Ex Parte Robertsson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 201612817308 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016) 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. 12/817,308 06/17/2010 Johan O. A. ROBERTSSON 57.0939-US-NP 5265 28116 7590 12/21/2016 WestemGeco L.L.C. 10001 Richmond Avenue IP Administration Center of Excellence Houston, TX 77042 EXAMINER LOBO, IAN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2016 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): 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 JOHAN O. A. ROBERTSSON and ROBIN FLETCHER Appeal 2015-000567 Application 12/817,308 Technology Center 3600 Before JAMES A. WORTH, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 13, 14, 17, 25, and 26. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as “WestemGeco, L.L.C.” (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal 2015-000567 Application 12/817,308 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants’ invention “relates to regulating coherent boundary reflections during generation of a modeled wavefield.” (Spec. 11.) Illustrative Claim2 1. A method comprising: receiving data indicative of a wavefield in a processor- based system; and processing the data using at least one processor to generate a modeled wavefield, the processing including varying boundary conditions of the modeled wavefield with respect to time to regulate coherent boundary reflections in the modeled wavefield, the coherent boundary reflections being attributable to reflections of the modeled wavefield from outer boundaries of a modeled space used to generate the modeled wavefield. Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1—3, 13, 14, 17, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lazaratos3 in view of Clapp.4 ANALYSIS Claims 1,14, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2, 3, 13, 25, and 26) depending therefrom. (Claims App.) Independent claims 1, 14, and 17 each recites limitations regarding the processing of data that include “varying boundary conditions of [a] modeled wavefield with respect to time.” (Id.) 2 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix (“Claims App.”) set forth on pages 15—16 of the Appeal Brief. 3 US 5,999,489 issued December 7, 1999. 4 Robert G. Clapp, Reverse time migration with random boundaries, SEG Houston 2009 International Exposition and Annual Meeting 2809. 2 Appeal 2015-000567 Application 12/817,308 The Examiner finds that Clapp discloses an algorithm (Algorithm 3) that shows boundary conditions being varied with respect to time. (See Answer 3.) Clapp’s Algorithm 3 reads as follows: Algorithm 3 Time reverse RTM with random boundaries for all shots do Create random boundary around computational domain Advance source wave!! eld to t maxtime) fo r / ----- max time to t ----- 0 do Advance source waveiield dt Advance receiver waveiield dt Correlate source and receiver waveiield end for end for (Clapp, 2811.) The Examiner explains that “in Algorithm 3, there is a correlation between the boundary conditions that are varied and time (t = 0 to t = maxtime).” (Answer 2.) According to the Examiner, “[t]his directly reads upon the instantly claimed limitation of varying boundary conditions of a modeled wavefield with respect to time.” (Id.) We are persuaded by the Appellants’ position that the Examiner does not sufficiently show that Clapp teaches varying boundary conditions of a modeled wavefield with respect to time. (See Appeal Br. 11—12.) Clapp’s Algorithm 3 does include a “loop” wherein wavefield data is evaluated with respect to time and specifically as a time variable “t” changes from maxtime to zero. However, Clapp’s creation of a “random boundary” occurs outside this loop and so the boundary conditions “are not recalculated as the time t changes from maxtime to zero.” (Reply Br. 2.) As such, the Examiner does not adequately explain how or why the random boundary created in Clapp’s Algorithm 3 varies with respect to time. 3 Appeal 2015-000567 Application 12/817,308 Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 14, and 17. The Examiner’s further findings and determinations regarding the dependent claims (see Final Action 3) do not compensate for the above-discussed shortcoming in the rejection of the independent claims. Thus, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 13, 25, and 26. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 13, 14, 17, 25, and 26. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation