Ex Parte EICK et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2018

12939320 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

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