Ex Parte Pabon et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 8, 201711836587 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation