UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`
`
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES INC.
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`U.S. Patent No. 6,006,838
`______________
`
`DECLARATION OF BLAKE R. COX
`
`BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD
`OPERATIONS, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY
`SERVICES INC. v. BAKER HUGHES
`OILFIELD OPERATIONS, INC.
`IPR2016-01099
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 33
`
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`
`
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES INC.
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`U.S. Patent No. 6,006,838
`______________
`
`DECLARATION OF BLAKE R. COX
`
`BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD
`OPERATIONS, INC.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY
`SERVICES INC. v. BAKER HUGHES
`OILFIELD OPERATIONS, INC.
`IPR2016-01099
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`A.
`
`Qualifications and Experience
`
`1.
`
`My name is Blake R. Cox. I am at least 18 years old and qualified to
`
`testify in this proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`I am currently self-employed as an Independent Consultant
`
`specializing in wellbore equipment, specifically, packers and other (wellbore
`
`sealing devices and methods), flow control devices and related equipment. I am
`
`consulted on the use, development and design and problem analysis of such
`
`equipment in the drilling, completion and remediation of oil and gas wells.
`
`3.
`
`I have thirty-seven years of experience in the oil and gas industry.
`
`Thirty-four of these years are specifically in the area of drilling, completion,
`
`production and remediation aspects of hydrocarbon well bores. My c.v. is attached
`
`as Exhibit 2006.
`
`4.
`
`I earned a Bachelor of Science in Geology from the University of
`
`Texas at the Permian Basin, Odessa, Texas in 2005.
`
`5.
`
`My oil field experience began in 1973 while in high school with a
`
`summer job at Watson Packer, Inc., an independent tool company in Monahans,
`
`Texas during the summer recess. I cleaned and repaired packers and their related
`
`tools in a shop setting gaining a rudimentary understanding of these devices.
`
`6.
`
`From 1975 to 1978, I worked in basic entry level oil field jobs gaining
`
`a general understanding of the oil industry. I worked for Texas Lease Works,
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 2 -
`
`Page 2 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`Monahans, Texas, an oil field construction company, building production and
`
`injection facilities and connecting wells to the facilities. I worked for J&C Well
`
`Service, in Wickett, Texas on a work over-production rig, installing and
`
`maintaining production equipment and performing general completion, re-
`
`completion and remediation task. I work for a short time for A.W. Thompson
`
`Drilling Co. as a roughneck on one of their drilling rigs.
`
`7.
`
`In 1978, I went to work for Halliburton, Inc. in Monahans, Texas. At
`
`Halliburton I was educated in high-pressure pumping related to the drilling,
`
`completion and remediation of a wellbore, working on wells ranging from 1,200
`
`feet to 22,000 feet in depth. I experienced all aspects of the cementing of a well
`
`bore including cementing casing, hanging and cementing liners, remedial squeeze
`
`cementing and plugging operations. I participated in well stimulation with oil and
`
`water based fracturing fluids, energized fluids, and acids. I learned the usage and
`
`applications of tools including float equipment, liner hangers and packers and their
`
`related equipment.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`In 1982 I went to work for Watson Packer, Inc., in Odessa, Texas.
`
`During the next fourteen and a half years I learned how to
`
`successfully deploy downhole tools into well bores to enable the drilling process,
`
`completion, and remediation of these wells. I began as a Tool Operator and in 1984
`
`was promoted to the management of the Odessa facility.
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 3 -
`
`Page 3 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`10. During these years I worked with almost all types of hydraulic and
`
`mechanical packers and their related equipment, drilling and remedial liners, float
`
`equipment, flow control devices and open hole mechanical and inflatable packers. I
`
`learned how to manage personnel, beginning with 3 direct reports and building the
`
`shop to 7 employees.
`
`11. During this building phase we raised the position of the shop to
`
`number one in revenue and profit in the company. With experience and exposure
`
`to well problems I began to develop techniques and designs to overcome some of
`
`these problems, working first with manufacturers on changes to existing tools or to
`
`develop new tools. As I learned the basics of tool design I began to make changes
`
`and innovations to equipment designs internally in our company. The success of
`
`these changes and innovations encouraged me to continue this process throughout
`
`my career.
`
`12.
`
`In 1997, I left Watson Packer and created and co-owned a new
`
`company, Trinity Packer, Inc., which operated for almost two years supplying tools
`
`and services to the oil industry.
`
`13. We sold Trinity Packer, Inc. with the co ownership exiting, in late
`
`1998, to BJ Services, Inc., a Houston based oil field Service Company, to assist in
`
`establishing a tool business for them in the Permian Basin. I was established as Sr.
`
`District Manager for the Permian Region Tool district and beginning with one
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 4 -
`
`Page 4 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`location, 3 employees (including myself) and annual revenue of $455,000, we
`
`successfully developed the business into 5 locations with over 50 employees and
`
`an annual revenue exceeding $10 million. During this time I was able to help
`
`create and establish several new tool lines for BJ Services including float
`
`equipment, remedial liners , and retrievable and permanent multi-zone completion
`
`systems with various types of packers for isolating zones in open and cased hole
`
`well bores.
`
`14.
`
`In 2007, I left BJ Services and began a new business as a well
`
`consultant. I worked exclusively for Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd., a Midland, Texas
`
`based oil and gas company. I was tasked to go out to specific well sites, initiate and
`
`complete specific tasks prescribed for the well. These tasks consisted of all aspects
`
`involved in completion of new wells, re-completion of existing wells, remediation
`
`of existing well and plug to abandonment of existing wells.
`
`15.
`
`In 2007, BJ Services asked if I would come back to the company. I
`
`agreed and I returned as the Sr. District manager, successfully increasing year-to-
`
`year revenue by $2 million. In 2008 I was promoted to Region Technical Manager,
`
`BJ Tool Services, US and Mexico, a new position, and transferred to Houston,
`
`Texas. In this position I was tasked with creating educational and technical
`
`material and refining our job problem analysis procedures. I was also tasked with
`
`defining and refining best field practices. I continued working in the design and
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 5 -
`
`Page 5 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`implementation of new technologies and products, participating in engineering
`
`design reviews of developing products and adding such aspects as casing deployed
`
`horizontal completion tools, swellable packers and economic gravel pack tools to
`
`our services. I participated in job problem analysis and negotiations concerning
`
`issues dealing with thousands to millions of dollars.
`
`16.
`
`In 2010, I left BJ Services to participate in creating a company,
`
`Tripoint, LLC, as an owner and managing member. My main position at Tripoint,
`
`LLC was Executive Vice President of Unconventional Tools.
`
`17. Additionally, I assumed the roles of Engineering Manager and Region
`
`Sales and Operations Manager over South Texas and North Eastern US operations.
`
`Tripoint, LLC was a profitable company in the very first year, and after
`
`capitalizing for a little over $5 million, sold within two years for over $35 million.
`
`During this time, I was tasked with creating a liner hanger system, open hole and
`
`cement-able multi-zone stimulation tools and their associated devices. I then hired
`
`and established an engineering group to assist on other product development in
`
`both the unconventional tools and gravel pack tools. I, with another partner,
`
`negotiated the sale of Tripoint, LLC to a private equity company.
`
`18. After the sale of Tripoint, LLC in 2012, I continued working for the
`
`resulting new company, NSC-Tripoint, until March 2013. I left this position to
`
`begin consulting on the subjects listed at the beginning of this discourse.
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 6 -
`
`Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`19. During the course of my career I have used and observed the use of
`
`tools that were designed to jet or accelerate fluid for various reasons. One example
`
`is the use of a water and sand mixture to perforate casing by pumping this mixture
`
`through a jet to cut away the steel of the casing and the cement behind to access the
`
`producing formation. I have also designed and deployed various tools including
`
`packers, sliding sleeve devices and bridge plugs to enable the stimulation of down
`
`hole formations by various fracturing or acidizing methods.
`
`20.
`
`I am also a named inventor on four United States Patents directly
`
`related to methods and apparatuses concerning well bore tools in oil and gas wells:
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,255,178; 7,600,572; 8,567,501; and 9,410,401.
`
`B.
`
`Technical Background
`
`21. Drilling a well for hydrocarbon recovery generally involves drilling a
`
`hole to construct a “wellbore,” or “borehole,” in a geological formation with oil or
`
`gas reserves. The wellbore is either lined with pipe or “casing” to protect the
`
`wellbore during production operations, in what may be referred to as a “cased
`
`completion,” or a portion of the wellbore is not lined with pipe in what may be
`
`referred to as an “open hole completion.” Traditionally, oil wells relied on natural
`
`pressure and permeability of the formation to move petroleum products to the
`
`surface. But when natural flow is insufficient or not economical, “well stimulation”
`
`techniques, such as fracking, are employed to enlarge existing channels or create
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 7 -
`
`Page 7 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`new ones in the formation, thereby increasing permeability to help oil and gas flow
`
`into the wellbore.
`
`22.
`
`Stimulation typically involves two types of wellbore fluid treatments:
`
`(1) hydraulic fracturing and (2) acidizing. In hydraulic fracturing, fluid is pumped
`
`down a wellbore at a high enough pressure to create fractures in the formation and
`
`open up channels for fluid to enter the rock. In acidizing, acid is pumped down a
`
`wellbore so that the acid interacts with a formation to erode the formation and open
`
`up channels for fluid to enter the rock. Ex. 1001 at 5:7-9. Acidizing may also be
`
`performed at a pressure sufficient to fracture the formation.
`
`23. During stimulation operations, it is often desirable to stimulate only
`
`certain portions of a formation. For example, a wellbore may cross multiple
`
`formation zones, only some of which contain desirable petroleum products. As
`
`such, tools called “packers” are sometimes used to seal the annulus around the
`
`production tubing in the wellbore to direct the fluid into the formation zone and
`
`protect tubing above and below the zone from produced fluids, which are often
`
`corrosive. Once packers are deployed in the wellbore and set to seal around the
`
`production tubing to isolate the desired zones, fluid may be pumped into the
`
`isolated zones for stimulation.
`
`24.
`
`In addition to stimulation, other oil recovery techniques, such as steam
`
`injection, are often used in shallow reservoirs that contain high viscosity (usually
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 8 -
`
`Page 8 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`heavy) crude oil. However, oil recovery through steam heating and injection is
`
`very different than fracturing and acidizing. Unlike fracturing and acidizing, steam
`
`injection relies on heating and displacement to act on the oil itself rather than
`
`physically altering the formation. Steam injection sometimes uses multiple
`
`wellbores, with steam injected into an injector well to force oil into another, nearby
`
`production well. Medley Transcript at 9:11-13. In other wells, steam is injected
`
`directly into a wellbore from which hydrocarbons are produced. The injection of
`
`steam heats the crude oil in the formation, thus lowering its viscosity and
`
`vaporizing some of the oil to increase its mobility by allowing the oil to flow more
`
`freely.
`
`C.
`
`The ’838 Patent
`
`25.
`
`I have reviewed U.S. Patent No. 6,006,838 (“the ’838 Patent”),
`
`entitled “Apparatus and Method for Stimulating Multiple Production Zones In A
`
`Wellbore,” by inventors T.G. Whiteley, Douglas J. Lehr, Michael A. Martin, and
`
`Dennis Atchley, which was filed on October 12, 1998 and issued on December 28,
`
`1999.
`
`26.
`
`The ’838 Patent describes an apparatus and method for stimulating
`
`producing zones of an openhole wellbore in oil and gas wells, specifically, without
`
`requiring the use of openhole inflatable packers. Ex. 1001 at 1:7-10. More
`
`particularly, the ’838 Patent discloses modules with jetting nozzles that generate
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 9 -
`
`Page 9 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`sufficient kinetic energy to mechanically erode away near wellbore formation
`
`damage. Ex. 1001 at 4:42-47, FIG. 3.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed that a patent typically includes a number of
`
`figures and a “written description” of those figures, which together form the
`
`“specification” of the patent.
`
`28.
`
`I have also been informed that the claims of a U.S. Patent appear at
`
`the end of the document, following the specification, and that these claims set forth
`
`the boundaries of the invention. I have further been informed that the clauses that
`
`make up a claim are known as “claim elements” or “claim limitations.”
`
`29.
`
`I have reviewed each of the claims 1–29 of the ’838 Patent that
`
`Petitioner is challenging in its petition.
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that an issued patent results from a patent
`
`application filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and that the process
`
`of filing a patent application through to obtaining an issued patent may also be
`
`known as “prosecution.” I understand that during the application process, the
`
`Patent Office reviews the application and may reject the claims over patents,
`
`published patent applications, technical papers, and other printed publications that
`
`together are known as “prior art.” I further understand that a patent applicant may
`
`respond to these rejections by amending the claims or by making arguments as to
`
`why the prior art does not teach one or more claims of the patent. I further
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 10 -
`
`Page 10 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`understand that if the Patent Office is persuaded that these amendments or
`
`arguments make the claimed invention novel and nonobvious over the cited prior
`
`art, the patent office will allow the application to issue as a patent.
`
`31.
`
`I have also been informed that the paper record of the application,
`
`rejections by the patent office, arguments and amendments by the applicant, and
`
`other documents associated with the application are known as the “file history” or
`
`“prosecution history.”
`
`D.
`
`Pertinent art and level of ordinary skill
`
`32.
`
`I have been asked to provide opinions related to certain issues from
`
`the perspective of a person of ordinary skill, having knowledge of the relevant art,
`
`as of October 12, 1998, and—except where otherwise noted—the opinions stated
`
`in this declaration are from that perspective. The qualifications and abilities of such
`
`a person are described in paragraphs 33–42 below.
`
`33. Based on my experience and understanding of the patent, the relevant
`
`art for the ’838 Patent is the drilling, completion, stimulation, and remediation of
`
`wellbores to extract oil and gas.
`
`34. Based on my experience, in my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have had a combination of technical education and experience that
`
`would have given such a person a first-hand understanding of the types of tools,
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 11 -
`
`Page 11 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`particularly jetting tools, used in the drilling, completion, stimulation, and
`
`remediation of wellbores to extract oil and gas.
`
`35.
`
`Such a person with a bachelor of science degree in mechanical
`
`engineering or petroleum engineering, would have had 3–5 years of technical
`
`experience in the drilling, completion, stimulation, and remediation of well bores
`
`to extract oil and gas. Without a technical degree, such a person would have had 6–
`
`8 years of technical experience concerning the application of devices and methods
`
`directly associated with the drilling, completion, stimulation, and remediation of
`
`wellbores to extract oil and gas.
`
`36.
`
`In the oil and gas industry, at the time of the invention, individual oil
`
`and gas tools were not typically designed by persons of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Individual tools were instead typically designed by engineers who specialized in
`
`tool design. Such specialized tool designers often had a good understanding of the
`
`conditions under which such tools must function—for example, downhole
`
`temperatures and pressures—but typically had less understanding than a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art about how to practically select and use tool strings to
`
`achieve particular hydrocarbon recovery results. As a result, while such specialists
`
`may have been skilled in formulating polymers to function as-desired and survive
`
`in specific conditions (like downhole temperatures and pressures), such specialists
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 12 -
`
`Page 12 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`were less likely to recognize a need or opportunity for a new type of tool or new
`
`application for an existing tool.
`
`37. Conversely, a person of ordinary skill in the art may have been more
`
`likely to recognize a potential new use for a tool. Such a person would have had an
`
`understanding of how tools were intended to function, and would have specified
`
`such tools for inclusion in tool strings based on instructions from tool vendors,
`
`rather than specifying specific structural characteristics of such tools (other than
`
`dimensions for inclusion in a tool string and insertion into a wellbore of known
`
`diameter). For these reasons, a POSITA at the relevant time would have been less
`
`likely to combine or modify elements of individual tools.
`
`38.
`
`I have reviewed Mr. Medley’s definition of the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, which is as follows: “Based on the foregoing and upon my experience in
`
`this area, a person of ordinary skill in the art in this field (“POSITA”) at the
`
`relevant time frame would have had a combination of experience and education in
`
`the oil and gas industry. This typically would consist of a minimum of a bachelor
`
`of science in civil, mechanical, electrical, or petroleum engineering and three to
`
`five years of professional experience in hydrocarbon recovery.” Ex. 1003 at ¶ 15.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`I disagree with Mr. Medley’s definition for the following reasons:
`
`I disagree that the pertinent art is the “oil and gas industry.” The oil
`
`and gas industry is varied and highly specialized, consisting broadly of the
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 13 -
`
`Page 13 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`following sectors: “upstream” (exploration and production of hydrocarbons),
`
`“midstream” (transmission of produced hydrocarbons from the field to a refinery
`
`or storage facility), and “downstream” (refinement and sales of refined
`
`hydrocarbons).
`
`41.
`
`Even on the upstream side, there are many different, highly technical
`
`disciplines,
`
`including: geology, seismology, reservoir engineering, drilling,
`
`completion, production, fluid mechanics, well fluid chemistry, well tool design,
`
`offshore platform design, well logging, among others. A definition of the pertinent
`
`art that includes all of these is too broad.
`
`42.
`
`I also disagree with Mr. Medley’s requirement that a person of
`
`ordinary skill must have a bachelor of science degree in engineering. The upstream
`
`oil and gas industry in general, and particularly in the areas of drilling, completion,
`
`stimulation, and remediation, employs many people with less educational
`
`attainment than a B.S. in engineering. Such people can and do reach the level of
`
`ordinary skill through hands-on technical experience.
`
`E.
`
`Claim construction
`
`43.
`
`I have been informed that, in this proceeding, the Board must
`
`determine the scope of the claims by giving them their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification as they would be interpreted by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. I have further been informed that, under a broadest
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 14 -
`
`Page 14 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`reasonable interpretation, words of a claim are given their plain meaning unless
`
`that would be inconsistent with the specification and prosecution history.
`
`44.
`
`I have been informed that it is not reasonable to interpret individual
`
`words of a claim without considering the context in which those words appear. I
`
`have also been informed that it is the use of a particular claim term in the context
`
`of the written description and by those of skill in the art that correctly reflects both
`
`the “ordinary” and “customary” meaning of the term in the claims.
`
`1.
`
`Tailpipe string
`
`45. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, as
`
`used in the claims of the ’838 Patent, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“tailpipe string” is a “the tubulars and completion components run in a well below
`
`a casing packer or liner hanger packer.”
`
`46.
`
`Tailpipe string” is a term of art in the oil and gas industry. The
`
`assertion by Mr. Medley and in the Petition that a tailpipe string can exist
`
`anywhere in a well liner are not consistent with either the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the term, as it is used in the industry, or its use in the specification.
`
`47.
`
`In contrast, the broadest reasonable interpretation in paragraph 45
`
`above is consistent with the way in which technical dictionaries define the term
`
`“tailpipe.” One example is The Dictionary for the Petroleum Industry, which
`
`defines “tailpipe” as “[a] pipe run in a well below a packer.” Another example is
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 15 -
`
`Page 15 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`the Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary, a well-known reference maintained by the
`
`Schlumberger Corporation that is widely used by persons of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in oil and gas industry, which defines “tailpipe” as “[t]he tubulars and
`
`completion components run below a production packer.” These definitions are
`
`largely consistent with the way a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood the term in 1998, with the exception being that the ’838 Patent’s tool
`
`string is for stimulation rather than production, such that its “tailpipe” would not
`
`necessarily have been hung from a production packer. The corollary to a
`
`production packer in the context of a stimulation string would be a casing packer
`
`or liner hanger packer, which typically include “slips” that mechanically engage
`
`casing to secure the tool string that hangs below the casing packer or liner hanger
`
`packer.
`
`48.
`
`These definitions and the broadest reasonable interpretation in
`
`paragraph 45 above are also consistent with the way the specification of the (cid:1932)838
`
`Patent uses the term. While the specification does not define “tailpipe string,” it
`
`does explain that the pipe extends below a packer into the open hole well at 3:4-6
`
`(“Tailpipe 4 is suspended from service packer 3 which is set inside casing 6, above
`
`the open hole wellbore 2.”) and at 3:9-11 (“The tailpipe string, being suspended
`
`from packer 3 [a casing packer that secures the tailpipe string relative to the casing
`
`6], extends into the open hole beneath the casing shoe.”). The description of
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 16 -
`
`Page 16 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`Figure 1 at 4:21-26 also explains that: “In operation, the assembly of Fig. 1 is run
`
`into the wellbore suspended from packer 3. The packer is set in the production
`
`casing near the casing shoe at a predetermined location. Tailpipe 4 and modules 5,
`
`10, 15 and 20 extend beneath the casing shoe into the open hole.”
`
`49. Mr. Medley’s deposition testimony also seems to recognize that a
`
`“tailpipe” refers to the tubing at the end of the tubing string: “Q. So every tubing
`
`string with tools in it has a tailpipe? A. If they’ve got some tools hanging down at
`
`the end that they’re using, whatever those tools might be, that would be what you
`
`would call the tailpipe assembly.” Medley Transcript at 5:21-6:2.
`
`2.
`
`Over the jetting passageways
`
`50. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, as
`
`used in the claims of the ’838 Patent, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“over the jetting passageways” is a “covering the jetting passageways.”
`
`51.
`
`In the context of a shiftable or sliding sleeve that closes passageways
`
`through the annular wall of a downhole tool, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand the plain meaning of “over the jetting passageways” to mean
`
`that the sleeve covers the inner ends of the jetting passageways or, stated another
`
`way, that the sleeve is located between inner ends of the jetting passageways and
`
`the central passageway.
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 17 -
`
`Page 17 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`52.
`
`This understanding is consistent with the way the claims and
`
`specification uses the term. For example, Claims 1 and 8 each require that “the
`
`shiftable sleeve is movable from a closed position over the jetting passageways.
`
`Independent claim 16 requires “shifting the shiftable sleeve from a closed position
`
`over the jetting passageways.” In contrast, claim 21 requires that “the jetting
`
`passageways are sealed from the central passageways by the shiftable sleeve in the
`
`closed position.” The words in claim 21 seem to indicate that “over the jetting
`
`passageways” in claims 1, 8, and 16 requires that the
`
`sleeve do more than just seal the jet passageways
`
`from the central passageway; namely, a physical
`
`relationship
`
`in which
`
`the
`
`sleeve covers
`
`jet
`
`passageways.
`
`53. Additionally, the specification describes
`
`that, in Figure 2 (which is colorized here), the [red]
`
`shiftable sleeve 22 is “adapted for longitudinal
`
`movement along the inner wall of housing 21” (Ex.
`
`1001 at 3:30-32) and “in the closed position . . .
`
`straddles jet holes 23.” Ex. 1001 at 3:56-59. The
`
`shifting sleeve 46 of the Figure 4 embodiment “is
`
`[also ] adapted for longitudinal movement along the inner wall of housing 51”
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 18 -
`
`Page 18 of 33
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 5:51-52) and also begins in a “closed position straddling nozzle ports
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`58.” Ex. 1001 at 5:56-59.
`
`3.
`
`Nozzle body
`
`54. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, as
`
`used in the claims of the ’838 Patent, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“nozzle body” is “a component of the housing that defines the jetting passageways
`
`and integral nozzle ports.”
`
`55.
`
`“Nozzle body” does not necessarily have a particular technical
`
`meaning in the oil and gas industry, and Mr. Medley’s interpretation of the phrase
`
`would not necessarily be unreasonable if the ’838 Patent did not use the term in a
`
`way that is inconsistent with such a broad interpretation. However, the ’838 Patent
`
`does use the term “nozzle body” in a way that is not consistent with Mr. Medley’s
`
`interpretation that “nozzle body” is no more than “that portion of the device that
`
`contains nozzles.”
`
`56. Claims 1 and 8 both recite “jetting passageways extending radially
`
`through the housing.” Claims 5 and 12 depend from claims 1 and 8, respectively,
`
`and add that “the housing further comprises a nozzle body and wherein the jetting
`
`passageways extend radially through the nozzle body.” This language would seem
`
`to indicate that the “nozzle body” adds something more than just a generic
`
`housing.
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 19 -
`
`Page 19 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`57.
`
`The specification also indicates that the “nozzle body” is a component
`
`of the housing that defines both the jetting passageways and integral nozzle ports.
`
`At 3:43-45, the specification describes the housing 21 of Figures 2 and 3 as
`
`defining jet passageways or “nozzle holes 23, which extend radially through the
`
`wall of housing 21 for receiving interchangeable jet nozzles 24.” The specification
`
`does not discuss a “nozzle body” with its discussion of Figures 2 and 3.
`
`58. At
`
`2:40-43
`
`and
`
`5:22-23,
`
`the
`
`specification then describes Figure 4 as
`
` “an
`
`alternative embodiment of a module for use in an
`
`assembly for selectively stimulating a plurality of
`
`producing zones in a wellbore,” indicating that it is
`
`different than the version shown in Figures 2 and 3.
`
`Unlike the housing 21 of Figures 2 and 3, the
`
`housing 51 of Figure 4 comprises a “[blue] top sub
`
`45, [red] nozzle body 42, and [green] bottom sub
`
`44.” Ex. 1001 at 5:23-25. This confirms that the
`
`“nozzle body” is a component of the housing.
`
`59.
`
`The specification also clearly indicates
`
`that the “alternative embodiment” of Figure 4
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 20 -
`
`Page 20 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`includes a nozzle body instead of the jetting passageways and jet nozzes: “[n]ozzle
`
`body 42 has a plurality of radially extending [yellow] nozzle ports 58 drilled
`
`therethrough.” Ex. 1001 at 5:41-42. The specification further explains: “The
`
`interchangeable nozzle bodies provide an operator an alternative to the use of
`
`interchangeable jet nozzles as described in the embodiment of FIG. 2.” Ex. 1001
`
`at 6:6-8. This description draws a direct distinction between the “embodiment of
`
`FIG. 2,” which is not described as having a “nozzle body,” and what is shown in
`
`Figure 4, which does have a nozzle body that defines the jetting passageways and
`
`ports.
`
`F.
`
`Hutchison and Surjaatmadja
`
`60.
`
`The Petition states that it would have been obvious to modify
`
`Hutchison by adding the Surjaatmadja’s hydrajetting tool. More particularly, the
`
`Petition proposes modifying Hutchison by closing the [blue] openings at the
`
`bottom its skirt section 30, and substituting Surjaatmadja’s [red] jetting
`
`passageways and [green] nozzles for Hutchison’s “annular chamber.” Pet. at 27-28.
`
`Mr. Medley explains that “such nozzles could easily be installed through the wall
`
`of the skirt in Hutchison,” as shown in Hutchison’s Figure 2 as modified below.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶49; Medley Transcript at 70:5-10.
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 21 -
`
`Page 21 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`MODIFIED
`
`
`
`61. As described at 3:67-4:5 of Hutchison (Ex. 1005), the “inner tubular
`
`section 34 of substantially smaller outer diameter than the inner diameter of the
`
`skirt section 30 is arranged with its upper portion extending coaxially interiorly of
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 22 -
`
`Page 22 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`the lower portion of the skirt section 30 to form an [yellow] annular chamber 36
`
`between the skirt section 30 and the inner tubular section 34.”
`
`62.
`
`The Petition explains that this modification “would not have impacted
`
`or changed the performance or operation of the Hutchison steam deflector except
`
`to increase the velocity of the fluid being diverted, which would be desirable in
`
`open hole formations where concerns about critical flow causing damage to a liner
`
`are not an issue.” Pet. at 30.
`
`1.
`
`A POSITA would not have added Surjaatmadja’s nozzles to
`Hutchison for use in open hole wellbores
`
`63.
`
`The Petition and Mr. Medley state that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have added Surjaatmadja’s jet nozzles to Hutchison’s system “to use
`
`Hutchison’s multi-zone stimulation system in an open hole well.” Pet at 29-30; Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶48. For the reasons explained below, I disagree with these statements.
`
`64. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have used the
`
`Hutchison-Surjaatmadja system in an open hole because, as described by the
`
`Petition, it would still include Hutchison’s cup-type packers 22-25. Such a person
`
`would not have wanted to use cup-type packers because they were known to be
`
`limited to use in cased wellbore (with a liner). For example, U.S. Patent No.
`
`3,236,307 explains at 5:2-5 that “where it is possible to locate the seal member in a
`
`28079255.1
`
`- 23 -
`
`Page 23 of 33
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01099
`Patent 6,006,838
`
`
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
