CGG SERVICES SA

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 28, 2020

14432543 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 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.
14/432,543 03/31/2015 Peter Mesdag 0336-379-2/100608 1068
11171 7590 07/28/2020
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
P.O. Box 7999
Fredericksburg, VA 22404
EXAMINER
MAPAR, BIJAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2020 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 PETER MESDAG, HARRY DEBEYE, and
RAPHAEL BORNARD
Appeal 2019-003064
Application 14/432,543
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–14, and 16–22, which are all the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CGG SERVICES
SA. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003064
Application 14/432,543

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosure relates to “methods and devices for seismic
data modeling and the interpretation and estimating of earth parameters from
seismic data and, more particularly, to methods and devices for
incorporating and accounting for the effects of anisotropy in seismic
applications associated with HTI media.” Spec ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for anisotropic processing of earth
elastic parameter data associated with a horizontal transverse
isotropy (HTI) anisotropic medium, the method comprising:
acquiring seismic data for an area of interest that includes
a layer of an HTI anisotropic medium having azimuthal
anisotropic characteristics, using a source and receivers so that
each seismic amplitude versus time record in the seismic data
corresponds to a source-receiver pair;
obtaining earth elastic parameter data associated with the
area of interest;
obtaining earth anisotropy parameter data in the area of
interest, for each source-receiver pair depending on an azimuth
angle, ω-φ, of the source-receiver pair and of an HTI symmetry
axis;
developing transform functions that convert the earth
elastic parameter data into anisotropic elastic parameter data,
based on the earth anisotropy parameter data, using a three-term
expansion of a plane reflection coefficient function relative to
an incident angle-θ, the expansion preserving a dependency of
the azimuth ω-φ;
applying said transform functions to the earth elastic
parameter data to obtain said anisotropic elastic parameter data;
applying the anisotropic elastic parameter data in at least
one seismic processing method to generate an image of the area
of interest that agrees with the seismic data; and
Appeal 2019-003064
Application 14/432,543

3
assessing hydrocarbon deposits in the area of interest
using the image.
Appeal Br. 23–24 (Claims App.).
References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Van Riel US 2005/0090986 A1 Apr. 28, 2005
Koren US 2008/0109168 A1 May 8, 2008
Downton US 2011/0222370 A1 Sept. 15, 2011

Rüger, Variation of P-wave reflectivity with offset and azimuth in
anisotropic media, GEOPHYSlCS, Vol. 63, NO. 3, (MAY-JUNE 1998): pp.
935–947.
Fatti et al., Detection of gas in sandstone reservoirs using AVO
analysis: A 3-D seismic case history using the Geostack technique, 60th
Annual International Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
October 26, 1993, pp. 1362–1376.
Rejections
Claims 1–3, 6–13, and 16–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Van Riel, Downton, Rüger, and Fatti. Final Act. 8–20.
Claims 4, 14, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Van Riel, Downton, Rüger, Fatti, and Koren. Final
Act. 22–23.
Claims 1–3, 6–13, and 16–21 stand rejected on the ground of non-
statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1, 9, 2, 11, 15, 17, 19, and 20 of Van Riel ‘333 (US 6,901,333 B2;
May 31, 2005) in view of Downton, Rüger, Fatti. Final Act. 24–28.
Claims 4, 14, and 22 stand rejected on the ground of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 2,
Appeal 2019-003064
Application 14/432,543

4
11, 15, 17, 19, and 20 of Van Riel ‘333 in view of Downton, Rüger, Fatti,
and Koren. Final Act. 28–30.2
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 6–13, and 16–21
Claim 1, inter alia, recites “obtaining earth anisotropy parameter data
in the area of interest, for each source-receiver pair depending on an azimuth
angle, ω-φ, of the source-receiver pair and of an HTI symmetry axis.” The
Examiner finds that Rüger teaches or suggests the aforementioned
limitation. See Final Act. 11; see also Ans. 26–27. More specifically, the
Examiner finds that equation 5 of Rüger “appears to be the three term
expansion referenced as that used by the instant application in ¶ 42 of the
instant applications specification (though some variables have different
names such as i of the reference corresponding to theta of the instant
application).” Final Act. 11. The Examiner explains that “the section in
¶ 42 of the instant application appears to constitute applicant admitted prior
art that would fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
language, though the features of the Rüger reference alone are sufficient to
fall within the claim language.” Id.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in relying on Rüger as
disclosing “the features related to the azimuth angle defined between the
source-receiver pair and the HTI symmetry axis,” whereas “Rüger does not
anticipate or render obvious coefficients preserving a dependency of the
azimuth angle defined as claimed.” Appeal Br. 18. Specifically, Appellant

2 The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1–4,
6–14, and 16–22. Ans. 25.
Appeal 2019-003064
Application 14/432,543

5
argues that “Rüger’s equation [5] on page 937 refers to a particular situation
of HTI/HTI interface with same orientation of the symmetry axis above and
below the interface (see the paragraph above formula [5] in Rüger).” Appeal
Br. 19; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellant additionally asserts “[t]he
Examiner’s Answer does not prove (and it is neither obvious nor inherent)
that angle φ in Rüger’s equation 5 is defined between the source-receiver
pair and an HTI symmetry axis as in the claims.” Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Claim 1 recites the
disputed angle as “for each source-receiver pair depending on an azimuth
angle, ω-φ, of the source-receiver pair and of an HTI symmetry axis” and
“using a three-term expansion of a plane reflection coefficient function
relative to an incident angle-θ, the expansion preserving a dependency of the
azimuth ω-φ.” We agree with the Examiner that Rüger’s equation 5 teaches
the claimed “azimuth angle” because the elements i and φ are shown in
Figure 1 of Rüger as “‘the incidence phase angle i and azimuthal phase angle
φ (Figure 1).’” See Ans. 27. Although the cited portions of Rüger disclose
the azimuth angle as a function of φ, as stated by the Examiner, Rüger
teaches a three-term function for predicting or modeling isotropic planes or
media. Id. Therefore, as recognized by Appellant that Rüger’s equation 5
may capture “a particular situation of HTI/HTI interface with same
orientation of the symmetry axis above and below the interface” (Appeal Br.
19; Reply Br. 2), we conclude that such a difference is not sufficient to
patentably distinguish the claim from Rüger’s disclosure, as a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the combined
disclosures of Van Riel and Downton to account for the source-receiver pair
and an HTI symmetry axis. Additionally, the Supreme Court made clear
Appeal 2019-003064
Application 14/432,543

6
that when considering obviousness, “the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
We also observe that claim 1 does not provide a sufficiently specific
definition for the term “azimuth angle ω-φ” to support Appellant’s
arguments against the teachings of Rüger and whether Rüger teaches
“coefficients preserving a dependency of the azimuth angle defined as
claimed.” See Appeal Br. 18. Although paragraph 42 of Appellant’s
disclosure identifies ω as “the azimuth of the source-receiver pair in the
seismic acquisition” and φ as “the azimuth of the symmetry axis of the HTI
media perpendicular to the laminations (see Figure 2(b)),” these definitions
do not adequately distinguish the cited art. See also Ans. 28. As further
indicated by the Examiner (id.), similar to Appellant’s Figure 2(b), Rüger’s
Figure 1 provides the azimuth angle i the angles between the incident wave
and vertical and angle φ with respect to the symmetry axis. See Rüger p.
937, Fig. 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1. The Examiner rejects independent claims 11 and 22 on
a similar basis as claim 1, and, therefore, we also sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 11 and 22, as well as dependent claims 2, 3,
6–10, and 16–20 which are not separately argued by Appellant. See Appeal
Br. 17–20.
Appeal 2019-003064
Application 14/432,543

7
Claims 4, 14, 22
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further recites:
the area of interest is imaged using a wide azimuth seismic
acquisition technique to obtain said elastic parameter data and
said anisotropic parameter data.
Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). Claims 14 and 22 recite similar limitation.
The Examiner finds paragraphs 41 and 45 of Koren, in combination
with Van Riel, Downton, Rüger, and Fatti, teach or suggest the above-
mentioned limitation. Appellant contends “[w]hile Koren indeed refers to
wide azimuth seismic acquisition technique, it does not positively disclose it
being used to obtain both elastic parameter data and anisotropic parameter
data (i.e., Koren is not enabling relative to these features).” Appeal Br. 20.
Appellant also challenges the motivation for the proposed combination as
“not reasonable as it merely state the advantage of wide azimuth seismic
acquisition technique in Koren not being rooted in any of the previously
applied references or the problems solved by the claims.” Id.
In response, the Examiner reiterates the teachings of Koren’s
paragraph 41 and explains that the cited portion “discloses wide azimuth
seismic acquisition techniques” and how such method in combination with
the other prior art references would have suggested the limitation of claim 4.
Ans. 29–30. In particular, the Examiner cites to paragraph 60 of Van Riel to
establish the relationship with and motivation for adding Koren to further
provide the wide azimuth seismic data for the elastic and anisotropic
parameters of Van Riel. See Ans. 30. The Examiner also explains that the
stated motivation was based on using Koren’s method for gathering data to
obtain “the advantage of wide azimuth seismic acquisition techniques.” Id.
Appeal 2019-003064
Application 14/432,543

8
We agree with the Examiner’s findings with respect to Van Riel and
Koren and the Examiner’s reasoning for the combination. We also observe
that Appellant’s arguments do not address the specific findings made by the
Examiner and constitute conclusory statements and Attorney’s arguments,
which “cannot take the place of evidence.” In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399,
1405 (CCPA 1974). See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir.
1997) (attorney arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut
a prima facie case).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims
4, 14, and 22.
NON-STATUTORY OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE
DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 6–13, and 16–21 on the ground of
non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1, 9, 2, 11, 15, 17, 19, and 20 of Van Riel ‘333 in view of Downton,
Rüger, Fatti, and further in view of Koren for rejecting claims 4, 14, and 22
and provides a detailed claim mapping. Final Act. 24–29. Appellant
contends these rejections by asserting that “[i]nvoking numerous other
references it is improper in the double patenting context.” Appeal Br. 20.
We are not persuaded. As stated by the Examiner (Ans. 31), the rejection is
based on specific findings and sufficient motivation for combining the
teachings of the cited references. See also MPEP § 804.
As a result, we agree with the Examiner that the non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting rejection of the claims over the claims of
an issued patent in view of the cited references is proper. In view of the
analysis above regarding the combination of the cited references, we
Appeal 2019-003064
Application 14/432,543

9
summarily affirm the Examiner’s non-statutory double patenting rejection of
claims 1–4, 6–14, and 16–22. See Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075
(BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“If an appellant fails to present arguments on a
particular issue––or, more broadly, on a particular rejection––the Board will
not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the
rejection.”).
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6–13,
16–21
103(a) Van Riel,
Downton, Rüger,
Fatti
1–3, 6–13,
16–21

4, 14, 22 103(a) Van Riel,
Downton, Rüger,
Fatti, Koren
4, 14, 22
1–3, 6–13,
16–21
Non-statutory
Double
Patenting
Van Riel ‘333,
Downton, Rüger,
Fatti
1–3, 6–13,
16–21

4, 14, 22 Non-statutory
Double
Patenting
Van Riel ‘333,
Downton, Rüger,
Fatti, Koren
4, 14, 22
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–14,
16–22

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