Ex Parte Tenghamn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2015

12151314 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2015)

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.
12/151,314 05/06/2008 Stig Rune Lennart Tenghamn PGS-08-07US 1189
95738 7590 03/27/2015
Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 42805
Houston, TX 77242-2805
EXAMINER
MURPHY, DANIEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STIG RUNE LENNART TENGHAMN and
CLAES NICOLAI BORRESEN
____________

Appeal 2013-000525
Application 12/151,314
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Stig Rune Lennart Tenghamn and Claes Nicolai Borresen
(Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2013-000525
Application 12/151,314

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method for detection of
hydrocarbon bearing formations below a body of water. Independent claim
1 is illustrative:
1. A method for detection of hydrocarbon bearing formations
below the bottom of a body of water, comprising:

moving a plurality of spatially distributed seismic sensors in a
body of water;

detecting seismic signals at each of the plurality of sensors
down to a frequency proximate zero;

stacking the detected signals from the plurality of the sensors in
both longitudinal and transverse directions with respect to
motion of the seismic sensors in the water; and

analyzing the stacked signals for presence of passive seismic
energy indicative of hydrocarbon bearing formations below the
bottom of the body of water.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected:
(i) claims 1–4 and 7–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morley (US 2008/0008036 A1, published Jan. 10, 2008)
in view of Frehner et al., Interaction of seismic background noise with
oscillating pore fluids causes spectral modifications of passive seismic
measurements at low frequencies, SEG/San Antonio 2007 Annual Meeting
(2007)(hereafter “Frehner”) and Willhoit (US 5,671,136, issued Sept. 23,
1997);
Appeal 2013-000525
Application 12/151,314

3
(ii) claims 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Morley in view of Frehner, Willhoit, and Miklovic (US 5,680,371,
issued Oct. 21, 1997); and
(iii) claims 6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Morley in view of Frehner, Willhoit, and Saenger (US 7,539,578 B2,
issued May 26, 2009).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–4 and 7–10--Obviousness--Morley/Frehner/Willhoit
Appellants argue claims 1–4 as one group, and claims 7–10 as a
second group, presenting arguments directed only to independent claims 1
and 7. Appeal Br. 4–14. We will take claim 1 as representative of claims 1–
4, and claim 7 as representative of claims 7–10. Claims 2–4 stand or fall
with claim 1, and claims 8–10 stand or fall with claim 7.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Morley teaches moving a plurality of
spatially distributed seismic sensors in a body of water, but not the detecting
of seismic signals down to a frequency proximate zero, nor stacking the
detected signals with respect to the motion of the seismic sensors in the
water, nor analyzing the stacked signals for presence of passive seismic
energy indicative of hydrocarbon-bearing formations. Ans. 3. The
Examiner cites to Frehner as teaching detecting seismic signals down to a
frequency proximate zero, and analyzing the signals for presence of passive
seismic signals indicative of hydrocarbon-bearing formations. Id. The
Examiner cites to Willhoit as disclosing the use of a technique for stacking
detected signals from all sensors in both longitudinal and transverse
Appeal 2013-000525
Application 12/151,314

4
directions. Id. at 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to employ the low-frequency detection of seismic energy in the
Morley operation, in order to improve detectability of hydrocarbon-bearing
subsea formations, and to employ a stacking technique as disclosed in
Willhoit to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the detected seismic signals.
Id. at 4–5.
Appellants’ arguments mainly constitute individual attacks on the
references, and fail to consider the manner in which a method in accordance
with the Examiner’s proposed combination would operate. Appellants
criticize Frehner as “not directed to, or even concerned with, how [low
frequency seismic] data is collected and analyzed,” and that “Frehner does
not teach or suggest detecting seismic signals at a plurality of sensors
moving in a body of water,” but teaches taking the measurements at the
surface of the earth. Appeal Br. 6–7. Similarly, at pages 3 and 4 of the
Reply Brief, Appellants argue that “the techniques used to measure seismic
signals ‘at the earth surface’ do not move. In other words, ocean bottom
cables are not dragged along the sea floor and neither are autonomous
receivers.”
These arguments fail to address the rejection set forth by the
Examiner, which relies on Morley for the aspect of detecting seismic signals
at a plurality of sensors moving in a body of water, with the sensors being
adapted, in view of the teaching in Frehner of detecting low frequency
seismic signals, such that the combination meets the first two steps in
method claim 1. As such, the arguments do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s position.
Appeal 2013-000525
Application 12/151,314

5
Appellants argue, with respect to the Examiner’s reliance on Willhoit
as teaching the stacking of detected signals from the plurality of the sensors,
that “Willhoit describes land-based seismic surveying and is not directed to
marine seismic surveying.” Appeal Br. 7. That, in addition to the fact that
the sensors in Willhoit are not in constant motion, leads Appellants to
maintain that “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion [in Willhoit] of stacking
the detected signals . . . ‘with respect to motion of the seismic sensors in the
water.’” Id. at 8. As above, these arguments fail to address the Examiner’s
proposed combination, which applies the signal stacking methodology of
Willhoit to the Morley disclosure of moving a plurality of spatially
distributed seismic sensors in a body of water, as modified to sense low
frequency seismic signals per the Frehner disclosure.
Appellants additionally argue that the Examiner “attempt[s] to overly
simplify the difference between stacking seismic signals obtained in
controlled source, land-based surveys from stacking signals recorded in []
passive, marine-based surveys in order to disregard the limitations ‘with
respect to motion of the seismic sensors in the water.’” Reply Br. 7.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not provided “evidence that stacking
data in land-based surveys and stacking data in passive marine-based
surveys are the same,” nor “evidence that the active source, land-based
method taught by Willhoit can be used with moving sensors in a passive
marine survey.” Id.
Appellants point out a distinction between land-based and marine-
based seismic surveys, to wit, in a marine-based survey in which the sensors
are moving, as called for in claim 1, “the exact position of the natural source
is unknown, and the seismic signals reflected from the subterranean surface
Appeal 2013-000525
Application 12/151,314

6
are moving. . . . By contrast, for land-based surveys, only the seismic signals
are moving with respect to the stationary active source and the stationary
sensors.” Id. Appellants do not, however, assert that such differences would
preclude the use of signal stacking methodology in marine-based survey
applications, nor would dissuade persons of ordinary skill in the art from so
using the methodology, nor that any possible modification to the signal
stacking methodology in converting from land-based surveying to marine-
based surveying would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the
art.
As such, we are not apprised of Examiner error with respect to the
rejection of claim 1 over Morley in view of Frehner and Willhoit. The
rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Claims 2–4 fall with claim 1.
Claim 7
Appellants’ arguments directed to the rejection of Claim 7 are not
unlike those advanced with respect to claim 1. In arguing against the
combination of the teaching of Morley and Willhoit, Appellants cite to In re
Ratti
1
for the proposition that, if a proposed modification would change the
principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the
teachings of the references are not sufficient to render a claim prima facie
obvious. Appeal Br. 9–10. We, of course, take no issue with that legal
principle. However, Appellants do not establish that the combination of
Willhoit with Morley will change the principle of operation of Morley, the
prior art invention proposed by the Examiner to be modified.

1
270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959).
Appeal 2013-000525
Application 12/151,314

7
Appellants appear to attempt to show how the Examiner’s proposed
modification violates the legal principle by again pointing out that Morley is
directed to marine-based seismic surveys, whereas Willhoit is directed to
land-based seismic surveys. Appeal Br. 10. Appellants then state that “[t]he
teachings of Willhoit would have to be modified to work with marine
seismic surveys. There is no teaching or suggestion that the methods taught
by Willhoit can be used with marine seismic surveys.” Id. Even if it were
the case that Willhoit would have to be modified in some way, and
Appellants do not specify what modification(s) might be necessary, this does
not establish that the proposed modification would change the basic
principle of operation of the Morley system. Further, as noted above in the
analysis of the rejection of claim 1, Appellants do not argue, let alone show,
that any possible modification to the signal stacking methodology in
converting from land-based surveying to marine-based surveying would
have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As such, we are not apprised of Examiner error with respect to the
rejection of claim 7 over Morley in view of Frehner and Willhoit. The
rejection of claim 7 is sustained. Claims 8–10 fall with claim 7.

Claims 5 and 11--Obviousness-- Morley/Frehner/Willhoit/Miklovic
Appellants state that claims 5 and 11 are patentable for the same
reasons argued with respect to claims 1 and 7, from which these claims
respectfully depend. Appeal Br. 14. For the reasons set forth in the above
analysis of claims 1 and 7, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the
rejection of claims 1 and 7, and the rejection of claims 5 and 11 is therefore
sustained.
Appeal 2013-000525
Application 12/151,314

8
Claims 6 and 12--Obviousness-- Morley/Frehner/Willhoit/Saenger
Appellants state that claims 6 and 12 are patentable for the same
reasons argued with respect to claims 1 and 7, from which these claims
respectfully depend. Appeal Br. 14. For the reasons set forth in the above
analysis of claims 1 and 7, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the
rejection of claims 1 and 7, and the rejection of claims 6 and 12 is therefore
sustained.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1–4 and 7–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Morley in view of Frehner and Willhoit is
AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morley in view of Frehner, Willhoit, and Miklovic is
AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morley in view of Frehner, Willhoit, and Saenger is
AFFIRMED.
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