Ex Parte BARR et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 5, 2018

13209909 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2018)

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.
13/209,909 08/15/2011 FREDERICK JAMES BARR PGS-11-11US 1110
95738 7590 03/07/2018
Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc.
West Memorial Place 1
15375 Memorial Drive Suite 100
Houston, TX 77079
EXAMINER
LOBO, IAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2018 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):
docketing@pgs.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FREDERICK JAMES BARR, STIG RUNE LENNART
TENGHAMN, and ANDERS GORAN MATTSSON
Appeal 2016-001421
Application 13/209,909
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Frederick James Barr et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
(1) claims 11—13 and 15—21 as unpatentable over Fanning (US 4,162,476,
issued July 24, 1979) or Sykes (US 3,320,580, issued May 16, 1967) or
Dechnik (GB 2227317 A, published July 25, 1990) in view of Sullivan (US
4,536,862, issued Aug. 20, 1985), Paulson (US 2010/0116054 Al, published
May 13, 2010), and Mallinson (US 4,926,178, issued May 15, 1990), or
Miller (US 6,452,531 Bl, issued Sept. 17, 2002); and (2) claims 1—10 and 14
as unpatentable over Fanning, Sykes, or Dechnik in view of Sullivan,
Appeal 2016-001421
Application 13/209,909
Paulson, Mallinson, or Miller, and Hall, Jr. (US 4,163,206, issued July 31,
1979) (hereinafter “Hall”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to piezoelectric sensors for
geophysical streamers. See Spec. Title, Figs. 6, 8, 9, 12. Claims 1, 11, and
16 are independent.
Claim 16 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
16. A sensor that comprises:
a pair of piezoelectric sensors configured to deform
similarly in response to acceleration and oppositely in
response to pressure, the pair of sensors being coupled
together to provide at least one of pressure and
acceleration compensation;
at least one digital transducer circuit employing a
quantized feedback path to the pair of piezoelectric
sensors to obtain at least one of a digital pressure
compensated acceleration signal and a digital acceleration
compensated pressure signal.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Fanning or Sykes or Dechnik in view of Sullivan, Paulson,
and Mallinson, or Miller
Claims 11 and 15
Appellants do not offer arguments in favor of dependent claim 15
separate from those presented for independent claim 11. See Br. 9—10.1 We
1 Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 17, 2014) (hereinafter “Br.”).
2
Appeal 2016-001421
Application 13/209,909
select claim 11 as the representative claim, and claim 15 stands or falls with
claim 11. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We address claims 12 and 13
separately below.
Appellants contend that “[cjontrary to the position expressed by the
office, the cited art does not teach or suggest ‘applying a quantized feedback
signal to at least one of the piezoelectric membranes’ as is recited in claim
11.” Br. 9. According to Appellants, “[t]o whatever extent the cited art [i.e.,
Paulson, Mallinson, and Miller] applies a quantized feedback signal, it is
still not applied to a piezoelectric membrane as is claimed.” Id. Rather,
“Paulson is directed to a MEMS-based sensor with no discussion of
piezoelectric sensors or membranes. MEMS-based sensors do not inherently
include piezoelectric sensors or membranes.” Id. As such, Appellants
conclude that “even if Paulson were interpreted as including a quantized
feedback path or signal, Paulson still does not teach a quantized feedback
signal applied to a piezoelectric membrane as is recited in claim 11. None of
the other cited references cure the deficiencies of Paulson with regard to the
above-noted limitations.” Id.
Appellants argue against a reference individually when the rejection is
based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413
(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further,
to the extent Appellants are arguing the references must be capable of bodily
incorporation in order to combine their teachings, the test for obviousness is
not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of a primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
at 425. “Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id.
3
Appeal 2016-001421
Application 13/209,909
In this case, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of
Fanning or Sykes or Dechnik with Sullivan, Paulson, Mallinson, or Miller.
In the Answer, the Examiner clarifies that although Fanning, Sykes, or
Dechnik “do not disclose using ‘piezoelectric membranes’ as the sensors, it
is known from Sullivan . . . that hydrophones/geophone sensors using
piezoelectric membranes provide simplicity of construction with greater
ruggedness and dependability.” Ans. 32 (citing Sullivan 1:19-2:38, Figs.
6a—6d). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to
modify any of the piezoelectric sensor structures of Dechnik, Sykes or
Fanning by substituting piezoelectric membranes [in view of Sullivan]” in
that “[s]uch substitution would provide greater ruggedness and dependability
while simplifying construction of the sensor.” Ans. 3^4; see also Final Act.
2—3.3 The Examiner’s findings are sound and supported by a preponderance
of the evidence, and the Examiner’s conclusions therefrom are based on
rational underpinnings. Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error.
The Examiner further relies on the combined teachings of Paulson in
view of Mallinson or Miller for disclosing “a delta-sigma modulator” that
includes “quantized feedback signals.” See Ans. 4 (“[I]t is noted that
Paulson discloses a digital transducer circuit including a delta-sigma
modulator and Mallison [sic] and Miller each teach that delta-sigma
modulators include quantized feedback signals.”); see also Final Act. 3^4.
Appellants do not explain why the Examiner’s reliance on these teachings
somehow requires the Examiner to incorporate into Fanning, Sykes, or
Dechnik the additional structure that Appellants identify. That Paulson may
2 Examiner’s Answer (mailed Jan. 28, 2015) (hereinafter “Ans.”).
3 Final Office Action (mailed June 11, 2014) (hereinafter “Final Act.”).
4
Appeal 2016-001421
Application 13/209,909
teach additional structure does not prevent the Examiner from relying on the
Paulson reference for limited purposes. Appellants do not provide
persuasive evidence or argument apprising us of error in the Examiner’s
proposed reasoning for the combined teachings of Fanning or Sykes or
Dechnik with Sullivan, Paulson, Mallinson, or Miller.
Further, in response to Appellants’ contention, the Examiner takes the
position that:
Although Paulson may be directed to digital conversion using
delta-sigma modulators including quantized feedback for
MEMS-based sensors, it would be well within the purview of one
of ordinary skill in this art to use similar digital conversion
having delta-sigma modulators including quantized feedback
upon the modified piezoelectric membranes of Dechnik, Sykes
or Fanning since MEMS-based sensors and piezoelectric
membrane sensors all are mechanical sensors used to measure
acceleration and pressure. ... In the art of acoustic transducers,
a skilled artisan would be versed in MEMS-based sensors,
hydrophones, geophones, accelerometers, etc. and it would [be]
well within the purview of the skilled artisan to recognize and
account for the different known techniques in digital conversion,
one of which is using quantized feedback signals.
Ans. 4—5. Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error.
Appellants contend that:
[T]he proposed modification to Fanning, Sykes, or Dechnik
involves more than changing an analog sensor to a digital sensor.
In addition to digitizing the output of an analog sensor, the
proposed modification involves adding a feedback loop that
changes the behavior of a piezoelectric sensor or membrane
compared to an analog sensor or an analog sensor with an analog-
to-digital converter (ADC). The effect of a feedback signal on a
piezoelectric membrane would have been unknown at the time,
and thus it would not have been obvious to apply the feedback
signal for Paulson’s MEMS-based sensor to a piezoelectric
sensor. Mixing the circuitry of different sensors or adding to the
5
Appeal 2016-001421
Application 13/209,909
complexity of a sensor is not an obvious modification due to its
unknown effect on the accuracy of the sensor to be modified.
Br. 10.
As an initial matter, Appellants do not identify record evidence
supporting the contention that (1) “[i]n addition to digitizing the output of an
analog sensor, the proposed modification involves adding a feedback loop
that changes the behavior of a piezoelectric sensor or membrane compared
to an analog sensor or an analog sensor with an analog-to-digital converter
(ADC),” (2) “[t]he effect of a feedback signal on a piezoelectric membrane
would have been unknown at the time,” and (3) “[mjixing the circuitry of
different sensors or adding to the complexity of a sensor is not an obvious
modification due to its unknown effect on the accuracy of the sensor to be
modified.” Id.', see In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974)
(“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). In this
case, the Examiner articulates adequate reasoning based on rational
underpinnings to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to make the proposed modifications. Appellants do not provide
persuasive evidence or argument to the contrary. Further, there is no
indication that the Examiner’s proposed modifications are beyond the ability
of one skilled in the art. See Ans. 4—5.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s “proposed modifications
appear to be the result of improper hindsight reasoning using [Appellants’
disclosure rather than any motivation provided in the cited art.” Br. 10.
We are not persuaded as the Examiner cites specific teachings in the
references themselves, not Appellants’ disclosure, in support of the
Examiner’s articulated reasoning for combining the references as proposed
in the rejection. See Final Act. 2-4; see also Ans. 2—5.
6
Appeal 2016-001421
Application 13/209,909
In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 11 as unpatentable over
Fanning or Sykes or Dechnik with Sullivan, Paulson, Mallinson, or Miller.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 as
unpatentable over Fanning or Sykes or Dechnik with Sullivan, Paulson,
Mallinson, or Miller. We further sustain the rejection of claim 15, which
falls with claim 11.
Claim 12
Appellants present similar arguments (i.e., to the Paulson reference,
the use of hindsight, and analog and digital sensors) for claim 12 as those
presented for claim 11. See Br. 10-11. As discussed above for claim 11,
these arguments are not persuasive. Accordingly, for the same reasons
stated above for claim 11, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 as
unpatentable over Fanning or Sykes or Dechnik with Sullivan, Paulson,
Mallinson, or Miller.
Claim 13
Appellants contend that “for the same reasons as given for claim 11”
and “[f]or much the same reasons as given for claim 12, the specific
limitations of claim 13 directed to applying different quantized feedback
signals to two piezoelectric membranes would not be obvious or inherent in
view of the cited art.” Br. 11.
As discussed above, we find no deficiencies in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 11 and 12 as unpatentable over Fanning or Sykes or
Dechnik with Sullivan, Paulson, Mallinson, or Miller. Further, “[a]
7
Appeal 2016-001421
Application 13/209,909
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.” See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii)(2011); In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (holding that the Board had reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii) as requiring “more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). Therefore, for
the reasons stated above with respect to claims 11 and 12, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 as unpatentable over Fanning or Sykes or
Dechnik with Sullivan, Paulson, Mallinson, or Miller.
Claims 16 and 21
Appellants do not offer arguments in favor of dependent claim 21
separate from those presented for independent claim 16. See Br. 11—12. We
select claim 16 as the representative claim, and claim 21 stands or falls with
claim 16. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We address claims 17—19 and 20
separately below.
Appellants present similar arguments (i.e., to the Paulson reference,
the use of hindsight, and “the proposed modification to Fanning, Sykes, or
Dechnik involving] more than changing an analog sensor to a digital
sensor”) for claim 16 as those presented for claim 11. See Br. 11—12. As
discussed above for claim 11, these arguments are not persuasive.
Accordingly, for the same reasons stated above for claim 11, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 as unpatentable over Fanning or Sykes or
Dechnik with Sullivan, Paulson, Mallinson, or Miller. We further sustain
the rejection of claim 21, which falls with claim 16.
8
Appeal 2016-001421
Application 13/209,909
Claims 17—19
Claims 18 and 19 depend from claim 17, which depends from claim
16. See Br. 18—19, Claims App. Appellants contend that claim 17 “is
allowable over the cited art for the same reasons as given for claim 16.
Further, claim 17 recites ‘the quantized feedback path applies a quantized
feedback voltage to each of the pair of piezoelectric sensors, ’ and is
allowable for much the same reasons as given for claim 12.” Br. 12.
As discussed above, we find no deficiencies in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 11, 12, and 16 as unpatentable over Fanning or Sykes or
Dechnik with Sullivan, Paulson, Mallinson, or Miller. As further discussed
above, “[a] statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not
be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.” See In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Therefore, for the reasons stated above with
respect to claims 11, 12, and 16, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 17—19 as unpatentable over Fanning or Sykes or Dechnik with
Sullivan, Paulson, Mallinson, or Miller.
Claim 20
Appellants present similar arguments (i.e., to the Paulson reference,
the use of hindsight, and analog and digital sensors) for claim 20 as those
presented for claim 16. See Br. 12—13. As discussed above for claim 16,
these arguments are not persuasive. Appellants further contend that “[wjhile
the cited figures [Mallinson at FIG. 1 and Miller at FIGS. 3 and 13] appear
to show feedback circuitry, there is no description of ‘feedback circuitry
[that] comprises a differential voltage driver unit,”’ as recited in claim 20.
See id. at 12.
9
Appeal 2016-001421
Application 13/209,909
In response to Appellants’ contention, the Examiner states that
“Mallinson shows (Fig. 1, [elements] 46, 48) a feedback circuit that includes
what amounts to a differential voltage driver.” Ans. 6. Appellants do not
apprise us of Examiner error. As discussed above, the Examiner relies on
the combined teachings of Fanning or Sykes or Dechnik with Sullivan,
Paulson, Mallinson, or Miller. Appellants do not provide persuasive
evidence or argument apprising us of error in the Examiner’s proposed
reasoning for the combined teachings of Fanning or Sykes or Dechnik with
Sullivan, Paulson, Mallinson, or Miller.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 as
unpatentable over Fanning or Sykes or Dechnik with Sullivan, Paulson,
Mallinson, or Miller.
Obviousness over Fanning, Sykes, or Dechnik in view of Sullivan,
Paulson, Mallinson, or Miller, and Hall
Claims 1—4, 6, 9, 10, and 14
Appellants do not offer arguments in favor of dependent claims 2-4,
6, 9, 10, and 14 separate from those presented for independent claim 1. See
Br. 13—14.4 We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2-4,
6, 9, 10, and 14 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We
address claims 5,7, and 8 separately below.
Appellants present similar arguments (i.e., to the Paulson reference,
the use of hindsight, and “the proposed modification to Fanning, Sykes, or
Dechnik involving] more than changing an analog sensor to a digital
4 We note that claim 14 depends from claim 11. See Br. 18, Claims App.
10
Appeal 2016-001421
Application 13/209,909
sensor”) for claim 1 as those presented for claims 11 and 16. See Br. 13—14.
As discussed above for claims 11 and 16, these arguments are not
persuasive.
Appellants further contend that the Examiner’s “dependence on [Hall]
is deficient as [Hall] does not specify combining digital sensor signals.
None of the other cited references overcome the deficiency of [Hall] with
regard to combining digital sensor signals.” Br. 14.
In response to Appellants’ contention, the Examiner notes that the
combined teachings of Fanning, Sykes, or Dechnik with Sullivan, Paulson,
Mallinson, or Miller are “primarily directed to analog to digital signal
conversion” and “[i]t is irrelevant whether [Hall] specifies digital sensor
signals since that is not what [Hall] was applied [for] in the rejection.” Ans.
6—7; see also Final Act. 4—5. Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner
error. The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Fanning, Sykes, or
Dechnik with Sullivan, Paulson, Mallinson, or Miller, and Hall. Appellants
do not provide persuasive evidence or argument apprising us of error in the
Examiner’s proposed reasoning for the combined teachings of Fanning,
Sykes, or Dechnik with Sullivan, Paulson, Mallinson, or Miller, and Hall.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Fanning, Sykes, or Dechnik with Sullivan, Paulson,
Mallinson, or Miller and Hall. We further sustain the rejection of claims 2—
4, 6, 9, 10, and 14, which fall with claim 1.
11
Appeal 2016-001421
Application 13/209,909
Claim 5
Appellants contend that claim 5 “is allowable over the cited art for the
same reasons as given for claim 1” and “[g]iven that none of the cited
piezoelectric sensors have feedback circuitry and that Paulson’s feedback
loop is applied to a pulse generator component 108 of a MEMS-based sensor
rather than between a pair of surfaces of a piezoelectric sensing element”
that “[n]one of the cited references teach or suggest the specific limitations
of claim 5. For at least these additional reasons, claim 5 is allowable over
the cited art.” Br. 14.
As discussed above for claim 1, Appellants’ arguments to the Paulson
reference are not persuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 5 as unpatentable over Fanning, Sykes, or Dechnik with
Sullivan, Paulson, Mallinson, or Miller and Hall.
Claims 7 and 8
Appellants present similar arguments (i.e., to the Paulson reference,
the use of hindsight, and analog and digital sensors) for claims 7 and 8 as
those presented for claim 1. See Br. 15. As discussed above for claim 1,
these arguments are not persuasive. Appellants further contend that
although “various figures in the cited art appear to show feedback circuitry,”
there is no description of “feedback circuitry” that comprises “a voltage
level shifter” or “a differential voltage driver unit,” as recited in claims 7 and
8, respectively. See id.
In response to Appellants’ contention for claims 7 and 8, the
Examiner finds that “Mallinson shows (Fig. 1, [elements] 46, 48) a feedback
circuit that includes what amounts to a differential voltage driver.” Ans. 6.
12
Appeal 2016-001421
Application 13/209,909
Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error. As discussed above, the
Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Fanning, Sykes, or Dechnik
with Sullivan, Paulson, Mallinson, or Miller, and Hall. Appellants do not
provide persuasive evidence or argument apprising us of error in the
Examiner’s proposed reasoning for the combined teachings of Fanning,
Sykes, or Dechnik with Sullivan, Paulson, Mallinson, or Miller, and Hall.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 8 as
unpatentable over Fanning, Sykes, or Dechnik with Sullivan, Paulson,
Mallinson, or Miller, and Hall.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 11—13 and
15—21 as unpatentable over Fanning or Sykes or Dechnik in view of
Sullivan, Paulson, Mallinson, or Miller.
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—10 and
14 as unpatentable over Fanning, Sykes or Dechnik in view of Sullivan,
Paulson, Mallinson, or Miller, and Hall.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
13