Ex Parte BERRON et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2018

13915317 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/915,317 06/11/2013 Cecile BERRON
11171 7590 12/31/2018
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
P.O. Box 7999
Fredericksburg, VA 22404
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
0336-206-2/100399US-2 9848
EXAMINER
ARMSTRONG, JONATHAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
Mailroom@ppblaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CECILE BERRON, ERIC FORGUES,
THOMAS BIANCHI, and THIERRY KLEIN
Appeal2017-010562
Application 13/915,317
Technology Center 3600
Before DANIEL S. SONG, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-010562
Application 13/915,317
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated November
29, 2016 ("Final Act."), rejecting claims 1-202 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Vermeer (2001, Fundamentals of 3-D Seismic Survey
Design). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to "mechanisms and techniques for
determining a field trajectory for a land-based seismic survey to improve 4-
dimensional (4D) repeatability." Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are the
independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed
limitations italicized for emphasis, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for modifying a given path to be followed by a
source during a 4-dimensional (4D) seismic survey, the method
compnsmg:
receiving the given path, comprising given shooting
positions, at a control device on board a vehicle that carries the
source, each given shooting position specifying a geographical
location along the given path where the source is shot;
during a first seismic survey that is a baseline survey for
the 4D seismic survey,
CGGVERITAS SERVICES SA ("Appellant") is the applicant
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief, dated April 18, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), at 2.
2 The Claims Appendix in the Appeal Brief indicates that claims 2, 10,
and 18 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 16-21. Appellant's claim amendments
were not entered. Advisory Action, dated March 22, 2017, at 3.
2
Appeal2017-010562
Application 13/915,317
driving the vehicle around an obstacle that is
encountered while following the given path, which results
in deviating the vehicle from the given path, thus
generating a new path, the new path comprising at least
one new shooting position corresponding to one of the
given shooting positions and
updating the given path, based on the new path,
when a deviation condition is met,
wherein the given path is not further updated during any
seismic survey of the 4D seismic survey subsequent to the
baseline seismic survey.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1: Claims 1-20 as Anticipated By Vermeer
The Examiner finds that Vermeer discloses all of the limitations of
claims 1-20 including driving the vehicle around an obstacle that is
encountered while following a given path during a baseline survey, which
results in deviating the vehicle from the given path, and, thus, generating a
new path. Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner further finds that Vermeer
discloses updating the given path, based on the new path. Id. at 5. The
Examiner takes the position that the last limitation "only means that no
further surveys are performed." Id.; see also Adv. Act. 2 ("last wherein
clause as a negative limitation (i.e., the method has a stop condition which
could be arrived out by simple inaction)").
Appellant asserts that the Examiner's rejection is erroneous.
Appellant explains that the claims require that, the updated new path, not the
initial given path, is used during subsequent baseline surveys. Appeal Br.
12-14; see id. at 3 (citing the flowchart in Fig. 4 that states "[m]odify given
path based on new path" and then "[u]se modified given path for further
surveys"); see Reply Brief dated August 10, 2017 ("Reply Br."), at 2 ("In
3
Appeal2017-010562
Application 13/915,317
the later monitor surveys, the updated path is followed even if the cause of
the deviation(s) during the base survey is no longer present."). Stated
another way, the updated new path becomes the "given path" for future
surveys and the initial given path "is not further updated" ( e.g., there is no
reverting back to the initial given path in future surveys even if the initial
given path is available in future surveys).
We agree with Appellant that Vermeer does not disclose all of the
limitations of claims 1-20. We view the claims as prescribing what happens
during seismic surveys subsequent to the baseline survey, such that to
anticipate, the prior art must also prescribe what happens during seismic
surveys subsequent to the baseline survey and may not be merely silent
regarding subsequent surveys. Although the Examiner correctly finds that
Vermeer discloses creating a new path and at least one new shooting
position in response to a vehicle encountering an obstacle during a baseline
survey, Vermeer does not disclose that the updated new path becomes the
"given path" for future surveys and the initial given path "is not further
updated" ( e.g., there is no reverting back to the initial given path in future
surveys even if the initial given path is available in future surveys).
Vermeer does not disclose updating the given path based on the new path so
that, during subsequent surveys after the baseline survey, the given path is
not further updated, as recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 1 7.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is REVERSED.
REVERSED
4