Ex Parte Toennessen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2014

11122646 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RUNE TOENNESSEN, JENS OLAV PAULSEN, and
KENNETH WELKER
____________

Appeal 2012-004749
Application 11/122,646
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Rune Toennessen et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, 8–20, and 43–49. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2012-004749
Application 11/122,646

2

Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 15, and 45 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
1. A system comprising:
a marine seismic spread, the spread comprising
spread elements including:
a vessel; and
an acoustic Doppler current meter mounted
to the vessel to measure at least a horizontal
component of a current velocity vector at at
least one location generally ahead of the
seismic spread elements and at depths
bounded by the water’s surface and the
deeper of the acoustic Doppler current meter
and the vessel’s draft; and
a controller to control the position of a seismic
spread element using at least the horizontal
component of the measured current velocity
vector.
App. Br. 27, Claims App’x.
References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Baker US 4,935,906 June 19, 1990
Buddery US 5,050,133 Sept. 17, 1991
Bittleston US 6,671,223 C1 Dec. 30, 2003
Hillesund WO 00/20895 Apr. 13, 2000
The Examiner also relies upon the following publications:
George O. Marmorino et al., Near-Surface Current Measurements
Using a Ship-Deployed “Horizontal” ADCP, 16 J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.
1456 (1999) (“Marmorino”); and
Appeal 2012-004749
Application 11/122,646

3

N. A. Cochrane and John W. E. Whitman, Motion Compensation for
A Shipboard Doppler Current Profiler, Considerations and Implementation,
Minister of Supply and Services Canada 117 (1987) (“Cochrane”).
Rejections
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:1
I. Claims 1–4, 8, 9, 12–14, and 45–48 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Buddery, Hillesund,
and Marmorino;
II. Claims 15–18 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Buddery, Hillesund, Marmorino, Baker, and
Bittleston;
III. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Buddery, Hillesund, Marmorino, and
Cochrane;
IV. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Buddery, Hillesund, Marmorino, Baker,
Bittleston, and Cochrane;
V. Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Buddery, Hillesund, Marmorino, and Baker; and
VI. Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Buddery, Hillesund, Marmorino, and Cochrane.

1 Appellants also seek review of a rejection they refer to as “claims 10-11
and 19-20 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Buddery and Cochrane
et al.” App. Br. 6, 23–24. From our review of the Final Office Action and
the Examiner’s Answer, it does not appear that the Examiner made such a
rejection. Accordingly, the six rejections identified herein are the only
pending rejections.
Appeal 2012-004749
Application 11/122,646

4

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
OPINION
Each of the rejections before us is based on the Examiner’s
combination of at least Buddery and Hillesund. See generally Ans. The
Examiner finds that Buddery discloses most of the elements of the claims,
but that Buddery “does not disclose that the controller controls the position
of the seismic spread element using the horizontal component of the
measured current velocity vector.” Ans. 5–6. The Examiner finds that
Hillesund teaches “a control system where current velocity is measured
directly using a flow meter and the measured current velocity (ambient water
velocity) is used by a controller to control the position of a seismic spread
element.” Id. at 6. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Buddery
“in view of Hillesund et al, to not only control the sail line selection of the
seismic survey element but also the position of the seismic survey spread
element.” Id.
Appellants raise several arguments in response to the Examiner’s
rejections, including that Buddery teaches a technique for sail line selection,
but does not disclose spread position control, and that adding Hillesund
expands the result only to performing a sail line selection while steering
streamers towed behind a vessel. App. Br. 13.
In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner finds that
“although Buddery discloses sail line selection control, it also suggests that
the vessel is part of a seismic survey spread and thus the seismic spread
control claimed, would be inherent, especially since the ‘seismic spread’
Appeal 2012-004749
Application 11/122,646

5

includes the vessel.” Ans. 14. The Examiner bases this finding on
Hillesund, noting that “[t]ypically marine seismic surveys include a vessel, a
seismic source and a towed sensor array (a seismic spread).” Id. In
responding to Appellants’ assertion of no reasonable expectation of success,
the Examiner further explains that Appellants’ argument fails because “it
merely looks to Buddery as a ‘sail line selection technique’ without
appreciating that a seismic survey system, as disclosed on col. 1 of Buddery,
includes a seismic spread and therefore inherently provide[s] for seismic
spread control.” Id. at 15.
In their Reply Brief, Appellants contest the Examiner’s inherency
finding. Reply Br. 6–7.
As reflected above, the Examiner initially found that Buddery does
not disclose a controller controlling the position of the seismic spread
element and relied upon Hillesund for this disclosure. See Ans. 6. When
challenged by Appellants, the Examiner opted to rely on a finding that
Buddery inherently discloses the claimed control system as opposed to
maintaining the combination as originally described. Compare Ans. 14 with
id. at 6. The Examiner’s finding that Hillesund teaches that a “seismic
spread” or “marine seismic survey” “typically . . . include[s] a vessel, a
seismic source and a towed sensor array” (emphasis added) does not support
an inherency finding, which requires that such items are necessarily present.
Accordingly, because each independent claim contains the same or
substantially similar controller limitation and because the Examiner’s
inherency finding is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we
do not sustain the rejections.
Appeal 2012-004749
Application 11/122,646

6

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4,
8–20, and 43–49.

REVERSED

mls