12661727 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2018)

Ex Parte LeCocq et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 7, 2018

12661727 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 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. 12/661,727 03/23/2010 Paul LeCocq PGS-09-22US 7964 137491 7590 03/09/2018 OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC P.O. BOX 4277 SEATTLE, WA 98104 EXAMINER RIVERA VARGAS, MANUEL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2864 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2018 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): joanne@olympicpatentworks.com docketing@pgs.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL LECOCQ, CYRILLE REISER, and JOHN BRITT AN Appeal 2017-002539 Application 12/661,727 Technology Center 2800 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, AVELYN M. ROSS, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—3, 7—10, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification dated March 23, 2010 (“Spec.”), Final Office Action dated May 28, 2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief dated April 5, 2016 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated October 7, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief dated December 5, 2016 (“Reply Br.”). 2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as PGS Geophysical AS. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2017-002539 Application 12/661,727 § 102(b) as anticipated by Home3 and claims 4—6 and 11—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Home in view of Koren4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The invention is directed to a method of imaging the earth’s subsurface using stacked seismic data from azimuthally varying velocity and amplitude information. Spec., Title. Claim 1, with the limitation at issue highlighted, is illustrative: 1. A method for imaging earth's subsurface, comprising: using a programmable computer to perform the following: obtaining seismic data with a variety of source-receiver azimuth angles; determining fast anisotropy axis values for each sample in seismic data binned by the azimuth angles; determining a fast azimuth gather within each bin in the seismic data from the fast anisotropy axis values; and imaging the earth's subsurface, using the fast azimuth gathers. Appeal Br. 13 (claims appendix). OPINION All of the claims require a step of “determining fast anisotropy axis values for each sample in seismic data binned by the azimuth angles.” See Appeal Br. 13, 14 (claims 1 and 8). The issue for both rejections is: Have 3 Home et al., US 2003/0167126 Al, published Sept. 4, 2003 (hereinafter “Home”). 4 Koren et al., US 2008/0109168 Al, published May 8, 2008 (hereinafter “Koren”). 2 Appeal 2017-002539 Application 12/661,727 Appellants identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Home determines such values? Appellants have identified such an error. First, we agree with Appellants’ interpretation of “values” as limited to a numerical quantity. Where, as here, the Specification does not define the word, we look to the ordinary and customary meaning the ordinary artisan would give the term that is consistent with the Specification. According to the Specification, fast anisotropy axis values are obtained by velocity-based analysis, amplitude-based analysis, or a combination of both. Spec. 124. The analysis methods generate velocity values, amplitude values, or both. Id. Both velocity and amplitude are customarily reported as numerical values. Home, according to the Examiner, determines “fast shear-wave directions” are the required values. So the question is: Are these directions “fast anisotropy axis values” within the meaning of the claims? We determine that the Examiner has not established that the “directions” disclosed by Home are the required “values.” Home seeks to characterize reservoir fractures using seismic waves. Home 2, 3, 36. First, seismic data is obtained by a seismic survey system such as that shown in Figures 3A and 3B. Home 136. This data contains mode-converted shear-wave data. Home 142. According to Home, there are generally two types of seismic waves used: compressional waves (P- waves) and shear-waves (S-waves). Home 14. The shear-wave (S-wave) component of the seismic wave contains a fast wave and slow wave in anisotropic media. Id. These waves have amplitudes and travel times. Id. The fast and slow waves are separated by a time delay. Id. Home collects 3 Appeal 2017-002539 Application 12/661,727 the data so that attributes of the reflected shear-wave, such as time delay variations with azimuth, are preserved. Id. Home partitions a plurality of converted split shear-wave data resulting from a common event and recorded at a plurality of azimuths into bins. Home Tflf 23, 56; Fig. 5B. In the partitioned data, Home separates fast and slow split shear-wave wavefields. Home then derives at least one attribute of at least one of the separated shear-wave fields and analyzes that attribute. In the Figure 5 embodiment, the attribute is the difference in arrival times of the fast and slow shear-waves. Separating the fast and slow wavefields involves (1) determining an angle of rotation, and then (2) performing a two-component rotation about the determined angle of rotation into a respective axis for each of the partitions. Home 1 55. From the separated wavefields, Home derives the at least one attribute, which involves determining the difference in arrival times (At) between the fast and slow split shear-wave wavefields. Home teaches performing a dynamic cross-correlation of the arrival times to derive the attribute. Home 1 56. The embodiment of Figure 7 similarly determines directions and evaluates time delays using dynamic cross correlation. Home Tflf 63—67. The Examiner equates Home’s fast shear-wave directions with the fast anisotropy axis values of the claims. Final Act. 2, citing Home Tflf 23, 47, 63—67. The Examiner points out that Home evaluates the fast shear- waves of each azimuth using dynamic cross correlation, and the dynamic cross correlation takes into account the time delays accumulated gradually as the waves pass through the anisotropic medium. Id. But, as pointed out by Appellants, directions are not values. Appeal Br. 6. According to Merriam- 4 Appeal 2017-002539 Application 12/661,727 Webster.com, “direction,” as used in the context of Home, means “the line or course on which something is moving or is aimed to move or along which something is pointing or facing.” Direction Definition, Merriam- Webster.com., http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/direction (last visited Feb. 27, 2018). A direction itself does not have a “value” in the mathematical sense, i.e. “a numerical quantity that is assigned or is determined by calculation or measurement.” Value definition, Merriam- Webster.com., https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value (last visited Feb. 27, 2018). A direction is described by coordinates rather than by numerical value. Moreover, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to adequately explain the relevance of Home’s dynamic cross correlation, which evaluates time delays, to the finding that Home determines fast anisotropy axis values. Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants have identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Home determines fast anisotropy axis values. The Examiner’s application of Koren does not cure the deficiency. CONCLUSION We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED 5