Ex Parte Pabon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2017

11836587 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2017)

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.
11/836,587 08/09/2007 Jahir Pabon 14.0359-US-NP 3474
28116 7590
WestemGeco L.L.C.
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
BREIER, KRYSTINE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/10/2017 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):
U S Docketing @ sib. com
jalverson@slb.com
SMarckesoni@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAHIR PABON and OEYVIND TEIGEN
Appeal 2014-006522
Application 11/836,5871
Technology Center 3600
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
decision rejecting claims 1—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appellants identify WestemGeco, L.L.C. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2014-006522
Application 11/836,587
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A method comprising:
obtaining a particle motion measurement and a pressure
gradient measurement acquired by seismic sensors while in
tow; and
processing the particle motion measurement and the
pressure gradient measurement in a machine to use a first one
of the measurements to remove vibration noise from other one
of the measurements, the processing including scaling the first
one of the measurements relative to the other one of the
measurements to produce a scaled measurement and subtracting
the scaled measurement from the other one of the
measurements to remove the vibration noise from the one of the
measurements.
CITED REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Savit US 4,648,082
Barr US 6,512,980 B1
Tenghamn et al. US 2004/0042341 A1
(hereinafter “Tenghamn”)
Rouquette US 7,616,522 B2
Goujon et al. WO 2004/046759 Al
(hereinafter “Goujon”)
Mar. 3, 1987
Jan. 28, 2003
Mar. 4, 2004
Nov. 10, 2009
June 3, 2004
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3—9, 11—16, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Tenghamn, Goujon, and Barr.
II. Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tenghamn, Goujon, Barr, and Savit.
2
Appeal 2014-006522
Application 11/836,587
III. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tenghamn, Goujon, Barr, and Rouquette.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely upon and adopt the Examiner’s findings stated in the Final
Office Action at pages 2—9, and the Answer at pages 3—5. Additional
findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—3, 5—11, and 13—21, 23, and 24
According to the Appellants, the references relied upon in the
rejection of claim 1 fail to show the claimed use of a “pressure gradient
measurement” and the claimed “scaling” of one of a “particle motion
measurement” and a “pressure gradient measurement,” relative to the other,
in order to “remove the vibration noise from the one of the measurements”
— specifically, the Appellants contend that these features are absent from
Barr. Appeal Br. 10-16.
The Examiner’s Answer, however, states that the Appellants’
arguments are not commensurate with the rejection, because Barr is notched
for the teachings addressed by the Appellants. Answer 4—5. Rather,
according to the Final Office Action: Tenghamn, not Barr, teaches the use
of a “particle motion measurement” and a “pressure gradient measurement,”
in addition to “scaling” and combining such measurements; Goujon teaches
that the claimed “subtracting” is a form of combining measurements (shown
in Tenghamn), as well as the use of the claimed “machine” fordoing so; and
Barr is cited merely for the teaching that the features of the other references
3
Appeal 2014-006522
Application 11/836,587
may be used “to remove the vibration noise from the one of the
measurements,” as claim 1 recites. Final Action 3—5; Answer 4—5.
In the Reply Brief, the Appellants argue that Tenghamn addresses
compensating for the effects of so-called “ghost” signals, rather than
removing “noise,” whereas Barr discusses additional processing (not shown
in Tenghamn) to attenuate vibration noise. Reply Br. 1^1. Further, the
Appellants argue that Barr’s technique for attenuating vibration noise does
not disclose or render obvious the claimed subject matter. Id. at 4.
The Appellants ’ arguments on this issue are unpersuasive. The
Examiner’s rejection relies upon Barr only for the teaching that Tenghamn’s
approach of “scaling” and combining signals (i.e., the claimed “subtracting”)
can be used “to remove the vibration noise,” as set forth in claim 1.
Answer 4—5; see also Final Action 3-4. That there may be additional
features shown in Barr is of no moment, because the Appellants do not argue
that any of the references lack the features ascribed to them in the rejection.
The Appellants rely on the same arguments regarding the other
independent claims — claims 9 and 19. See Appeal Br. 12, 14, 16. The
Appellants do not present any distinct argument, regarding dependent
claims 2, 3, 5—8, 10, 11, 13—18, 20, 21, 23, and 24. See id. at 17.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1—3, 5—11, and 13—21, 23, and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained.
Claims 4, 12, and 22
Claims 4, 12, and 22 are argued as a group. Id. at 16—17. Claim 4 is
selected for analysis herein. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 4 depends from claim 3, which in turn depends from claim 1.
To the recitations of claim 1, claim 3 adds that “the first and second
4
Appeal 2014-006522
Application 11/836,587
measurements are taken along a direction generally traverse to a streamer
and the vibration noise comprises vibration noise along a direction generally
traverse to the streamer.” Claim 4 adds the further limitation that “the
direction along which the first and second measurements are taken
comprises a crossline direction.” (Emphasis added).
The Final Office Action relies upon Tenghamn for teaching
measurements taken along a “crossline direction.” Final Action 7—8 (citing
Tenghamn | 80).
The Appellants contend that Barr discloses a noise reference sensor
that responds to vertical vibrations and that it is unclear how a crossline
measurement may be used to compensate for a vertical vibration in view of
Barr’s and Tenghamn’s disclosures. Appeal Br. 17 (citing Barr, col. 5,11.
65-67, col. 6,11. 10-12).
In response, the Examiner says that Barr is cited merely to teach that
the scaling and combining of different sensor measurements would result in
the removal of vibration noise and that Appellants’ arguments with respect
to Barr are not commensurate in scope with the rejection. Answer 5.
As the Answer explains, the Appellants’ arguments do not address the
combination of teachings identified in the rejection (see id.) and, therefore,
are not persuasive of error in the rejection of claim 4. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 4, 12, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
5
Appeal 2014-006522
Application 11/836,587
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6