Ex Parte ZHANG

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2018

13442158 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/442, 158 04/09/2012 YuZHANG
11171 7590 12/25/2018
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
P.O. Box 7999
Fredericksburg, VA 22404
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.
0336-068-3/100130 7554
EXAMINER
MURPHY, DANIELL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/25/2018 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):
Mailroom@ppblaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YU ZHANG
Appeal2017-000279
Application 13/442, 158 1
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant appeals from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. 2 Final
Act. 5. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellant, "[t]he real party in interest is the assignee,
CGGVERITAS SERVICES SA." Appeal Br. 2.
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 9-16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Ans. 3.
Appeal2017-000279
Application 13/442,158
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 1 7 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for generating an image of a tilted orthorhombic
medium, the method comprising:
receiving seismic data related to the tilted orthorhombic
medium;
propagating wave-fields with a processing device by
applying a second-order equation for reverse time migration to
the seismic data to obtain tilted orthorhombic wave propagation;
and
generating the image of the tilted orthorhombic medium
based on the tilted orthorhombic wave propagation.
ANALYSIS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patent may be obtained for "any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof." The Supreme Court has "'long held that
this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.'" Alice Corp. v.
CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quotingAss'nfor Molecular
Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 588-89 (2013)).
The Supreme Court in Alice reiterated the two-step framework, set
forth previously in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78-79 (2012), "for distinguishing patents
that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those
that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct.
at 2355. The first step in that analysis is to "determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts." Id. (emphasis
2
Appeal2017-000279
Application 13/442,158
added) ( citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79). If so, the second step is to consider
the elements of the claims "individually and 'as an ordered combination' to
determine whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the
claim' into a patent-eligible application." Id. ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S.
at 78-79).
Turning to step one of the Mayo/Alice two-step framework, we
consider the claims "in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a
whole is directed to excluded subject matter." Internet Patents Corp. v.
Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The question is
whether the claims as a whole "focus on a specific means or method that
improves the relevant technology" or are "directed to a result or effect that
itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and
machinery." McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299,
1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner determines that the:
[ c ]laims ... are directed to a method including steps for receiving
seismic data, propagating wave-fields with a processing device
by applying a second-order equation for reverse time migration
to the seismic data to obtain tilted orthorhombic wave
propagation; and generating an image of the tilted orthorhombic
medium based on the tilted orthorhombic wave propagation, a
computer-readable medium encoded with instructions to practice
such a method, and a computing device including an interface to
receive seismic data and a processor to execute the steps.
Final Act. 5. Additionally, the Examiner determines "first, the wavefield
propagation using a second order equation is an implementation of an
abstract idea, namely reverse time migration in a discretized form with
application of mathematical rotation operators, and second, the generating an
image is itself merely an implementation of an abstract idea, i.e.,
3
Appeal2017-000279
Application 13/442,158
mathematical operations." Id. at 6. In the Answer, the Examiner appears to
focus solely on the claim limitation directed to propagating wave-fields with
a processing device by applying a second-order equation is a mathematical
relation or algorithm. See Ans. 5-7 ( citing Alice; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S.
584 (1978); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981)); see also Final Act. 4
("claim 1 recites 'a second order equation for reverse time migration.' This
is nothing if not a recitation of a mathematical relationship or a formula.").
The Appellant argues that "[t]he claimed subject matter is not directed
to an abstract idea just because one of the steps recites a step that - among
other features - is performed by applying an [sic] second order differential
equation." Reply Br. 3. Further, the Appellant points out that:
claim 1 sets forth a method for generating an image of a tilted
orthorhombic medium including the steps of receiving seismic
data related to the tilted orthorhombic medium, propagating
wave-fields ... [to the seismic data] to obtain tilted orthorhombic
wave propagation, and generating the image of the tilted
orthorhombic medium based on the tilted orthorhombic wave
propagation.
Id. And, the Appellant argues that claims are directed to "methods ... able
to process seismic data acquired over tilted orthorhombic medium and to
generate stable images thereof, thus improving geological survey." Appeal
Br. 15. The Appellants' arguments are persuasive.
The Specification provides evidence as to what the claimed invention
is directed. The Specification describes the field of the invention as
"generally relat[ing] to methods ... for generating high quality Reverse
Time Migration (RTM) images of a subsurface and, more particularly, to
mechanisms and techniques for generating the R TM images for
corresponding tilted orthorhombic media." Spec. ,r 2. The Specification
4
Appeal2017-000279
Application 13/442,158
instructs that imaging processing of seismic data is useful to those trained in
the field as it suggests the presence or absence of oil and/or gas. See id. ,r 3.
The Specification expresses the purpose of the claimed invention; namely,
"it would be desirable to provide systems and methods that extend the R TM
equations from TTI to tilted orthorhombic medium and are also stable from
a numerical point of view and provide high-quality RTM images." Id. ,r 10.
The preambles of independent claims 1 and 1 7 provide for a method and
apparatus for "generating an image of a tilted orthorhombic medium."
Appeal Br. 16, 20, Claims App.
In light of the evidence, we determine that the Examiner's
characterization of claim 1 does not consider the claim as a whole. Also, we
determine that claim 1 is more accurately characterized as a method of
generating images by processing seismic data acquired over a tilted
orthorhombic medium. We make no determinations as to whether this is an
abstract idea, is a "specific means or method that improves the relevant
technology," or is "a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely
invokes generic processes and machinery." McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8 and
17-20.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 17-
20.
REVERSED
5