Ex Parte Bekara

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

12806700 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/806,700 08/19/2010
137491 7590 06/02/2016
OLYMPIC PA TENT WORKS PLLC
P.O. BOX 4277
SEATTLE, WA 98104
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Malza Bekara
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
PGS-10-07US 3906
EXAMINER
HULKA, JAMES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2016 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):
joanne@olympicpatentworks.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAIZA BEKARA
Appeal2014-002211
Application 12/806,700
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, JAMES P. CALVE, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-3 and 8-10. 1 Appeal Br. 2. Claims 13-21 were cancelled. Id. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 With the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
(see Ans. 2), the appeal concerns the sole, remaining rejection of claims 1-3
and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as discussed below. See Final Act. 5
(objecting to claims 4--7 and 11-14 based on their dependence from rejected
base claims and indicating their allowability if rewritten in independent form
and amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101).
Appeal2014-002211
Application 12/806,700
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 8 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for imaging the earth's subsurface, comprising
using one or more programmable computers programmed to
perform at least the following:
extracting spatial data sequences in a frequency-space
domain at selected frequencies in selected data windows in
seismic data;
constructing iteratively a signal model and residuals for
each extracted spatial data sequence;
assessing each data sample in each extracted spatial data
sequence to determine if the data sample is noisy;
replacing each noisy data sample in each extracted spatial
data sequence by a corresponding signal model value to
generate noise attenuated seismic data; and
imaging the earth's subsurface using the noise-attenuated
seismic data.
REJECTION2
Claims 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zerouk (US 2006/0050612 Al; pub. Mar. 9, 2006) in
view of Laster (US 4,884,248, iss. Nov. 28, 1989).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Zerouk teaches a method and computer
program, as recited in independent claims 1 and 8, that extracts spatial data
sequences in a frequency-space domain at selected frequencies in selected
windows in seismic data (para. 15) to image the earth's subsurface, but uses
a filter instead of replacing each noise data sample in each extracted spatial
data sequence with a signal model value, as claimed. Final Act. 3.
2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. See Ans. 2.
2
Appeal2014-002211
Application 12/806,700
The Examiner found that Laster teaches replacing noisy data samples
in extracted spatial data sequences with a signal model value as claimed. Id.
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to modify Zerouk
"to include replacing noisy data samples to complete gaps of seismic data or
estimate data where otherwise signals that were too noisy were amplified as
compared to desired signal data." Id. The Examiner found that a skilled
artisan would have modified Zerouk to use a data point replacement method
of Laster in a loop sequence to achieve noise-reduced or a noise-free seismic
data sequence, instead of using an updated filter, as in Zerouk. Ans. 4.
Appellant argues that the proposed modification would remove the
salient aspect of Zerouk's invention, which is the frequency-dependent
prediction filter that is determined iteratively. Reply Br. 8-9. Appellant
also argues that the proposed modification would eliminate the operation of
applying a filter to the frequency and replace it with the data replacement
method of Laster, thus changing Zerouk's principle of operation. Id. at 6, 9.
The Examiner has not provided a sufficient basis to establish that it
would have been obvious to combine Zerouk and Laster. Zerouk derives a
predictive filter iteratively and uses that filter to attenuate noisy seismic data.
Laster transforms seismic sections into a data localizing space in the x-t
domain to produce first estimates of the seismic data to be restored and then
substitutes those first estimates for noisy traces in the original seismic
section to restore traces. Laster, Abstract; Final Act. 3 (citing id.). The
Examiner has not explained adequately why a skilled artisan would have
been motivated to derive a prediction filter with an iterative process of
Zerouk but then replace the noisy seismic data with Laster's signal model
value, rather thanfilter (i.e., attenuate) the noisy data, as taught by Zerouk.
3
Appeal2014-002211
Application 12/806,700
As a result, it is unclear why a skilled artisan would have performed
the claimed steps to derive a prediction filter that Zerouk uses to attenuate
swell noise but then replace noisy data samples using a signal model value
as taught by Laster. Thus, the proposed combination is not supported by a
rational underpinning.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 and 8-10.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-3 and 8-10.
REVERSED
4