WESTERNGECO L.L.C.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 16, 2020

2019005623 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 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.
14/832,724 08/21/2015 Shashi Menon IS13.3020-US-CNT 1762
28116 7590 11/16/2020
WesternGeco L.L.C.
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
ALKAFAWI, EMAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2020 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):
SMarckesoni@slb.com
USDocketing@slb.com
jalverson@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parteSHASHI MENON
Appeal 2019-005623
Application 14/832,724
Technology Center 2800
Before LARRY J. HUME, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME,Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–11, and 13–32, which are all
claims pending in the application. Appellant has canceled claims 2 and 12.
See Appeal Br. 21, 24. An Oral Hearing was held on October 8, 2020. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as WesternGeco LLC,
which is a subsidiary of Schlumberger Limited. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005623
Application 14/832,724

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The claims are directed to a methods and computing systems for
geosciences and petro-technical collaboration. See Spec. (Title). In
particular, Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention
“provide more efficient and/or effective methods for facilitating complex
collaborations on geosciences applications, models, structural plans, drilling
plans and the like between multiple parties at different sites. Spec. ¶ 5.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
Appeal (emphases added to contested prior-art limitations):
1. A non-transitory computer readable storage
medium storing one or more programs for execution by one or
more processors of a geosciences collaboration system, the one
or more programs including instructions for:
communicating, over a data network, with a plurality of
computer systems that includes a first computer system and a
second computer system, wherein the first computer system is
located remotely from the second computer system;
obtaining a first set of geosciences information from the
first computer system;
distributing the first set of geosciences information from
the first computer system to at least the second computer
system;

2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
Oct. 9, 2018); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 10, 2019); Transcript of
Oral Hearing held Oct. 8, 2020 (“Transcript”); Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,”
mailed May 10, 2019); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed
Apr. 10, 2018); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed Aug. 21, 2015)
(claiming ultimate benefit of US 61/750,896, filed Jan. 10, 2013).
Appeal 2019-005623
Application 14/832,724

3
receiving a manually entered user input from the second
computer system;
providing the manually entered user input to the first
computer system;
in response to providing the manually entered user input
to the first computer system, receiving a revised set of
geosciences information from the first computer system,
wherein the revised set of geosciences information is distinct
from the first set of geosciences information; and
repeating the receiving a manually entered user input, the
providing the manually entered user input, and the receiving the
revised set of geosciences information until the revised set of
geosciences information is determined to satisfy accuracy
criteria.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Bevc (“Bevc”) US 6,493,635 B1 Dec. 10, 2002
Musat et al. (“Musat”) US 7,031,842 B1 Apr. 18, 2006
Karr et al. (“Karr”) US 2008/0208475 A1 Aug. 28, 2008
Bacus US 2015/0169165 A1 June 18, 2015
Menon US 9,117,200 B2 Aug. 25, 2015
REJECTIONS
R1. Claims 1, 3–5, 8–11, 13, 15–20, 23–28, and 30–32 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Musat and Bevc,
which is incorporated by reference in Musat (Musat/Bevc). Final Act. 21.3

3 Claims 2 and 12 have been canceled. See Appeal Br. 21, 24.
Appeal 2019-005623
Application 14/832,724

4
R2. Claims 6, 7, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Musat/Bevc, and Bacus. Final
Act. 38.
R3. Claims 14 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Musat/Bevc, and Karr. Final
Act. 40.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Based upon our review of the record, we find a preponderance of the
evidence supports particular arguments advanced by Appellant with respect
to claims 1, 3–11, and 13–32 for the specific reasons discussed below. We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for
emphasis as follows.
1. § 102(b) Rejection R1: Claims 1, 3–5, 8–11, 13, 15–20, 23–28, 30–32
Issue 1
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 8–16; Reply Br. 2–31) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Musat
and Bevc, incorporated by reference in Musat (hereinafter referred to as
“Musat/Bevc”), is in error. These contentions present us with the following
dispositive issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art discloses “[a] non-
transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs
for execution by one or more processors of a geosciences collaboration
system, the one or more programs including instructions” for, inter alia,
receiving a manually entered user input from the second
computer system;
Appeal 2019-005623
Application 14/832,724

5
providing the manually entered user input to the first
computer system;
in response to providing the manually entered user input
to the first computer system, receiving a revised set of
geosciences information from the first computer system,
wherein the revised set of geosciences information is distinct
from the first set of geosciences information,
as recited in claim 1?
Principles of Law
Anticipation of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102 occurs when each
claimed element and the claimed arrangement or combination of those
elements is disclosed, inherently or expressly, by a single prior art reference.
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
2010). A reference inherently discloses an element of a claim “if that
missing characteristic is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single
anticipating reference.” Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., 339 F.3d 1373,
1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). “Inherency,
however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere
fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not
sufficient.” Therasense, 593 F.3d at 1332 (citing Cont’l Can Co. USA, Inc.
v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264,1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
Analysis
We determine that this Decision turns on the claimed entities
responsively sending and receiving data, and the claimed directions of
information flow.
Commensurate with contentions in their Briefs, Appellant
summarized their arguments during the Oral Hearing:
Appeal 2019-005623
Application 14/832,724

6
For the key point, with respect to the claim[ed] subject matter,
is that it requires two related interactions between the first and
second computer systems, and specifically requires sending
user input from the second computer system to the first
computer system and then receiving a response which revises
geosciences information from the first computer system to the
second computer system.
Transcript 5:25–6:7. Appellant further summarizes by reiterating:
And what the claim requires, is that a first set of geosciences
information is sent from the first computer system to the second
computer system, then there’s manually entered user input at
the second computer system, which is then transmitted to the
first computer system, and that’s identified as Step 1, or it says
send manually entered user input. And importantly that
generates a response from first computer system back to second
computer system with a revised set of geosciences information.
Id. at 7:4–14.
As an aid to understanding these information source and flow issues,
Appellant provided Demonstratives addressed during the Oral Hearing. We
determine that these representations accurately reflect the record, i.e., they
reflect the claimed subject matter and the teachings of the cited prior art,
Musat, as argued by Appellant in the Briefs, without the introduction of new
matter or untimely arguments. We reproduce the Demonstratives below for
ease of reference:
Appeal 2019-005623
Application 14/832,724

7

Demonstrative 2 graphically illustrates two related interactions
between first and second computer systems, as claimed.
Appeal 2019-005623
Application 14/832,724

8

Demonstrative 4 graphically illustrates the teachings of Musat,
particularly with respect to Musat’s multicast modification message.
The Examiner finds Musat teaches:
“communicating, over a data network, with a plurality of
computer systems that includes a first computer system and a
second computer system, wherein the first computer system is
Appeal 2019-005623
Application 14/832,724

9
located remotely from the second computer system;” (claims 1,
29 and 41 wherein “plurality of interconnected clients” reads on
“data network”, wherein the first client uses a first computer
system, whereas the second client uses the second computer
system and so on, see claims 13 and 21. See fig 1 and col. 4
lines 8-24 “Remote Method Invocation (RMI)”. Furthermore,
col. 3 lines 57-61 “remotely control”. Furthermore, Bevc
teaches “client system 24 can be located far away” col. 3 lines
60–67.).
Final Act. 21–22 (emphasis added). Thus, from the above, the Examiner
reads the claimed “first computer system” on Musat’s Client 1, and reads the
claimed “second computer system” on Musat’s Client 2.
The Examiner specifically finds (see generally Final Act. 23–24) that
Musat teaches:
(a) “receiving a manually entered user input from the
second computer system,” i.e., we conclude the Examiner’s
interpretation is that manual user input is received from client 2
(Final Act. 23 (citing Musat 7:598:4));
(b) “providing the manually entered user input to the first
computer system,” i.e., we conclude the Examiner’s
interpretation is that the manually entered user input from the
second client is provided to client 1 (Id. (citing Musat Fig. 2,
7:12–22)); and
(c) “in response to providing the manually entered user
input to the first computer system, receiving a revised set of
geosciences information from the first computer system, i.e.,
we conclude the Examiner’s interpretation is that, in response
to manual user input received from client 2, client 1 sends a
revised set of information to client 2. Id. (citing Musat 6:55–
7:11, 7:13–22).
We disagree with this reasoning by the Examiner because, as pointed
out by Appellant:
Appeal 2019-005623
Application 14/832,724

10
In Musat, when a client changes a page displayed by the
viewer, the client alters its data display to reflect the updated
page “and sends updated page information directly to all other
clients.” 7:17–18. “All other clients then automatically update
their data display to reflect the current 2D page chosen by the
first client 24.” 7:18–21. The data transferred in Musat is not an
image of processed graphical information (altered, updated or
otherwise). See 8: 14–19. This is because in Musat, the
objective is to provide direct communications that reduce the
load on the links between clients 24 and the server 22. See
8:19–21. The clients receive minimal meta data such as a cursor
coordinate and each update their own display. See 8:14–19.
Importantly, there is no response to the multicast modification
command in Musat. As each client updates its own display,
there is no need to respond to pick set, cursor coordinate, etc.
See 7:52–55, 8:14–19.
Reply Br. 6–7 (emphasis added).
Thus, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because we find no
teaching or suggestion in Musat of the claimed sequenced interchange of
information between and among the first computer (client 1) and the second
computer (client 2), as determined by the Examiner, i.e., we find there is no
teaching or suggestion of “receiving a manually entered user input from the
second computer system;” “providing the manually entered user input to the
first computer system;” and “ in response to providing the manually entered
user input to the first computer system, receiving a revised set of geosciences
information from the first computer system,” as recited in independent
claim 1 (emphasis added).
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
persuaded of at least one error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior
art to disclose the disputed limitations of claim 1, such that we find error in
the Examiner’s resulting finding of anticipation.
Appeal 2019-005623
Application 14/832,724

11
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of independent claim 1,4 and claims 3–5, 8–11, 13, 15–20, 23–28, and 30–32
which depend from claim 1.5
2. § 103(a) Rejections R2 and R3 of Claims 6, 7, 14, 21, 22, and 29
In light of our reversal of the rejections of independent claims 1, 9, 18,
and 24, supra, we also reverse obviousness Rejections R2 and R3 under
§ 103(a) of claims 6, 7, 14, 21, 22, and 29, which variously and ultimately
depend from claims 1, 9, 18, and 24. On this record, the Examiner has not
shown how the additionally cited Bacus and Karr references overcome the
aforementioned deficiencies with Musat/Bevc, as discussed above regarding
the anticipation Rejection R1 of claim 1.
CONCLUSIONS
We do not affirm the Examiner’s rejections. More specifically:
(1) The Examiner erred with respect to anticipation Rejection R1 of
claims 1, 3–5, 8–11, 13, 15–20, 23–28, 30–32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Musat/Bevc, and we do not sustain the rejection.
(2) The Examiner erred with respect to obviousness Rejections R2
and R3 of claims 6, 7, 14, 21, 22, 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited
prior art combinations of record, and we do not sustain the rejections.

4 We note independent claims 9, 18, and 24 recite the contested limitations
in commensurate form to claim 1.
5 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced
by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a
single dispositive issue”).
Appeal 2019-005623
Application 14/832,724

12
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/References Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 8–13,
15–20, 23–
28, 30–32
102(b) Musat/Bevc 1, 3–5, 8–11,
13, 15–20, 23–
28, 30–32
6–7, 21–22 103(a) Musat/Bevc,
Bacus
6, 7, 21, 22
14, 29 103(a) Musat/Bevc, Karr 14, 29
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–11, 13–32
REVERSED