Ex parte Walker

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 21, 1998

08226164 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 21, 1998)

Application for patent filed April 11, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte DAVID A. WALKER
_____________
Appeal No. 97-2120
Application 08/226,1641
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, MARTIN, and TORCZON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection (paper number
Appeal No. 97-2120
Application No. 08/226,164
2
12) of claims 3 through 6, 9, 11 and 12.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus
for enhancing a seismic reflection signal received from a
land-vibrator seismic system by passing the harmonics
associated with the land-vibrator seismic system and the
reflection signal through an inverse filter to yield a pulse
compressed seismic signal which includes the harmonic energy.
Claim 11 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
11. A method of enhancing a seismic reflection signal
received from a land-vibrator seismic system, which includes a
baseplate coupled to the earth to induce seismic waves of
varying frequencies, into the earth, said method comprising:
(a) recording a correlation operator (CO) signal which is
representative of the actual motion of said baseplate and
includes harmonics associated with said land vibrator system;
(b) determining an inverse filter responsive to said CO
signal, said inverse filter having a pass-band that includes
harmonics which are associated with said land vibrator seismic
system; and
(c) passing said seismic reflection signal through said
inverse filter to yield a pulse compressed seismic signal
which includes harmonic energy injected into the earth by said
land-vibrator seismic system.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Martinez 4,646,274 Feb. 24,
1987
Appeal No. 97-2120
Application No. 08/226,164
3
Claims 3 through 6, 9, 11 and 12 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 3
through 6, 9, 11 and 12.
Martinez discloses a method and apparatus for enhancing
seismic data by removing phase distortion from deconvolved
seismic data records generated via vibrational energy.
According to Martinez (column 1, lines 24 through 27),
deconvolution is a “form of inverse filtering which corrects
for the previous filtering effects of the recording system and
the earth itself.” The land-vibrator seismic system disclosed
by Martinez includes a baseplate 14 (Figure 1) coupled to the
earth to induce seismic waves of varying frequencies into the
earth. A ground force signal 34 is produced by the seismic
system, and appellant acknowledges (Brief, page 5) that “the
ground force signal (34 in FIG. 2 of Martinez) would
inherently include harmonics produced by the vibrator system.”
Appeal No. 97-2120
Application No. 08/226,164
4
The ground force signal 34 and a reflected signal 32 detected
by a geophone are simultaneously recorded by a recorder 38
(column 3, lines 20 through 25). In correlator 40, the ground
source signal 34 is correlated with pilot sweep signal 42 to
produce output trace 44, and the reflected signal 32 is
correlated with pilot sweep signal 42 to produce output trace
46 (column 3, lines 26 through 30). Martinez indicates that
“[o]ther signal pulses may be employed for this purpose
instead of pilot signal 42, such as, for example, ground force
signal 34 itself” (column 3, lines 61 through 63). The output
traces 44 and 46 are thereafter subjected to the same standard
processing technique to generate respective output traces 52
and 62 (column 3, line 66 through column 4, line 1). “A
typical standard processing technique involves what is known
as ‘spiking deconvolution’” (column 4, lines 12 through 19).
If this technique is used in Martinez, then “spiking” inverse
filtering is used in the processing of the traces 44 and 46 to
produce respective traces 52 and 62. “By means of inverse
filter 54 trace 52 is time reversed to generate a correction
function 56" (column 3, lines 33 through 35), and “[f]inally
correcting signal 56 and processed data trace 62 are convolved
Appeal No. 97-2120
Application No. 08/226,164
5
together at functional block 64 to produce a final corrected
vibrator data output 66" (column 3, lines 38 through 41).
Appeal No. 97-2120
Application No. 08/226,164
6
The examiner has concluded (Answer, page 5) that:
The difference between [the] claimed invention
and this reference lies in the claim recitation that
the CO includes vibrator system harmonics which are
passed by the inverse filter. However, the skilled
artisan would find it obvious that seismic land
vibrators driven by frequency varying sine waves
inherently produce harmonics which are passed by
inverse filter (54).
In response to appellant’s argument (Brief, pages 6 and 7)
that Martinez lacks an inverse filter with a passband that
will pass harmonics, the examiner concludes (Answer, pages 6
and 7) that “inverse filters are by definition filters with
characteristics complementary to another filter so that when
used in series with the other filter no frequency-selective
filtering occurs.”
Nothing in the record before us supports the examiner’s
conclusion that the inverse filtering performed by Martinez
will pass harmonics with the reflected signal. In the absence
of evidence in the record, and the lack of a convincing line
of reasoning by the examiner demonstrating how the inverse
filtering performed by Martinez passes harmonics, the
obviousness rejection of claims 3 through 6, 9, 11 and 12 is
reversed.
Appeal No. 97-2120
Application No. 08/226,164
7
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 3 through
6, 9, 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN C. MARTIN ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
svt
Appeal No. 97-2120
Application No. 08/226,164
8
Richmond, Phillips, Hitchcock & Fish
P.O. Box 2443
Bartlesville, OK 74005