Roald van Borselen

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 21, 2020

13493930 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 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.
13/493,930 06/11/2012 Roald Gunnar van Borselen PGS-12-06US 8653
137491 7590 04/21/2020
OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC
P.O. BOX 4277
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
HULKA, JAMES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2020 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):
docketing@pgs.com
joanne@olympicpatentworks.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROALD GUNNAR VAN BORSELEN
__________________

Appeal 2019-005627
Application 13/493,930
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–29, which are all the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS as the real party in interest. See Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005627
Application 13/493,930

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, 17, and 24 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced
below.
1. A computer system for generating an image of a
subterranean formation comprising:
one or more processors;
one or more storage media storing instructions, which,
when processed by the one or more processors, causes:
deriving values of an upgoing wavefield at a
plurality of different locations from recorded scattered
wavefield data obtained by a plurality of underwater sensors at
the plurality of different locations, the plurality of different
locations corresponding to a plurality of different underwater
depths;
deriving values of a downgoing wavefield at the
plurality of different locations from the recorded scattered
wavefield data at the plurality of different locations;
extrapolating the values of the upgoing wavefield
at the plurality of different locations to extrapolated values of
the upgoing wavefield at a plurality of first locations, the
plurality of first locations all corresponding to a first
underwater depth;
extrapolating the values of the downgoing
wavefield at the plurality of different locations to extrapolated
values of the downgoing wavefield at a plurality of second
locations, the plurality of second locations all corresponding to
a second underwater depth;
determining one or more surface-related multiple
wavefield contributions at a plurality of third locations from the
extrapolated values of the upgoing wavefield at the plurality of
first locations and the extrapolated values of the downgoing
wavefield at the plurality of second locations; and
generating an image of the subterranean formation
based at least in part on the one or more surface-related
multiple wavefield contributions.

Appeal Br. 36 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-005627
Application 13/493,930

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–29 are rejected as directed to a judicial exception under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 1–29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sollner ’610 (US 2010/0091610 A1, pub. Apr. 15, 2010), van Borselen
(US 2009/0251992 A1, pub. Oct. 8, 2009), and Sollner ’227 (US 2008/
0253227 A1, pub. Oct. 16, 2008).
ANALYSIS
Patent Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Appellant argues the claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 6–20. We
select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Examiner’s Findings and Determination
The Examiner determines that claim 1 recites an abstract idea of
collecting and analyzing data such as wavefield data of pressure and velocity
from conventional underwater sensors in conventional ways to derive values
that are extrapolated to determine multiple wavefield contributions, and the
steps involve the use of mathematical algorithms with the incidental use of
processors that do not impose meaningful limitations on the abstract idea.
Final Act. 2; Ans. 3–4. The Examiner determines claim 1 lacks additional
elements sufficient to amount to significantly more because arrangement of
the streamers and sensors and use of the processors is conventional and the
innovation is limited to the abstract idea. Ans. 3–4. The Examiner further
determines that generating an image of the subterranean formation is known
and the use of general purpose processors and computers to display images
of raw sensor data or data adjusted by an algorithm is not described in the
Specification or recited in the claims as novel hardware or software. Id. at 4.
Appeal 2019-005627
Application 13/493,930

4
Applicable Legal Principles
Section 101 of the Patent Act states:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,
subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. § 101. This provision contains an implicit exception: “Laws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice
Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first
determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id.
at 217. If they are, we consider the elements of each claim, individually and
“as an ordered combination,” to determine if additional elements “‘transform
the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application” by providing an
“inventive concept” to ensure the patent amounts to significantly more than
a patent on the ineligible concept itself. Id. at 217–18.
The USPTO has issued guidance about this framework. 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”). Under the Revised Guidance, to determine whether a
claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the claim recites
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas
listed in the Revised Guidance (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods
of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or
mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Appeal 2019-005627
Application 13/493,930

5
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and also (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then consider
whether the claim (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial
exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field
(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception. Id. at 56.
Step 1: Is Claim 1 Within a Statutory Category?
Claim 1 recites a “computer system,” which is within a statutory
category of 35 U.S.C. § 101, namely, a machine.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does Claim 1 Recite a Judicial Exception?
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites an abstract idea. The
Revised Guidance identifies the abstract idea as (1) mathematical concepts
and calculations and (2) mental processes––concepts performed in the
human mind. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; see Ans. 3.
Instructions for “deriving values of an upgoing wavefield at a plurality
of different locations . . .;” “deriving values of a downgoing wavefield at a
plurality of different locations . . .;” “extrapolating the values of the upgoing
wavefield at the plurality of different locations to extrapolated values of the
upgoing wavefield at a plurality of first locations . . . corresponding to a first
underwater depth” “extrapolating the values of the downgoing wavefield at
the plurality of different locations to extrapolated values . . . at a plurality of
second locations . . . all corresponding to a second underwater depth;” and
“determining one or more surface-related multiple wavefield contributions at
a plurality of third locations from the extrapolated values of the upgoing
wavefield . . . and . . . the downgoing wavefield” all recite this abstract idea.
Appeal 2019-005627
Application 13/493,930

6
The Specification describes calculations used to compute the values.
Paragraphs 52–60 describe equations used to derive values of upgoing and
downgoing wavefields. These derived values are extrapolated to an arbitrary
first underwater depth for upgoing wavefield values and an arbitrary second
underwater depth for downgoing wavefield values using equations described
at paragraphs 61–67 of the Specification. The extrapolated values may be
combined to obtain surface-related multiple waveforms by a process that
sums or convolves the extrapolated ray-paths to obtain the surface-related
multiple contributions in a total scattered pressure wavefield as described in
paragraph 68. See also Spec. ¶¶ 38, 43, 50, 69–73. Appellant acknowledges
that mathematical formulas or algorithms are used to compute these values,
but they are applied in a useful, practical application. See Appeal Br. 8–9.
These limitations are analogous to those held to be abstract ideas in
Electric Power Group. There, receiving data streams and measurements
from data sources and analyzing this data by mathematical algorithms or
steps people go through in their minds as mental processes were held to be
within the abstract-idea category. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
830 F.3d 1350, 1351–52, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Similarly, in Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, the court held that
“with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing
in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a
human, mentally or with pen and paper.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). There, the claims
recited limitations of receiving e-mail messages on a computer network and
using a rule engine to apply business rules from a database to determine a set
of actions to apply to each e-mail message. Id. at 1316–17.
Appeal 2019-005627
Application 13/493,930

7
Here, the calculations of claim 1 can be performed as a mental process
using equations described in the Specification notwithstanding the recital of
generic processors and storage media. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52 n.14 (“If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer
components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim
cannot practically be performed in the mind.”).
In Digitech Image, claims to generating first data describing “a device
dependent transformation of color information content of the image to a
device independent color space through the use of measured chromatic
stimuli and device response characteristic functions,” generating second data
describing “a device dependent transformation of spatial information content
of the image in said device independent color space through the use of
spatial stimuli and device response characteristic functions,” and “combining
said first and second data into the device profile” were abstract. Digitech
Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) (“[E]mploy[ing] mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing
information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.”).
Here, deriving wavefield values from measured seismic data using
Laplace transformations and equations (Spec. ¶¶ 52–60) and extrapolating
these spatial information values using other equations and calculations to
create extrapolated values (id. ¶¶ 61–67) that are convolved (summed) are
similar to the steps held to be an abstract idea in Digitech Image. Digitech
Image, 758 F.3d at 1351 (“If a claim is directed essentially to a method of
calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a
specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.”) (citation omitted).
Appeal 2019-005627
Application 13/493,930

8
In Coffelt v. NVIDIA, claims to calculating and comparing regions in
space using mathematical calculations and algorithms, without more, recited
“mental processes within the abstract-idea category.” Coffelt v. NVIDIA
Corp., 680 F. App’x 1010, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
Displaying different sets of information on a generic display does not
alter the abstract nature of claim 1. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC,
921 F.3d 1081, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The fact that this is a ‘computer-
based method’ does not render the claims non-abstract. The Specification
indicates the claimed GUI is displayed on any computing device.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claim 1 recites abstract
ideas of mathematical concepts as mathematical calculations, which also can
be performed as mental processes in the human mind.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is There Integration into a Practical Application?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements that
integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (Revised Step 2A, Prong Two). Appellant argues that the
claims in this appeal are distinguishable from those that were held to be
patent-ineligible in Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) where they
used an algorithm to convert binary code decimal numbers to equivalent
pure binary numbers. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues that the claims in
Gottschalk v. Benson lacked any practical application whereas the claims in
this appeal generate images of a subterranean formation, which are useful in
the petroleum industry and not abstract. Id. at 8–9. Appellant argues that
“[t]he resulting images are not abstract” because “[h]igh-resolution seismic
images of a subterranean formation are essential for quantitative seismic
interpretation and improved reservoir monitoring.” Id. at 9–10.
Appeal 2019-005627
Application 13/493,930

9
We are not persuaded. Merely reciting a limitation of “generating an
image of the subterranean formation based at least in part on the one or more
surface-related multiple wavefield contributions” is insufficient to integrate
the abstract idea recited in claim 1 into a practical application. This step and
instruction merely recites insignificant extra-solution activity at a high level
of generality, which does not integrate or make the abstract idea in claim 1
patent-eligible. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 & n.31 (stating
that insignificant extra- or post-solution activity is insufficient to integrate an
abstract idea into a practical application or confer patent eligibility).
The Specification also describes this feature generically as follows:
To image the subsurface structure 706, source 712 emits
seismic waves 716 that are reflected where there are changes in
acoustic impedance contrast due to subsurface structure 706
(and other subsurface structures). The reflected waves are
detected by a pattern of receivers 714. By recording the elapsed
time for the seismic waves 716 to travel from source 712 to
subsurface structure 706 to receivers 714, an image of
subsurface structure 706 can be obtained after appropriate data
processing. Data processing may include the techniques
described above.

Spec. ¶ 102. Neither the language of claim 1 nor the Specification indicates
that generating an image of a subterranean formation improves functioning
of a computer, another technology, or a technical field, ties the abstract idea
to a particular machine that is integral to the claim, transforms or reduces a
particular article to a different state or thing, or applies the abstract idea in a
meaningful way beyond linking it to a particular technological environment.
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Merely displaying results of abstract
mathematical calculations and mental processes does not integrate abstract
ideas into a practical application. See id. at 55 n.31.
Appeal 2019-005627
Application 13/493,930

10
Appellant argues that the decision in Electric Power Group does not
determine the abstract nature of the claims in this appeal because the claims
in Electric Power Group recited “detecting and analyzing” in contrast to the
claims in this appeal, which do not describe analyzing information and then
displaying the results of the analysis. Appeal Br. 10–12.
We are not persuaded. The claims in Electric Power Group involved
a similar use of mathematical algorithms and mental processes to analyze
information and then display results of the analysis. Elec. Power Grp., 830
F.3d at 1354. The court held that merely selecting information by content or
source for collection, analysis, and display did not differentiate the process
from ordinary mental processes. Id. at 1355. Merely limiting the claims to a
particular technological environment did not make the claims into a patent-
eligible application because the claims did not require anything other than
off-the-shelf computer, network, and display technology. Id. Nor did the
claims recite a new algorithm, inventive components such as measurement
devices or techniques, or inventive programming to generate new data. Id.
Here, claim 1 does not recite a new algorithm, measurement device, or
measurement technique. It processes data at a high level of abstraction by
deriving and extrapolating values to determine wavefield contributions. If a
new algorithm or measurement technique is used, it is not claimed. Instead,
claim 1 derives values of wavefields, extrapolates the values from one set of
locations to an arbitrary location/depth, and uses the values to determine one
or more surface-related multiple wavefield contributions at other locations.
In Coffelt, a novel algorithm used on a generic computer to derive
“realistic complex 3D shadows” (versus two-dimensional shadow maps in
the prior art) did not transform the algorithm. Coffelt, 680 F. App’x at 1011.
Appeal 2019-005627
Application 13/493,930

11
In Coffelt, the court held that “calculating a . . . steridian region of
space,” as recited in claim1, is a purely arithmetic exercise. Id. at 1011
(“The claims thus recite nothing more than a mathematical algorithm that
could be implemented using a pen and paper.”).
“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the
ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept
that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”
BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
see id. at 1291 (“As a matter of law, narrowing or reformulating an abstract
idea does not add ‘significantly more’ to it.”); see also RecogniCorp, LLC v.
Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract
idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render
the claim non-abstract.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d
1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an
abstract idea.”); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306,
1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims that improved an abstract idea, but not a
computer’s performance, were held unpatentable).
Merely displaying the results of such abstract ideas does not integrate
them into a practical application as illustrated in Electric Power Group. The
claimed method displayed the results of the mathematical calculations “in
visuals, tables, charts, or combinations thereof, the data comprising at least
one of monitoring data, tracking data, historical data, prediction data, and
summary data” and “concurrent visualization of measurements from the data
streams and the dynamic stability metrics.” Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at
1352. However, nothing in the patent indicated a need for anything but
available displays that were not even arguably inventive. Id. at 1355.
Appeal 2019-005627
Application 13/493,930

12
Even if generating an image cannot be performed in a person’s mind
(Appeal Br. 13–14), it does not follow that generating an image recites an
additional element to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
“Information as such is an intangible” and collecting, analyzing, and
displaying that information, without more, is an abstract idea. See Interval
Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344–45 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353–54 and citing similar decisions
holding that displaying different types or sets of information from various
sources on a generic display is abstract absent a specific improvement to the
way computers or other technologies operate); see also Elec. Power Grp.,
830 F.3d at 1354 (displaying information that results from collection and
organizing is “abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”).
Even if this feature reduces the likelihood of preempting all uses of
the mathematical concepts and calculations recited in claim 1, as argued by
Appellant (Appeal Br. 8, 12, 14, 16), that factor alone does not make claim 1
patent-eligible. “[W]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject
matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent
eligibility.” FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788
F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]hat the claims do not preempt
all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-
commerce setting do not make them any less abstract.”). Further, “[w]here a
patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter
under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are
fully addressed and made moot.” Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1379.
Appeal 2019-005627
Application 13/493,930

13
Digitech Image does not support a contrary determination. There, the
court held that “[w]ithout additional limitations, a process that employs
mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate
additional information is not patent eligible.” Digitech Image, 758 F.3d
at 1351. The court held that reciting a “digital image reproduction system”
in the preamble did not tie the method to an image processor or otherwise
limit the claim scope in this regard. Id. The court also held that “[w]e
therefore need not decide whether tying the method to an image processor
would lead us to conclude that the claims are directed to patent eligible
subject matter in accordance with the Supreme Court’s Mayo test.” Id.
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 15), Digitech did not
hold that merely generating an image would have limited the scope of the
abstract steps to a practical application. The court did not address that issue.
McRO illustrates how a display can integrate an abstract idea into a
practical application. The claims recited a specific process of automated lip-
synchronization of 3-D characters resulting from a specific order of rules as
sub-sequences of phonemes, timing, and the weight of visual expression at a
particular timing set by a morph weight set. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The
improvement produced accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial
expressions in animated characters. Id. at 1313; see also SAP Am., Inc. v.
InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The claims in McRO
were directed to the creation of something physical—namely, the display of
‘lip synchronization and facial expressions’ of animated characters on
screens for viewing by human eyes. . . . The claimed improvement was to
how the physical display operated (to produce better quality images) . . . .”).
Appeal 2019-005627
Application 13/493,930

14
Here, claim 1 recites no comparable physical improvement. Instead,
it simply generates an image of the subterranean formation based in part on
the surface-related multiple wavefield contributions that are calculated based
on the abstract idea recited in claim 1. There is no indication in the claim or
Specification that generating this image represents an advance in computers
or display technology or seismic measurement technology.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites abstract ideas and
lacks additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract
ideas. Any such elements are generic and function generically such that any
innovation is limited to abstract ideas. Ans. 3–4. Computer system 600 is a
special-purpose computing device that may be hard-wired or may include
digital electronic devices such as application-specific integrated circuits or
field programmable gate arrays that are persistently programmed to perform
the techniques, or it may include one or more general purpose hardware
processors programmed to perform the techniques. Spec. ¶ 83. Computer
system 600 may be a desktop computer system, portable computer system,
handheld device, server computer, or any device that incorporates hard-
wired and/or program logic to implement the techniques described in the
Specification. Id. Computer system 600 includes bus 602 and hardware
processor 604, main memory 606 such as random access memory, read only
memory 608, storage device 610, display 612 (cathode ray tube or liquid
crystal display) for displaying information to a computer user, input device
614, and cursor control 616. Id. ¶¶ 84–91, Fig. 6.
Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 lacks any additional elements
that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea recited therein into a practical
application.
Appeal 2019-005627
Application 13/493,930

15
Step 2B: Does Claim 1 Include an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites elements, individually, or as
an ordered combination, that provide an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S.
at 217–18. The second step of the Alice test is satisfied when the claim
limitations involve more than performance of well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known to the industry. Berkheimer v. HP
Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 56 (explaining that the second step of the Alice analysis considers whether
a claim adds a specific limitation beyond a judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field).
Individually, the claims recite abstract ideas as applied on generic
computer systems and processors discussed above. Any additional elements
beyond these abstract ideas are well-understood, routine, and conventional,
namely, displaying an image. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; see
also MPEP § 2106.05(d); Ans. 4 (“Generating an image of the formations of
which data is acquired is part of that common knowledge in the art.”)
Nor is there anything unconventional about the “ordered combination”
that is not merely the sum of the parts. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent
Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 615 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Elec. Power Grp., 830
F.3d at 1355 (holding that the claims interpreted in light of the specification
required only off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display
technology to gather, send, and present desired information and “displaying
concurrent visualization” required only readily-available displays).
Accordingly, we determine that the claims do not recite any elements,
individually or as an ordered combination, that provide an inventive concept
sufficient to transform the abstract ideas into patent eligible subject matter.
Appeal 2019-005627
Application 13/493,930

16
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–29 as directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter under a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 1–29
Rejected over Sollner ’610, van Borselen, and Sollner ’227
Regarding independent claims 1, 9, 17, and 24, the Examiner finds
that Sollner ’610 teaches all of the claimed features except for determining
surface-related multiple wavefield contributions at third locations from the
extrapolated values of the upgoing and downgoing wavefields. Final Act. 3–
4. The Examiner relies on van Borselen to teach surface-related wavefield
contributions at extrapolated values of a downgoing wavefield and Sollner
’227 to teach determining one or more surface-related multiple wavefield
contributions at third locations from the extrapolated values of upgoing and
downgoing wavefields. Id. at 4.
Appellant argues that paragraphs 15 and 39 of Sollner ’610 do not
teach or suggest deriving values of an upgoing and a downgoing wavefield
at a plurality of different locations as recited in claim 1 as the Examiner
finds. Appeal Br. 21. Appellant argues that Sollner ’610 does teach these
limitations in paragraphs 57 and 60, but argues that the Examiner erred on
citing paragraphs 15 and 39. Id. at 22; Reply Br. 6–7.
Appellant also argues that Sollner ’610 does not teach the third and
fourth limitations of extrapolating the values of the upgoing or downgoing
wavefield at the plurality of different locations to extrapolated values of the
upgoing wavefield at a plurality of first locations that correspond to a first
underwater depth and to extrapolated values of the downgoing wavefield at a
plurality of second locations that correspond to a second underwater depth.
Appeal Br. 22–23.
Appeal 2019-005627
Application 13/493,930

17
Appellant argues that Sollner ’610 calculates upgoing and downgoing
pressure and velocity wavefields at the same depth (zero), rather than at a
plurality of different underwater depths as claimed. Id. at 23. Appellant
further argues that Sollner ’610 extrapolates these upgoing and downgoing
wavefield values from the same value at a depth of zero (z = 0) to the same
observation level (i.e., depth zobs), rather than to a first underwater depth and
a second underwater depth as claimed. Id. at 23–24.
We agree with the Examiner that Sollner ’610 derives values of an
upgoing and a downgoing wavefield at a plurality of different locations from
scattered wavefield data as claimed. In this regard, Sollner ’610 teaches to
measure wavefield data using seismic sensors on streamers that form a
surface that is not necessarily flat as illustrated in Figure 1B. Sollner ’610
¶ 39. However, we agree with Appellant that Sollner ’610 extrapolates these
values of the upgoing and downgoing wavefields to the same underwater
depth rather than to a first underwater depth for upgoing wavefield values or
to a second underwater depth for downgoing wavefield values as claimed.
In this regard, Sollner ’610 teaches to calculate both upgoing and downgoing
pressure and velocity components of the wavefields at an arbitrary single or
flat observation level 18 having a constant depth zobs that is between the
acquisition surface and the sea surface, neither of which are necessarily flat,
as illustrated in Figure 1B. Id. ¶¶ 56–67, Fig. 3 (step 35), Fig. 4 (steps 40,
42, 43, 45, 46).
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, 17,
and 24 or their respective dependent claims 2–8, 10–16, 18–23, and 25–29.

Appeal 2019-005627
Application 13/493,930

18
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–29 101 Eligibility 1–29
1–29 103(a) Sollner ’610,
van Borselen,
Sollner ’227
1–29
Overall
Outcome
1–29
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED