic Reserves Assessment Using A
`Filtered Monte Carlo Method In a Fractured Limestone
`Reservoir” SPE 39714 (1998)
`Emanuele, M. A., “A Case History: Completion and
`Stimulation of Horizontal Wells with Multiple Transverse
`Hydraulic Fractures in the Lost Hills Diatomite” SPE 39941
`(1998)
`Gaynor, Tom M., “Tortuosity Versus Micro-Tortuosity –
`Why Little Things Mean a Lot” SPE/IADC 67818 (2001)
`Cramer, David, “Stimulating Unconventional Reserviors:
`Lessons Learned, Successful Practices, Areas for
`Improvement” SPE 114172 (2008)
`M. Delaney Declaration
`
`- viii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Petitioners ask the Board to rewrite history and erase one of the great
`
`success stories of the oil and gas service industry. The Patent Owner, Packers Plus
`
`Energy Services Inc., has been lauded by experts, customers, and respected
`
`journals for the tremendous achievement of the ’774 patented technology. This
`
`award-winning technology has been praised as “revolutionary” and “game-
`
`changing,” and it has generated over
`
` dollars in revenue. Despite that
`
`success, Petitioners allege that this technology should have been obvious for years
`
`before Packers Plus developed it.
`
`Petitioners allege that it would have been obvious to fundamentally alter the
`
`fracturing system of Thomson by removing the cemented casing. While they
`
`provide some evidence that a POSITA would expect the sliding sleeves and
`
`packers of Thomson to remain functional in a casing-less well, this misses the
`
`point. A patent may be found obvious only if a petitioner can provide a rational
`
`underpinning to explain why a POSITA would have actually used all of the claim
`
`elements as required by the claim. Here, the conventional wisdom taught that
`
`cemented casing was necessary for producing effective multi-stage fractures.
`
`Thus, a POSITA would not have used Thomson as described in the Petition. This
`
`is confirmed by the fact that Petitioners have failed to identify any teaching in the
`
`prior art of a commercially viable open hole use of Thomson, and the fact that the
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`
`inventors of the ’774 patent have been recognized as pioneers and achieved
`
`significant success from their invention. Thus, Respondent respectfully requests
`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`that the Board deny Petitioners’ challenges.
`
`II. Overview of the Patented Technology
`
`The claimed technology provides a method of fracturing multiple stages of
`
`an open hole horizontal wellbore (“open hole ball drop fracturing” or “OHBD”).
`
`All of the claims at issue require running a tubing string into a wellbore where at
`
`least a portion of the non-vertical section of the wellbore is exposed to the
`
`rockface. This tubing string must contain at least three solid body packers and two
`
`ball activated sliding sleeves as illustrated, for example, in Figure 1a:
`
`
`
`When the packers are set, they seal against the wellbore wall and divide the
`
`horizontal section into multiple “open hole segments.” At this point, the operator
`
`may commence the fracturing operation.
`
`Hydraulic fracturing is a process whereby fluid is pumped into a formation
`
`until the increase in pressure causes the rock to crack. In the claimed system, the
`
`fracturing operation begins by pumping a ball or plug onto the ball seat of a sliding
`
`sleeve. This ball is sized to pass through the ball seats closer to the surface and
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`
`only seat on the seat of the sleeve it is designed to open. As the pumping increases
`
`the fluid pressure within the tubing string, the sleeve slides open to allow fluid
`
`communication between the inside of the tubing string and the segment to be
`
`fractured. Pumping is continued until this segment is fractured. Because the entire
`
`annular segment outside the sleeve is pressurized, the fracture can form at a natural
`
`weak point in the formation, as shown below:
`
`See also Ex. 2031, Packers Plus StackFRAC video at 3:15 (“Each fracture initiates
`
`in the open hole where breakdown pressure is lowest within the isolated stage.”)
`
`This process may be repeated for additional zones by dropping larger balls.
`
`
`
`III. Claim Interpretation
`
`A.
`
`Solid Body Packer
`
`The parties agree that a packer is a tool used to create a seal between the
`
`tubing string and borehole wall using a packing element. They dispute what
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`
`distinguishes solid body packers from other types of packers. While this dispute
`
`may not be relevant this proceeding,1 Respondent offers its position below.
`
`The intrinsic evidence makes clear that this term refers to a packer with an
`
`element that is solid rather than hollow, as is the case with inflatable packers. The
`
`specification explains: “In an open hole, preferably, the packers include solid body
`
`packers including a solid, extrudable packing element.” ’774 patent at 4:4-4:5. In
`
`describing the figure 1 embodiment, it further explains that the “packers are of the
`
`solid body-type with at least one extrudable packing element, for example, formed
`
`of rubber.” ’774 patent at 6:29-6:30. It contrasts this type of packer with
`
`“inflatable element packers,” which it describes as being “inflated with pressure
`
`using a bladder.” Id. at 1:43-48. Both parties’ experts agree that this term
`
`distinguishes between inflatable and non-inflatable packers. Ex. 2034, McGowen
`
`Decl. at 10; Ex. 1005, Daneshy Decl. at 21.
`
`Both parties’ experts also agree that this term can be readily understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2034, McGowen Decl. at 10; Ex. 1005,
`
`Daneshy Decl. at 34. Thus, no construction is necessary. Nonetheless, if the Panel
`
`believes that a construction is appropriate, it should construe this term to mean “a
`
`
`1 This dispute is relevant to the litigation between the parties, but it is unclear
`why Petitioners raised it in this proceeding as they did not rely on their proposed
`construction for this term in their prior art analysis. There does not appear to be a
`need for the Board to resolve this dispute now.
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`
`packer including a solid, extrudable packing element.” This construction is
`
`consistent with the specification and the testimony of both parties’ experts. ’774
`
`patent at 4:4-4:5 (“In an open hole, preferably, the packers include solid body
`
`packers including a solid, extrudable packing element.”); Ex. 1005, Daneshy Decl.
`
`at 34 (“[A]s understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, the term ‘solid body
`
`packer’ would mean ‘packer including a solid, extrudable packing element.’”).
`
`Petitioners’ proposal is based on a legal misunderstanding. According to
`
`Petitioners, the Board should narrow the scope of this term because of the
`
`following statement contained in a provisional application: “A solid body packer is
`
`defined as a tool to create a seal between tubing and casing or the borehole wall
`
`using a packing element which is mechanically extruded, using either mechanically
`
`or hydraulically applied force.” Provisional Application No. 60/404,783 filed on
`
`Aug. 21, 2002. The problem with this argument is that this statement was made in
`
`a provisional application and never incorporated into the intrinsic evidence. In
`
`fact, this patent also claims priority to another provisional application that was
`
`filed earlier. Provisional Application No. 60/331,491 filed on Nov. 19, 2001.
`
`A provisional application that neither is incorporated by reference into a
`
`non-provisional application nor explicitly discussed during prosecution is not a
`
`part of the intrinsic evidence. See Dunnhumby USA, LLC v. Emnos USA Corp.,
`
`No. 13-CV-0399, 2015 WL 1542365, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 1, 2015). (refusing to
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`
`consider a provisional application part of the file history even though the patent-at-
`
`issue listed the provisional application as a priority document); Ring Plus, Inc. v.
`
`Cingular Wireless, LLC, No. CIV.A. 2:06-CV-159DF, 2007 WL 5688765, at *10
`
`(E.D. Tex. July 9, 2007) (refusing to import limitations from a provisional
`
`application and noting that such reliance on a provisional application relates to
`
`validity, i.e., the priority date, not claim construction); Cf. Vederi, LLC v. Google,
`
`Inc., 744 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (treating provisional application as
`
`intrinsic evidence only after noting that it was incorporated by reference into the
`
`asserted patents). Thus, Petitioners are incorrect in asserting that a statement in a
`
`provisional application can act as a disclaimer limiting claim scope.
`
`Even if an unincorporated provisional application were considered intrinsic
`
`evidence, it cannot be used to contradict the actual specification of a patent. As the
`
`Federal Circuit has noted, an applicant can modify the description of an invention
`
`in a later application, and the later application controls for claim construction
`
`purposes. See X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. Intern’l Trade Comm., 757 F.3d 1358,
`
`1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also id. at 1365 (Reyna, J., Concurring) (“While the
`
`scope of claims may be limited by statements in the specification of the patent, it
`
`does not follow that claims in a continuation-in-part patent are necessarily limited
`
`by the specification of a patent to which the continuation-in-part claims priority.”);
`
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“A
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`
`description can be broadened by removing limitations.”); Reiffin v. Microsoft
`
`Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (finding error where district court
`
`limited claims based on an earlier application’s description of features as essential
`
`elements). Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation for this term should be
`
`based on the actual patent specification, not the provisional application.
`
`B.
`
`Fracturing Fluid
`
`Respondent does not dispute Petitioners’ proposal.
`
`C.
`
`Plug
`
`Respondent does not dispute Petitioners’ proposal.
`
`D. The Second Annular Wellbore Segment
`
`Respondent did not propose a construction for this term in its preliminary
`
`response, but a statement in the Board’s institution decision indicates that a
`
`construction would be helpful for this term. The broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`for this term requires that the second annular wellbore segment be in an open hole,
`
`non-vertical section of the wellbore. Thus, when claim 1 requires “pumping
`
`fracturing fluid through the second port and into the second annular wellbore
`
`segment to fracture the hydrocarbon containing formation” this limitation requires
`
`pumping the fracturing fluid into an open hole, non-vertical segment.
`
`This interpretation is supported by the language of claim 1 which requires
`
`creating a second annular wellbore segment that “provid[es] access to the
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`
`hydrocarbon-containing formation along the wellbore wall in the open hole and
`
`uncased, non-vertical section of the wellbore.” This limitation provides the
`
`antecedent basis for the subsequent fracturing limitation that refers to “the second
`
`annular wellbore segment.” Thus, claim 1 requires fracturing through an open
`
`hole, non-vertical segment. Both parties’ experts agree on this conclusion. Ex.
`
`2017, A. Daneshy Depo. Tr. at 51:3-14; Ex. 2034, McGowen Decl. at 16.
`
`Respondent requests that the Board adopt this interpretation because its
`
`institution decision found that this limitation was taught by a portion of Ellsworth
`
`that refers to pumping fluid into a cased and vertical section of a wellbore.
`
`The Panel appears to have found a teaching of fracturing through open hole
`
`annular segments based on Ellsworth’s disclosure of circulating inhibited fluid into
`
`the annulus. Institution Decision at 9-10. However, as explained more fully
`
`below, this portion of Ellsworth refers to circulating a corrosion inhibiting fluid in
`
`the vertical, cased hole portion of the wellbore to protect the casing from corrosion.
`
`Under the proper interpretation of the term “the second annular wellbore segment,”
`
`which requires fracturing through an open hole, non-vertical segment, this
`
`limitation is not met.
`
`IV. Obviousness Analysis
`
`Petitioners do not contend that anyone performed the claimed method prior
`
`to the inventors’ use of the method described below. They rely only on
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`
`obviousness. A patent is invalid for obviousness “if the differences between the
`
`subject matter sought to be patented 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 said subject matter pertains.” 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103. Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual
`
`findings: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the
`
`claims and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective
`
`indicia of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1,
`
`17–18 (1966). The Board must consider all four Graham factors prior to reaching
`
`a conclusion regarding obviousness. In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride
`
`Extended–Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1076–77 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Petitioners bears the burden of proving obviousness by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`
`A. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems
`
`encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with
`
`which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6)
`
`educational level of active workers in the field. Orthopedic Equipment Co., Inc. v.
`
`All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376 at 1381–1382 (Fed.Cir.1983). Not
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`
`all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other
`
`factors may predominate in a particular case. “The important consideration lies in
`
`the need to adhere to the statute, i.e., to hold that an invention would or would not
`
`have been obvious, as a whole, when it was made, to a person of ‘ordinary skill in
`
`the art’—not to the judge, or to a layman, or to those skilled in remote arts, or to
`
`geniuses in the art at hand.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`
`713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`According to Petitioners, a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the
`
`’774 Patent as of November 19, 2001 would have had at least a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in mechanical, petroleum, or chemical engineering and at least 2-3
`
`years of experience with downhole completion technologies related to fracturing.
`
`Pet. at 10. Petitioners also contend that a POSITA would be aware of efforts to
`
`minimize cost and motivated to perform fracture stimulation as efficiently as
`
`possible. Pet. at 26-27. Respondent does not dispute these statements. However,
`
`the need to minimize cost does not mean that a POSITA would compromise
`
`engineering principles or act contrary to accepted wisdom. see also Standard Oil
`
`Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 454 (Fed.Cir.1985) (“A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is also presumed to be one who thinks along the line of
`
`conventional wisdom in the art.”). Because Petitioners fail to appreciate this
`
`principle, their obviousness analysis is mistaken.
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`
`
`1.
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Aware of a Variety of
`Different Completion Techniques.
`
`Preparing a wellbore for oil or gas production can be significantly more
`
`complicated than simply drilling a hole in the ground. Rather, an operator must
`
`decide the specific drilling path for the wellbore, the underground formations to
`
`target, mechanisms to protect the wellbore, and whether anything will be done to
`
`stimulate the well to increase production, among other things.
`
`In 2001, one of the simplest ways to complete a horizontal well was to
`
`cement and case the vertical portion of the well, and leave the horizontal pay
`
`interval open to the formation. Using this type of completion, the overburden
`
`pressure of the earth forces hydrocarbons into the open portion of the wellbore and
`
`up to the surface. The casing prevents oil and gas from seeping out of the wellbore
`
`(e.g., to protect groundwater sources), as shown below:
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`
`
`Another technique for completing a wellbore is to use a (non-cemented)
`
`perforated liner or casing. This completion type is similar to an open hole
`
`completion, except that a length of liner or casing with holes is installed into the
`
`horizontal wellbore section. Similar to an open hole completion, the entire rock
`
`face of the horizontal wellbore section is directly exposed to the wellbore, but the
`
`liner or casing protects against collapse of the wellbore. This type of completion is
`
`illustrated below:
`
`
`
`Although an open hole completion or a non-cemented cased hole completion
`
`can be effective for many types of wells, these completions cause problems if a
`
`portion of the wellbore passes through an undesirable formation. For example, if
`
`the wellbore extends into a brine-producing formation, brine water can seep into
`
`the wellbore and pollute the oil or gas flowing to the surface. The solution to this
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`
`problem is a water shut-off completion. To perform water shut-off, a perforated
`
`tubing string with packers is installed to isolate the brine-producing formation from
`
`the oil-and-gas-producing formation. With this isolation, only oil and gas enters
`
`the wellbore.
`
`The annotated diagram above illustrates water shut off—the oil or gas (red) enters
`
`
`
`the perforated tubing string in the wellbore, but
`
`due to the packers, water (blue) is isolated and is
`
`shut off from entering the wellbore. One other
`
`type completion technique mentioned in the
`
`Petition is steam injection as referenced in
`
`Hutchison. This technique requires the use of
`
`multiple wellbores. St