Ex Parte Eick et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 16, 2017

13289646 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 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.
13/289,646 11/04/2011 Peter M. Eick 41474US 1294
28841 7590 10/18/2017
PnnnonPhillins; Pnmnanv
EXAMINER
600 North Dairy Ashford
Houston, TX 77079-1175
LOBO, IAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2017 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):
Legal-IP@conocophillips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER M. EICK and JOEL D. BREWER
Appeal 2017-000807
Application 13/289,646
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. WOODS, LEE L. STEPINA, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Peter M. Eick and Joel D. Brewer (“Appellants”) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4—
11. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2017-000807
Application 13/289,646
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ “invention relates generally to seismic data acquisition in
marine environments using towed streamers behind a tow vessel.” Spec. 1
3. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim (Br. 5—6 (Claims App’x.)) and is
reproduced below, with emphasis added to a particular limitation addressed
in this Decision:
1. A process for acquiring seismic data in a marine
environment using seismic receivers mounted to streamers in the
water following behind a tow vessel, the process comprising:
a) installing a series of guidance devices along the length
of each streamer with a steerable element providing lateral
streamer control;
b) directing the tow vessel to follow a path through the
water where the path that the tow vessel has taken is a navigated
path and where the navigated path includes turns and is an “S”
shape;
c) countersteering the guidance devices to cause the
streamers to maintain an arcuate shape around a turn and
maintaining the path of streamers to follow the tow vessel the
navigated “S” shape path; and
d) wherein each guidance device uses a steerable element
hydrofoil to exert a force to steer itself along a path relative to
the navigated path and wherein the forces exerted vary over time
and concurrently different forces between guidance devices and
the streamers are towed in flared configuration such that the
separation between the streamers at the head of the streamers is
smaller than the separation between the streamers at the tail of
the streamers.
Id. at 5 (Claims App’x.) (emphasis added).
2
Appeal 2017-000807
Application 13/289,646
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 4—11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Moldoveanu (US 2008/0285381 Al, published Nov.
20, 2008) in view of Brewer (US 2010/0002536 Al, published Jan. 7, 2010),
Hillesund (US 2009/0262601 Al, published Oct. 22, 2009), or Brown (US
3,840,845, issued Oct. 8, 1974). Non-Final Act. 3.
ANALYSIS
Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Moldoveanu
discloses a process for acquiring seismic data using receivers mounted to
streamers towed behind a tow vessel. See Non-Final Act. 3 (citing
Moldoveanu Tflf 64, 94, 120). The Examiner further finds that Moldoveanu
discloses that each streamer may use a steerable element, such as a streamer
steering device or a steerable bird, to provide lateral streamer control. Id.
The Examiner also refers to Moldoveanu’s Figure 7 {id.), which we
reproduce below:
3
Appeal 2017-000807
Application 13/289,646
PI G. 7
A
According to the Examiner, Moldoveanu’s Figure 7 and paragraph
125 disclose that its tow vessel is directed to follow a navigated path through
the water. Id. Moldoveanu describes Figure 7 as depicting a path of a tow
vessel, without showing the vessel itself. See Moldoveanu 1 59.
The Examiner further finds that the tow vessel’s path may be an “S”
shape, as shown in Figure 11. Non-Final Act. 3. We also reproduce
Moldoveanu’s Figure 11, below:
The Examiner finds that Moldoveanu’s Figure 11 and paragraph 119
disclose the use of steerable birds or hydrofoils to cause the streamers to
maintain the arcuate “S” shape and “to follow the tow vessel navigated
4
Appeal 2017-000807
Application 13/289,646
path.” Id. Moldoveanu describes Figure 11 as depicting a sinusoidal curved
path where “both streamers 4 and source 6 are towed by the same vessel (not
illustrated).” Moldoveanu 1139.
The Examiner acknowledges, however, that Moldoveanu does not
disclose that the “streamers are towed ‘in flared configuration such that the
separation between the streamers at the head of the streamers is smaller than
the separation between the streamers at the tail of the streamers,’” as recited
in claim 1. Non-Final Act. 4 (emphasis added). In addressing this
limitation, the Examiner finds that “flared configurations of streamers are
well known and advantageous” and that each of Hillesund, Brewer, and
Brown teach flared configurations of streamers. Id. (citing Hillesund, Fig. 4;
Brewer || 22—31; Brown, 1:10—32, 4:42—5:53). The Examiner explains that
the advantage of using flared configurations is to reduce or eliminate the
need for in-filling, and concludes that it would have been obvious to
“configure the streamer layout of Moldoveanu ... to a flared configuration”
to achieve this advantage. See id.', see also Ans. 2—3 (concluding that it
would have been obvious to substitute Moldoveanu’s parallel streamer
configuration for a flared streamer configuration “to eliminate the need for
in-filling” (citing Brewer || 7, 8)).
Brewer describes in-filling as a “very undesirable” process of
resurveying areas upon the discovery of gaps in the initially-acquired marine
seismic data. See, e.g., Brewer | 8.
Appellants ’ Argument
Appellants contest the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4—11 collectively.
See Br. 3. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 1
5
Appeal 2017-000807
Application 13/289,646
as the representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection, with claims
2 and 4—11 standing or falling with claim 1.
In contending the rejection, Appellants emphasize the claimed
limitation, “wherein the forces exerted vary over time and concurrently
different forces between guidance devices,” and argue that the “present
invention is non-obvious because it describes the non-obvious steps required
to maintain flared streamers along a non-straight navigated path.” Br. 3. In
support of this argument, Appellants assert the following:
(1) [I]f parallel streamers were forced along a sinusoidal path,
the force exerted by guidance devices would vary over time
in a repeating pattern;
(2) [Fjlared streamers require exertion of additional forces that
will vary depending on whether the guidance device is on an
outer streamer or an inner streamer, or whether at a near or far
end;
(3) [T]owing flared streamers in a[n] S shape path requires
actively controlling the guidance devices individually so that
the forces exerted vary not only regularly over time, also vary
according to the position on the streamer.
Id. (outlining and emphases added for clarity).
Appellants also argue that the “cited references do not teach or
suggest how to achieve flaring of streamers traveling in a navigated path that
includes turns and is S shaped.” Id.
Analysis
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive.
We first note that Appellants’ assertions (1)—(3) are unsupported by
any evidence of record. See Br. 3. Attorney arguments and conclusory
statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little
probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
6
Appeal 2017-000807
Application 13/289,646
De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Attorney argument is not
evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Nor can such
argument take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v.
Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977).
Furthermore, even if we assume Appellants’ assertions (1)—(3) to be
true, which we do not, we are not apprised of Examiner error.
In response to Appellants’ assertion that the “cited references do not
teach or suggest how to achieve flaring of streamers traveling in a navigated
path that includes turns and is S shaped” (Br. 3), nonobviousness cannot be
established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck &
Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In other words, it appears
that Appellants’ argument is premised on a mistaken belief that the rejection
is improper simply because there is no single reference that teaches or
suggests “flaring of streamers” in a navigated path that is “S shaped.” See
Br. 3. As discussed above, however, the Examiner explains that the
advantage of using flared configurations is to reduce or eliminate the need
for in-filling, and concludes that it would have been obvious to “configure
the streamer layout of Moldoveanu ... to a flared configuration” to achieve
this advantage. Ans. 2—3 (citing Brewer || 7, 8). We conclude that the
Examiner’s proposed modification of Moldoveanu is articulately reasoned
with rational underpinnings. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006), cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (“rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
7
Appeal 2017-000807
Application 13/289,646
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”).
To the extent that Appellants emphasize the claimed limitation,
“wherein the forces exerted vary over time and concurrently different forces
between guidance devices,” we also agree with the Examiner’s finding that
the proposed combination would satisfy the claimed step. See Ans. 3^4
(“Part of maintaining of a flared configuration is using the guidance devices,
and steerable element hydrofoils associated therewith, to exert different
forces between the guidance devices to maintain the flared configuration, i.e,
the forces required to maintain separation at the head of the streamers is
different than the forces to maintain separation at the tail of the streamers.”).
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and adopt
as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken and in the Answer. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2 and 4—11, which fall with claim 1,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Moldoveanu in view of
Brewer, Hillesund, or Brown.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4—11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
unpatentable over Moldoveanu in view of Brewer, Hillesund, or Brown 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
8