UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Paper No. 1
`
`______________
`
`
`
`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
`
`______________
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-01496
`
`Patent 7,134,505
`______________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312
`
`
`36318745.3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`V.
`
`Table of Contents
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 2
`A.
`Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ..................................... 2
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................................. 3
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ........................... 4
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ....................................... 4
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 4
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED ................................................................................ 5
`A.
`Claims for Which Review Is Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)) .... 5
`B.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)) ................ 5
`FIELD OF TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................... 6
`A. Drilling an Oil Well ............................................................................... 6
`B. Well Stimulation and Selective Fluid Treatment .................................. 7
`C.
`Packers ................................................................................................. 11
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 14
`VII. THE ’505 PATENT ....................................................................................... 16
`A. Admitted Prior Art and Perceived Shortcomings ............................... 16
`B.
`The ’505 Patent’s Asserted Improvement to the Prior Art ................. 17
`C.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 23
`D.
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) .................................. 25
`1.
`“packing element” (claims 1, 5-7, 17-19, 21-22, 24, 26) ......... 25
`2.
`“solid body packer” (claims 1, 19, 24) .................................... 25
`3.
`“sleeve shifting means” (claims 1, 19, 24) ............................... 26
`4.
`“has engaged and moved the sliding sleeve . . .” (claim 11) ... 27
`5.
`“plug” (claim 15)...................................................................... 29
`6.
`“load into one another” (claims 22, 24) .................................. 30
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`VIII. REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 42.22(A)(2) AND 42.104(B)(4) ............................................................... 30
`A. Ground 1 – Obvious over Lane-Wells and Ellsworth ......................... 30
`1.
`Lane-Wells discloses a three-zone acidizing system for an
`open hole that uses two ball-actuated sliding sleeves and
`three packers ............................................................................. 30
`It was obvious to use Ellsworth’s solid body packer in the
`Lane-Wells System because it had already been successfully
`used for the same purpose: open hole acidizing in a multi-
`zone system ................................................................................ 35
`Other, independent reasons motivated using Ellsworth’s
`solid body packer in the Lane-Wells System ............................. 38
`Lane-Wells and Ellsworth render claim 1 obvious ................... 39
`Lane-Wells and Ellsworth render claims 2-7, 11 and 14-18
`obvious ...................................................................................... 46
`Lane-Wells and Ellsworth render claim 19 obvious ................. 51
`Lane-Wells and Ellsworth render dependent claims 20-22
`obvious ...................................................................................... 54
`Lane-Wells and Ellsworth render claims 24-26 obvious .......... 55
`8.
`Lane-Wells and Ellsworth render claims 23 and 27 obvious ... 57
`9.
`B. Ground 2 – Obvious over Lane-Wells, Ellsworth, and Hartley .......... 58
`C. Ground 3 – Obvious over Lane-Wells, Ellsworth, and Echols ........... 59
`D. Ground 4 – Obvious over Lane-Wells, Ellsworth, and the
`Knowledge of a POSITA .................................................................... 63
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 68
`
`
`4.
`5.
`
`6.
`7.
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit List
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,134,505 (the “’505 Patent”)
`1002 Affidavit of Margaret Kieckhefer, of the Library of Congress, regarding
`excerpts from COMPOSITE CATALOG OF OIL FIELD AND PIPE LINE
`EQUIPMENT, Vol. 2 (21st ed. World Oil 1955) (“Lane-Wells”)
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 5,449,039 (“Hartley”)
`B. Ellsworth, et al., Production Control of Horizontal Wells in a
`1004
`Carbonate Reef Structure, 1999 Canadian Institute of Mining,
`Metallurgy, and Petroleum Horizontal Well Conference (“Ellsworth”)
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,375,662 (“Echols”)
`1006 U.S. Patent 4,018,272 (“Brown”)
`1007 Declaration of Ali Daneshy, Ph.D.
`1008 KATE VAN DYKE, FUNDAMENTALS OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING (4th
`ed. 1997)
`RON BAKER, A PRIMER OF OIL WELL DRILLING (5th ed. (revised) 1996)
`1009
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 4,099,563 (“Hutchison”)
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 6,257,338
`1012
`Excerpts of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,861,774, a
`continuation of the ’505 Patent
`Excerpts of Prosecution History of the ’505 Patent
`1013
`1014 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/404,783
`1015 Dictionary Definition from WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL
`DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE UNABRIDGED (1986)
`1016 U.S. Patent No. 4,279,306
`1017 K.W. Lagrone, et al., A New Development in Completion Methods,
`SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING, Paper 530-PA (1963)
`1018 M.J. Eberhard, et al., Current Use of Limited-Entry Hydraulic
`Fracturing in the Codell/Niobrara Formations—DJ Basin, SPE
`(Society for Petroleum Engineering) 29553 (1995)
`
`
`36318745.3
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`1019 Declaration of Christopher D. Hawkes, Ph.D., P.Geo., regarding the
`proceedings of the 7th One-Day Conference On Horizontal Well
`Technology Operational Excellence (Canada November 3, 1999)
`(including Ex. 1004 at 102-110)
`1020 Affidavit of Nancy Chaffin Hunter, regarding the proceedings of the
`10th Middle East Oil Show & Conference (Bahrain March 15-18, 1997)
`(including D.W. Thomson, et al., Design and Installation of a Cost-
`Effective Completion System for Horizontal Chalk Wells Where
`Multiple Zones Require Acid Stimulation, SPE (Society for Petroleum
`Engineering) 37482 (1997)) (“Thomson”)
`1021 Affidavit of Nancy Chaffin Hunter, regarding the proceedings of the
`Production Operation Symposium (Oklahoma City, OK April 2-4,
`1995) (including R. Coon and D. Murray, Single-Trip Completion
`Concept Replaces Multiple Packers and Sliding Sleeves in Selective
`Multi-Zone Production and Stimulation Operations, SPE 29539 (1995))
`(“Coon”)
`1022 Howard, G. C. & Fast, C. R., HYDRAULIC FRACTURING (AIMMPE
`1970)
`1023 Hyne, Norman J., Dictionary of Petroleum Exploration, Drilling, &
`Production (1991)
`
`
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq., Baker Hughes
`
`Incorporated and Baker Hughes Oil Field Operations, Inc. (“Petitioners”) request
`
`inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,134,505 (“the ’505 Patent” – Ex. 1001),
`
`which issued November 14, 2006. The Board is authorized to deduct any required
`
`fees from Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP Deposit Account 50-1212/11508227.
`
`This Petition presents newly discovered prior art and new arguments over
`
`Petitioners’ previously filed petition for IPR of the ’505 Patent: IPR2016-00596.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’505 Patent’s purported invention was a combination of ball-actuated
`
`sliding sleeves [blue] and multi-element packers [red] for selectively treating or
`
`“stimulat[ing]” zones in an oil well, such as by “frac’ing” or “acidizing.”
`
`But these systems were known before 2001, the earliest claimed priority date.
`
`Petitioners’ primary reference, Lane-Wells, described such a system in 1955:
`
`
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`PORTS
`
`BALL
`
`SLIDING
`SLEEVE
`
`
`
`Lane-Wells shows a ball-actuated sliding sleeve (a “Tubing Port Valve”) that it
`
`states can be used for acidizing multiple zones “with a three packer set-up and two
`
`different sized Tubing Port Valves.”
`
`Patent Owner may assert several purported distinctions over the prior art—
`
`such as the “solid body” nature of its packers, or the use of its system in an open
`
`(uncased) hole—but all fail. Lane-Wells discloses that its multi-packer system can
`
`be used in an open hole. And Ellsworth disclosed the use of solid body packers in
`
`open hole acidizing operations. As a result, using Ellsworth’s packer in the Lane-
`
`Wells System would have been obvious.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`Baker Hughes Incorporated, Baker Hughes Oil Field Operations, Inc., Pegasi
`
`Energy Resources Corp., and Pegasi Operating, Inc. are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`The following matters may affect, or be affected by, a decision in this
`
`proceeding:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`IPR2016-00596, filed by Petitioners against the ’505 Patent;
`
`IPR201600597, filed by Petitions against U.S. Patent No. 7,543,634
`
`(the ’634 Patent);
`
`(3)
`
`IPR2016-00598, filed by Petitioners against U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,861,774 (the ’774 Patent);
`
`(4)
`
`IPR2016-00650, filed by Petitioners against U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,907,936 (the ’936 Patent);
`
`(5)
`
`IPR2016-00656, filed by Petitioners against U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,657,009 (the ’009 Patent);
`
`(6)
`
`IPR2016-00657, filed by Petitioners against U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,074,451 (the ’451 Patent);
`
`(7) U.S. Patent Application No. 14/738,506 (the ’506 Application);
`
`(8) U.S. Patent Application No. 15/149,742 (the ’742 Application);
`
`(9) U.S. Patent Application No. 15/149,971 (the ’971 Application); and
`
`(10) Rapid Completions LLC v. Baker Hughes Incorporated et al., Civil
`
`Action No. 6:15-cv-724 (E.D. Tex. 2015), which involves the ’505, ’634, ’774,
`
`’936, ’009, and ’451 Patents.
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`Each of the ’634, ’774, ’936, ’009, and ’451 Patents and each of the ’506,
`
`’742, and ’971 Applications shares at least one priority application with the ’505
`
`Patent, and the pending patent applications and IPRs are thus believed to involve
`
`related and potentially common issues of fact and law.
`
`Each of the ’634, ’774, ’936, ’009, and ’451 Patents and the ’738
`
`Application is (and each of the ’742 and ’971 Applications is believed to be)
`
`assigned to Patent Owner and believed to be exclusively licensed to Rapid
`
`Completions LLC.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`Lead counsel: Mark T. Garrett (Reg. No. 44,699)
`
`Back-up counsel: Eagle H. Robinson (Reg. No. 61,361)
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`D.
`Email: mark.garrett@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Post: Mark T. Garrett, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, 98 San Jacinto
`
`Boulevard, Suite 1100, Austin, TX 78701
`
`Phone: 512.474.5201
`
`Fax: 512.536.4598
`
`Petitioners consent to electronic service.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioners certify that the ’505 Patent is
`
`available for inter partes review, and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`from requesting an inter partes review on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`The ’505 Patent has not been subject to a previous final written decision in an
`
`estoppel-based proceeding of the AIA, and Petitioners were served with the
`
`original complaint in the Litigation within the last 12 months.
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED
`A. Claims for Which Review Is Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1))
`Petitioners request the review and cancellation of claims 1-7, 11, and 14-27
`
`of the ’505 Patent based on the following Grounds.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2))
`
`B.
`Ground 1: Claims 1-7 and 14-27 are invalid under § 103(a) based on Lane-
`
`Wells (Ex. 1002) and Ellsworth (Ex. 1004). Published in 1955 (see Ex. 1002 at
`
`1/171 and ¶¶ 1-6, and 7/17 (showing “NOV 14 1955” date stamp referenced in
`
`¶ 5)) and 1999 (see Ex. 1019 at ¶¶ 1-5 and 102-110), respectively, both are prior
`
`art under § 102(b).
`
`Ground 2: Claim 15 is invalid under § 103(a) based on Lane-Wells (Ex.
`
`1002) and Ellsworth (Ex. 1004), as in Ground 1, and on Hartley (Ex. 1003). Issued
`
`in 1995, Hartley is prior art under § 102(b).
`
`
`1 Citations in the XX/XX format are to the Petitioner-added “Page XX of XX”
`
`numbering at the lower right-hand corner of the referenced exhibit.
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`Ground 3: Claim 11 is invalid under § 103(a) based on Lane-Wells
`
`(Ex. 1002) and Ellsworth (Ex. 1004), as in Ground 1, and on Echols (Ex. 1005).
`
`Issued in 1994, Echols is prior art under § 102(b).
`
`Ground 4: Claims 7 and 19 are invalid under § 103(a) based on Lane-Wells
`
`(Ex. 1002) and Ellsworth (Ex. 1004), as in Ground 1, and based on the knowledge
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA).
`
`Ground 2 is not cumulative because it adds evidence addressing elements
`
`Patent Owner may seek to distinguish with narrow constructions. Ground 4 is not
`
`cumulative because it adds evidence Patent Owner may assert is not reflected in
`
`Ellsworth.
`
`V.
`
`FIELD OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`The ’505 Patent describes selectively stimulating or treating segments of an
`
`oil well using ball-actuated sleeves to open ports in a tubing string. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:16-19, 2:35-3:4; see also Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 55-64.
`
`A. Drilling an Oil Well
`Drilling a well generally includes drilling a hole to construct a wellbore in a
`
`geological formation with oil or gas reserves. The wellbore is normally lined with
`
`pipe or “casing” to protect the wellbore during production operations. See
`
`Ex. 1007 at ¶ 28; see also Ex. 1008 at 108. In some circumstances, however, a
`
`wellbore may be left uncased (referred to as an “open hole”) to “expose porosity
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`and permit unrestricted wellbore inflow of petroleum products.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:23-27; see also Ex. 1007 at ¶ 29. If a wellbore is cased, access to the formation
`
`is provided by “perforating” or creating openings in the casing to allow oil and/or
`
`gas to flow from the formation into the wellbore. Ex. 1001 at 1:27-29.
`
`While it is sometimes possible for formation fluids such as oil and gas to
`
`flow up the wellbore when left open or once casing has been perforated, a small-
`
`diameter pipe called “production tubing” is typically run into the well as a conduit
`
`for petroleum products to flow to the surface. Ex. 1009 at 147. Traditionally, oil
`
`wells relied on natural formation pressure and permeability to flow petroleum
`
`products to the surface. Ex. 1008 at 23. But when natural flow is insufficient or
`
`not economical, “well stimulation” techniques are employed to enlarge existing
`
`channels or create new ones in the formation, thereby increasing permeability to
`
`help oil and gas flow into the wellbore. See id. at 162; Ex. 1001 at 1:30-31.
`
`B. Well Stimulation and Selective Fluid Treatment
`Stimulation typically involves pumping acid or other fluids into a wellbore
`
`under pressure. Ex. 1008 at 162; Ex. 1001 at 1:30-34. If pumped at a high enough
`
`pressure, the fluid fractures or “fracs” the formation, creating cracks that radiate
`
`outward from the wellbore. Id. at 162-163. These “frac’ing” fluids usually include
`
`a “proppant,” such as sand, to hold open the cracks. Id. Related to frac’ing is acid
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`stimulation or “acidizing,” in which acid is pumped into the formation and also
`
`chemically reacts with the formation to create similar cracks. Id. at 164.
`
`A wellbore may cross multiple formation zones, only some of which contain
`
`desirable petroleum products. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 at Figures 7 and 11. Other
`
`zones, for example, may include water. Id. at 2-3 (“[W]ater or gas breakthrough
`
`can be a problem for some of these wells. . . . The ability to establish long term
`
`isolation of segments within the reservoir is key to controlling and optimizing
`
`production from these horizontal wells.”). As such, it is often desirable to isolate
`
`and stimulate only certain zones within a formation with tools called “packers”
`
`which 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. See Ex. 1009 at 148.
`
`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. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 32-40. One example of such a
`
`completion is described in Hutchison (Ex. 1010), which was cited during
`
`prosecution of the ’505 Patent. As annotated in Figure 1 below, Hutchison’s
`
`tubing string 19 includes a series of sliding sleeve flow control devices 20 and 21
`
`[blue] to inject treatment fluids into zones isolated by cup-type packers 22, 23, 24,
`
`and 25 [red]. Ex. 1010 at 2:51-58; Ex. 1007 at ¶ 38.
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Packer
`
`Packer
`
`Packer
`
`Sleeve
`
` Sleeve
`
` Packer
`
`
`
`As further annotated in Figures 2 and 4 below, the lower sleeve 20 [blue] has
`
`a seat 44 [purple] that is sized to be sealed by a ball 48 [green]. Ex. 1010 at
`
`3:64-4:59. Upper sleeve 21 [blue], in turn, is sized to mate with a larger ball. Id.
`
`at 4:60-5:5.
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Sleeve [blue]
`
`
`
`Seat (44)
`[purple]
`
`Seat (44)
`[purple]
`
`Ball (48) [green]
`
` Sleeve [blue]
`
`
`To open the lower sleeve 20, the ball 48 [green] is “dropped” into the tubing string,
`
`passes through the upper sleeve 21, and seals against seat 44 of the lower sleeve
`
`20. Id. at 4:49-59. This seal prevents fluid from passing through the seat, and
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`increasing pressure shifts the lower sleeve 20 down to open the port (annular
`
`chamber 36) and allow fluid to flow from the tubing string into the annulus. Id.
`
`After treating the zone between packers 22 and 23, a larger ball is dropped to
`
`seal the larger seat of upper sleeve 21 (otherwise the same as lower sleeve 20), and
`
`the process is repeated to treat the upper zone between packers 24 and 25. Id. at
`
`4:60-6:17. Hutchison thus enables individual treatment of each zone. Ex. 1007 at
`
`¶¶ 37-39.
`
`Packers
`C.
`While Hutchison employed cup-type packers for isolation of zones (id. at
`
`2:51-58), various other types of packers were also known. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 41-42.
`
`Inflatable packers, for example, were often used in uncased or open wells. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1005 at 1:43-44 (“Inflatable packers are preferred for use in sealing an
`
`uncased well bore.”); Ex. 1021 at 912 (discussing the use of external casing
`
`packers (ECPs), which are inflatable packers, in an open hole under “ECP AND
`
`SLIDING SLEEVES, IN OPEN HOLE”); see also Ex. 1001 at 1:43-45
`
`(“[I]nflatable packers may be limited with respect to pressure capabilities as well
`
`as durability under high pressure conditions.”); Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 41. It was also
`
`known that solid body packers—which compress and extrude outward one or more
`
`resilient packing elements—could successfully provide effective isolation in open
`
`holes that were drilled in the right way and/or through the right formation. See Ex.
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`1004 at 3 (“Although the expansion ratios for [solid body packers] are [not] as
`
`large as for inflatables, the carbonate formation in Rainbow Lake generally drills
`
`very close to gauge hole, and effective isolation is possible with these SBP’s.”);
`
`see also Ex. 1011 at 4:35-42 (“[S]ealing devices 30, 32, 34 are representatively and
`
`schematically illustrated . . . as inflatable packers . . . [o]f course, other types of
`
`packers, such as production packers settable by pressure, may be utilized for the
`
`packers 30, 32, 34 . . . .”); Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 42-43. The description of “very close to
`
`gauge hole” means that the borehole is round instead of oval, and very close in size
`
`to the drill bit, which characteristics can be achieved in formations that are
`
`mechanically competent. Ex. 1007 at ¶ 43. Ellsworth illustrates a principle that
`
`had been known and applied in the industry for decades, that tools—such as solid-
`
`body packers used in the historically more-prevalent cased holes—can also be
`
`used, and often are tried and used successfully, in open-hole completions as they
`
`have become more common. Id. Solid-body packers were often hydraulically
`
`“set” via the application of hydraulic pressure to a piston to compress the packing
`
`element(s). See, e.g., Ex. 1004 at 3; Ex. 1011 at 4:35-42; see also Ex. 1007 at ¶ 42.
`
`As Dr. Daneshy explains in paragraph 44 of his declaration (Ex. 1007),
`
`stimulation techniques, including acidizing, have been used and/or publicized for
`
`use in multiple zone completions with packers in both open and cased holes since
`
`at least 1956. See Ex. 1002 at 2854 (“The Tubing Port Valve also provides a
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`means of acidizing two zones with packer setting in either open-hole or cased hole
`
`completion. Three zone acidizing is possible with a three packer set-up and two
`
`different sized Tubing Port Valves.”). Retrievable, hydraulically-set solid body
`
`packers have been used and/or publicized for use in acid fracturing in cased holes
`
`since at least 1997. See Ex. 1020 at 97 (discussing “multiple acid fracs” using
`
`“multi-stage acid frac tool (MSAF)”), at 98 (discussing use of retrievable
`
`hydraulic-set packers), at 100 (discussing choosing the balls based on the
`
`“anticipated fracture gradient of the zone being treated”), at 100-101 (describing
`
`the stimulation as a “frac job”), and at 103 (referring to “Packers frac tools”).
`
`Retrievable, hydraulically-set solid body packers have also been used and/or
`
`publicized for use in acidizing in an open hole since at least 1999. See Ex. 1004 at
`
`p. 3/FIG. 4 (showing hydraulically-settable solid body packer (SBP)), at 5 (“Prior
`
`to running the production assembly, SBP’s were run to acidize the toe of the
`
`well.”), at 6 (“The initial acid job using SBP’s indicated that the [SBPs]
`
`successfully provided isolation during the job. The acidizing assembly was pulled,
`
`and some rubber was left in the hole.”).
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A POSITA relevant to the ’505 Patent as of November 19, 20012—the
`
`earliest priority date claimed by the ’505 Patent—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. See Ex. 1007 at ¶ 45. This level of ordinary skill is also evidenced by
`
`prior art and the ’505 Patent itself. See id. at ¶¶ 46-54; Chore-Time Equip., Inc. v.
`
`Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d 774, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261
`
`F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, the prior art described in Section V above
`
`demonstrates that a POSITA would have been familiar with various completion
`
`systems and stimulation techniques. See Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 46 (citing declaration
`
`Section V., which includes ¶¶ 25-44); see also id. at ¶¶ 45, 47-53.
`
`A POSITA also would have recognized that cup-type and inflatable packers
`
`were not always preferable and, in at least some circumstances, hydraulically set
`
`solid body packers would be preferable in cased and open hole wells. See, e.g., id.
`
`¶¶ 41-44, 46, 53; see also Ex. 1004 at 3 (“Historically, inflatable packers were used
`
`for water shut-off, stimulation, and segment testing. More recently, solid body
`
`2 All statements in this Petition about the knowledge and skills of, and what would
`
`have been obvious to, a POSITA are offered from this perspective as of this date,
`
`and would be no different as of August 21, 2002. See Ex. 1007 at ¶ 22.
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`packers (SBP’s) (see FIG. 4) have been used to establish open hole isolation.”);
`
`Ex. 1011 at 3:67-4:4 (“[T]he [selective isolation and treatment] method 10 may be
`
`performed in wells including both cased and uncased portions, and vertical,
`
`inclined and horizontal portions . . . .”); see also Ex. 1001 at 1:43-45. A POSITA
`
`would have also recognized that many tools initially designed or used with casing
`
`could also be used in uncased wellbores in at least some formations. Ex. 1007 at
`
`¶¶ 43, 48-54.
`
`Patent Owner agrees. In a continuation of the ’505 Patent, Patent Owner
`
`submitted in an IDS a declaration of its own expert witness from Patent Owner’s
`
`litigation against Halliburton. Ex. 1012 at 31/57-57/57 (First Supplemental Expert
`
`Report of Kevin Trahan, Doc. KKKKK in 11/27/2009 IDS). In it, Patent Owner’s
`
`expert explained that “hard rock formations, once drilled, typically provide a
`
`circular cross section conduit, just as a cased hole does. In these types of hard
`
`formations a tool that was designed for use in cased hole may be used in open
`
`hole.” Id. at 34/57.
`
`Mr. Trahan further explained that “many tools, including anchoring
`
`mechanisms and packing elements, that were initially designed for cased hole, with
`
`no contemplation of being used in open hole, have been used in open hole
`
`successfully.” Id. An earlier affidavit of Mr. Trahan also explained that: “Packing
`
`Elements of many different configurations have been used in cased hole as well as
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`open hole.” Id. at 18/57 (Affidavit of Kevin Trahan, Doc. QQQQ in 11/27/2009
`
`IDS). Due to imperfections in uncased wellbores, “the longer the packing element,
`
`the more opportunity there is that some section of the packing element will be
`
`located over a portion of the wellbore that has continuity” and that “[a]nother idea
`
`used in the industry for increasing reliability of packers in open hole is redundancy
`
`. . . .” Id. at 18/57-19/57. In particular, “[i]f more packing elements are employed
`
`there is a greater opportunity for at least one of the packing elements to seal in a
`
`portion of the borehole that has continuity.” Id. at 19/57. Mr. Trahan explained
`
`that it “[was] not a new, unique, or innovative concept to use this approach for
`
`sealing in open hole” because “[r]edundant packers have been used on many
`
`occasions to increase reliability in open hole applications.” Id.; see also Ex. 1004
`
`at 3 (“When possible, the packers are run in pairs to minimize the chance of failure
`
`due to setting in a vug [a type of void.]”).
`
`VII. THE ’505 PATENT
`The ’505 Patent is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Wellbore Fluid
`
`Treatment,” and discloses “a method and apparatus for selective communication to
`
`a wellbore for fluid treatment.” Ex. 1001 at 1:1-2 and 1:16-19.
`
`A. Admitted Prior Art and Perceived Shortcomings
`As the BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION section reflects, methods of
`
`selective fluid treatment were well known in the prior art: “In one previous
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`method, the well is isolated in segments” by packers and each segment is thereafter
`
`“individually treated so that concentrated and controlled fluid treatment can be
`
`provided along the wellbore.” Id. at 1:35-38.
`
`The ’505 Patent asserts that “inflatable element packers” were often used in
`
`this previous method, and criticizes such packers as “limited with respect to
`
`pressure capabilities as well as durability under high pressure conditions.” Id. at
`
`1:38-45. The ’505 Patent also asserts that this previous method was “expensive
`
`and time consuming” because the packers must generally “be moved after each
`
`treatment if it is desired to isolate other segments of the well for treatment” and
`
`because stimulation pumping equipment is required “to be at the well site for long
`
`periods of time or for multiple visits.” Id. at 1:45-52.
`
`The ’505 Patent’s Asserted Improvement to the Prior Art
`
`B.
`To address these perceived shortcomings, the ’505 Patent provides “for the
`
`running in of a fluid treatment string, the fluid treatment string having ports
`
`substantially closed against the passage of fluid therethrough but which are
`
`openable when desired to permit fluid flow into the wellbore.” Id. at 2:26-31. The
`
`’505 Patent notes that such a method may be “used in various borehole conditions
`
`including open holes, cased holes [and] horizontal holes . . . .” Id. at 2:31-35.
`
`As annotated in Figure 1a below, the ’505 Patent depicts a wellbore 12
`
`drilled through a formation 10 and a tubing string assembly run in the wellbore.
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`Id. at 6:8-16. The borehole is not cased. See id. at 10:34-38. The tubing string 14
`
`includes ports 17 in each of multiple ported intervals 16a-e [blue], which are
`
`“opened through the tubing string wall to permit access between the tubing string
`
`inner bore 18 and the wellbore.” Id. at 6:13-16. Ported intervals 16a-e [blue] are
`
`separated by packers 20a-f [red] to divide the formation into zones for fluid
`
`treatment through ports 17 and thereby prevent treatment fluids from entering a
`
`different formation segment once outside the tubing string. Id. at 6:17-32.
`
`TO SURFACE
`
`PACKER
`
`WELLBORE
`
`PACKER
`
`PACKER
`
`PACKER
`
`PACKER
`
`LOWER
`END
`
`TOOL
`STRING
`
`PORTED
`INTERVALS
`FIG. 1a
`(annotated)
`
`
`
`When the tubing string is run into the wellbore, ported intervals 16a-e are
`
`covered by sliding sleeves 22a-e [blue], annotated below in Figure 1b, to prevent
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`fluid from passing through ports 17. Id. at 6:41-53. To open sliding sleeves 22a-e
`
`and permit flow through ports 17, a ball or plug 24 [green] is “dropped” into the
`
`tubing string and is carried to a corresponding sleeve 22, where the ball or plug
`
`engages and seals against a seat 26 in the sleeve. Id. at 6:62-7:36.
`
`PACKER
`
`SEAT
`
`PACKER
`
`SLEEVE
`
`SEAT
`
`TUBING STRING
`
`SLEEVE
`
`LOWER
`END
`
`BALL
`
`SEAT
`
`PACKER
`
`BALL
`
`D3>D2
`
`D2>D1
`
`PORTED
`INTERVAL
`
`PORTED
`INTERVAL
`
`PORTED
`INTERVAL
`FIG. 1b
`(annotated)
`
`SMALLEST
`DIAMETER
`
`
`
`Increasing pressure against the ball/seat moves sleeve 22 [blue] to open ports 17
`
`[orange], shown below. Id. To open one sleeve at a time, the seat of each sleeve
`
`has a different diameter. “[T]he lowest-most sliding sleeve 22e has the smallest
`
`diameter D1 seat and accepts the smallest sized ball 24e and each sleeve that is
`
`progressively closer to the surface has a larger seat.” Id. at 7:19-24. Thus, ball 24e
`
`36318745.3
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`passes through the upper seats to engage seat 26e nearest lower end 14a. Once ball
`
`24e seals against seat 26e, sleeve 22e shifts to open port 17. The next largest ball
`
`24d is then dropped into the tubing to open sleeve 22d, and so on, to treat the rest
`
`of the zones. Id. at 8:10-35.
`
`
`In particular, Figure 3a shows the sliding sleeve 22 in its closed