Ross, William C. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2020

2019003442 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 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.
14/234,108 01/21/2014 William C. Ross 2010-035245 U1 US 8470
142050 7590 12/17/2020
HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
C/O PARKER JUSTISS, P.C.
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
EXAMINER
YI, RINNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2020 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM C. ROSS and RICHARD L. CHAMBERS
____________

Appeal 2019-003442
Application 14/234,108
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JUSTIN BUSCH, CARL L. SILVERMAN,
and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–9, 11–17, 29–31, and 43–45. Claims 10, 18–28, and
32–42 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Landmark Graphics Corporation as
the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2019-003442
Application 14/234,108

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to mapping geologic features.
(Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal:
1. A method for mapping geologic data performed with
one or more computing systems, the method comprising:
receiving, through a user interface, a selection of a
template describing a theoretical geologic depositional profile
representing an arrangement of a plurality of theoretical
geologic facies;
receiving, through the user interface, a plurality of a
paleo-elevations or paleo-depths relative to sea level of an
actual facies in an actual geologic depositional profile, the
plurality of paleo-elevations or paleo-depths relative to sea level
of the actual facies determined by logging a wellbore formed
through the actual facies in the actual geologic depositional
profile;
mapping, via a deterministic simulation algorithm based
on Walther’s Law, the received plurality of paleo-elevations or
paleo-depths to the theoretical geologic profile by interpolating
or extrapolating or both the theoretical geologic profile based
on the received plurality of paleo-elevations or paleo-depths;
generating a graphical map representing the actual
geologic depositional profile based on the mapping, the
graphical map comprising a paleo-environmental or paleo-
elevational ramp; and
displaying the generated graphical map in the user
interface.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–9, 12–17, 29–31, and 43–45 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murphy et al. (US 6,070,125,
Appeal 2019-003442
Application 14/234,108

3
issued May 30, 2000) and Pepper et al. (US 2012/0029827 A1, pub. Feb. 2,
2012). (Final Act. 2–11.)
The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Murphy, Pepper, and Serra et al. (US 4,646,240, issued
Feb. 24, 1987). (Final Act. 11–12.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue:2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Murphy
and Pepper taught or suggested the independent claim 1 limitation,
“mapping . . . the received plurality of paleo-elevations or paleo-depths to
the theoretical geologic profile by interpolating or extrapolating or both the
theoretical geologic profile based on the received plurality of paleo-
elevations or paleo-depths,” and the commensurate limitations of
independent claims 15 and 29. (Appeal Br. 6–8.)
ANALYSIS
For the claim limitation at issue, the Final Action finds:
Murphy does not appear to explicitly teach . . .
generating the profile by interpolating or extrapolating or both
the theoretical geologic profile based on the received plurality
of paleo-elevations or paleo-depths.
However, in the same filed [sic] of the invention,
[Pepper] teaches . . . .

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 7, 2018); the Reply Brief
(filed Mar. 29, 2019); the Final Office Action (mailed May 24, 2018); and
the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Feb. 1, 2019) for the respective details.
Appeal 2019-003442
Application 14/234,108

4
generating the profile by interpolating or extrapolating or
both the theoretical geologic profile based on the received
plurality of paleo-elevations or paleo-depths (at least pars. 51-
52, 56, 59, seismic data can be generated by using re-sampled
or interpolated seismic data inducing a depth scale received (see
at least pars. 48, 43-44)).
(Final Act. 4–5.)
Appellant argues:
[W]hile Pepper discloses interpolating both interpreted and not-
yet interpreted seismic data, Pepper does not disclose mapping
received actual paleo-elevations or paleo-depths of an actual
facies in an actual geologic depositional profile to a theoretical
geologic profile by interpolating and/or extrapolating the
theoretical profile to the actual profile as required by Claim 1
. . . . Pepper further discloses that “mappings may relocate
seismic data sampling positions in the first structurally restored
domain . . . in a parallel shift without interpolation.”
(Appeal Br. 7 (citing Pepper, ¶ 56).) We agree with Appellant. Pepper
applies certain “restoration techniques” to measured elevation and depth data
to “progressively remove structural deformation from the seismic volume,
corresponding to moving back in geologic time.” (Pepper, Abstr., ¶ 51.)
However, nothing cited in Pepper by the Examiner relates to interpolating or
extrapolating a theoretical geologic profile based on measured data, as
required by the claims.
In the Answer, the Examiner propounds a new argument, to the effect
that Murphy teaches the claim limitation at issue. (Ans. 5.) In particular,
the Examiner characterizes Murphy as “inherently” disclosing
“fitting/mapping” geological data entered by a user to templates, in order to
visually display geological information. (Ans. 6–7.)
In reply, Appellant objects that the Examiner brings in a new ground
of rejection not previously articulated in the Office Action, and argues that it
Appeal 2019-003442
Application 14/234,108

5
should not be considered. (Reply Br. 3–4.) However, this objection relates
to petitionable subject matter under 37 C.F.R § 1.181 and therefore is not
before us since we lack jurisdiction over petitionable matters. See, e.g.,
MPEP § 706.01 (“[T]he Board will not hear or decide issues pertaining to
objections and formal matters which are not properly before the Board.”);
see also MPEP § 1201 (“The Board will not ordinarily hear a question that
should be decided by the Director on petition . . . .”).
Moreover, Appellant goes on to address the substance of the
Examiner’s new argument, pointing out that Murphy does not disclose
interpolating and/or extrapolating a theoretical geologic profile. (Reply
Br. 6.) We agree — the cited portions of Murphy relate to a graphical
depiction of actual geologic data that can be manipulated by a user, without
the use of a theoretical geologic profile. (Id. (citing Murphy, Figs. 1B, 4, 5,
5:29–40; 6:8–23, 7:63–67, 8:1–29).)
Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Examiner has not made out a
prima facie case that the limitation at issue is taught or suggested by the
cited references, and therefore we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections
of independent claims 1, 15, and 29 as obvious over Murphy and Pepper.
For the same reason, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 2–9, 12–14, 16, 17, 30, 31, and 43–45 over Murphy and
Pepper, which claims depend from claim 1, 15, or 29.
In addition, in rejecting claim 11, which depends from claim 1, over
Murphy, Pepper, and Serra, the Examiner does not rely on Serra with respect
to the claim limitation discussed above. (See Final Act. 11–12; Appeal Br.
9.) Therefore we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11.
Appeal 2019-003442
Application 14/234,108

6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 12–17,
29–31, 43–45
103 Murphy, Pepper 1–9, 12–17,
29–31, 43–45
11 103 Murphy, Pepper,
Serra
11
Overall
Outcome
1–9, 11–17,
29–31, 43–45

REVERSED