CGG SERVICES SA

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 12, 2021

2020001401 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/109,689 07/05/2016 Antonio PICA 0336-407-2/100677 1027
11171 7590 05/12/2021
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
754 Warrenton Road
Suite 113-314
Fredericksburg, VA 22406
EXAMINER
MIKOWSKI, JUSTIN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2129
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/12/2021 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 ANTONIO PICA
____________

Appeal 2020-001401
Application 15/109,689
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1–4, 12–13, and 20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest
as CGG Services SA. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001401
Application 15/109,689

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention “generally relate[s]
to processing seismic data using a subsurface model.” Spec. ¶ 1.2 The
Specification explains that “[h]ydrocarbon exploration and development
uses waves (e.g., seismic waves or electromagnetic waves) to explore the
structure of underground formations on land and at sea.” Id. ¶ 3. The waves
emitted by a source at a known location penetrate the formation, and
interfaces separating the formation’s layers reflect the waves. Id. Sensors
detect the reflected waves. Id. The detected waves include “primaries” that
travel directly from a formation interface to a sensor and “internal multiples”
that experience at least two reflections inside the formation before reaching
a sensor. Id.
Figure 1 (reproduced below) schematically illustrates using waves to
explore the structure of an underground formation (Spec. ¶¶ 3, 13, Fig. 1):

2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed July 5, 2016; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed April 30, 2019; “Appeal Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed August 19,
2019; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed October 28, 2019; and
“Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed December 11, 2019.
Appeal 2020-001401
Application 15/109,689

3
Figure 1 shows source 110 emitting waves to explore formation 120 with
interfaces 122, 124, and 126. Spec. ¶ 3. Primary 140 travels directly from
interface 126 to sensor 130. Id. ¶ 3, Fig. 1. Internal multiple 150
experiences at least two reflections inside formation 120 before reaching
sensor 130. Id. ¶ 3, Fig. 1.
The Specification explains that separating primaries and internal
multiples helps “to understand the structure of the explored underground
formation.” Spec. ¶ 3. The Specification also explains that “[c]onventional
methods for modeling internal multiples do not take into consideration all
the internal multiples” and “have used incomplete or inaccurate approaches
to model and separate” primaries and internal multiples. Spec. ¶¶ 6–7.
Hence, the invention endeavors to address those alleged deficiencies by
solving a two-way wave equation using “the first and the later arrivals
corresponding to a layer interface, the arrivals being extracted from the
data.” Id. ¶ 8.
Exemplary Claims
Independent claims 1 and 12 exemplify the claims at issue and read
as follows (with formatting added for clarity):
1. A method, comprising:
receiving data recorded by sensors while an underground
formation is explored using waves;
obtaining a layer model that specifies one or more
impedance and/or velocity changes inside the underground
formation, a layer of the layer model being defined between
adjacent among the one or more impedance and/or velocity
changes;
extracting from the data, first and later arrivals
of the waves emerging from each of the one or more
impedance and/or velocity changes;
Appeal 2020-001401
Application 15/109,689

4
estimating at least one of primaries and internal
multiples by
solving a two-way wave equation for each layer of
the model layer, using the first and the later arrivals, and
summing portions of resulting solutions to obtain
the primaries and/or the internal multiples; and
generating a layer image of the underground formation
based on the primaries and/or the multiples.
12. A data processing apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
an interface configured to receive log data and data
recorded by sensors while an underground formation is
explored using waves; and
a data processing unit configured
to obtain a layer model from the log data, the layer
model specifying one or more impedance changes inside
the underground formation, a layer of the layer model
being defined between adjacent among the one or more
impedance and/or velocity changes;
to extract from the data, first and later arrivals
of the waves emerging from each of the one or more
impedance changes;
to estimate at least one of primaries and internal
multiples by
solving a two-way wave equation using the
first and later arrivals, for each layer of the model
layer, and then
summing portions of resulting solutions
to obtain the primaries and/or to the internal
multiples; and
to generate a layer image of the underground
formation based on the primaries and/or the multiples.
Appeal Br. 11, 14–15 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-001401
Application 15/109,689

5
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Teague et al. (“Teague”) US 2010/0135114 A1 June 3, 2010
Broto et al. (“Broto”) US 7,768,870 B2 Aug. 3, 2010
Brown et al. (“Brown”) US 2011/0060572 A1 Mar. 10, 2011
Srigiriraju US 2014/0247969 A1 Sept. 4, 2014
Yu Zhang & Lian Duan, Predicting Multiples Using a Reverse Time
Demigration, SEG Las Vegas 2012 Annual Meeting (2012) (“Zhang”)
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Teague, Zhang, and Srigiriraju. Final Act. 8–11.
Claims 2, 3, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Teague, Zhang, Srigiriraju, and Broto. Final Act. 12–15.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Teague, Zhang, Srigiriraju, Broto, and Brown. Final
Act. 16–19.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the § 103 rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we
concur with the Examiner’s conclusions concerning unpatentability under
§ 103. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning in the Final Office
Action and Answer. See Final Act. 6–19; Ans. 3–8. We add the following
to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
Appeal 2020-001401
Application 15/109,689

6
The § 103 Rejection of Claims 1 and 4
CLAIM 1: THE “EXTRACTING” LIMITATION
As noted above, the § 103 rejection of claim 1 rests on Teague,
Zhang, and Srigiriraju. See Final Act. 8–11. Appellant argues that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because the references fail to teach or
suggest the following “extracting” limitation in claim 1: “extracting from the
data, first and later arrivals of the waves emerging from each of the one or
more impedance and/or velocity changes.” See Appeal Br. 6–8; Reply
Br. 2–3. The Examiner cites Teague as teaching or suggesting claim 1’s
“extracting” limitation. See Final Act. 9; Ans. 3–6.
Appellant concedes that Teague discloses that “the primary wavefield
(the wavefield resulting from the first down/up propagation from a point
source) can be replaced with the recorded shot data.” Appeal Br. 7–8
(quoting Teague ¶ 74); see Reply Br. 3. But Appellant contends that “this
replacement in the calculations does not mean that first and later arrivals are
extracted from ‘data recorded by sensors while an underground formation is
explored using waves’ as in the claimed paradigm.” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis
by Appellant).
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. Teague
discloses obtaining “data recorded by sensors while an underground
formation is explored using waves,” i.e., “shot data.” Teague ¶ 74; see Final
Act. 7, 9; Ans. 6, 8. Teague also discloses “extracting from the data”
primaries and internal multiples “emerging from each of the one or more
impedance and/or velocity changes” associated with the layers of a layer
model. Teague ¶¶ 62–70, Figs. 10–14; see id. ¶¶ 34, 43–47, 55–59; Final
Act. 6–7, 9; Ans. 5–6.
Appeal 2020-001401
Application 15/109,689

7
Teague’s Figure 12 (reproduced below) depicts “extracting from
the data” primaries emerging from the layers of a layer model:

Figure 12 illustrates a four-layer geologic model with point source S
generating a downwardly propagating wavefield and the geologic
formation’s bottom reflecting an upwardly propagating wavefield. Teague
¶¶ 44–45, 57, 62–65, Figs. 10–12. The wavefield recorded at the surface
contains only primaries. Id. ¶¶ 45, 63, 65. As the Examiner correctly finds,
Figure 12 “clearly shows record primaries.” Ans. 5.
Teague’s Figure 14 (reproduced below) depicts “extracting from
the data” internal multiples emerging from the layers of a layer model:

Appeal 2020-001401
Application 15/109,689

8
Figure 14 illustrates a four-layer geologic model with multiple downwardly
and upwardly propagating wavefields. Teague ¶¶ 46–47, 57, 66–70,
Figs. 13–14. The wavefield recorded “at the surface receiver position R
contains only internal multiples.” Id. ¶¶ 47, 68–69. As the Examiner
correctly finds, Figure 14 shows “how first order internal multiples are
estimated for each model layer.” Ans. 6.
The Specification explains that “first arrivals” from an interface are
“due to the primary reflections” and that “later arrivals” are “due to internal
multiples.” Spec. ¶ 35; see Final Act. 6 nn.1–2 (quoting Spec. ¶ 35).
Because primaries correspond to first arrivals and internal multiples
correspond to later arrivals and because Teague discloses “extracting from
the data” primaries and internal multiples emerging from the layers of a
layer model, Teague teaches or suggests claim 1’s “extracting” limitation.
Teague ¶¶ 62–70, 74, Figs. 10–14; see id. ¶¶ 34, 43–47, 55–59; Final
Act. 6–7, 9; Ans. 5–6.
Appellant attempts to distinguish claim 1 from Teague by pointing out
that Teague’s “shot data” replaces the “primary wavefield” in Teague’s
modeling. Reply Br. 3; see Appeal Br. 7–8. That attempt fails, however,
because Teague’s modeling uses the “primary wavefield” to estimate
internal multiples, i.e., later arrivals. See Teague ¶¶ 34, 43–47, 55–59,
62–70, 74, Figs. 10–14; Final Act. 6; Ans. 6. Teague’s modeling estimates
internal multiples, i.e., later arrivals, because earlier methods were “not
satisfactory for many situations.” Teague ¶ 28. For instance, Teague’s
Figure 10 shows a four-layer geologic model and “all possible first order
internal multiples that can occur.” Id. ¶ 57, Fig. 10. Teague’s modeling
predicts “[e]ach of the multiples depicted in” Figure 10. Id. ¶ 59; see id.
Appeal 2020-001401
Application 15/109,689

9
¶ 70; Appeal Br. 6 (admitting that Teague “aims to attenuate multiple
reflections in seismic data by predicting the multiples using wavefield
extrapolation modeling”). “Once the internal multiples are predicted, they
can be removed during further data processing and produce multiple-free
seismic data” used to “identify and locate subsurface geological structures,
such as reservoirs of hydrocarbon, water or other valuable materials.”
Teague ¶ 70.
CLAIM 1: THE “ESTIMATING” LIMITATION
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
the references fail to teach or suggest the following “estimating” limitation
in claim 1: “estimating at least one of primaries and internal multiples by
solving a two-way wave equation for each layer of the model layer, using
the first and the later arrivals, and summing portions of resulting solutions to
obtain the primaries and/or the internal multiples.” See Appeal Br. 8; Reply
Br. 2–3. The Examiner cites the combined disclosures in Teague and Zhang
as teaching or suggesting claim 1’s “estimating” limitation. See Final
Act. 6–7, 9–10; Ans. 7–8.
Appellant contends that “Teague does not use first and later arrivals
extracted from data as claimed, instead modeling energy reflected at each
layer,” and that “Zhang does not use the use of first and later arrivals
extracted from data either with the two-way wave equation either.” Appeal
Br. 8 (emphases omitted). Appellant also contends that “Teague teaches
estimating primaries by computation using a model, NOT both the primaries
and internal multiples and NOT ‘by solving a two-way equation for each
model layer, using as claimed first and later arrivals’ as claimed.” Reply
Br. 2 (emphasis by Appellant); see id. at 2–3. Further, Appellant asserts that
Appeal 2020-001401
Application 15/109,689

10
because Teague “does not teach solving the two-way equation,” Teague
“cannot extract the later arrival times for deeper layers.” Id. at 3.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
Appellant attacks the references individually. Where, as here, a rejection
rests on the combined disclosures in the references, an appellant cannot
establish nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, the Examiner cites Zhang, not Teague, as teaching or suggesting
estimating “primaries and internal multiples by solving a two-way wave
equation for each layer of the model layer.” See Final Act. 7, 10; Ans. 7–8.
Further, for the reasons discussed above for claim 1’s “extracting”
limitation, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that “Teague does not
use first and later arrivals extracted from data as claimed.” See Appeal
Br. 8; Teague ¶¶ 34, 43–47, 55–59, 62–70, 74, Figs. 10–14; Ans. 5–6.
In addition, even if Teague disclosed estimating only primaries, not
both primaries and internal multiples as Appellant contends, that disclosure
would suffice along with Zhang’s disclosure to teach or suggest claim 1’s
“estimating” limitation. See Final Act. 6–7, 9–10; Ans. 7–8; Reply Br. 2.
That limitation requires “estimating at least one of primaries and internal
multiples,” not both primaries and internal multiples as Appellant contends.
Appeal Br. 11.
SUMMARY FOR CLAIM 1
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness
based on Teague, Zhang, and Srigiriraju. In our view, the claimed subject
matter exemplifies the principle that “[t]he combination of familiar elements
Appeal 2020-001401
Application 15/109,689

11
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007). Hence, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 1.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1. Appellant does not argue patentability
separately for claim 4. See Appeal Br. 6–8; Reply Br. 2–3. Hence, we
sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 4 for the same reasons as claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The § 103 Rejections of Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, and 20
Appellant makes essentially the same patentability arguments for
independent claims 12 and 20 as for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6–9; Reply
Br. 2–3. For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness
based on Teague, Zhang, and Srigiriraju. Hence, we sustain the § 103
rejections of claims 12 and 20 for the same reasons as claim 1.3
Claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1, and claim 13 depends from
claim 12. Appellant does not argue patentability separately for these
dependent claims. See Appeal Br. 6–9; Reply Br. 2–3. Hence, we sustain
the § 103 rejections of these dependent claims for the same reasons as
claims 1 and 12. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

3 In the event of continued prosecution, the Examiner should consider the
propriety of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for claims 1 and 12 due
to the lack an antecedent basis for the language “the model layer” in each
claim. While the Board has discretion to enter a new ground of rejection,
no inference should be drawn from a failure to exercise that discretion. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b); MPEP § 1213.02.
Appeal 2020-001401
Application 15/109,689

12
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 12–13,
and 20.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4 103 Teague, Zhang, Srigiriraju 1, 4
2, 3, 20 103 Teague, Zhang, Srigiriraju, Broto 2, 3, 20
12, 13 103
Teague, Zhang,
Srigiriraju, Broto,
Brown
12, 13
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 12,
13, 20
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED