Ex Parte DRANGE

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2018

14561332 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/561,332 12/05/2014 Geir Andre Motzfeldt DRANGE
146140 7590 11/23/2018
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- l 4- l 9US 4719
EXAMINER
RODAK,LEEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2868
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2018 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 GEIR ANDRE MOTZFELDT DRANGE
Appeal2018-002105
Application 14/561,332 1
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as
being anticipated by Siidow et al. (US 2013/0127471 Al, published May 23,
2013) ("Siidow").
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). 2
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, PGS Geophysical AS, which, according to the
Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3).
2 We additionally refer to the Specification filed Dec. 5, 2014 ("Spec."); the
Final Office Action ("Final Act.") dated Feb. 24, 2017, the Examiner's
Answer dated Nov. 3, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed Dec. 19,
2017 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2018-002105
Application 14/561,332
Independent claim 1 below is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal ( emphases added):
1. An apparatus comprising:
a first streamer section comprising:
a first outer surface that defines an interior volume;
a first connector coupled to a first end of the first
outer surface, and at least a portion of the first connector
is electrically conductive;
a first digitizer node that defines a first input port
and second input port, the first digitizer node disposed
within the interior volume of the first outer surface, the
first input port is electrically coupled to the first
connector such that the portion of the first connector that
is electrically-conductive is a first electrode;
the first digitizer node configured to measure a
potential difference between the first electrode at a first
potential and a second potential coupled to the second
input port.
ANALYSIS
Appellant presents arguments for claim 1, claim 4, and claim 14
(Appeal Br. 7-18). Claims 2, 3, and 7-13 depend from claim 1, claims 5
and 6 depend from claim 4, and claims 15-24 depend from claim 14.
Therefore, we address claims 1-3 and 7-13 as a first group, claims 4--6 as a
second group, and claims 14--24 as a third group.
Claims 1-3 and 7-13
Appellant's principle argument on appeal is that the Examiner's
interpretation of claim 1 is overbroad and unreasonable (Appeal Br. 7-14;
Reply Br. 1-11). Specifically, Appellant asserts there are different
definitions of "connector" than the one cited by the Examiner ( e.g., "any of
various devices for connecting one object to another"), Siidow's cable
segments 1 OA are not devices for connecting one object to another, the cable
2
Appeal2018-002105
Application 14/561,332
segments lOA include termination plates 34 that connect to Siidow's signal
processing modules 50 and thus serve as connectors, and the Examiner's
interpretation of "connector" is inconsistent with Appellant's disclosure,
Siidow' s teachings regarding cable segments 1 OA and modules 50 in
between, and how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim
recitations (Appeal Br. 8-11, 13-14; Reply Br. 10-11). Appellant contends
the Examiner has transmogrified Siidow's modules 50 and cable segments
1 OA into streamer sections and connectors so claim 1 reads upon these
structures (Appeal Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 10).
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. As explained by the
Examiner at page 3 of the Examiner's Answer, claim 1 includes few
recitations regarding the "connector," such as its structure. Specifically,
claim 1 recites, among other things, a first streamer section comprises a first
outer surface defining an interior volume, a first connector coupled to a first
end of the outer surface, wherein at least a portion of the first connector is
electrically conductive, and a first digitizer node. Thus, claim 1 requires the
streamer section to have an outer surface that defines an interior volume and
be coupled to a first connector at a first end of the first outer surface. Claim
1 does not specify how the streamer section and connector are coupled, such
as a specific connector structure or a type of connection (Ans. 3). Claim 1
requires that the connector be coupled to a first end of the streamer section's
outer surface and that at least a portion of the connector is electrically
conductive ( and thus can function as a first electrode, per the recitations
regarding the first digitizer node).
We therefore tum to Appellant's disclosure to construe claim 1 under
its broadest reasonable interpretation. "[T]he PTO must give claims their
3
Appeal2018-002105
Application 14/561,332
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.
Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for
claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation" (In re ICON Health
& Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). "[A]s applicants
may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during
prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee" (id.).
As noted above, Appellant argues the Examiner's interpretation that a
connector is a "component which links two or more components together"
(Ans. 3) is unreasonable and inconsistent with their disclosure. However,
Appellant's citations to their Specification and drawings (Appeal Br. 10-12;
Reply Br. 3-7, 10-11 ), which disclose streamer sections connected end to
end via coupling connectors, do not prove otherwise. As shown in
Appellant's Figures 1 and 2, a connector 119 may be located between and
couple ends of streamer sections 11 7.
Nor do we discern an expression of intent to limit a "streamer
section," "connector," or manner of coupling to a specific meaning (In re
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (an
applicant "may demonstrate an intent to deviate from the ordinary and
accustomed meaning of a claim term by including in the specification
expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear
disavowal of claim scope."). Indeed, paragraph 15 of the Specification
states "the term 'couple' or 'couples' is intended to mean either an indirect
or direct connection" and that "[t]his document does not intend to
distinguish between components that differ in name but not function."
Therefore, in light of the breadth of claim 1 and how streamer sections
and connectors are described in Appellant's disclosure, we agree with the
4
Appeal2018-002105
Application 14/561,332
Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 encompasses
connectors that function to link two or more components together.
We therefore tum to the art rejection to analyze whether Siidow
anticipates claim 1 under this broadest reasonable interpretation. Siidow
discloses an electromagnetic survey system including a sensor cable 10
assembled from a plurality of cable segments 1 OA, signal processing
modules 50, and an end plug 50A (Siidow ,r 15, Fig. 1). Siidow describes
sensor cable segments 1 OA as being "coupled to opposite ends of one of the
signal processing modules 50" (id. ,r 24). Therefore, Siidow's modules 50
function as connectors that link two or more components together (i.e.,
sensor cable segments 1 OA). We further note that the modules 50 meet the
definition of "connector" advanced by Appellant because the modules 50
connect ends of cable segments lOA to one another (Appeal Br. 8).
Therefore, stated another way, although Siidow uses a different name for the
signal processing module 50 than "connector" and a different name than
"streamer section" for the cable segments 1 OA, these components have the
structure recited in claim 1 and respectively perform functions encompassed
by the "connector" and "streamer section" of claim 1 (see Spec. ,r 15 ("[t]his
document does not intend to distinguish between components that differ in
name but not function")).
Furthermore, the Examiner finds the modules 50 have housings 52
defining an interior volume (i.e., an outer surface that defines an interior
volume for the claimed streamer section) and the cable segments 1 OA
include electrodes E that are conductive (Final Act. 7). Appellant does not
dispute these findings. At page 10 of the Reply Brief, Appellant argues no
portion of Siidow' s module 50 is used as an electrode because Siidow' s
5
Appeal2018-002105
Application 14/561,332
electrodes are located in the cable segments 1 OA. However, Appellant has
not shown good cause why this argument could not have been presented in
the Appeal Brief. Therefore, we will not consider the separate argument for
claim 1 newly raised in the Reply Brief (37 C.F.R. § 4I.41(b)(2)).
Nonetheless, the Examiner finds Siidow discloses a low noise amplifier
(LNA) 56 that functions as the first digitizer node of claim 1 to determine a
potential difference between electrodes E of a cable segment 1 OA (Final Act.
7; Ans. 6, citing Siidow ,r,r 24, 26). Appellant's argument, which focuses on
Siidow's modules 50, does not address the Examiner's interpretation and
findings that Siidow's cable segments lOA function as connectors and at
least a portion of the segments lOA (i.e., electrodes E) are electrically
conductive and function as an electrode, as recited in claim 1.
In view of the above, Appellant's arguments do not identify a
reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Appellant does not
argue claims 2, 3, and 7-13 separately from claim 1 (Appeal Br. 7-14).
Claims 4---6
Similar to the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues the Examiner's
interpretation of dependent claim 4 is overbroad and inconsistent with
Appellant's disclosure because Siidow's cable segments lOA cannot be a
connector and the modules 50 cannot be streamer sections (Appeal Br. 14--
17). Appellant further asserts:
There is nothing disclosed in Sudow to suggest that the cable
segments (lOA(i)-lOA(iii)) are different from each other or from
cable segments (1 OA) otherwise. Likewise there is nothing is
Sudow to suggest that the first, second or third signal processing
module (50) are different from each other or from signal
processing modules ( 50) otherwise.
(id. at 17).
6
Appeal2018-002105
Application 14/561,332
In response, the Examiner explains that claim 4 is directed to a
plurality of cable segments and connectors (i.e., the first streamer section of
claim 1 combined with the second connector, second streamer section, third
connector, and second digitizer node of claim 4), an example of which is
depicted in Appellant's Figure 3 (Ans. 8-9). The Examiner finds Siidow
discloses a repeating structure of cable segments lOA(i}-lOA(iii) and
modules 50 (id. at 9). Appellant does not respond to the Examiner's
explanation.
As discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 1, the
Examiner's interpretation of "connector" encompassing Siidow' s cable
section lOA and "streamer section" encompassing Siidow's module 50 is
reasonable in light of Appellant's disclosure. Appellant's arguments
regarding differences between cable segments or modules appear to relate to
the Examiner's finding that Siidow' s modules 50 are encompassed by the
claimed streamer sections and Siidow's cable segments 1 OA are
encompassed by the claimed connectors. To the extent Appellant argues
another point, such as claim 4 requiring streamer sections and/or connectors
to differ from one another, we do not see how such an argument relates to
the recitations of claim 4, the Examiner's rejection, or otherwise identifies a
reversible error with sufficient particularity. 3
In view of the above, Appellant's arguments are insufficient to
identify a reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 4. Appellant
does not argue claims 5 and 6 separately from claim 4 (Appeal Br. 14--17).
3 In order to overcome the Examiner's rejection, Appellants must identify
with sufficient particularity what the Examiner did wrong, i.e., identify a
reversible error in the examiner's rejection (In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1365---66 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072 (BPAI 2010)).
7
Appeal2018-002105
Application 14/561,332
Claims 14--24
Independent claim 14 is reproduced below:
14. A method comprising:
deploying into a water body a streamer, the streamer
comprising a first streamer section having a first connector on
an end of the first streamer section;
measuring a first potential difference between the first
connector of the first streamer section and a second potential,
the measuring by a first digitizer node disposed within the first
steamer section.
Appellant contends Siidow discloses measuring a potential between
pairs of electrodes arranged on each cable segment 1 OA, not measuring a
potential difference between a first connector of a first streamer section and
a second potential, as recited in claim 14 (Appeal Br. 17-18).
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. Similar to the rejection of
claim 1, the Examiner finds Siidow's modules 50 function as streamer
sections and Siidow' s cable segments 1 OA function as connectors (Final Act.
16). The Examiner finds the cable segments 1 OA include electrodes E and
Siidow discloses determining a potential between the electrodes (Ans. 6, 9).
Therefore, Appellant's arguments do not address the Examiner's rejection of
claim 14. For the reasons discussed above with regard to the rejection of
claim 1, Appellant's arguments disputing the Examiner's interpretation of
claim terms ( e.g., regarding the terms "streamer section" and "connector,"
which appear in claim 14) are unpersuasive.
As a result, Appellant's arguments do not identify a reversible error in
the rejection of claim 14. Appellant does not argue claims 15-24 separately
from claim 14 (Appeal Br. 17-18).
8
Appeal2018-002105
Application 14/561,332
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's
Answer, we sustain the Examiner's§ 102 rejection of claims 1-24.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-24 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9