Ex Parte Tenghamn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2017

13206002 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2017)

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.
13/206,002 08/09/2011 STIG RUNE LENNART TENGHAMN PGS-10-34US 2958
95738 7590 04/26/2017
Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc.
West Memorial Place 1
15375 Memorial Drive Suite 100
Houston, TX 77079
EXAMINER
LOBO, IAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2017 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):
docketing@pgs.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STIG RUNE LENNART TENGHAMN and
FREDERICK JAMES BARR
Appeal 2015-007803
Application 13/206,002
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Stig Rune Lennart Tenghamn and Frederick James Barr (Appellants)
seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the non-final rejection of claims
1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a data acquisition system
with at least one digital sensor employing a quantized feedback loop to
produce a digital output signal.
Appeal 2015-007803
Application 13/206,002
Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative:
1. A geophysical survey system, comprising:
at least one streamer having a plurality of spaced apart
sensor units, at least one of the sensor units including at least
one digital hydrophone sensor employing a quantized feedback
loop to produce a digital output signal; and
a data recording system configured to collect and store
data from the sensor units.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects:
(i) claims 1, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Paulson (US 2010/0116054 Al, published May 13,
2010) and Mallinson (US 4,926,178, issued May 15, 1990)1;
(ii) claims 2—7 and 14—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paulson, Mallinson, and Kerr (US 3,739,326, issued June
12, 1973); and
(iii) claims 10, 11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paulson, Mallinson, and Singh (US 2006/0239117 Al,
published Oct. 26, 2006) or Muyzert (US 8,358,560 B2, issued Jan. 22,
2013).
1 In the non-final rejection, each ground of rejection included the
teachings of Miller (US 6,452,531 Bl, issued Sept. 17, 2002) as an
alternative to Mallinson. See Non-Final Act. 3—5. In the Answer, the
Examiner only relies on Mallinson and has withdrawn Miller as an applied
reference. See Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2015-007803
Application 13/206,002
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, and 19—Paulson/Mallinson
Independent claims 1 and 13 both require, inter alia, a digital
hydrophone sensor employing a quantized feedback loop to produce a digital
output signal. See Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Paulson discloses a digital hydrophone
sensor that uses a sigma-delta loop modulator, but does not explicitly
disclose employing a quantized feedback loop. Non-Final Act. 3. The
Examiner relies on Mallinson as teaching that “sigma-delta modulators
include quantized feedback loops.” Id. (citing Mallinson, col. 1,11. 14+).
The Examiner concludes that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art that the delta-sigma modulator of Paulson would include a
quantized feedback loop.” Id. at 4.
Appellants argue that Paulson discloses that accelerometer 100 has a
sigma-delta modulator, but that “accelerometer 100 is separate from the
other sensors included with sensor unit 58 (i.e., Paulson’s accelerometer 100
is separate from Paulson’s hydrophones), and there is no evidence in
Paulson that the feedback loop discussion given for Paulson’s accelerometer
100 applies to the other sensors of sensor unit 58.” Appeal Br. 11.
Appellants assert that a hydrophone such as in Paulson is commonly
digitized “(e.g., by applying an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) to the
output of an analog hydrophone sensor to generate digital signals), and is not
the same as a ‘digital hydrophone sensor’ as is claimed.” Id. at 12.
Appellants assert that the sigma-delta modulator in Mallinson does not
overcome the deficiencies of Paulson. Id.
3
Appeal 2015-007803
Application 13/206,002
The Examiner responds that, because paragraphs 18 and 19 of Paulson
“disclose[] that the hydrophones and particle motion sensors or
accelerometers generate digital signals ... the Paulson system also includes
a digital hydrophone [sensor].” Ans. 3. The Examiner notes that, because
both Paulson and Mallinson discloses a sigma-delta loop modulator and
because the sigma-delta loop modulator of Mallinson includes a quantized
feedback loop, “it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the
hydrophone of Paulson includes a quantized feedback loop for producing a
digital output signal.” Ans. 4.
Appellants reply that “[t]o the extent Paulson could be interpreted as
teaching a hydrophone that generates digital signals, it is not an explicit
teaching of a ‘digital hydrophone sensor’ as it is possible for a hydrophone
to generate digital signals without being a ‘digital hydrophone sensor’ as is
claimed.” Reply Br. 2—3. Appellants argue that “an analog hydrophone
sensor and an analog-to-digital converter could generate digital signals
without being a ‘digital hydrophone sensor.’” Id. at 3 (citing Spec. para.
31). Appellants thus assert that “[t]he missing descriptive matter in Paulson
that would establish a teaching of a ‘digital hydrophone sensor’ is not
necessarily present, and inherency may not be established by probabilities or
possibilities.” Id.
Appellants have the better position here. Figures 2 and 6 of Paulson
depict exemplary accelerometers 100 having sensor 110. Paulson, para. 8.
Paulson discloses that “the loop controller 164 [of accelerometer 100]
performs an analog-to-digital (A/D) conversion of the peak signal ... and
applies a loop transfer function for purposes of producing a digital output
signal 170,” so that a separate analog-to-digital converter is not required
4
Appeal 2015-007803
Application 13/206,002
after the feedback loop. Id. at para. 29; Figs. 2 and 6. Paulson also discloses
that “[t]he seismic sensors of the streamer(s) 30 generate signals (digital
signals, for example), called ‘traces,’ which indicate the acquired
measurements of the pressure wavefield [of the hydrophone].” Id. at para
18. Based on this disclosure, the Examiner takes the position that “the
Paulson system also includes a digital hydrophone.” Ans. 3.
In taking the position that Paulson “includes” a digital hydrophone,
the Examiner invokes the principle of inherent disclosure. Under principles
of inherency, when a reference is silent about an asserted inherent
characteristic, it must be clear that the missing descriptive matter is
necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would
so be recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the art. Continental Can Co.
v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The Examiner does
not point to any disclosure or provide any technical reasoning explaining
why the pressure wavefield (hydrophone) would necessarily have the same
structure as that of the accelerometer for producing digital signals. Nor does
the Examiner respond to Appellants’ repeated arguments that “there is no
evidence in Paulson that the feedback loop discussion given for Paulson’s
accelerometer 100 applies to the other sensors of sensor unit 58,” and that “it
is possible for a hydrophone to generate digital signals without being a
‘digital hydrophone sensor.’” Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 2—3 (citing Spec,
para. 31, which contrasts the disclosed integrated digitization circuit with an
analog sensor followed by a separate analog-to-digital converter). For these
reasons, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against the Examiner’s
position that Paulson necessarily includes a digital hydrophone. The
Examiner’s use of Mallinson does not remedy the deficiencies of Paulson
5
Appeal 2015-007803
Application 13/206,002
discussed above in that Mallinson generally teaches using a sigma-delta
modulator as an analog-to-digital converter, and the Examiner relies on the
unsupported assertion that the hydrophone of Paulson necessarily includes a
sigma-delta modulator.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
of claims 1, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, and 19 as unpatentable over Paulson and
Mallinson.
Claims 2—7 and 14—17—Paulson/Mallinson/Kerr
The Examiner’s use of Kerr does not remedy the deficiencies in the
rejection based on Paulson and Mallinson discussed above. Thus, for the
same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2—7 and 14—17 as
unpatentable over Paulson, Mallinson, and Kerr.
Claims 10, 11, and 20—Paulson/Mallinson/Singh or Muyzert
The Examiner’s use of Singh or Muyzert does not remedy the
deficiencies in the rejection based on Paulson and Mallinson discussed
above. Thus, for the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims
10, 11, and 20 as unpatentable over Paulson, Mallinson, and Singh or
Muyzert.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
6