Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12757133 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121757, 133 04/09/2010
28116 7590 08/31/2016
WestemGeco L.L.C.
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
QinglinLiu
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.
14.0508-US-NP 2061
EXAMINER
BREIER, KRYSTINE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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 QINGLIN LIU, DANIEL RONNOW, JON MAGNUS SOERLI,
WLIAN EDWARD KRAGH, and JOHAN O.A. ROBERTSSON 1
Appeal2014-003031
Application 12/757,133
Technology Center 3600
Before ERIC C. JESCHKE, MARK A. GEIER, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GEIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-122 and 16-21. Appeal Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is WestemGeco, L.L.C.,
"which is related to Schlumberger Technology Corporation." Appeal Br. 1.
2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 13 in the Answer. Ans. 2.
Accordingly, we do not address claim 13 in this Appeal.
Appeal2014-003031
Application 12/757,133
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to methods of performing seismic
surveying that include "providing a plurality of sensor assemblies, where
each of multiple ones of the plurality of sensor assemblies has a seismic
sensor and a divergence sensor, and where the divergence sensor is used to
measure noise." Spec. i-f 5. Claim 1 is illustrative and recites:
1. A method of performing seismic surveying, comprising:
providing a plurality of sensor assemblies, wherein each
of at least a subset of the plurality of sensor assemblies has a
seismic sensor and a divergence sensor, wherein the divergence
sensor is used to measure noise;
arranging the plurality of sensor assemblies in a layout
designed to acquire seismic signals in a target sampling pattern,
wherein the layout is independent of provision of sensor
assemblies for noise acquisition;
receiving, by a controller, seismic data from the seismic
sensors of the sensor assemblies in the subset, and data from the
divergence sensors of the sensor assemblies in the subset; and
attenuating, by the controller, noise in the seismic data
using the data from the divergence sensors.
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 16, 17, and21 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Swanson (US 2009/0052277
Al; pub. Feb. 26, 2009) and Brittan (US 2011/0141849 Al; pub. June 16,
2011).
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 6, 8, and 18 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Swanson, Brittan, and Criss (Jason Criss, "Another
look at full-wave seismic imaging," First Break, Vol. 25, p. 109, June 2007).
2
Appeal2014-003031
Application 12/757,133
The Examiner rejected claim 9 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Swanson, Brittan, and Beasley (US 7,916,576 B2; iss. Mar.
29, 2011).
The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 19 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Swanson, Brittan, and Burkholder (US
2010/0100330 Al; pub. Apr. 22, 2010).
The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 20 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over (1) Swanson, Brittan, and Cowles (US 4,134,097;
iss. Jan. 9, 1979) and (2) Swanson and Meunier (US 6,584,038 B2; iss. June
24, 2003).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 10
Appellants argue claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 10 together. See Appeal Br. 5-
8. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner's rejection relies upon Swanson for teaching the
elements of the claim, save for "receiving, by a controller, seismic data from
the seismic sensors of the sensor assemblies in the subset, and data from the
divergence sensors in the subset; and attenuating, by the controller, noise in
the seismic data using data from the divergence sensors." Final Act. 2. The
Examiner finds that Brittan discloses those elements because it "teaches a
controller to perform a method ([0060]-[0061]) which includes receiving
seismic data from the seismic sensors of the sensor assemblies in the subset
([0035]); and attenuating noise in the seismic data using data from the
divergence sensors ([0040]-[0043])." Final Act. 3. The Examiner
determines that one of skill in the art would have modified "the method of
3
Appeal2014-003031
Application 12/757,133
Swanson with the controller/processor of Brittan since such a modification
would have improved the speed and accuracy with which the method could
be performed." Final Act. 3. The Examiner also determines that one of skill
in the art would have modified "the method of Swanson with the noise
attenuation of Brittan since such a modification would have improved the
quality of the data." Final Act. 3.
Appellants argue that Swanson teaches away from the Examiner's
proposed combination with Brittan. Appeal Br. 6-7. Appellants contend
that Swanson teaches "that the geophones and hydrophones of the
instruments 20 in the instrument line 30 of Swanson ... are used to measure
seismic data" and that Swanson measures noise using "a separate digital
streamer." Appeal Br. 6 (citing Swanson i-fi-132, 40, and 57). According to
Appellants, the foregoing teaches away from the claimed arrangement in
which "each of at least a subset of the plurality of sensor assemblies has
a seismic sensor and a divergence sensor, wherein the divergence sensor
is used to measure noise." Appeal Br. 6.
"A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553
(Fed. Cir. 1994). "The degree of teaching away will of course depend on the
particular facts; in general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the
line of development flowing from the reference's disclosure is unlikely to be
productive of the result sought by the applicant." Id.
In our view, Appellants have not identified any disclosure in Swanson
that discourages use "of sensor assemblies [having] a seismic sensor and a
4
Appeal2014-003031
Application 12/757,133
divergence sensor, wherein the divergence sensor is used to measure noise."
While we agree that Swanson discloses the use of a separate streamer for
measuring noise, this does not constitute a teaching away under the law. See
DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327
(Fed. Cir. 2009) ("A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely
expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not
'criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage' investigation into the invention
claimed." (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed Cir. 2004))).
Appellants have not identified any disclosure in Swanson that criticizes,
discredits, or discourages the use of a noise sensor along with a seismic
sensor as in Appellants' claimed method.
In their Reply Brief, Appellants argue that the Examiner's
combination is "based on use of impermissible hindsight benefitting from
the teachings of the present invention." Reply Br. 3. This argument appears
to focus on the fact that "Swanson did not recognize the benefits of
including both a divergence sensor (to measure noise) and a seismic sensor
in each of at least a subset of a plurality of sensor assemblies." Id.
Appellants' argument does not apprise us of error. Indeed,
Appellants' argument appears to require that Swanson provide an express
teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references. This is no
longer the law following the Supreme Court's decision in KSR International
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007). Appellants' argument does
not address the motivation to combine the references identified by the
Examiner. See Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 3.
Appellants also contend that Brittan teaches a "complex noise
attenuation technique" that is "quite different from the subject matter of
5
Appeal2014-003031
Application 12/757,133
claim 1." Appeal Br. 7. Appellants contend that Brittan constructs a "super-
gather" of data from its data sources, and then attenuates data from that
"super-gather." Appeal Br. 7. Appellants assert that this is different from
claim 1 's method, which requires "that each sensor assembly of at least a
subset of sensor assemblies includes a seismic sensor and a divergence[]
sensor used to measure noise." Appeal Br. 7.
Appellants' argument does not apprise us of error. The Examiner's
rejection does not rely on a finding that Brittan alone teaches the use of a
seismic sensor and a divergence sensor. See Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 3
("Swanson teaches a hydrophone and a geophone co-located in sensor
assemblies. Brittan teaches recording noise with hydrophones . . . . Thus,
according to the definition given by the Appellant, a hydrophone can be
considered a divergence sensor, in that it does record noise." (citing Brittan
i-f 28)). Moreover, as noted by the Examiner, the argument is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1:
There is nothing in the claim language that requires that each set
of seismic and divergence sensor data be processed separately.
As such, the method of Brittan reads on the claim language, as it
does take the two sets of recordings and processes them to
remove noise from the seismic data.
Ans. 3--4.
Appellants also argue "that the rejection is defective" because
"Swanson and Brittan are both focused on marine survey acquisitions."
Appeal Br. 8 (citing Swanson i-f 32 and Brittan i-f 26). This is in contrast,
Appellants argue, to "various embodiments as described in the Specification
... [that] relate to land-based surveying." Appeal Br. 8 (citing Spec. i-fi-13-
4). According to Appellants, this is "another reason that a person of
6
Appeal2014-003031
Application 12/757,133
ordinary skill in the art would have found no reason to combine Swanson
and Brittan to achieve the claimed subject matter." Appeal Br. 8.
Appellants' argument does not apprise us of error. As noted by the
Examiner, this argument is not commensurate in scope with the claims
because "[t ]here is no mention in the claims as to the type of seismic
surveying which is to be used in conjunction with the method." Ans. 4.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 10.
Claims 16, 17, and 21
Appellants argue claims 16, 1 7, and 21 are patentable "for reasons
similar to those stated above with respect to claim 1." Appeal Br. 8. For the
same reasons stated supra with respect to claim 1, we also sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 16, 17, and 21.
Claims 4, 6, 8, and 18
Appellants argue that claims 4, 6, 8, and 18 are allowable because of
the allowability of their base claims (1 and 16). Appeal Br. 9. For the same
reasons stated supra with respect to claim 1, we also sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 4, 6, 8, and 18.
Claim 9
Appellants argue that claim 9 is allowable because of the allowability
of its base claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. For the same reasons stated supra with
respect to claim 1, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9.
7
Appeal2014-003031
Application 12/757,133
Claims 11 and 19
Appellants argue that claims 11 and 19 are allowable because of the
allowability of their base claims (1 and 16). Appeal Br. 10. For the same
reasons stated supra with respect to claim 1, we also sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 11 and 19.
Claims 12 and 20
Appellants argue that claims 12 and 20 are allowable because of the
allowability of their base claims (1 and 16). Appeal Br. 13. For the same
reasons stated supra with respect to claim 1, we also sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 12 and 20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-12 and 16-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
AFFIRMED
8