Ex Parte Tenghamn

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2018

13691946 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/691,946 12/03/2012 Stig Rune Lennart TENGHAMN
146140 7590 03/21/2018
Dickinson Wright, PLLC
Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc.
1825 Eye Street N.W.
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
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-12-04US 9858
EXAMINER
LOBO,IANJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2018 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):
dwpatents@dickinsonwright.com
docketing@pgs.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STIG RUNE LENNART TENGHAMN
Appeal2017-001072
Application 13/691,946
Technology Center 3600
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 11-18, 20-27, and 29-31. We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 "The real party in interest is PGS Geophysical AS." (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal2017-001072
Application 13/691,946
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant's invention relates to "geophysical surveying in marine
environments where the sensors used for the geophysical surveying (e.g.,
geophones, hydrophones, accelerometers, electrodes, magnetometers) are
stationary and are placed on or near the sea floor." (Spec. ,-i 20.)
Illustrative Claim
11. A system comprising:
a sensor cable comprising:
an outer jacket, the outer jacket defining an interior
volume; and
a first electrical conductor disposed within the interior
volume, the first electrical conductor having an
axial length along a length of the sensor cable;
a first sensor module comprising:
a coupling member configured to be releasably coupled
to the outer jacket of the sensor cable;
a sensor coupled to the coupling member; and
a control circuit communicatively coupled to the sensor,
the control circuit configured to be electrically
isolated from the first electrical conductor, and the
control circuit configured to be communicatively
coupled to the first electrical conductor when the
coupling member is coupled to the outer jacket;
a second sensor module placed at a first location along the axial
length of the first electrical conductor and a third sensor
module placed at a second location along the axial length
of the first electrical conductor, the second location
spaced apart from the first location; and
the first sensor module configured to be placed at any location
along the axial length of the first electrical conductor
between the second and third sensor modules.
2
Appeal2017-001072
Application 13/691,946
Rejections2
I. The Examiner rejects claims 11-18 and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rau. 3 (Final Action 5.)
II. The Examiner rejects claims 23-27 and 29-31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Rau. (Final Action 3.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 11 and 23 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest
of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 12-18, 20-22, 24-27, and 29-31)
depending therefrom. (See Appeal Br. 20, 25-26, Claims App.)
Independent claim 11 is drawn to a "system" comprising a "sensor
module" and independent claim 23 is drawn to a "sensor module." (Appeal
Br., Claims App.) Independent claims 11 and 23 require the sensor module
to include a component (i.e., a "coupling member" or a "base portion") that
is configured to be "releasably coupled to" a cable. (Id.) Independent
claims 11 and 23 also require the sensor module to comprise a "control
circuit" that is configured to be "communicatively coupled to" an electrical
conductor within the cable. (Id.)
Rejection I
As indicated above, independent claim 11 requires the sensor module
to comprise a cable-coupling component and cable-communicative circuitry.
(See Appeal Br. 20, Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Rau teaches a
system comprising such a sensor module. (See Final Action. 5.)
2 The Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 19 and 28 (see Final
Action 3, 5) are withdrawn (see Answer 2).
3 US 6,292,436 Bl, issued September 18, 2001.
3
Appeal2017-001072
Application 13/691,946
Rau discloses an "underwater sensor arrangement" comprising a
"cable 20" having a "wire bundle 22" (i.e., electrical conductor) extending
axially therewithin. (Rau, col. 7, 11. 26-29.) Rau's underwater sensor
arrangement also includes an "external device 30" (i.e., a sensor module)
having "a clamping portion 31 that can be releasably clamped around the
cable 20." (Id. at col. 7, 11. 1-6.) "Electric power and/or data signals are
transmitted between the interior of the cable 20 and the external device 30"
by "internal coils 170 disposed inside the cable" and "external coils 55
disposed in the external device 30." (Id. at col. 7, 11. 41--43.) As shown in
Rau's Figure 3, reproduced below, "each of the internal coils 170 in the
cable 20 is supported by a coil support device 160." (Rau, col. 7, 48-59.)
flB. 3
Independent claim 11 further requires the sensor module to be
"configured to be placed at any location along the axial length of the
[cable's] electrical conductor." (Appeal Br. 20, Claims App.) The
Examiner finds that Rau teaches such a sensor-module configuration. (See
4
Appeal2017-001072
Application 13/691,946
Final Action 5-6.) In this regard, the Examiner acknowledges that Rau's
external devices 30 are configured to be placed only at locations where the
coil support devices 160 are installed on the cable 20. (See Answer 4.) But
the Examiner's position, as we understand it, is that if Rau's coil support
devices 160 can be placed at "any location" along the cable, then so can
Rau's external devices 30. (See Final Action 6.) And, according to the
Examiner, "there is nothing in Rau" that states the coil support devices 160
"cannot be located at any location." (Answer 4.)
The Appellant argues that Rau's external device 30 is not configured
as required by independent claim 11. (See Appeal Br. 10-13.) According to
the Appellant, Rau's coil support devices 160 cannot be moved from one
location to another in the assembled cable 20. (See Reply Br. 3.) Thus,
adopting the Examiner's line of thinking, the Appellant contends that if
Rau's coil support devices 160 cannot be placed at "any location" along the
cable, then neither can Rau's external devices 30. (See id. at 3--4.)
We are persuaded by the Appellant's position because it is supported
by Rau's disclosure. Rau discloses that, during the assembly of a cable
segment employing a coil support device 160, stress members 23 (i.e., tensile-
load resisting structures) are "passed through a corresponding hole in the
support device," "[t]he support device is then moved along the stress member
to a desired location," and the support device is "bonded to the stress
member." (Rau, col. 24, 11. 31-35.) The wire bundle 22 is then "passed
through" the central bore of the coil support device 160, and the leads of the
internal coils 170 (previously sealed in pockets of the coil support device 160)
"are spliced to" the appropriate wires in the wire bundle 22. (Id. at col. 24,
11. 41--45.) We agree, therefore, with the Appellant that "placement of the
5
Appeal2017-001072
Application 13/691,946
internal coil and support device is an involved process and that once the
internal coil and support device is placed along the cable, those components
are not moved or movable." (Reply Br. 3.)
Accordingly, the Examiner does not adequately establish that Rau
shows or suggests a sensor module configured to be placed at any location
along the axial length an electrical conductor within a cable. Thus, we do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 11, and
claims 12-18 and 20-22 depending therefrom,4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection II
As indicated above, independent claim 23 recites a sensor module
comprising a cable-coupling component. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Independent claim 23 further requires this cable-coupling component to
"defin[ e] an interior volume" and requires an "electrical conductor" to be
"disposed within this interior volume." (Id.) The Examiner finds that Rau's
external device 30 comprises a cable-coupling component defining an
interior volume and an electrical conductor disposed therein. (See Final
Action 2.)
As discussed above, Rau's external device 30 has a clamping
portion 31 that "can be releasably clamped around the cable 20," and
"external coils 55 disposed in the external device 30." (Rau, col. 7, 11. 1-6,
41--43.) In Rau's Figures 4 and 5, reproduced below, "[t]he external coils 55
are shown as both located in the lower section 33 of the clamping portion 31."
(Id. at col. 10, 11. 19-20.)
4 The Examiner further findings and determinations with respect to these
dependent claims (see Final Action 6) do not compensate for the above-
discussed shortcoming in the rejection of independent claim 11.
6
Appeal2017-001072
Application 13/691,946
FlG,5
Independent claim 23 further requires the electric conductor in the
sensor module to "extend[] along a straight central axis" which "is parallel
to" an electric conductor within the cable. (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The
Examiner finds that Rau's external coil 55 extends along such an axis.
(Answer 4.)
The Appellant argues that Rau does not disclose a sensor module
having the electrical conductor required by independent claim 23. (See
Appeal Br. 14-17.) According to the Appellant, in Rau's Figure 4, "[t]he
external coils 55 are illustrated as a box and accordingly no details as to the
orientation of the external coils 55 are disclosed." (Reply Br. 2.) The
Appellant contends "it is not necessarily present in Rau that the turns of the
coil extend along the straight central axis." (Id. at 3.)
7
Appeal2017-001072
Application 13/691,946
We are unpersuaded by the Appellant's position because it is not
supported by Rau' s disclosure. Rau does not describe element 55 as a box,
but rather repeatedly refers to this element as "external coils 55." (See e.g.,
Rau, col. 7, 11. 39-57, col. 8, 11. 35-64, col. 9, 11. 41-67, col. 10, 11. 3-26.)
As such, we consider the illustrated shape of element 55 as a "ferromagnetic
core wound with a winding and encapsulated in a resilient resin." (Id. at
col. 10, 11. 16-18.) And this element 55 is shown, in Rau's Figure 4,
extending along a straight central axis in a direction that is parallel to the
wire bundle 22 within Rau's cable 20. 5
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 23,
and claims 24-27 and 29-31 depending therefrom,6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 11-18 and 20-22.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 23-27 and 29-31.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5 As noted by the Appellant (see Reply Br. 3), Rau discloses that "the
external coils 55 may have any shape which enables them to be inductively
coupled to internal coils 170." (Rau, col. 10, 11. 14-15.) We read this as an
option to alter, not disregard, the illustrated geometry and orientation of the
external coils 55.
6 The Appellant does not argue these dependent claims separately (see
Appeal Br. 13-19) and so they fall with independent claim 23.
8