Ex Parte Lunde et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 19, 2016

11825170 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111825,170 0710512007 Nils Lunde 95738 7590 04/21/2016 Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc, P.O. Box 42805 Houston, TX 77242-2805 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-07-0lUS 5546 EXAMINER BREIER, KRYSTINE E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/21/2016 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): docketing@pgs.com sophie.bolt@pgs.com ana.matute@pgs.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NILS LUNDE, ANDRE STENZEL, OYVIND HILLESUND, and STIAN HEGNA Appeal2014-001599 Application 11/825, 170 Technology Center 3600 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Nils Lunde et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal2014-001599 Application 11/825, 170 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A seismic streamer, comprising: a jacket; a plurality of strength members extending along an interior of the jacket and laterally displaced from a center thereof; and at least one seismic sensor disposed in a sensor holder inside the jacket, the at least one sensor holder having a longitudinal opening in a center thereof configured to receive a seismic sensor, the longitudinal opening substantially coaxial with a longitudinal axis of the streamer, the at least one sensor holder having openings displaced from the center thereof for passage of the strength members, the seismic sensor disposed at a longitudinal center of the center opening, the seismic sensor disposed along the longitudinal axis of the sensor holder, the at least one seismic sensor configured to have substantially longitudinally symmetric response, wherein the at least one seismic sensor is substantially insensitive to longitudinally traveling pressure waves along the seismic streamer. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Joh (US 6,473,365 B2, iss. Oct. 29, 2002), Hoogeveen (US 2006/0126432 Al, pub. June 15, 2006), and Robertsson (US 7,715,988 B2, iss. May 11, 2010). II. Claims 10 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Joh, Hoogeveen, Robertsson, and Lunde (US 6,477,111 Bl, iss. Nov. 5, 2002). III. Claims 11 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Joh, Hoogeveen, Robertsson, and Luscombe (US 5,943,293, iss. Aug. 24, 1999). 2 Appeal2014-001599 Application 11/825, 170 DISCUSSION Rejection I - Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-16, and 18-20 In contesting this rejection, Appellants present arguments directed to claim 1 and do not separately argue dependent clahns 2-5, 7-9, 12-16, and 18-20. Appeal Br. 5-10. Thus, we decide the appeal of this rejection on the basis of claim 1, and claims 2-5, 7-9, 12-16, and 18-20 stand or fall with claim 1. The Examiner found that Joh discloses a seismic streamer comprising a seismic sensor, substantially as claimed, except that Joh doesn't disclose, inter alia, that "the at least one sensor [is] configured to have substantially longitudinally symmetric response, [and] wherein the at least one seismic sensor is substantially insensitive to longitudinally traveling pressure waves along the seismic streamer." Final Act. 4. The Examiner found that "Robertsson teaches a multicomponent sensor comprising three orthogonally oriented accelerometers in addition to a pressure sensor" and that "[e]ach of the accelerometers measures one component of displacement, in-line, cross- line, and vertical (Col 2, lines 24--50)." Id. The Examiner explained that "[t]he accelerometers which measure cross-line and vertical displacement are configured to have substantially longitudinally symmetric response, and are substantially insensitive to longitudinally traveling pressure waves along the seismic streamer since they are designed to only measure movements in the vertical or crossline directions (the longitudinal direction being the in- line direction)." Id. at 4--5. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to modify Joh's system with the multicomponent sensors of Robertsson "since such a modification would have made it easier to remove ghost noise or noise from multiple reflections." Id. at 5. 3 Appeal2014-001599 Application 11/825, 170 Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection is improper because Joh addresses a different problem than that of Appellants' claimed invention. Appeal Br. 6-10. 1 In particular, Appellants assert that "[ v ]ibratory motion of the streamer caused by water turbulence is similar to strumming in that its direction is substantially transverse to the longitudinal motion of the streamer," and that "Joh addresses these issues by the use of the disclosed special hydrophone mount to decouple the transverse streamer motion from the hydrophones." Id. at 8. According to Appellants, in contrast, the claimed invention addresses noise that "is a result of stretching and shrinking of the streamer along its longitudinal direction ... [which] is referred to a[ s] bulge waves or [a] similar term and is manifested by pressure variations in the material filling the streamer." Id. at 9. Appellants' argument is not persuasive because it is not responsive to the rejection as presented. The Examiner con-ectly explains that Joh was not relied upon for teaching that the seismic sensor has substantially longitudinally symmetric response and is substantially insensitive to longitudinally traveling pressure waves along the seismic streamer because Joh is silent as to the type of sensor used in the streamer. Ans. 5. The Examiner relied on Robertsson to address this feature, finding that Robertsson teaches multicomponent sensors that have a substantially longitudinally symmetric response and are substantially insensitive to 1 The Examiner also determined that it would have been obvious to modify the streamer of Joh to be covered by a jacket, as disclosed in Hoogeveen. Final Act. 4. Appellants did not contest the Examiner's findings as to Hoogeveen or the articulated reason to combine the teachings of Joh and Hoogeveen in the manner claimed. 4 Appeal2014-001599 Application 11/825, 170 longitudinally travelling pressure waves along a seismic streamer because they measure only crossline or vertical responses. Final Act 5; see Ans. 5. The Examiner further explains that sensors of the type disclosed by Robertsson are well known in the art of seismic streamers and often used because they provide data that is easier to process for removing ghost noise artifacts. Ans. 5 .. .Appellants' argument does not specifically address the Examiner's findings with respect to Robertsson or the reasoning that modifying Job's seismic streamer to use Robertsson's sensors would provide data that is easier to deghost <-Â· In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that there is no basis to combine the teachings of Robertsson and Joh. Reply Br. 3--4. In particular, Appellants assert that Robertsson discloses particle motion sensors that are essentially insensitive to any kind of pressure variation and "[t]here would be no basis to design a sensor and sensor mount to make a sensor unresponsive to the longitudinally traveling pressure waves ... if the sensors themselves are already insensitive to such waves." Id. at 3. According to Appellants, "[t]he deghosting made possible by combining pressure sensitive sensors and motion sensitive sensors is irrelevant to the Appellant[ s '] claims ... [because] the Appellant[s'] invention deals with a specific type of noise and this type of noise is clearly stated in the claims." Id. at 3--4. Appellants' argument does not persuade us of error in the Examiner's reasoning. vVe must look to "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Given that the longitudinally insensitive sensors of Robertsson would perfonn the same function in combination with Joh's seismic streamer, one of ordinarv skill in the seismic . J 5 Appeal2014-001599 Application 11/825, 170 streamer art would be able to readily and predictably modify Joh's seismic strearner according to the teachings of Robertsson as proposed by the Examiner. \Ve find no evidence in the record before us that combining the teachings of Joh and Robertsscm would be beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art See id. ("if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would irnprove similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill''). For the above reasons, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's determination that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 12-16, and 18-20, which fall with claim 1, as unpatentable over Joh, Hoogeveen, and Robertsson. Rejections II and II - Claims 10. 11. 21. and 22 In contesting these rejections, Appellants rely on the arguments made for the patentability of claim 1. Appeal Br. 10-11. As discussed above, Appellants' arguments fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 10, 11, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-22 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 6 Appeal2014-001599 Application 11/825, 170 Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7