Ex Parte SABLON

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 11, 2018

14078940 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/078,940 11/13/2013 Ronan SABLON
11171 7590 07/13/2018
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.
0336-137/100248 5086
EXAMINER
NOLAN, JOHN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2018 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 RONAN SABLON
Appeal2017-009120
Application 14/078,940
Technology Center 3600
Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ronan Sablon ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's decision in the Final Action ( dated July 15, 2016, hereinafter
"Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-16 and 18-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 CGG SERVICES SA is the applicant and is identified as the real party in
interest in Appellant's Appeal Brief ( dated Dec. 7, 2016, hereinafter "Br.").
Br. 2.
Appeal2017-009120
Application 14/078,940
INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to "methods and systems configured to
process marine seismic data." Spec. para. 1.
Claims 1, 12, and 20 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for processing seismic data related to a
structure under a body of water to generate an image of the
structure, the method comprising:
receiving seismic data acquired with detectors disposed
on a depth-varying profile streamer;
generating, from the seismic data,
first traces (UP) that correspond to traces as
recorded by the detectors and migrated to water surface,
wherein the first traces include corresponding first
primaries and first ghosts, and
second traces (DW) that correspond to traces as
would be recorded by virtual detectors mirroring the
detectors relative to the water surface and migrated to
water surface, wherein the second traces include
corresponding second primaries and second ghosts;
generating (A) third traces (SYM) as a sum of
corresponding ones among the first traces and the second traces,
and (B) fourth traces (DBG) as a difference of the
corresponding ones among the first traces and the second
traces; and
de ghosting at least one of the first traces and the second
traces using positive and negative polarity portions of the third
traces and of the fourth traces.
2
Appeal2017-009120
Application 14/078,940
REJECTIONS 2
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Sanders et al.
(US 4,935,903, iss. June 19, 2000, hereinafter "Sanders") and
Soubaras (US 2011/0305109 Al, pub. Dec. 15, 2011).
II. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Sanders, Soubaras, and
Ray et al. (US 4,353,121, iss. Oct. 5, 1982, hereinafter "Ray").
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Sanders' disclosure of "waves that are
normalized to each other" by adding or subtracting meets the limitation of
generating "(A) third traces (SYM) as a sum of corresponding ones among
the first traces and the second traces, and (B) fourth traces (DBG) as a
difference of the corresponding ones among the first traces and the second
traces," as recited by each of independent claims 1, 12, and 20. Final Act.
2-3 ( citing Sanders col. 7, 11. 33--42); see also Br. 24, 28, and 32 (Claims
App.). Furthermore, in the Examiner's Answer (dated Mar. 27, 2017,
hereinafter "Ans."), the Examiner takes the position that column 7, lines 50-
66 of Sanders discloses the above noted limitation, and states that the
2 Claim 17 is not mentioned in the heading of neither rejections, nor does the
Examiner include an analysis of claim 17 in the body of the rejections. See
Final Act. 2-10. Also, claim 17 does not appear as canceled or withdrawn.
See Br. 30 (Claims App.). Hence, no rejection of claim 17 is before the
Board.
3
Appeal2017-009120
Application 14/078,940
limitation "is merely the 'additive linear combination' taught by Sanders."
Ans. 3.
Appellant argues that what occurs in Sanders "is different from
generating third traces (SYM) by adding the first traces (which include both
primaries and ghosts) to the second traces ( which also include both primaries
and ghosts)." Br. 14. Appellant similarly asserts that what occurs in
Sanders "is different from generating fourth traces (DBG) as a difference of
the first traces (which include both primaries and ghosts) and the second
traces (which also include both primaries and ghosts)." Id. at 15. Rather,
Appellant contends that in Sanders "ghosts/primaries are normalized to
each other" and "are added together such that a ghost/primary reflection
cancels out to obtain primary/ghost data." Id. at 14--15. Appellant notes that
Sanders' method requires data "supplied by two different sensors
(hydrophone and geophone)." Id.
Appellant's arguments are persuasive because Sanders does not sum
and take the difference of first and second traces, wherein each trace
includes both primaries and ghosts to obtain respective third and fourth
traces. Rather, Sanders discloses that when adding the hydrophone data and
the geophone data, separator 50 is used to output primary data, and separator
52 is used to output ghost data. See Sanders, col. 6, 11. 16-18 and 38--40,
col. 7, 11. 33--42. For example, Sanders discloses that "if the outputs of the
primary or up going signal are normalized and the hydrophone [pressure]
data is subtracted from the geophone [velocity] data, the primary data will
cancel and all remaining data will be downgoing or ghost." Id., col. 7, 11.
38--42. Hence, we agree with Appellant that Sanders is adding primary data
from two different sensors, or is subtracting ghost data from two different
4
Appeal2017-009120
Application 14/078,940
sensors and, thus, is not summing or taking the difference of traces that each
contain primary and ghost data, as called for by each of independent claims
1, 12, and 20. See Br. 14--15.
As to the Examiner's position regarding Sanders' disclosure of an
"additive linear combination," we note that Sanders identifies and separates
upward signal components (primaries) using separator 50 and downward
signal components (ghosts) using separator 52. See Sanders, col. 6, 11. 14--18
and 38--40. Sanders further discloses adding a time shift to the downward
signal components (ghosts), and then recombining the upward and
downward signal components using element 56. See id., col. 7, 11. 60-65
("linearly additively combines those signals, preferably summing them.");
Fig. 4. As such, Sanders recombines primary and ghost signals. Although
we appreciate the Examiner's position that "[t]he sum (or difference) of two
traces is by definition itself a trace," the Examiner incorrectly posits that the
claims "do not preclude traces that have no ghost or primary component"
(Ans. 3), because claim 1 explicitly recites "wherein the first traces include
corresponding first primaries and first ghosts, and ... wherein the second
traces include corresponding second primaries and second ghosts." See Br.
24 (Claims App.). For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner does not set
forth adequate factual findings or technical reasoning that would lead a
person skilled in the art to make such a finding. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
In conclusion, we agree with Appellant that Sanders fails to disclose
"generating third traces (SYM) by adding the first traces (which include both
primaries and ghosts) to the second traces (which also include both primaries
and ghosts)," and "generating fourth traces (DBG) as a difference of the first
5
Appeal2017-009120
Application 14/078,940
traces . . . and the second traces," as called for by each of independent
claims 1, 12, and 20. Br. 14--15.
The Examiner's use of the disclosure of Soubaras does not remedy the
deficiencies of Sanders discussed supra. See Final Act. 3. Therefore, for the
foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1,
12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sanders and
Soubaras.
As Appellant relies on the arguments discussed supra to argue the
rejection of dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 11, 14, 16, and 19, for the same
reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejection of these claims
over the combined teachings of Sanders and Soubaras. See Br. 1 7.
Rejection II
The Examiner's use of the disclosure of Ray does not remedy the
deficiency of Sanders as discussed supra. See Final Act. 7-10. Therefore,
for the same reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, and 18 as
unpatentable over Sanders, Soubaras, and Ray.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-16 and 18-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
6