J¿r¿me Laine

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 11, 2020

14837286 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2020)

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.
14/837,286 08/27/2015 Jérôme LAINE 0337-061-CON/PI_0169 9111
11171 7590 05/11/2020
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
P.O. Box 7999
Fredericksburg, VA 22404
EXAMINER
EUSTAQUIO, CAL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/11/2020 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 JÉRÔME LAINE

Appeal 2018-008307
Application 14/837,286
Technology Center 2600

BEFORE JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS,
and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this appeal.2 Claims App. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 We refer to the Specification filed Aug. 27, 2015 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed Oct. 3, 2017 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed
Apr. 26, 2018 (“Appeal Br”); and the Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 1,
2018 (“Ans.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies SERCEL as the real party-in-
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008307
Application 14/837,286

2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter is directed to a
seismic data acquisition method and system for transforming collected
analog seismic signal into digital seismic data in a seismic node based on a
single local clock signal. Spec. 1:10–13.
Figure 2A, discussed and reproduced below, is useful for
understanding the claimed invention:

Figure 2A illustrates data acquisition system (1) including housing (2)
containing single local clock circuit (8) connected to gauging circuit (61),
ADC (3) and correcting circuit (4). Id. at 12:21–24.

Appeal 2018-008307
Application 14/837,286

3
As depicted in Figure 2A above, receiving circuit (6) includes gauging
circuit (61) containing antenna (63) for receiving synchronization
information from outside housing (2) and second input element (611) for
receiving clock signal (CLK) from single local clock circuit (8). Id. at
12:21–13:6. In particular, upon measuring the frequency drift and phase
error of the local clock signal based on the received synchronization
information, gauging circuit (61) forwards the clock signal to ADC (3),
which samples received analog seismic signal (31) according to the clock
signal to provide digital sampled and dated seismic data to correction circuit
(4), which in turn generates corrected digital sampled and dated seismic data
based on the measured frequency drift and phase error of the local clock
signal. Id. at 12:1–14:8.
Claims 1, 14, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
with disputed limitations emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A seismic data acquisition apparatus to be used in a seismic
data acquisition system for collecting seismic data, the data apparatus
comprising:
only one clock circuit, the clock circuit generating a local clock
signal (CLK);
a housing housing the only one clock circuit;
a gauging circuit located inside the housing and having a first
input for receiving synchronization information from outside the
housing and a second input for receiving the local clock signal (CLK),
wherein the gauging circuit is configured to measure a
frequency drift and a phase error of the local clock signal (CLK)
based on the received synchronization information;
an analog-to-digital converter located inside the housing and
configured to receive the local clock signal (CLK) and an analog
seismic signal, the analog-to-digital converter being configured to
sample the analog seismic signal based on the local clock signal(CLK)
Appeal 2018-008307
Application 14/837,286

4
and to provide a series of digital sampled and dated seismic data based
on the local clock signal (CLK); and
a correcting circuit connected to (i) the gauging circuit for
receiving the frequency drift and the phase error of the local clock
signal (CLK) and (ii) to the
analog-to-digital converter for receiving the series of digital
sampled and dated seismic data, wherein the correcting circuit
generates corrected series of digital sampled and dated seismic data
based at least on the measured frequency drift and phase error of the
local clock signal (CLK).

Appeal Br. 17–18 (Claims Appendix).

III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
Warburton US 6,732,059 B2 May 4, 2004
Komaili US 2005/0227630 A1 Oct. 13, 2005
Laine
(“Laine2”)
US 2007/0025484 A1 Feb. 1, 2007
Smith US 2008/000285 A1 Jan. 10, 2008
Laine US 2010/0198561 A1 Aug. 5, 2010

IV. REJECTIONS4
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 as follows:

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
4 The Examiner withdraws the double patenting rejection previously entered
against claims 1–20. Ans. 13.
Appeal 2018-008307
Application 14/837,286

5
1. Claims 1, 11–14 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Laine and Warburton.
Final Act. 13–17.
2. Claims 2–8 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Laine, Warburton, and Smith.
Final Act. 17–20.
3. Claims 9, 10, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Laine, Warburton, Smith, and
Komaili. Final Act. 20–21.
4. Claims 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Laine, Warburton, and Laine2.
Final Act. 21–23.
5. Claims 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second
paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the
invention. Final Act. 12–13.

V. ANALYSIS
1. Obviousness Rejections
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 7–13.5 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s
contentions. Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our

5 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2014).
Appeal 2018-008307
Application 14/837,286

6
own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action, and the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Final Act. 17–
23; Ans. 4–10. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and
findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding that the combination
of Laine and Warburton teaches or suggests a seismic data acquisition
apparatus having only one clock circuit, as recited in independent claim 1.
Appeal Br. 7. In particular, Appellant argues Laine discloses a seismic data
acquisition apparatus including a first local clock (2) for generating a clock
signal, which may be an incorrect signal and a reference clock input (60) for
receiving a reference clock signal used to correct the local clock signal. Id.
at 7–9 (citing Laine ¶¶ 38, 39, 47, 53, Fig. 1). According to Appellant,
Laine’s seismic data acquisition system uses two separate clocks, which is
more costly than an apparatus using only a single clock, as required by the
claim. Id. at 8–10 (citing Spec. 11, 12).
Further, Appellant argues that although Warburton discloses a data
acquisition system using a single clock for generating a clock signal,
Warburton is not concerned with the concept of replacing, with a single
clock, a first clock for generating an incorrect signal and a second clock for
generating a signal correcting the incorrect signal. Id. at 10–11.
Furthermore, Appellant argues that the Examiner failed to make a
prima facie case of obviousness because the Examiner’s statement that
“[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted one known feature
for another and the results of the substitution would have predicted the
claimed invention” is insufficient rationale to combine the cited teachings of
Laine and Warburton. Id. at 12. According to Appellant, “[the] proposed
Appeal 2018-008307
Application 14/837,286

7
modification of Laine is not about substituting ‘one known element for
another,’ but rather substituting ‘two different elements for another,’ which
was not contemplated by KSR.” Id. at 13. Accordingly, Appellant submits
the Examiner’s reason for combining the applied art is in error. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner
error. As an initial matter, we note that the disputed limitation requires a
seismic data acquisition apparatus having only one clock circuit for
generating a local clock signal. Because the claimed single clock circuit is
identified as one for generating a local clock signal, it only precludes using
another clock circuit for generating the local clock signal. However, it does
not preclude using another clock for another purpose. That is, so long as the
prior art of record does not recite an apparatus using more than one clock for
generating the local clock signal, any other clocks used for other purposes
would not vitiate the claim language.
As noted above, Appellant does not dispute that Laine teaches a
seismic collection apparatus including a clock for generating a local signal.
Appellant instead objects to Laine’s disclosure of a reference clock for
generating a signal correcting an incorrect signal received from the local
clock. As discussed above, the disputed claim language does not preclude
Laine’s apparatus from using the reference clock for generating a signal to
correct an incorrect signal. It suffices that Laine’s apparatus uses only a
single clock for generating the local clock signal.
As further noted above, Appellant does not dispute that Warburton
discloses a data collection apparatus using a single clock for generating a
local clock signal. Instead, Appellant asserts that Warburton is not
concerned with replacing two local signal-generating clocks with a single
Appeal 2018-008307
Application 14/837,286

8
clock for generating the same signal in the interest of saving costs. We
agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s argument is not commensurate
with the scope of the claim. Ans. 9. Although the Specification asserts such
cost benefits in replacing the two clocks with a single clock to generate the
local clock signal, such arguments have no basis in the claims. Nowhere in
the claim is there any recitation about replacing two clocks with one or the
cost saving benefits ensuing therefrom. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that Appellant’s importing of subject matter from the
Specification into the claim is improper. Id. (citing In re Hiniker Co., 150
F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace Laine’s two clocks for
generating a local clock signal with Warburton’s single clock for performing
the same function because it would have predictably resulted in a seismic
data acquisition system with a single clock for generating the local clock
signal at a reduced the cost. Ans. 9–10. We find the Examiner’s proposed
combination of the cited teachings of Laine and Warburton is no more than a
simple arrangement of old elements with each performing the same function
it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from
such an arrangement. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007). Therefore, the ordinarily skilled artisan, being “a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton,” would be able to fit the teachings of the cited
references together like pieces of a puzzle to predictably result a seismic
data acquisition system with a single clock for generating the local clock
signal to transform received analog seismic data into digital seismic data.
Id. at 420–21. Because Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s
Appeal 2018-008307
Application 14/837,286

9
proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art,” we agree with the Examiner that the
proposed modification would have been within the purview of the ordinarily
skilled artisan. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Consequently, we are
satisfied that, on the record before us, the Examiner has established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Laine and Warburton
renders claim 1 unpatentable. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejections of claims 2–20, Appellant has not presented
separate patentability arguments or reiterated substantially the same
arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1. As
such, claims 2–20 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

2. Indefiniteness Rejection
The Examiner concludes that the recitation of suspending from time to
time the measurement of the frequency drift and the phase error in the local
clock signal while correcting the signal renders claims 18 and 20 indefinite.
Ans. 12. According to the Examiner, “an error signal cannot be produced
without a reference signal and local clock being compared. . . . One cannot
suspend either element . . . if a correction is to occur” Id. In response,
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s conclusion of indefiniteness is in error
because the step of measuring the frequency drift and the phase error is not
necessary to performed continuously. Appeal Br. 14. Therefore, Appellant
submits that suspending the step of measuring does not mean discontinuing
the cited step when the correction is being performed.
Appeal 2018-008307
Application 14/837,286

10
Appellant’s argument is persuasive. As correctly argued by
Appellant, after measuring the frequency drift and the phase error in the
local clock signal, further measurement is suspended or paused while
detected inaccuracies in the clock signal are being corrected. Id. We agree
with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown the disputed limitations are
unclear. Accordingly, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
indefiniteness rejection of claims 18 and 20.

VI. CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However, we reverse the Examiner’s
indefiniteness rejection of claims 18 and 20.
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).

Appeal 2018-008307
Application 14/837,286

11

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 11–14, 17 103(a) Laine, Warburton 1, 11–14, 17
2–8, 15 103(a) Laine, Warburton, Smith 2–8, 15
9, 10, 16 103(a) Laine, Warburton, Smith, Komaili 9, 10, 16
18–20 103(a) Laine, Warburton, Laine2 18–20
18, 20 112(b) Indefiniteness 18, 20
Overall
Outcome 1–20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED