Ex Parte Eick et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

13156104 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2017)

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.
13/156,104 06/08/2011 Peter M. Eick 41380US 4350
28841 7590
ConocoPhillips Company
600 North Dairy Ashford
Houston, TX 77079-1175
EXAMINER
NDURE, AMIE MERCEDES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
Legal-IP@conocophillips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER M. EICK and JOEL D. BREWER
Appeal 2017-000244
Application 13/156,1041
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
decision rejecting claims 1,2, 4—12, and 14—19 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Clay, Jr. (US 2,906,363, iss. Sept. 29, 1959)
(“Clay”). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellants, “the real party in interest... is
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY.” Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-000244
Application 13/156,104
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1,11, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with added emphasis, is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal.
1. A method of acquiring seismic data comprising the steps
of:
a. deploying receivers in a survey area wherein each
receiver is laterally spaced from one another in two horizontal
directions wherein the lateral spacing in at least one horizontal
direction is deliberately non-uniform, wherein the receivers are
not aligned in at least one of the two horizontal directions and
wherein the spacing between any two seismic receivers in the
deliberately non-uniform direction varies by a distance of at least
five percent between the largest spacing and smallest spacing;
b. identifying seismic source points within the survey area;
c. directing seismic energy into the ground at the source
points and recording reflected and/or refracted seismic data with
the deployed seismic receivers;
d. recovering the measured data from the deployed seismic
receivers; and
e. reconstructing the wavefield from the recovered data.
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the Examiner’s finding that Clay’s Figure 7
discloses “wherein the receivers are not aligned in at least one of the two
horizontal directions,” as recited in independent claims 1,11, and 16 is
inadequately supported because “F[igure] 7 does not teach that the
geophones [(i.e., receivers)] can have non-uniform spacing in more than one
direction. Br. 4. We agree.
The Examiner’s finding suggests an understanding of Figure 7 to be a
schematic top view of geophones 1—16. See Ans. 14—15. However, Figure 7
2
Appeal 2017-000244
Application 13/156,104
is not a schematic top view. Figure 7 is an exploded presentation of
Figure 6, which depicts “a schematic plan view showing an array in which a
total of sixteen geophones is used.” Clay, col. 2,11. 29—33. Clay discloses
that the geophones are connected to a single conductor leading to a recorder.
See Clay, col. 4,11. 2—5. The Appellants correctly point out that the
geophones “are lined up essentially in a row with non-uniform spacing” and
“are illustrated in multiple rows so that the relative position of the individual
receivers can be clearly seen.” Br. 5. As such, we find that Figures 6 and 7
fail to show geophones 1—16 as not aligned in a horizontal direction as
required by independent claims 1,11, and 16. See Br. 5.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—12,
and 14—19 as anticipated by Clay.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—12,
and 14—19.
REVERSED
3