Ex Parte Warpinski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

11752765 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

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.
11/752,765 05/23/2007 Norm Warpinski 1880.230US1 4335
21186 7590 03/29/2017
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
BENLAGSIR, AMINE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW @blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NORM WARPINSKI, JULIE SHEMETA,
SHAWN MAXWELL, and
CRAIG FUNK
Appeal 2016-006926
Application 11/752,765
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
twice rejecting claims 1—4, 6—11, and 13—22, all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to microseismic monitoring,
and more particularly to stacking of receivers for seismic monitoring (see
Spec. 111,14).
Appeal 2016-006926
Application 11/752,765
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a stacked node configured to be positioned within a
subterranean opening and comprising a plurality of separate
receivers oriented end-to-end and each configured to
independently detect subterranean activity,
wherein each of the plurality of receivers comprises
one or more sensors for collecting seismic data and one or more
processors for digitizing the data collected by the sensors, to
provide digitized data;
a transmission medium configured to transmit the
digitized data from the stacked node, providing transmitted
digitized data; and
an analyzer to produce summed data by summing
the transmitted digitized data from each of the plurality of
separate receivers of the stacked node.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Rl. Claims 1, 2, 6—8, 11, and 13—17 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leaney (US 2003/0195705
Al, Oct. 16, 2003) and Yogeswaren et al. (US 2007/0183259 Al, Aug. 9,
2007).1
R2. Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, and 18—20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leaney, Yogeswaren, and Hall et
al. (US 2006/0221768 Al, Oct. 5, 2006).
R3. Claim 21 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Leaney, Yogeswaren, and Rodney (US 5,886,303,
Mar. 23, 1999).
1 The Examiner’s statement of rejection includes claim 12 (see Final Act. 5).
However, claim 12 is canceled.
2
Appeal 2016-006926
Application 11/752,765
R4. Claim 22 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Leaney, Yogeswaren, Rodney, and Iranpour et al.
(US 2006/0217890 Al, Sept. 28, 2006).
Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1, as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 6—8, 11, and 13—17
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings
of Leaney and Yogeswaren teach or suggest “<2 stacked node configured to
be positioned within a subterranean opening and comprising a plurality of
separate receivers oriented end-to-end and each configured to independently
detect subterranean activity,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added)?
Appellants contend “that the receivers 53 of Yogeswaren neither
comprise nor are technically equivalent to a plurality of receivers that are
oriented end-to-end to form a stacked node consistent with claim 1” (App.
Br. 13).
The Examiner finds the scope of the claimed stacked node “is
technically a broad term that does not specify or define a specific structure
of a telemetry device or tool in the telemetry area” (Ans. 3). We agree with
the Examiner. Paragraph 9 of Appellants’ Specification describes:
Each of the separate receivers 102a-c, 103a-c, 104a-cw