Ex Parte Sherrill

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2016

12171864 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/171,864 07/11/2008
28116 7590 03/30/2016
WestemGeco L.L.C.
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Francis G. Sherrill
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.
594-25634-US 3750
EXAMINER
SUGLO, JANET L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2016 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 FRANCIS G. SHERRILL
Appeal2014-006080
Application 12/171,864
Technology Center 2800
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-11, 14--18, and 21-29. Claims 12, 13, 19, and 20 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellant identifies WestemGeco, L.L.C. as the real party in interest and
notes that WestemGeco, L.L.C. is related to Schlumberger Technology
Corporation. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-006080
Application 12/171,864
INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to dynamically allocating different
numbers of bits to windows of a series representing a seismic trace.
Abstract. Claims 1 and 18, reproduced below, are illustrative:
1. A method of processing seismic data, comprising:
receiving, by a system having a processor, a set of data values
representing a seismic trace;
determining, by the system, maximum absolute amplitudes of
data values in corresponding plural groups in the set, wherein the
determining includes identifying, for at least one of the plural
groups, the corresponding maximum absolute amplitude from
among data values in the respective group;
computing, by the system, an aggregate of the maximum
absolute amplitudes to produce aggregate values; and
dynamically allocating, by the system, different numbers of bits
to at least some of the groups of the set according to the
determined maximum absolute amplitudes and the aggregate
values.
18. A computer comprising:
an interface to receive seismic data; and at least one processor to:
sample the received seismic data to obtain a series of seismic data
samples, wherein the series is divided into plural windows, and
wherein the series comprises one of a time series and depth
sen es;
determine scalars for the corresponding windows, wherein the
scalars are based on the seismic data samples in the
corresponding windows, and the scalars represent respective
maximum absolute amplitudes of the seismic data samples in the
corresponding windows;
compute an aggregate of the scalars to produce aggregate values;
and
2
Appeal2014-006080
Application 12/171,864
dynamically allocate numbers of bits to the windows of the series
according to the scalars and the aggregate values.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-9, 11, 14-18, and 21-29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Lucas and
Suzuki. Final Act. 6.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lucas, Suzuki, and Ergas. Final Act.
20.
Claims 18, 23, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Lucas (US 4,312,050; issued
Jan. 19, 1982) and Ergas et al. (US 5,745,392; issued Apr. 28, 1998). Final
Act. 2.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lucas, Ergas, and Suzuki (US
5,819,214; issued Oct. 6, 1998). Final Act. 5.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. Regarding the rejection of claims 1-
11, 14-17, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we are
persuaded by Appellant's contentions that the Examiner erred. With respect
to the rejection of claims 18, 23, 26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
however, we reach the opposite results and agree with the Examiner's
findings and conclusions and adopt them as our own.
3
Appeal2014-006080
Application 12/171,864
Claims 1-11, 14-17, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 28
With respect to independent claims 1 and 11, we agree with Appellant
(App. Br. 6-7) that the Examiner erred in finding that the absolute
amplitudes disclosed in Lucas meet the recited "maximum absolute
amplitudes." As Appellant explained (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 3--4), the
cited portions of Lucas merely refer to summing absolute amplitudes within
a window. Reply Br. 4 (citing Lucas 12:39--41). Appellant explains that
Lucas does not disclose identifying a corresponding maximum absolute
amplitude from among data values in the respective group, and computing
an aggregate of the maximum absolute amplitudes that are so identified. Id.
4--5. That is, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how the absolute
amplitudes described in the cited passages of Lucas would be considered by
one of ordinary skill in the art as meeting the claimed "maximum absolute
amplitudes." See Ans. 3.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 1 and 11 over Lucas and Suzuki, or the§ 103 rejection of dependent
claims 2-9, 14--17, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 28, which depend from claims 1
and 11. We also do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claim 10 over Lucas, Suzuki, and Ergas because the Examiner has
not identified any disclosure in Ergas to teach the above-identified missing
limitation.
Claims 18, 23, 26, and 29
The Examiner rejected independent claim 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) on two grounds: (1) as obvious over the combination of Lucas and
Suzuki (Final Act. 6) and (2) as obvious over the combination of Lucas and
4
Appeal2014-006080
Application 12/171,864
Ergas (id. at 2). We address each ground in tum.
Obviousness rejection over Lucas and Suzuki
Appellant contends that Lucas and Suzuki do not disclose the recited
"scalars," which represent "maximum absolute amplitudes," for the same
reasons presented for claim 1. App. Br. 12; Reply 7-8. Specifically,
Appellant first contends that Lucas fails to teach or suggest a processor to
"compute an aggregate of the scalars to produce aggregate values," as
recited in claim 18. Id.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of error. Unlike claim 1,
discussed above, claim 18 does not recite "determining ... maximum
absolute amplitudes of data values in corresponding plural groups in the set,
wherein the determining includes identifying, for at least one of the plural
groups, the corresponding maximum absolute amplitude from among data
values in the respective group," as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner distinguished the scope of claim 1 from the scope of
claim 18, noting that claim 1 had been amended to specify that the
maximum amplitude is determined as an amplitude of one of the seismic
samples in the respective group or window, while claim 18 had not. Final
Act. 21-22. The Examiner then found, and we agree, that an artisan of
ordinary skill would recognize that Lucas discloses determining scalars for
the corresponding windows (Id. at 22 (citing Lucas col. 10, 11. 49-65, col.
12, 11. 39-59), wherein the scalars are based on the seismic data samples in
the corresponding windows (id.), and each of the scalars represents a
respective maximum absolute amplitude of the seismic data samples in the
corresponding window (id.). The Examiner explained that "by determining
the magnitude of each of the seismic data samples in the corresponding
5
Appeal2014-006080
Application 12/171,864
window, Lucas must also determine the maximum absolute amplitude of the
samples in the corresponding window" and "by calculating the sum of the
absolute amplitudes within the window, Lucas teaches determining a scalar
value that represents a maximum based on the individual magnitudes of each
of the seismic data samples." Id. Appellant presented no persuasive
arguments or evidence in the Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner's findings
with regard to the specific claim language related to the recited "scalars" in
claim 18. See Reply Br. 2--4.
Appellant further contends that Lucas does not disclose a processor to
"dynamically allocate numbers of bits to the windows of the series according
to the scalars and the aggregate values." App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 7-8.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. Appellant attacked Lucas
individually, even though the Examiner relied on the combination of Lucas
and Suzuki in rejecting the claim. App. Br. 6-7, 10-11. After the Examiner
reminded Appellant that Suzuki was relied on as teaching the disputed
limitation (Ans. 5-7), Appellant presented arguments directed to Suzuki for
the first time in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 5-6). As the Board has found,
"[t ]he failure to raise all issues and arguments diligently, in a timely fashion,
has consequences," and thus, such newly-raised arguments are technically
waived. Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010)
(informative decision) ("[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make
arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to
rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not.").
Nevertheless, we note that Appellant's arguments directed to Suzuki
address the "dynamically allocating" limitation recited in claim 1, but do not
address the "dynamically allocate" limitation as recited in claim 18. See
6
Appeal2014-006080
Application 12/171,864
Reply Br. 5-6. As stated above, we agree with the Examiner that the scope
of the claims 1and18 differ (Final Act. 21-22), and Appellant has not
persuasively addressed those differences.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 18 as obvious over Lucas and Suzuki.
Obviousness rejection over Lucas and Ergas
Appellant argues that "Ergas does not provide any teaching or hint of
dynamically allocating numbers of bits to the windows of a series according
to scalars that represent respective maximum absolute amplitudes, and
aggregate values that are computed based on aggregating the scalars
representing the respective maximum absolute amplitudes." App. Br. 12;
Reply Br. 8.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive because they rely on
Appellant's arguments that Lucas fails to teach "maximum absolute
amplitudes" as recited in claim 1. See id. For the reasons discussed above,
we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination
of Lucas and Suzuki teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. of claim 18 over Lucas and
Suzuki and the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 18 over Lucas and
Ergas. We also sustain the§ 103(a) rejections of claims 23, 26, and 29, for
which Appellant makes no arguments other than made for claim 18, from
which those claims depend.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-11, 14--17, 21, 22, 24, 25,
27, and 28 is reversed.
7
Appeal2014-006080
Application 12/171,864
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 18, 23, 26, and 29 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8