Ex Parte Pettersen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2013

11640786 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOSTEIN FONNELAND PETTERSEN and ALAIN RHELIMI
____________

Appeal 2011-011958
Application 11/640,786
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS and
MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011958
Application 11/640,786

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jostein Fonneland Pettersen and Alain Rhelimi (Appellants) appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, 14, 17-19, 21-23, 30 and 31
as unpatentable over Siems (US 5,627,798; iss. May 6, 1997) and Kinnard
(US 7,112,896 B2; iss. Sep. 26, 2006); (2) claims 3, 4, 15, 16, 20 and 25 as
unpatentable over Siems, Kinnard and Woods (US 4,967,400; iss. Oct. 30,
1990); (3) claims 7, 12 and 24 as unpatentable over Siems, Kinnard and
McDonald (US 7,245,559 B2; iss. Jul. 17, 2007); (4) claims 26 and 27 as
unpatentable over Siems, Kinnard and Babour (US 2003/0058127 A1; pub.
May 27, 2003); (5) claim 28 as unpatentable over Siems, Kinnard, Babour
and McDonald; and (6) claim 29 as unpatentable over Siems, Kinnard,
Babour and Woods. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter pertains to “short circuit protection for
such electrical systems comprising serially connected nodes.” Spec., para.
[0002]; figs. 1-2. Claims 1, 8, 13, 18, 22, 26 and 30 are independent.
Claims 1 and 22 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter and
recite:
1. A seismic surveying apparatus, comprising:
a power supply; and
a plurality of electrically serially connected seismic
sensors downstream from the power supply, each seismic
sensor including:
a sensing element; and
Appeal 2011-011958
Application 11/640,786

3
a plurality of electronics associated with the sensing
element, the electronics shutting off upstream power to the
downstream seismic sensors in the presence of a short circuit.

22. A method for detecting a short circuit during a seismic
survey, the method comprising:
serially supplying power to a seismic survey system
comprising a plurality of electrically serially connected seismic
sensors;
sensing, in series and upon receiving power from
upstream, at each seismic sensor whether a downstream short
circuit exists; and
shutting off upstream power to the downstream seismic
sensors in the presence of short circuit.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 22 call for “a plurality of electrically serially connected
seismic sensors.” App. Br., Clms. App’x. Claim 8 calls for “a plurality of
electrically serially connected means for sensing seismic signals.” Id.
Claim 13 calls for “a plurality of electrically serially connected downhole
sensors.” Id. Claim 18 calls for “a plurality of electrically serially
connected means for sensing signals downhole.” Id. Claim 30 calls for “a
plurality of electrically serially connected application sensors.” Id.
The Examiner found that Siems discloses the limitations of claims 1,
8, 13, 18, 22 and 30 including “a plurality of electrically serially connected .
. . seismic sensors/seismic signal sensing means downstream from the power
supply . . . each seismic sensor/seismic signal sensing means including a
sensing element/means for sensing a characteristic seismic signal.” Ans. 3-4
(citing Siems, col 4, ll. 13-15; col. 5, ll. 45-47; col. 5, l. 65-col. 6, l. 2; col 7,
l. 66-col 8, l. 6). The Examiner further found that the A-units of Siems “are
data collection units which have the sensors incorporated along with other
Appeal 2011-011958
Application 11/640,786

4
equipment useful for organizing and processing the data that is acquired.
When read broadly, a seismic sensor is a mechanism with which seismic
(acoustic) waves are detected. By this definition A-units are clearly seismic
sensors.” Ans. 9. The Examiner cited Kinnard for disclosing that “a short
circuit is a difficulty encountered in a spread that would require a power shut
off to portions of a spread.” Ans. 4 (citing Kinnard, col 5, ll. 47-52).
Appellants contend that the A-units of Siems are not seismic sensors.
App. Br. 10, Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, the seismic sensors
(e.g., geophones) of Siems are not shown in the drawings, “only the
electrical connections to the geophone [are shown]. The A-units [i.e., signal
processing units of Siems are] different from the seismic sensors and do not
‘incorporate’ the seismic sensors.” See Reply Br. 3-6. Appellants contend
that “the ‘A-units’ themselves do not actually detect seismic waves. This
function is performed by the ‘seismic sensors’ which may be for example,
hydrophones or geophones. The A-units are electrically connected to the
seismic sensors through the takeouts so that they can ‘acquire’ the data
transmitted by the seismic sensors.” Reply Br. 5 (citing Siems, col. 6, ll. 43-
52).
We agree with Appellants. Siems discloses that “[s]eismic
exploration methods known in the art include positioning a plurality of
acoustic sensors, which can be geophones, at spaced apart locations in a
predetermined pattern on the surface of the earth.” Siems, col. 1, ll. 15-19
(emphasis added). Additionally, both the Examiner and Appellants
acknowledge that Siems discloses that geophones and hydrophones are
seismic sensors. Ans. 9; Reply Br. 2, 5; see also Siems, col. 4, ll. 12-14.
Siems further discloses that (1) the A-units are “signal processing units”
Appeal 2011-011958
Application 11/640,786

5
(col. 5, ll. 18-19); (2) “[t]he . . . seismic sensors (not shown separately for
clarity of the illustration) are connected to analog signal inputs (not shown
for clarity) on the A-units 20A-20N” (col. 5, l. 65 - col. 6, l. 1); (3) “[t]he A-
units 21A through 21N . . . each have three analog signal inputs (not shown
in FIG. 1). The analog signal inputs are typically connected to the seismic
sensors. The A-units digitize electrical signals generated by the seismic
sensors” (col. 5, ll. 37-41); and (4) “[t]he reflected acoustic energy is
transmitted back to the earth’s surface where it can be detected by the
seismic sensors (not shown) connected to each of the A-units (such as 21A-
21N)” (col. 6, ll. 8-11) (emphasis added). Siems also discloses
FIG. 2 shows one of the A-units . . . identified by
reference numeral 20. The A-unit 20 comprises a
sealed housing 60. . . The interior of the housing
60 is accessible through removable end plugs 60A,
60B in order to service the electronics. One end
plug 60A forms a sealable feed-through for both an
“upsteam” cable end 61A and one of the . . .
analog signal inputs . . . called a second geophone
take-out 68. The upstream cable end 61A
terminates in a first geophone take-out 66 . . . the
second of the three analog signal inputs . . . The
other end [plug] 60B further forms a sealable feed-
through for a “downstream” cable end 61B, which
terminates in the third analog input, called the third
geophone [take-out 70].
Siems, col. 6, l. 33 - col. 7, l. 1 (emphasis added); see also Siems, fig. 3.
Based on Siems’s disclosure, we agree with Appellants that the A-units (i.e.,
signal processing units) of Siems are different from the seismic sensors (e.g.,
geophones and hydrophones). See Reply Br. 4. Further, according to
Siems’s disclosure, the seismic sensors (e.g., geophones and hydrophones)
are connected to the A-units (i.e., signal processing units) through removable
Appeal 2011-011958
Application 11/640,786

6
end plugs 60A and 60B. As such, we also agree with Appellants that the A-
units “do not ‘incorporate’ the seismic sensors.” Reply Br. 4. Hence, the
Examiner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the
A-units of Siems constitute the seismic sensors/signals of the claims.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, 14, 17-19, 21-23, 30 and
31 as unpatentable over Siems and Kinnard. Because the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 3, 4, 7, 12, 15, 16, 20 and 24-29 all rely on the erroneous
finding that the A-units of Siems constitute the seismic sensors/signals as
claimed, we also do not sustain these rejections.

DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-31.

REVERSED

pgc