10529186 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 13, 2012)

Ex Parte Goujon et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 13, 2012

10529186 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte NICOLAS GOUJON, JOHAN FREDRIK NAES, and RUNE VOLDSBEKK ____________________ Appeal 2010-008586 Application 10/529,186 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: JOHN C. KERINS, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judges. KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008586 Application 10/529,186 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 29, 30, 32, and 34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to seismic cable systems. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A seismic cable, comprising: a tension support cable capable of absorbing tension during deployment of the seismic cable; a signal cable attached to a plurality of first points spaced along the length of the support cable at a plurality of second points spaced along the length of the signal cable to mechanically decouple the signal cable from the tension support cable; and at least one sensor module disposed on the signal cable proximate at least one third point, said at least one third point being different than the plurality of second points. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Kruppenbach Lunde US 4,398,276 US 6,477,111 B1 Aug. 9, 1983 Nov. 5, 2002 REJECTIONS Appellants seek our review of the following rejections made by the Examiner: Appeal 2010-008586 Application 10/529,186 3 Claims 1-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 24, 29, 30, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) and/or (e) as encompassing subject matter anticipated by Lunde. Claims 1, 19, 20, 29, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as encompassing subject matter anticipated by Kruppenbach. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Examiner found, and we agree, that Lunde discloses a seismic cable that includes a tension support cable (stress member 32), a signal cable (optical fibre bundle 36) attached to the support cable at a plurality of first points (buoyancy pills 38c) spaced along a length of the signal cable at a plurality of second points (buoyancy pills 38c), and at least one sensor (hydrophone assembly 30) disposed on the signal cable at a third point (attachment location for element 30). Ans. 4. Appellants did not dispute these findings, and we accept them as fact. 2. The Examiner found, and we agree, that Kruppenbach discloses a seismic cable that includes a tension support cable (line 30), a signal cable (interconnecting cable 14) attached to the support cable at a plurality of first points spaced along a length of the signal cable, and at least one sensor (sensor 12) disposed on the signal cable. Ans. 5. Appellants did not dispute these findings, and we accept them as fact. ANALYSIS 1. Lunde Appellants present a single argument for all claims and do not base any argument upon distinctions among the claims. As such, we select claim 1 as representative, and claims 2-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 24, 29, 30, and 32 stand Appeal 2010-008586 Application 10/529,186 4 or fall with claim 1. App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 2-3; see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011). Appellants argue solely that Lunde does not disclose the claim limitation “to mechanically decouple the signal cable from the tension support cable” and that, to the contrary, Lunde in fact discloses that the signal cable (optical fibre bundle 36) and tension support cable (stress member 32) are mechanically coupled to one another by buoyancy pill 38c because the buoyancy pill “grips” both cables. App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 2-3. We find this argument unconvincing. While Lunde does indeed disclose that buoyancy pill 38c will “grip” the optical bundles 36 (col. 8, l. 27), it further discloses that the engagement of stress member 32 will be “enhanced” (col. 8, l. 28) by including projection 90 that “digs into” the stress member 32 (col. 8, l. 29). Buoyancy pills 38c therefore grip the stress member 32 more tightly than they grip optical bundle 36. Consequently, for at least some range of tensions applied to stress member 32, buoyancy pills 38c will merely slide along optical bundle 36 while maintaining their grip on stress member 32. To that extent, buoyancy pills 38c mechanically decouple the signal cable from the tension support cable. Claim 1 contains no limitation that distinguishes the recited mechanical decoupling from that which Lunde discloses. We thus conclude that Appellants have not identified any reversible error in the rejection. 2. Kruppenbach Appellants present a single argument for all claims and do not base any argument upon distinctions among the claims. As such, we select claim 1 as representative, and claims 19, 20, 29, and 34 stand or fall with claim 1. App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 4-5; see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2010-008586 Application 10/529,186 5 Appellants argue solely that Kruppenbach does not disclose a tension support cable that is capable of absorbing tension during deployment of the seismic cable. In particular, Appellants argue that “there is no suggestion that the line 30 ever absorbs tension during deployment.” Reply Br. 4. See also App. Br. 10-12. We find this argument unconvincing. Claim 1 merely requires that the cable be capable of absorbing tension during deployment; whether the cable actually absorbs tension during deployment is irrelevant. So long as the prior-art structure is capable of the recited function, it meets the claim limitation. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Kruppenbach’s cable (line 30) is inherently capable of absorbing tension during deployment; otherwise it would snap instantaneously upon the slightest tug. We thus conclude that Appellants have not identified any reversible error in the rejection. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 29, 30, 32, and 34 is AFFIRMED. 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) (2009). AFFIRMED mls