Ex Parte Ozdemir et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 7, 2015

12688391 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/688,391 01115/2010
28116 7590 12/09/2015
WestemGeco L.L.C.
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ahmet Kemal Ozdemir
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.
14.0499-US-NP 3499
EXAMINER
ANDERSON, LYNNE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2862
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2015 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 AHMET KEMAL OZDEMIR, PHILIPPE CAPRIOLI,
ALI OZBEK, DIRK-JAN VAN MANEN, and
MASSIMILIANO VASSALLO
Appeal2013-010993
Application 12/688,391
Technology Center 2800
Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-25. 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.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2013-010993
Application 12/688,391
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates generally to the field of seismic
exploration involving surveying subterranean geological formations for
hydrocarbon deposits and specifically to deghosting and interpolating
seismic data. Spec. i-fi-f l-2.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced
below.
1. A method comprising:
receiving seismic data indicative of measurements
acquired by seismic sensors, the measurements being associated
with a measurement noise;
estimating at least one characteristic of the measurement
n01se;
deghosting the seismic data based at least in part on said
estimated at least one characteristic of the measurement noise,
the deghosting producing a wavefield corresponding to a
propagation direction; and
joindy interpoiating the wavefieid and performing the
deghosting, wherein the jointly interpolating comprises
processing the seismic data on a processor based machine.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13, 15-19, 22, 24, and 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ozdemir et al., ("Ozdemir"
US 2008/0275649, published Nov. 06, 2008) and Ozbek et al., ("Ozbek" US
2009/0296523, published Dec. 03, 2009).
2. Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ozdemir, Ozbek, and Deffenbaugh et al.,
("Deffenbaugh" US 2009/0135670, published May 28, 2009).
2
Appeal2013-010993
Application 12/688,391
3. Claims 5, 14, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ozdemir, Ozbek, and Turnbull (US 2009/0281732,
published Nov. 12, 2009).
ANALYSIS
I. Claims 1, 10, and 19
Appellants argue "neither Ozdemir nor Ozbek discloses or renders
obvious how such joint operations [of de ghosting and interpolation] may be
performed when the de ghosting is based on a measurement noise .... "
App. Br. 11. Regarding Ozbek, Appellants argue "although Ozbek discloses
jointly interpolating and deghosting seismic data, Ozbek fails to disclose or
render obvious how such joint operations may be performed when the
deghosting is based on a measurement noise." Id. Regarding Ozdemir,
Appellants argue "Ozdemir merely discloses wave field separation based on
a measurement noise .... Ozdemir faiis to, however, disclose jointly
performing this deghosting along with interpolation." App. Br. 13.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument. Appellants are
attacking the references individually and are not addressing the Examiner's
findings as a whole. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as
here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.") The
Examiner relies on Ozdemir as disclosing "receiving seismic data indicative
of measurements acquired by seismic sensors, the measurements being
associated with a measurement noise." Final Act. 3 (citing Ozdemir i-fi-17-9,
claim 37). The Examiner relies on Ozbek as disclosing "a method of
representing actual measurements of seismic wavefields as a combination of
3
Appeal2013-010993
Application 12/688,391
up going components of the seismic wavefield and ghost operators.
Interpolated and deghosted seismic data are jointly determined and
processed on a processor - based system." Final Act. 3--4 (citing
Ozbek i-fi-14, 6, and 22). We agree with the Examiner that "[i]t would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicants'
invention to modify Ozdemir [with the teachings of Ozbek] to include jointly
interpolating the wavefield and performing the deghosting .... " Final Act.
4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 10, and
19, which Appellants argue as a group. See App. Br .10-13.
II. Claims 9 and 1 7
Appellants argue "[t]he Final Office Action fails to, however, show
where the prior art purportedly discloses or renders obvious deghosting,
where the de ghosting assumes measurements are each finite in number."
App. Br. 14.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that "the idea of using measurements that are each finite in
number is generally known in the art." Ans. 8. Appellants have not
presented evidence sufficient to show that assuming the measurements were
finite in number was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary
skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over" assuming the
measurements were infinite in number. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at
418-19).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 9 and 17,
which Appellants argue as a group. See App. Br. 3--4.
4
Appeal2013-010993
Application 12/688,391
III. Claim 24
Appellants argue the Examiner fails "to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness for claim 24, as the expressly-recited elements of claim 24 have
not been addressed" because the Examiner refers to the rejection of claims 1,
4, and 8 in the rejection of claim 24 and "the elements introduced in claim
24 do not appear in claim 1, 4 or 8." App. Br. 15. Appellants further argue
"the hypothetical combination of Ozdemir and Ozbek fails to disclose or
render obvious concurrently interpolating and deghosting and upgoing
wavefield, where the deghosting is based on an estimated characteristic of a
noise measurement." Id.
We disagree. As to the argument that the Examiner fails to set forth a
prima facie case of obviousness because claim 1 does not recite the elements
of claim 24, the Examiner finds that claim 1 recites "'deghosting the seismic
data ... the deghosting producing a wavefield corresponding to f!
propagation direction .... ' (emphasis added)." Ans. 11. In other words,
claim 1, which refers generally to the propagation direction of the wavefield,
does relate to the elements of claim 24, which recites an "upgoing
wavefield."
As to Appellants' argument that Ozdemir and Ozbek fail to teach
interpolating and deghosting an upgoing wavefield, we reiterate here as we
did in the analysis of claims 1, 10, and 19 supra, that we agree with the
Examiner's findings that Ozdemir and Ozbeck teach or suggest jointly
deghosting and interpolating seismic data. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Ozbek i-fi-1
4, 6, and 22). We also agree with the Examiner that "paragraph 0007 [of]
Ozdemir recognizes that the process of decomposing the recorded wave field
into up- and down-going components (i.e. up- and down-going wavefield
5
Appeal2013-010993
Application 12/688,391
propagation directions) is known as wave field separation or de ghosting."
Ans. 9; see also Ozbek i-f 4 (mentioning upgoing component of a seismic
wavefield. ).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 24.
IV. Claims 2-8, 11-16, 18, 20-23, and 25
We note that claims 2-8, 11-16, 18, 20-23, and 25 are pending and
have been finally rejected. Final Act. 3, 7, and 8. Appellants do not present
any arguments for patentability of claims 2-8, 11-16, 18, 20-23, and 25 and,
therefore, the rejection of those claims is summarily affirmed.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-25 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6