Ex Parte Robertsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

12817308 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016)

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