Ex Parte EICK et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 201812939320 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/939,320 11/04/2010 28841 7590 ConocoPhillips Company 600 North Dairy Ashford Houston, TX 77079-1175 04/03/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Peter M. EICK 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. 40975-USPAT 5185 EXAMINER MURPHY, DANIELL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/03/2018 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): 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, JOEL D. BREWER, and STEPHEN K. CHIU Appeal2017-005273 Application 12/939,320 1 Technology Center 3600 Before LINDA E. HORNER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Peter M. Eick et al. ("Appellants") seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 21 and 23-25, which are all of the pending claims. Final Office Action (May 10, 2016) (hereinafter "Final Act."). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). The claimed subject matter relates to the field of seismic surveying and to methods for separation of recorded data from continuous records 1 Appellants identify ConocoPhillips Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 1 (October 10, 2016) (hereinafter "Br."). Appeal2017-005273 Application 12/939,320 without acquiring listening time between sweeps. The method allows a single vibrator or single set of seismic sources to transmit without stopping the sources between each seismic sweep. In particular, the method uses overlapping sweeps from low-to-high frequency, or inversely from high-to- low frequency, while using a selective signal separation toward the end of the first sweep to eliminate overlapping frequency interference from the start of the subsequent sweep. The subsequent sweep uses selective signal separation to eliminate high frequency interference from the previous sweep at the beginning of the sweep and low frequency interference at the end of the sweep. Thus, the data from overlapping sweeps can be extracted from a continuous data record. The Examiner determined that the claimed method would have been obvious in light of a combination of teachings from the prior art. Appellants contest the Examiner's reliance on one of the cited prior art references. Because Appellants' argument does not address the Examiner's findings as to the prior art reference and the proposed modification to the art based on the teachings in that reference, Appellants have not demonstrated error in the rejection. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 21 and 25 are independent. Claim 21 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below. 21. A method for imaging subterranean formations compnsmg: a) recording two or more overlapping seismic surveys in a continuous seismic record comprising at least one sweep and at least one listening time, wherein a listening time following a first 2 Appeal2017-005273 Application 12/939,320 seismic sweep overlaps with a second seismic sweep, wherein the first seismic sweep is different from the second sweep; b) obtaining a single seismic survey with listening time from the continuous seismic record by selective signal separation of one or more overlapping surveys from the continuous seismic record; and c) assembling a composite image of the subterranean formation from multiple single seismic surveys, wherein overlapping seismic surveys are removed from the continuous seismic record by selective signal separation (S') comprising elements of overlapping frequencies (fi ---+Ji + 1'1.f), (f2 - !'if---+ f2), or both (fi ---+Ji + 1'1.f) and (f2 - !'if---+ f2). Br. 5 (Claims Appendix). EVIDENCE The Examiner's decision relies upon the following evidence: Landrum, Jr. us 4,715,020 Dec. 22, 1987 ("Landrum") Bednar US 2004/0111217 Al June 10, 2004 Christie et al. US 2004/0215396 Al Oct. 28, 2004 ("Christie") Jeffryes US 7,050,356 B2 May 23, 2006 Krohn et al. US 2006/0164916 Al July 27, 2006 ("Krohn") REJECTION In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 21 and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Landrum, Christie, Jeffryes, Bednar, and Krohn. 3 Appeal2017-005273 Application 12/939,320 ISSUE Appellants argue claims 21 and 23-25 as a group. Br. 3--4. We select claim 21 as representative of the group, and claims 23-25 stand or fall with claim 21. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner found that Landrum teaches a method of recording two or more overlapping seismic surveys in a continuous seismic record and selective signal separation of the surveys from the continuous seismic record, as called for in independent claim 21. Final Act. 4. The Examiner found that Landrum does not explicitly teach obtaining a single seismic survey with listening time from a continuous seismic record. Id. The Examiner further found that Landrum does not teach selective signal separation comprising elements of overlapping frequencies. Id. The Examiner found that Christie teaches obtaining a single seismic survey with listening time from the continuous seismic record and adaptive inversion comprising elements of overlapping frequencies. Id. at 5. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to use Landrum's method of selective signal separation of one or more overlapping surveys from a continuous seismic record, in combination with Christie's technique of obtaining a single seismic survey with listening time from the continuous seismic record and adaptive inversion comprising elements overlapping frequencies, because such a combination affords calculation of an uncertainty associated with separation of one survey from another and provides improved cost effectiveness in seismic imaging. Id. at 5-6. 4 Appeal2017-005273 Application 12/939,320 Appellants' sole argument is directed to the Examiner's reliance on Christie. 2 In particular, Appellants argue that Christie fails to teach "[ o ]btaining a single seismic survey with listening time from the continuous seismic record by selective signal separation of one or more overlapping surveys from the continuous seismic record." Br. 3. Appellants contend that Christie describes adaptive inversion as a way of storing filtered ensemble trace data composited from single sensor data to achieve noise separation. Id. Appellants contend that Christie performs its method on a "shot by shot basis to ensembles of single sensor data" to output a reduced set of traces. Id. at 3--4. Appellants argue, "[b ]y contrast, the present invention separates out full surveys." Id. at 4. The issue before us is whether Appellants have identified an error in the Examiner's reliance on the teaching of Christie in the proposed modification of Landrum. ANALYSIS Although we agree with Appellants that Christie does not teach selective signal separation of one or more overlapping surveys from a continuous seismic record, as pointed out by the Examiner on two occasions, the Examiner does not rely on Christie for this teaching. Final Act. 2; Examiner's Answer 2 (December 23, 2016) (hereinafter "Ans."). As 2 The Examiner further proposed to modify Landrum's method with the teachings of Jeffryes, Bednar, and Krohn. Final Act. 6-8. Appellants do not contest the Examiner's findings as to the scope and content of Landrum, Jeffryes, Bednar, and Krohn, or the proposed modification of Landrum with the teachings of Jeffryes, Bednar, and Krohn. Br., passim. As such, we do not address these aspects of the rejection in our decision. 5 Appeal2017-005273 Application 12/939,320 discussed above, the Examiner relies on Christie to teach obtaining a single seismic survey with listening time from the continuous seismic record and adaptive inversion comprising elements of overlapping frequencies. Final Act. 5. The Examiner proposes to modify Landrum 's method of selective signal separation of one or more overlapping surveys from a continuous seismic record using Christie's adaptive inversion technique comprising elements of overlapping frequencies. Id. at 5-6. Although Christie does not disclose using this technique to separate one or more overlapping surveys, the Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ Christie's technique for the purpose of separation of the surveys in Landrum. Id. The Examiner explained that use of Christie's technique would improve Landrum's method in the same manner as disclosed in Christie by allowing for calculation of an uncertainty associated with separation of one survey from another. Id. at 6. Appellants do not persuasively contest the Examiner's findings as to the scope and content of Christie. In particular, Appellants do not directly address or contest the Examiner's finding that Christie teaches obtaining a single seismic survey with listening time from the continuous seismic record. Br. 3--4 (arguing only that Christie does not obtain a single survey by selective signal separation of overlapping surveys). Further, we agree with the Examiner's findings that Christie relates to a single survey and that Christie discloses the concept of listening time. Ans. 2-3. Appellants also do not directly address or contest the Examiner's finding that Christie teaches adaptive inversion comprising elements of overlapping frequency. 6 Appeal2017-005273 Application 12/939,320 Br. 3 (Appellants arguing that "Christie ... [uses] adaptive inversion as a way of storing the filtered ensemble trace data that was composited from a single sensor data"). Rather, Appellants argue only that Christie uses adaptive inversion for a different purpose. Id. Appellants also do not address the Examiner's proposed modification of Landrum' s method with the teachings of Christie or the Examiner's reasons for such a modification. Appellants' arguments are against Christie individually, where the rejection is based on the combination of Landrum and Christie. "Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted) (explaining that obviousness must be considered in light of "what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art"). In sum, Appellants' arguments do not direct us to error in the Examiner's findings as to the scope and content of Christie, the proposed modification of Landrum's method with the technique disclosed in Christie, or the reasoning proffered by the Examiner to explain why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to make such a modification. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 21, and claims 23-25 which fall with claim 21, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 7 Appeal2017-005273 Application 12/939,320 DECISION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 21 and 23-25 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation