Ex Parte Husom et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 14, 2016

12896628 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/896,628 10/01/2010
28116 7590 10/18/2016
WestemGeco L.L.C.
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vidar Anders Husom
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.
14.0486-US-NP 1177
EXAMINER
LOBO,IANJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2016 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):
USDocketing@slb.com
jalverson@slb.com
SMarckesoni@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIDAR ANDERS HUSOM, GEIR A. M. DRANGE,
SVEIN ARNE FRIVIK, RUNE VOLDSBEKK, ROGER
ELLINGSEN, OLAV OEIBERG, and JENS OLAV PAULSEN
Appeal2014-009474
Application 12/896,628
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, AMANDA F. WIEKER, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Vidar Anders Husom et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-21. 1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants submit the real party in interest is WestemGeco, L.L.C. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal2014-009474
Application 12/896,628
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. An apparatus comprising:
a streamer cable section comprising an associated group
of seismic sensors; and
a unit to connect to an end of the streamer cable section,
the unit comprising:
a steering device controllable to position the
streamer section;
a controller to gather seismic data provided by the
associated group of seismic sensors and introduce the
seismic data to a telemetry bus of a streamer;
a network repeater to repeat a signal communicated
along the telemetry bus; and
a router between the controller and the telemetry
bus.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1-3, 5-8, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 21 are rejected under 3 5
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hillesund (US 2005/0188908
Al, pub. Sept. 1, 2005), Tveide (US 7,450,467 B2, iss. Nov. 11,
2008), and Rouquette '507 (US 8,120,507 B2, iss. Feb. 21, 2012)
or Rouquette '589 (US 7,176,589 B2, iss. Feb. 13, 2007).
2) Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hillesund, Tveide, Rouquette '507 or Rouquette
'589, and Ambs (US 6,011,752, iss. Jan. 4, 2000).
3) Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hillesund, Tveide, Rouquette '507 or Rouquette '589, and
Robertsson (US 2008/0015783 Al, pub. Jan. 17, 2008).
2
Appeal2014-009474
Application 12/896,628
4) Claims 10, 12, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hillesund, Tveide, Rouquette '507 or Rouquette
'589, Bittleston (US 6,671,223 B2, iss. Dec. 30, 2003), and
Zachariadis (US 4,404,664, iss. Sept. 13, 1983).
5) Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Hillesund, Tveide, Rouquette '507 or Rouquette '589, and
Benestad (US 4,635,237, iss. Jan. 6, 1987).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1: Claims 1-3, 5---8, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 21
Obviousness-Hillesund, Tveide, and Rouquette '507 or '589
The Examiner finds that Hillesund discloses the limitations of
independent claims 1 and 15 except the controller in Hillesund "is used to
control the birds" and Hillesund does not disclose "a network repeater to
repeat a signal communicated along the telemetry bus." Final Act. 2-3. The
Examiner finds that Tveide teaches that seismic streamer controllers can
"gather seismic data provided by seismic sensors and ... introduce the
seismic data to a transmission network" in addition to controlling the birds.
Id. at 3. The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to modify the
controller of Hillesund "for not only bird orientation purposes but also for
gathering and transmitting of the seismic data so as to minimize the amount
of equipment along the streamer." Id. The Examiner also finds that
Rouquette '507 and Rouquette '589 each disclose "that repeaters are a well
known part of seismic streamer data communications systems." Id. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify "the
connection unit of [Hillesund] to include a repeater so as to provide
3
Appeal2014-009474
Application 12/896,628
amplification of data, power and control signals throughout the streamer."
Id.
Appellants submit that Hillesund discloses a local control system 36
for the birds of a seismic streamer having a communication unit 7 6 that is
connected to data communication lines 24. Appeal Br. 10-11. Appellants
contend that Hillesund's "communication unit 76 communicates data
relating to the control or steering of the bird" which is "a purpose entirely
different from gathering or introducing seismic data, even though seismic
data may be communicated on the communication lines 24." Id. at 11.
Appellants also contend that Hillesund "fails to otherwise disclose or render
obvious a controller that is part of the same unit as a steering unit and
introduces seismic data to the telemetry bus of a streamer." Id. at 11-12.
Appellants submit that Tveide discloses "a steerable bird 22 that may
include seismic receivers, such as hydrophones" that "may be coupled
together from one streamer section to another streamer section via respective
corresponding lines." Id. at 12. Appellants contend that
Id.
[ n ]either the mere presence of receivers/hydrophones in the bird
... renders obvious a telemetry bus of a streamer, introducing
signals to a telemetry bus of a streamer, a controller to gather
seismic data and introduce the seismic data to a telemetry bus
of a streamer, or a controller that is part of the same unit as a
steering device and introduces seismic data to a telemetry bus
of a streamer.
In response to Appellants' contention that the purpose of Hillesund's
controller is not to gather seismic data, the Examiner submits that the
rejection relies on Tveide's teaching that "streamer unit controllers may be
used not only for controlling birds (i.e., Hillesund) but also for gathering
4
Appeal2014-009474
Application 12/896,628
seismic data and introducing seismic data to a transmission network." Ans.
2-3. In response to Appellants' contention that Tveide does not disclose a
telemetry bus of a streamer, the Examiner submits that the rejection relies on
Hillesund's disclosure of a telemetry bus. Id. at 3. For the following
reasons, we sustain the rejection.
Hillesund discloses local control system 36 for bird 18 on seismic
streamer 12. Hillesund i-fi-f 17, 39, Fig. 2, Fig. 4. Hillesund also discloses
"[a] communication line 24, which may consist of a bundle of fiber optic
data transmission cables and ... passes along the length of the seismic
streamer 12 and is connected to seismic sensors, hydrophones 26." Id. i127.
Appellants admit seismic data is transmitted on communication line
24 but attempt to distinguish Hillesund by arguing that Hillesund's purpose
for data communication lines 24 is to communicate data relating to control
of the bird. Appeal Br. 11. Appellants do not direct us to any disclosure in
Hillesund that transmitting data relating to the control of the bird is the sole
purpose of Hillesund's data communication lines 24. However, the alleged
purpose of controlling the bird is of no import to the controller of claim 1
which "gather[ s] seismic data ... and introduce[ s] the seismic data to a
telemetry bus." As noted above, the Examiner finds this limitation is
disclosed by Tveide.
Appellants' contention that Hillesund does not disclose a controller
that is part of the same unit as a steering unit is not persuasive. Appeal Br.
11-12. The Examiner specifically finds that Hillesund discloses a "unit (30)
to connect to an end of the streamer cable section" which "includes a
steering device controllable to position the streamer section" and "a
controller (54)." Final Act. 2. The Examiner's finding is supported by
5
Appeal2014-009474
Application 12/896,628
Hillesund. See Hillesund, Figs. 2, 4, ilil 39--43. Appellants submit no
persuasive argument or technical reasoning to apprise us of error in this
finding by the Examiner.
The Examiner's finding that Tveide teaches "it is common for seismic
streamer connector unit controllers to not only control the birds ... but to
also gather seismic data provided by seismic sensors and to introduce the
seismic data to a transmission network" is supported by Tveide. See Tveide,
col. 8, 11. 31---60. Appellants fail to apprise us of error in this finding by the
Examiner.
Appellants' contentions are based on an improper attack on the
disclosures of Hillesund and Tveide individually, while the rejection is based
on the combined teachings of Hillesund and Tveide. In re Keller, 642, F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellants fail to persuasively apprise us of error in
the Examiner's factual findings or rationale, quoted above, for the
combination of Hillesund and Tveide, which we determine to be reasonable
and supported by the disclosure in the cited references. See KSR Int 'l Co. v
Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 416 (2007) ("The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results."). We sustain the rejection of claims
1 and 15. Appellants do not argue separately for the patentability of
dependent claims 2, 3, 5-8, 17, and 18 (Appeal Br. 15) and thus we sustain
the rejection of these claims as well.
Claim 13, which is dependent on claim 1, recites "a housing ... to
contain the steering device, controller, repeater and router." Appeal Br. 17
(Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Hillesund discloses "a housing (36)
separate from the streamer cable section." Ans. 3 (referring to Hillesund,
6
Appeal2014-009474
Application 12/896,628
Fig. 2). Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that Hillesund
discloses a housing but contend that Hillesund's Figure 2 does not disclose
the recited housing because, as argued with respect to claim 1, Hillesund
does not disclose a controller that gathers seismic data and introduces the
seismic data to a telemetry network. Appeal Br. 13. As noted above, the
rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Hillesund and Tveide.
Appellants, thus, fail to apprise us of error in the Examiner's rejection of
claim 13 and we sustain the rejection.
Rejections 2, 3, and 4: Claims 4, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 19
Appellants rely on the contentions regarding claims 1, 13, and 15 in
connection with these rejections. Appeal Br. 15. For the reasons stated
above in connection with claims 1, 13, and 15, we also sustain the rejections
of claims 4, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection 5: Claims 11 and 20
Obviousness-Hillesund, Tveide, Rouquette '507 or '589, and Benestad
Claim 11, which is dependent on claim 1, recites "the unit further
includes an electrical fault detection system." Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).
Claim 20, which is dependent on claim 15, recites "disposing a fault
detection system in each unit." Id. at 18. The Examiner finds Benestad
teaches "fault or break or short circuit detection is a well known
phenomenon in streamer cable technology" and concludes it would have
been obvious to "have further modified Hillesund et al to include a fault
detection system in the connector unit." Final Act. 6.
Appellants submit that Benestad discloses fault detection in seismic
data acquisition means that are coupled to transmission lines in seismic
streamers. Appeal Br. 14. Appellants contend a skilled artisan "would not
7
Appeal2014-009474
Application 12/896,628
glean ... from Benestad or from any other references, the concept of
incorporating Benestad's fault detection system into a unit that contains a
steering device. In this regard . . . Hillesund and Tveide' s birds do not
process acquired seismic data" and "there is no apparent reason why the
skilled artisan would have incorporated Benestad' s fault detection system
into a bird that does not process seismic data." Id. at 14--15. Appellants'
contention is unpersuasive for the following reason. Neither claim 11 nor
claim 20, nor independent claims 1 and 15, contain any limitation relating to
the "process[ing] of acquired seismic data." Appellants' argument is, thus,
not commensurate with the scope of the claims. As noted above in
connection with claims 1 and 15, the combination of Hillesund and Tveide
teaches the gathering and introduction of seismic data to a telemetry bus as
recited in claims 1 and 15 and Benestad is relied on by the Examiner to
further modify the combination of Hillesund and Tveide to incorporate fault
detection as recited in claims 11 and 20. Appellants, thus, fail to
persuasively apprise us of error in the Examiner's factual findings or
rationale for the rejection of claims 11 and 20 and we sustain the rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-21 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8