Ex Parte Tenghamn et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 201512151314 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2015) 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. 12/151,314 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation