Ex Parte Kimura et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 10, 2012

10965045 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 10, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte TSUNEHISA KIMURA and
EMMANUEL COSTE
____________________

Appeal 2010-008848
Application 10/965,045
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: KEN B. BARRETT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and MICHAEL J.
FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-008848
Application 10/965,045

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Tsunehisa Kimura and Emmanuel Coste (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from a decision finally rejecting claims 1-9, 11-20, and 72-
74. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Claimed Subject Matter
According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates “to methods
and apparatus for exploring subsurface formations” and more particularly
“to improved techniques for controlling seismic exploration testing and
measurement equipment.” Spec. 1, ll. 6-8. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A method for performing borehole seismic survey
measurement operations using a first seismic survey system
and a second remote seismic survey system, wherein the first
seismic survey system includes a first wireless digital
communication device and the second seismic survey system
includes a second wireless digital communication device, the
method comprising:
configuring the first and second digital communication
devices to provide a high bandwidth digital communication
link for transporting digital information between the first
seismic survey system and second seismic survey system;
performing borehole seismic survey measurement
operations, wherein seismic energy is created at one of the first
and second seismic survey systems and is received by the other
of the first and second seismic survey systems through a
formation;
collecting real-time data, using one or more receivers in
the borehole, during the borehole seismic survey measurement
operations and receiving, in real-time, the collected data at the
first seismic survey system;
Appeal 2010-008848
Application 10/965,045

3
receiving, at the first seismic survey system, source
signal QC data from the second seismic survey system;
determining, at the first seismic survey system, parameter
adjustment data for the second seismic survey system;
transmitting the parameter adjustment data to the second
seismic survey system and automatically, without user
intervention, updating parameter values at the second seismic
survey system;
performing additional seismic survey measurement
operations using the updated parameter values.

Evidence
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Alam
Clayton
US 4,894,807
US 2003/0202423 A1
Jan. 16, 1990
Oct. 30, 2003

Rejection
The Examiner makes the following rejection:
I. Claims 1-9, 11-20 and 72-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Clayton and Alam.

OPINION
Appellants argue against the rejection of claim 1 solely on the basis
that the cited references – Clayton and Alam – allegedly “fail to teach or
suggest all of the claimed limitations[.]” App. Br. 15. In doing so, however,
Appellants attack the references individually.
“The test for obviousness is not whether . . . the claimed invention
must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the
test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested
Appeal 2010-008848
Application 10/965,045

4
to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981)). “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (citing Keller, 642 F.2d at 425). In determining obviousness,
furthermore, a reference “must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly
teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.” Id.
With respect to the Clayton reference, Appellants assert that it does
not disclose or suggest:
“that real-time seismic survey data is collected by receivers in a
borehole”;

“that any portion of the disclosed system could be located in a
borehole”;

“that one portion of the discloses [sic] system receives seismic
energy from another portion through a formation”;

“a first seismic system that transmits seismic information to a
second seismic system through a formation”; or

“the first system then receives source signal QC data from the
second seismic survey system, wherein seismic energy is
created at one of the first and second seismic survey systems
and is received by the other through a formation.”

App. Br. 16 (emphasis added).
As the Examiner responds, Clayton was not cited as teaching all of
these features (Ans. 12), as Clayton does not involve borehole seismic
exploration in which seismic information passes through a formation (e.g., a
portion of the sea floor). Clayton is directed to surface seismic exploration
in which a boat tows an array of acoustic sources and sensors behind it just
Appeal 2010-008848
Application 10/965,045

5
below the water’s surface. Clayton fig. 1A. Alam, however, is directed to
both borehole and surface seismic exploration and includes a receiver 26 in a
borehole 16 that receives seismic signals that have passed through a
formation (sea floor 12). Alam fig. 1; see also Ans. 4, 13.
With respect to the Alam reference, Appellants assert that it does not
disclose or suggest “that one system receives source signal QC [quality
control] data from the other seismic survey, as this type of communication is
not even contemplated in Alam.” App. Br. 17.
As the Examiner responds, Alam was not cited as teaching the
transmission of QC signals (Ans. 14-15), which is taught by Clayton.
Clayton 6, paras. [0070] and [0071], figs. 8A and 8B; see also Ans. 3.
All of Appellants’ arguments are based on attacking Clayton and
Alam individually, whereas the rejection is based on their combination. As
a result, Appellants do not apprise us of any error in the Examiner’s
rejection. See In re Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097 (“Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.”).
For these reasons, we sustain the decision to reject claim 1.
Appellants do not present any arguments regarding claims 2-9, 11-20,
and 72-74 beyond those presented for claim 1. App. Br. 16-17. Hence, we
also sustain the decision to reject claims 2-9, 11-20, and 72-74.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-9, 11-20, and 72-74 is
affirmed.

Appeal 2010-008848
Application 10/965,045

6
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).
AFFIRMED

mls