Ex Parte Ursin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 19, 2018

14265539 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/265,539 04/30/2014 Torbjprn Ursin
146140 7590 06/21/2018
Dickinson Wright, PLLC
Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc.
1825 Eye Street N.W.
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
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.
PGS-13-32US-CIP 4728
EXAMINER
ROSARIO, DENNIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2018 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):
dwpatents@dickinsonwright.com
docketing@pgs.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TORBJ0RN URSIN, MICHAEL MALLING,
and
GEIR ANDRE MOTZFELDT DRANGE 1
Appeal2017-010586
Application 14/265,539
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-17, and 19-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as PGS Geophysical AS of
Oslo, Norway.
Appeal2017-010586
Application 14/265,539
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' Specification describes "obtaining, at an underwater
imaging device, a stream of images of geophysical surveying equipment,
wherein the geophysical surveying equipment includes a target pattern
having a calibrated image size" (Abstract). According to the Specification,
"[b ]ased on the calibrated image size and the apparent size, a distance
between the underwater imaging device and the geophysical surveying
equipment is determined" (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method comprising:
obtaining, at an underwater imaging device, a stream of images
of geophysical surveying equipment, wherein the
geophysical surveying equipment includes a target
pattern, the target pattern having a calibrated image size;
tracking the geophysical surveying equipment using the image
stream and the target pattern;
capturing from the image stream, an image from the stream of
images of the geophysical surveying equipment, wherein
the image comprises an image of the target pattern
having an apparent size; and
determining, using a single image captured from the image
stream, a distance between the underwater imaging
device and the geophysical surveying equipment, the
determining based on the calibrated image size and the
apparent size of the target pattern in the single image.
2
Appeal2017-010586
Application 14/265,539
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-11, 13-17, and 19-28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Vigen (US 7,835,221
B2; Nov. 16, 2010) and Wang (US 7,679,724 B2; Mar. 16, 2010) (Final Act.
31-39). The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 8-11, 17, 21, and
24--27 in the Answer (Ans. 10, 20).
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Vigen, Wang, and Lia (US 4,980,763; Dec. 25,
1990) (Final Act. 39--40).
The Examiner noted claims 7, 12, 18 and 30 are objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims (Final Act. 42).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Vigen teaches all the limitations of independent
claims 1, 13, and 23 except for "determining based on the calibrated image
size and the apparent size of the target pattern in the single image" of claim
1 and similarly-recited limitations of claims 13 and 23 (Final Act. 31-34, 3 7,
39; Ans. 2-8). The Examiner then finds Wang teaches this limitation found
in each independent claim (Final Act. 34--35, 37, 39; Ans. 5, 7, 8, 15; Wang
col 4, 11. 11-13).
Appellants argue, among other things, that the combination of Vigen
and Wang does not teach all the elements of representative claim 1 and that
the "proposed modification of Vigen by Wang is also without merit" (App.
Br. 12, 14).
3
Appeal2017-010586
Application 14/265,539
We agree with the Examiner that Vigen teaches determining a
distance between an underwater imaging device and geophysical surveying
equipment (see Final Act. 34; Vigen Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 7, 11. 34--37; col. 7,
1. 62----col. 8, 1. 4; col. 13, 11. 13-21). We also agree with the Examiner that
Wang teaches determining a distance based on a calibrated image size and
the apparent size of a target pattern (see Final Act. 34; Wang Abstract, Fig.
3, col. 2, 11. 3-21; col. 4, 11. 3---62). The Examiner, however, has not
explained sufficiently how the teachings of the references would have been
combined in the manner claimed.
Although the Examiner finds that "[i]t would have been obvious ... to
one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the distance from a camera to a
mark on a spread element based on Wang's stored calibration image size p1
and current target image size p2" (Final Act. 34) and that"[ o ]ne skilled in
the art would have been motivated to modify Vigen imaging systems in figs.
5-8 in this manner" (Final Act. 34--35), the Examiner has not explained
sufficiently how Vigen's imaging system as illustrated in its Figures 5-8
would have been modified with Wang's image calibration (see Final Act. 7-
9, 34--35; Ans. 17). Thus, the Examiner has not made a sufficient showing
that the combination of the references teaches or suggests Appellants'
claimed invention.
Therefore, we conclude the Examiner has not made a prima facie case
of obviousness and do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 13, and 23, all reciting substantially the same limitations, and
claims 2-6, 14--16, 19, 20, 22, 28, and 29, respectively dependent therefrom.
4
Appeal2017-010586
Application 14/265,539
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1---6, 13-16, 19, 20, 22, 23,
28, and 29 is reversed.
REVERSED
5