Petitioners’
`Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`IPR2016‐00650, ‐00656, ‐00657
`Oral Hearing
`May 18, 2017
`
`1
`
`
`Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`IPR2016‐00650, ‐00656, ‐00657
`Oral Hearing
`May 18, 2017
`
`1
`
`
`
`’009 and ’451 Patents
`(656 and 657 Proceedings)
`
`2
`
`
`
`FIG. 6 of ’009 and ’451 Patents (Ex. 1001)
`656 Petition at 12; 657 Petition at 12.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Grounds 1‐4
`Priority
`
`Grounds 1-4
`
`Priority
`
`4
`
`
`
`Claims of ’009 and ’451 Patents are not entitled to a
`priority date earlier than July 5, 2010.
`‐ 656 Petition at 18; 657 Petition at 18.
`
`5
`
`
`
`“Thus, we interpret each of independent claims 1–5, 9, 10,
`and 13 as requiring an apparatus or method with a sleeve (or
`multiple sleeves) actuatable or opened by a plug, where the
`sleeve (or multiple sleeves) allows the plug to pass through
`the sleeve in the open position.”
`‐ 656 Institution Decision at 6.
`
`“Thus, we interpret each of independent claims 1, 2, and 6
`as requiring an apparatus or method with a sleeve (or
`multiple sleeves) actuatable or opened by a plug, where the
`sleeve (or multiple sleeves) allows the plug to pass through
`the sleeve in the open position.”
`‐ 657 Institution Decision at 6.
`
`6
`
`
`
`“The [’009 and ’451 Patent] claims broadly cover
`actuation both (i) directly, without the intermediate
`sleeve, and (ii)
`indirectly with the intermediate
`sleeve.”
`‐ 656 Petition at 1; 657 Petition at 1.
`
`7
`
`
`
`The ’009 and ’451 Patents disclose only indirect actuation.
`‐ 656 Petition at 15, 17, 18; 657 Petition at 15, 18, 19.
`
`FIG. 6 of ’009 and ’451 Patents (Ex. 1001)
`656 Petition at 12; 657 Petition at 12.
`
`8
`
`
`
`The ’412 Application is the only priority application
`that discloses both indirect and direct actuation.
`‐ 656 Petition at 21‐22; 657 Petition at 22‐23.
`
`9
`
`
`
`‐ 656/657 Ex. 1016 at
`47 (FIG. 6 of ’412
`Application) (656 Pet.
`at 21 n.8; 657 Pet. at
`22 n.8).
`
`‐ 656/657 Ex. 1016 at 34‐
`35 (’412 Application) (656
`Pet. at 21‐22 n.9; 657 Pet.
`at 22‐23 n.9).
`
`10
`
`
`
`RC’s expert concedes the specification does
`not disclose a yieldable ball seat, a yieldable
`ball, or a yieldable plug.
`‐ 656 Reply at 3‐4; 657 Reply at 3‐4 (both citing McGowen depo. (656
`Ex. 1023 and 657 Ex. 1032) at 173:7‐174:3).
`
`11
`
`
`
`The claims of all priority applications earlier than the
`’412 Application required an intermediate sleeve.
`‐ 656 Petition at 22 n.12; 657 Petition at 23 n.12.
`
`12
`
`
`
`ICU Medical controls.
`
`‐ 656 Petition at 18; 657 Petition at 19 (both citing ICU Medical Inc. v. Alaris Medical
`Sys., Inc., 558 F.3d 1371, 1376‐78 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).
`
`13
`
`
`
`ICU Medical
`o Identical specifications of parent and
`patent disclosed only a medical valve
`with a spike.
`o Claims covered medical valve with or
`without a spike.
`o PO argued that disclosure of preslit
`seal that could be used without spike
`supported spikeless coverage :
`but specification described the preslit
`seal as facilitating piercing with spike,
`and
`it was not enough that it would have
`been obvious
`to use preslit
`seal
`without a spike.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Here
`o Identical specifications of pre‐2010
`priority apps and patent disclose only
`actuation with intermediate sleeve.
`o Claims
`cover
`actuation with or
`without intermediate sleeve.
`o RC
`of
`argues
`that
`features
`be
`intermediate
`sleeve
`could
`rearranged and mounted in different
`locations
`to support
`intermediate
`sleeveless coverage:
`those
`describes
`but
`specification
`features for use with the intermediate
`sleeve, and
`alleged rearrangements are what expert
`considers “obvious.”
`
`•
`
`•
`
`‐ 656 Petition at 18, 22‐24; 656 Reply at 3‐5; 657 Petition at 19, 23‐25; 657 Reply at 3‐5.
`
`14
`
`
`
`None of RC’s expert‐alleged variations utilize direct
`actuation (without an intermediate sleeve).
`‐ 656 Reply at 1‐2, 7, 10; 657 Reply at 1‐2, 7, 10; 656 Ex. 1024 at ¶58 (cited
`in 656 Reply at 10); 657 Ex. 1033 at ¶58 (cited in 657 Reply at 10); 656 Ex.
`1024 at ¶¶53‐59 (cited in 656 Reply at 5‐7, 10); 657 Ex. 1033 at ¶¶53‐59
`(cited in 657 Reply at 5‐7, 10).
`
`15
`
`
`
`‐ 656 Reply at 1‐2; 657 Reply at 1‐2; 656 Ex. 1024 at ¶¶53‐59 (cited in 656 Reply
`at 7); 657 Ex. 1033 at ¶¶53‐59 (cited in 657 Reply at 7).
`
`16
`
`
`
`RC’s claim support arguments are based on
`expert’s allegations about what would have
`been obvious.
`‐ 656 Reply at 4; 657 Reply at 4.
`
`17
`
`
`
`“So it seems like it would be obvious to me to a person of ordinary
`skill in the art that they could make different configurations that
`would accomplish the same – the same basic idea.”
`
`‐ 656 Ex. 1023 at 175:18‐21 (cited in 656 Reply at 4); 657 Ex. 1032 at 175:18‐21 (cited in
`657 Reply at 4).
`
`“Q: And these are all arrangements that would have been obvious
`just based on what’s disclosed in the ’009 specification, right?
`A: Yeah, just off the top of my head looking at it going, well, how
`else – you know, what are the other embodiments that I can
`imagine. I’m sure there’s many other configurations that you could
`come up with, but – that would accomplish the same thing.”
`
`‐ 656 Ex. 1023 at 191:25‐192:7 (cited in 656 Reply at 4); 657 Ex. 1032 at 191:25‐192:7
`(cited in 657 Reply at 4).
`
`18
`
`
`
`Even if obviousness were the standard, RC’s
`expert’s alleged variations exceeded the skill
`level of a POSITA.
`‐ 656 Reply at 5‐6 (citing 656 Ex. 1024 at ¶¶49‐52); 657 Reply at 5‐6
`(657 Ex. 1033 at ¶¶49‐52).
`
`19
`
`
`
`Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage
`Container Corp., 635 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212 (C.C.P.A. 1981)
`
`In re Peters, 723 F.2d 891 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Sightsound Technologies, LLC, CBM2013‐00019, slip
`op. (Paper 17) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2013)
`
`Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 645 F.3d 1336
`(Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`‐ 656 Reply at 6‐10; 657 Reply at 6‐10.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Grounds 5‐6
`Echols‐Thomson Combination
`
`21
`
`
`
`‐ 656 Petition at 45 (citing 656 Ex. 1004); 657 Petition at 39 (citing 657 Ex. 1004).
`
`22
`
`
`
`1.75”
`
`Echols (1)
`
`1.75"
`
`MSAF
`
`1.5”
`
`Echols (1)
`
`1.5”
`
`MSAF
`
`
`LONG AXIS
`
`.
`
`
`
`|
`_.— "I
`
`-
`
`I
`
`.
`
`_.v: I— =_;—_': _—_ __3—1 --1
`
`I:.'..: l—_'_ ___—__ ;__—__"_ __l
`
`.7" :— 7—7—3—
`
`PACKER
`
`PACKER
`
`PACKER
`
`Echols(2
`Echols(2
`‐ 656 Petition at 49; 657 Petition at 43.
`
`Figure A
`(Thomson-Echols)
`
`- 656 Petition at 49; 657 Petition at 43.
`
`23
`
`
`
`“In Thomson, the number of sleeves per zone does not
`dictate the number of
`injection points
`into the
`formation. Rather, the number of perforations in the
`casing dictates the number of injection points whether
`there is a single sleeve per zone or multiple sleeves per
`zone. Ex. 2006, McGowen Decl. at 13.
`
`…T
`
`the number of Echols sleeves
`hus, regardless of
`employed in a particular zone of the Thomson system,
`all of the fluid ejected through those sleeves can only
`reach the formation through the perforations in the
`casing.”
`
`‐ 656 POR at 23‐24; 657 POR at 23‐24.
`
`24
`
`
`
`“It would be immediately clear to a POSITA the use of
`multiple Echols sleeves in a Thomson zone would not
`provide additional injection points into the formation.
`The only injection points into the casing are through
`perforations. If a POSITA wanted to modify Thomson to
`add additional injection points, he or she could
`add additional perforations in the casing, but there
`would be no reason to add additional sliding sleeves in
`a particular zone.”
`‐ 656 POR at 24 (citing Ex. 2006 at 13); 657 POR at 24 (citing Ex. 2006 at 13).
`
`25
`
`
`
`But increasing formation fracture points does
`not require increase in perforations
`• Reducing perforations could have increased the
`number of fracture points through “limited entry.”
`‐ 656 Reply at 13‐14; 656 Pet. at 50 (citing 656 Ex. 1006 at ¶ 79 (citing 656 Ex. 1010
`at 1)); 657 Reply at 13‐14; 657 Pet. at 44 (citing 657 Ex. 1006 at ¶ 79 (citing 657 Ex.
`1010 at 1)).
`• Mr. McGowen explained that cased‐hole approach of
`limited entry increased stimulation of a zone by
`reducing the number of perforations in that zone.
`‐ 656 Reply at 14‐15 (citing 656 Ex. 1025 at 28/89, lines 8‐18); 657 Reply at 14‐15
`(citing 657 Ex. 1034 at 28/89, lines 8‐18).
`
`26
`
`
`
`Grounds 5‐6 do not require casing
`
`• No ’009 or ’451 patent claim requires or precludes
`casing.
`
`• No contention that modified Thomson system had to
`be used in cased hole.
`
`• RC did not argue that modified Thomson system
`would have no utility in open zones with larger
`thicknesses.
`‐ 656 Reply at 12; 657 Reply at 12.
`
`27
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ unaddressed arguments
`• “beneficial for treating longer zones, or zones with
`larger thicknesses, to provide additional fractures or
`porosity at both sleeves to improve porosity and thus
`production from the formation”
`‐ 656/657 Petition at 50/44 (cited in 656/657 Reply at 12‐13); 656/657 Ex. 1006 at ¶¶
`78‐80 (cited in 656/657 Pet. at 50/44 and in 656/657 Reply at 13 (“A person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modified Thomson system to be
`beneficial for treating longer sections or zones of a wellbore to provide additional
`fractures at both the Echols’ tools and the Thomson sleeve to improve production
`from the formation.”)).
`• actuation of all sleeves in a zone with only one ball
`‐ 656 Petition at 49‐50 (cited in 656 Reply at 13); 657 Petition at 43‐44
`(cited in 657 Reply at 13).
`
`28
`
`
`
`’936 Patent
`(650 Proceeding)
`
`’936 Patent
`
`(650 Proceeding)
`
`29
`
`
`
`
`
`350
`
`PORT-CLOSU RE SLEEVE
`
`353b
`
`
`314
`329
`353a
`
`m mm\\
`//,9.
`__
`am mam
`\\\\_\\\\\\\\%\\\\\}}\
`\\\\\V\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\I"'—_'1'_\\\\\$\\\\\\\\\\\\\F'“2.?— \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ &\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘{§
`’
`
`Illl-III II
`
`
`mexxxxxmxxxifik
`\ m\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\mm“\\\_.__.Jmmx\\\\\\\\~\L_.__..._—$tm\\\\\‘x\\ A\\\\\\‘I\‘K\\\\\\\\\\"
`//
`\\\ \‘\\.\&x\\\\\‘
`mm\\~
`
`327at my” 317D
`
`351
`
`346
`
`PORT-OPENING SLEEVE
`
`
`
`
`
`PORT
`
`PORT-CLOSURE SLEEVE
`
`FIG. 8
`
`
`FIG. 8 of ’936 Patents (Ex. 1001)
`650 Petition at 16.
`(annotated)
`
`FIG. 8 of ’936 Patents (Ex. 1001)
`
`650 Petition at 16.
`
`30
`
`
`
`“a first sleeve positioned relative to the first
`port, the first sleeve being moveable relative
`to the first port between a closed port
`position and a position permitting fluid flow
`through the first port from the tubing string
`inner bore wherein the first sleeve has
`engaged and moved the sliding sleeve away
`from the first port”
`‐ Ex. 1001 at independent claims 14 and 25; Petition at 18.
`
`31
`
`
`
`As a result, the BRI of “has engaged and
`moved” requires a process of two
`events that are temporally linked: the
`physical relationship between the first sleeve
`and the sliding sleeve changes to one of
`engagement, and the first sleeve moves the
`sliding sleeve. Before this process begins, the
`first sleeve must have neither moved
`nor engaged the sliding sleeve.
`
`‐ Petition at 19; POPR (Paper 7) at 6 (“Petitioners’ interpretation is consistent with
`the claims and embodiments in the specification.”).
`
`32
`
`
`
`“Thus, in the context of the claims, we construe
`‘engaged and moved’ as requiring the two sleeves
`be involved in activity together, as distinguished
`from standing simply in physical contact with one
`another.[fn5]”
`
`[fn5] “As noted in the accompanying Scheduling
`Order, should either party plan to contest this
`construction, it must request an initial conference
`call within thirty (30) days of this Decision.”
`‐ Institution Decision at 5; POR at 2 (“This constr[u]ction is consistent with the
`parties’ proposals, despite being expressed in a more concise way.”).
`
`33
`
`
`
`Grounds 1‐3
`Thomson‐Echols
`
`34
`
`
`
`I
`
`5 -1f2"TUBING HANGER
`
`5 -1I2" TR.S.C.S.S.V,
`
` 5" RB. R. SEAL ASSEMBLY
`
`4 -1I2" x 1-1!2"S.P.M
`(VALVE : BLANK)
`
`4 -1!2" x1-1I2"S.P_M
`(VALVE : BLANK)
`
`4 -‘I.u’2" RD SLIDING SLEEVE
`
`WITH ANN. PRESS. RELEAS-
`
`WELLBORE
`
`3.533“ ‘R' NIPPLE
`
`LONG AXIS
`
`7” RETRIEVABLE
`PACKER
`
`(1 REQ. PER ZONE)
`
`‐ Petition at 25 (citing Ex. 1002).
`
`35
`
`TUBING
`STRING
`
`7 PERMANENT
`PACKER
`
`4— 112" MSAF TOOL
`(1 REQ_ PER ZONE)
`
`4-1,; CYCLE
`PLUGISHEAR OUT sue
`
`Fiure 3
`(annotated)
`
`
`
`I
` 76
`36 6254 S
`T4
`80
`TB
` ‘ "'1-.‘W'HHII'IIIIIHHQ'“ flu"...
`
`—rl--.—]"”.'M'
`”Jr"WWII,
`
`
`
`SHEAR
`IE m
`i' 9
`COLLAR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“m
`
`34
`
`DROP
`
`BALL
`
`SLIDING
`
`SLEEVE
`
`_R|NG
`
`
`72\‘
`
`
`
`
`l
`
`
`
`
`PORT
`COUNTERBORE
`
`
`368 [3-1
`76
`m
`
`””qwfiqL—W'"£'Ilr.__1lu“:o'.....
`
`
`
`‘5“ng
`IllllfllWUIlImu" -
`.
`' $.zzmfi‘:55
`
`-lll _R'NG
`B-LL
`
`|
`DROP
`‐ Petition at 31 (citing Ex. 1005).
`
`
`
`SLIDING SLEEVE
`
`SHEAR COLLAR
`
`Excergts of Figures 7 & 8
`(annotated)
`
`- Petition at 31 (citing Ex. 1005).
`
`36
`
`
`
`1.75”
`
`Echols (1)
`
`1.75”
`
`MSAF
`
`
`
`1.5”
`
`Echols (1)
`
`
`"' ——_—- '——t '
`
`I
`
`--
`
`-...I I— ,'—_ ;——l_J'—I |
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.._.I I—_ ;—_ '— '—I --
`
`
`-... I—: Tu.-
`
`
`
`1.75"
`
`PACKER
`
`PACKER
`
`Echols (2)
`
`Echols(2
`
`‐ Petition at 44.
`
`Figure A
`
`(T homsun—Echols)
`
`- Petition at 44.
`
`37
`
`
`
`7” RETRIEVABLE PACKER
`
`(‘1 REC). PER ZONE)
`
`
`
`
`
`PACKING
`ELEMENT #1
`
`-
`
`PACKING
`
`PACKING
`ELEMENT #3
`
`ELEMENT #2
`‐ Petition at 38‐41; Ex. 1006 at ¶¶ 70‐73 (cited in Pet. at 38).
`Excerpt of Figure 3
`
`(annotated)
`
`38
`
`
`
`"
`
`FIXED STOP
`RING
`
`PACKING
`
`ELEMENT #3
`
`SPACER
`
`PACKING
`ELEMENT #2
`
`SPACER
`
`PACKING
`ELEMENT #1
`
`COMPRESSION
`RING
`
`}
`
`}
`
`-'->:-:n9:wt..-
`
`Ra
`E
`
`2E
`
`:
`
`
`
`PISTON
`‘ I
`‐ Petition at 39‐41; Ex. 1006 at ¶¶ 71‐73 (cited in Pet. at 38).
`SHEAR
`HYDRAULIC
`
`SCREWS
`PORT
`
`
`t of Fi me 4 Retl'ievable Confi uration
`Excel'
`
`(annotated)
`
`39
`
`
`
`“In Thomson, the number of sleeves per zone does not dictate
`the number of injection points into the formation. Rather, the
`number of perforations in the casing dictates the number of
`injection points whether there is a single sleeve per zone or
`multiple sleeves per zone.
`
`…C
`
`ontrary to Petitioners’ assertion, a POSITA would recognize that
`the use of multiple Echols sleeves in a Thomson zone would not
`provide additional injection points into the formation because
`the only injection points are the perforations in the casing. Ex.
`2003, McGowen Decl. at 13.
`If a POSITA wanted to modify
`Thomson to add additional injection points, he or she could add
`additional perforations in the casing, but there would be no
`reason to add additional sliding sleeves in a particular zone. Ex.
`2003, McGowen Decl. at 13.”
`‐ POR at 4.
`
`40
`
`
`
`But increasing formation fracture points does
`not require increase in perforations
`• Mr. McGowen’s Ex. 2003 opinion contradicted other
`declaration where he explained that cased‐hole approach
`of “limited entry” increased stimulation of a zone by
`reducing the number of perforations in that zone.
`‐ Reply at 2‐3 (citing Ex. 1022 at 28/89, lines 8‐18).
`
`• Ex. 2003 opinion also contradicted Petitioners’
`expert’s explanation of limited entry.
`‐ Reply at 3 (citing Ex. 1006 at ¶ 80 (limited entry was well‐known for “increasing
`the number of points where fractures were initiated in a zone”).
`
`41
`
`
`
`Grounds 1‐3 do not require casing
`
`• No ’936 patent claim requires or precludes casing.
`
`• No contention that modified Thomson system had to
`be used in cased hole.
`
`• RC did not argue that modified Thomson system
`would have no utility in open‐hole zones with larger
`thicknesses.
`
`‐ Reply at 1.
`
`42
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ unaddressed arguments
`
`• “beneficial for treating zones with larger thicknesses,
`to provide additional fractures or porosity at both
`sleeves to improve porosity and thus production from
`the formation”
`‐ Petition at 33 (cited in Reply at 1); Ex. 1006 at ¶ 79 (cited in Pet. at 33 and in Reply
`at 1 (“A person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modified
`Thomson system to be beneficial for treating longer sections or zones of a wellbore
`to provide additional fractures at both the Echols’ tools and the Thomson sleeve to
`improve production from the formation.”)).
`• actuation of all sleeves in a zone with only one ball
`‐ Petition at 32‐33 (cited in Reply at 1‐2).
`
`43
`
`
`
`RC’s Claim 22 attorney argument –
`no multiple packing elements
`• Petitioners rely on Thomson’s retrievable packer.
`‐ Petition at 24‐26 (discussing use of retrievable packers), 29‐30 (discussing
`retrievable packers for elements 14[e]‐14[g]), 38‐41 (discussing retrievable packer in
`context of claim 22 and showing annotated excerpts of Thomson Figures 3 and 4); Ex.
`1006 at ¶¶ 70‐73 (cited at Pet. at 38 for claim 22).
`
`• Like Petitioners’ expert, RC’s expert never designed a
`packer.
`‐ Ex. 1023 at 113:6‐7 (cited in Reply at 8).
`
`• RC’s expert did not challenge Petitioners’ expert.
`‐ Ex. 2003; Ex. 1023 at 62:11‐65:25 and 33:20‐25.
`
`44
`
`
`
`RC’s Thomson‐Brown attorney arguments
`• Ignore Petitioners’ expert‐supported motivations.
`‐ Reply at 9; Pet. at 48‐50 (citing Ex. 1006 at ¶¶ 85‐92 and, at Petition pages 49‐50,
`detailing “Redundancy & Structural Stability”; “Directional‐Independence of Seals”;
`“Isolation of Slip Elements”; “Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known
`Methods to Yield Predictable Results”).
`• Inconsistent with Thomson and Brown.
`‐ Reply at 9‐11; Ex. 1024 at ¶¶ 5‐10.
`
`45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a}?(5.4...IWIILWI1/W/l/fl/E.
`
`e“m\i\.‘.‘:_.:—_\\‘\\hS““\\\\\‘N‘N“N\‘\\u\\.\‘\\\\\t\\§.‘N‘N‘N‘N‘N‘N‘N‘V‘Nh\u\\\l‘.\\‘\.\\“‘\\‘\‘\N‘N‘N‘u‘~“n‘§
`
`
`
`
`
`'.I‘I’lill’i’’J’JI‘IIIIIII!I.’“bill!IIIIII‘IIIIIIf!I!I!!!’I‘I‘IIII'I'I‘I'II'III"
`
`
`
`
`_l__.____
`
`Ilifl
`
`R
`Ev:
`
`anNmmMNNWHmmmuEHv.CEEmmmmHRLPEa
`
`
`
`
`
`.—II.-IIIIIIIII
`
`
`
`
`
`\\.\\‘I\I.I__—-_‘.T‘N_.‘\‘\\~‘\\\L..N.‘.‘.“\‘$\‘\‘5“\~““~LK‘-‘\“~r‘\.‘\‘..‘W‘W‘.‘S.V“““““‘V‘\“VV§.V\SQ§
`
`
`
`
`4I117"'P"‘?.‘lij’1.pl.(I;VI'15?!”FEJ.47."I'd,Ar_jjjfifalmrd2".g"I”"II'IIII'IJ..'
`
`IIIIJIJIIIJIIEI
`
`
`III-.II.IIII...-.1.......1'rdt/l...’
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II}...
`
`
`
`
`
`r.o.an..naa71amaum...nufis:.5
`
`PACKING
`ELEMENT #1
`
`SLIP
`ELEMENTS
`
`PACKING
`ELEMENT #2
`
`COMPRESSION
`RING
`
`PRESSURE
`CHAMBER
`
`‐ Petition at 47 (citing Ex. 1005).
`
`46
`
`F1 ure 1
`
`(annotated)
`
`Fi
`
`r32
`
`(annotated)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition Excerpts
`
`Petition Excerpts
`
`47
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to include multiple ones of Echols’ dual‐
`sleeve arrangement sized for a 1.5‐inch ball above Thomson’s 1.5‐inch MSAF tool, and
`multiple ones of Echols’ dual‐sleeve arrangement sized for a 1.75‐inch ball above Thomson’s
`1.75‐inch MSAF tool, to provide additional injection points above Thomson’s MSAF tools in
`each of these zones. Ex. 1006 at ¶¶ 78‐80.
`In this modified Echols‐Thomson system, both
`the 1.5‐inch Echols sleeves and the 1.5‐inch MSAF tool could be actuated by a single 1.5‐inch
`Id. Similarly, both the 1.75‐inch Echols sleeves and the 1.75‐inch MSAF tool could be
`ball.
`actuated by a single 1.75‐inch ball. A POSITA would have expected this modified Echols‐
`Thomson system to be beneficial for treating longer zones, or zones with larger thicknesses,
`to provide additional fractures or porosity at both sleeves to improve porosity and thus
`production from the formation. Id.
`It was well known at the relevant time that increasing the number of fracture
`points in a given zone could increase the productivity of that zone. See Ex. 1006 at ¶ 79
`(citing Ex. 1010 at 1 (“To get an effective treatment, it is desirable to treat as much of the
`perforated interval as possible.”)). A POSITA would also have been aware that stimulating
`multiple zones at once could reduce the cost and time needed to complete a well. See Ex.
`1023 at 2 (in the context of limited‐entry, noting that “[o]ne way of reducing cost while
`improving fracture treatments was to complete both intervals at once”). Using two or more
`of Echols’ dual‐sleeve arrangements in one of Thomson’s zones would have been a logical
`approach to achieving these objectives, while still allowing the tubing string to be run into
`the well with the ports in a closed position to prevent intrusion of wellbore fluids and avoid
`related issues like premature setting of packers. Ex. 1006 at ¶ 79.
`
`‐ 657 Petition at 43‐44; see also 656 Petition at 49‐50.
`
`48
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to include
`multiple ones of Echols’ dual‐sleeve arrangement sized for a 1.5‐
`inch ball above Thomson’s 1.5‐inch MSAF tool, and multiple ones
`of Echols’s dual‐sleeve arrangement sized for a 1.75‐inch ball
`above Thomson’s 1.75‐inch MSAF tool, to provide additional
`injection points above Thomson’s MSAF tools in each of these
`zones. Ex. 1006 at ¶¶ 78‐79.
`In this modified Echols‐Thomson
`system, both the 1.5‐inch Echols sleeves and the 1.5‐inch MSAF
`Id. at ¶ 79.
`tool could be actuated by a single 1.5‐inch ball.
`Similarly, both the 1.75‐inch Echols sleeves and the 1.75‐inch
`Id. A
`MSAF tool could be actuated by a single 1.75‐inch ball.
`POSITA would have expected this modified Echols‐Thomson
`system to be beneficial for treating zones with larger thicknesses,
`to provide additional fractures or porosity at both sleeves to
`improve porosity and thus production from the formation. Id.
`
`‐ 650 Petition at 32‐33.
`
`49
`
`
`
`Brown’s packer offers several advantages over other packer
`designs. Ex. 1006 at ¶¶ 85‐92. “Once set, the packer 10 is firmly anchored to
`the casing C to prevent either up or down movement of the packer and
`attached tubing T.” Ex. 1005 at 5:7‐9. And “[t]he dual cone configuration
`holds the packer in place irrespective of the direction of the pressure
`differential acting on the packer.” Id. at 5:9‐12. Further, “[t]he upper and
`lower seals 13 and 14 form a seal between the mandrel and the casing to
`prevent fluid flow in the annular area A [and] . . . isolate the slip elements . . .
`to prevent debris in the annulus from accumulating about the slip and cone
`Id. at 5:12‐17; Ex. 1006 at ¶ 92. A POSITA would have been
`assembly.”
`motivated to use Brown’s hydraulic‐set
`retrievable packer in place of
`Thomson’s hydraulic‐set retrievable packers for several independent reasons.
`Redundancy & Structural Stability: A POSITA would have been
`motivated to use Brown’s packer in Thomson’s system to provide redundant
`seals and structural stability. Ex. 1006 at ¶¶ 89‐91. For example, Brown’s
`packer includes two spaced‐apart packing elements that are compressed on
`opposite sides of its slip elements, increasing the likelihood that at least one
`in an irregularly shaped part of an (e.g., open or uncased)
`will fully seal
`Id. Brown’s packer also resists movement of the packer and tool
`wellbore.
`string. Ex. 1005 at 5:7‐9; Ex. 1006 at ¶¶ 89‐91.
`‐ 650 Petition at 48‐49.
`
`50
`
`
`
`Directional‐Independence of Seals: A POSITA would have been motivated to
`use Brown’s packer in Thomson’s system to provide a seal that is independent of any
`pressure differential across the packer. Ex. 1006 at ¶ 91; see also Ex. 1005 at 5:9‐12
`(“The dual cone configuration holds the packer in place irrespective of the direction of
`the pressure differential acting on the packer.”).
`Isolation of Slip Elements: A POSITA would have been motivated to use
`Brown’s packer in Thomson’s system to provide a packer with slip elements that are
`isolated from fluid and debris in the wellbore. Ex. 1006 at ¶ 92; see also Ex. 1005 at
`5:12‐17.
`In particular, Brown’s packer includes a packing element on either side of its
`slip elements, thereby isolating its slip elements from wellbore fluids, which a POSITA
`would have expected to protect and increase the reliability and working life of its slip
`elements. Ex. 1006 at ¶ 92.
`Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield
`Predictable Results: Thomson and Brown teach known alternatives for isolating zones
`in a well completion as of November 19, 2001. In particular, Thomson and Brown each
`describe hydraulically‐set, solid body packers, such that the use of Brown’s packer in
`Thomson’s system would have been a straightforward task for a POSITA at that time
`(Ex. 1006 at ¶ 87), and the combination would have yielded nothing more than
`predictable results to that person (e.g., a completion system that worked in the same
`manner as the system disclosed in Thomson (id.)), thus rendering the combination
`obvious. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
`
`‐ 650 Petition at 49‐50.
`
`51
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
