Ex Parte EICK et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2018

14476107 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/476,107 09/03/2014
28841 7590 11/30/2018
ConocoPhillips Company
Legal - Technology & Intellectual Property
925 N. Eldridge Parkway
Houston, TX 77079
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.
41134US02 6056
EXAMINER
MURPHY, DANIELL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2018 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
Sandy.H.Andress@conocophillips.com
michael.d.berger@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 1
Appeal2018-002771
Application 14/476,107
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CAL VE, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
finally rejecting claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 ConocoPhillips Company is identified as the real party in interest (Br. 1)
and also is the applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46.
Appeal2018-002771
Application 14/476,107
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8, 16, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is
reproduced below.
1. A method for autonomously initiating vibratory sources
. . .
ma se1sm1c survey, compnsmg:
a) providing m number of vibrator units, wherein each of
the vibrator units is capable of scanning, detecting and
broadcasting radio waves of predetermined frequencies, and
wherein m is a positive integral, wherein each vibrator unit
emits uniquely encoded vibratory energy;
b) scanning a multiplicity of predetermined n channels of
frequency, wherein n is a positive integral;
c) detecting and determining if a first channel is available;
d) imparting a first pattern of source seismic signals by a
first vibrator unit while broadcasting a blocking tone in the
available first channel;
e) ending the first pattern of source seismic signals; and
f) ending the broadcast of the blocking tone in the available
first channel;
wherein m 2 n.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Howe (US 9,310,498 B2, iss. Apr. 12,
2016), Carrier sense multiple access (Wikipedia, Apr. 13, 2016) ("Carrier"),
and Wu (US 4,644,526, iss. Feb. 17, 1987).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Howe, Carrier, Wu, and Chiu (US 7,295,490 Bl, iss. Nov. 13, 2007).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Howe, Carrier, Wu, Bobbitt (US 3,626,267, iss. Dec. 7, 1971), and
Thomas (US 4,493,067, iss. Jan. 8, 1985).
2
Appeal2018-002771
Application 14/476,107
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16, and 17
Unpatentable Over Howe, Carrier, and Wu
Appellants argue claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 as a group.
Br. 2--4. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13,
14, 16, and 17 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Howe discloses a method
for autonomously initiating vibratory sources in a seismic survey as claimed,
except for scanning multiple channels, determining if a first channel is
available, broadcasting a blocking tone in an available first channel, and
ending the broadcast of the blocking tone. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner
relies on Wu or Carrier to teach the use of blocking tones in combination
with scanning channels. Id. at 4--6. The Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious to combine the teachings of Carrier and Wu with Howe
to enable the management of potential contention for the shared medium and
to improve the reliability of the survey results. Id. at 5, 6.
Appellants argue that Carrier is non-analogous art because it relates to
signals used in computer networking, not sound or seismic waves used in oil
and gas technologies. Br. 3. Appellants argue that a skilled artisan would
not reasonably have known of Carrier or been motivated to look for it. Id.
Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art. The first
test considers whether prior art is from the same field of endeavor regardless
of the problem addressed. The second test considers whether the reference
is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved even if it is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor. In re
Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
3
Appeal2018-002771
Application 14/476,107
A reference is reasonably pertinent if "it is one which, because of the
matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an
inventor's attention in considering his problem." In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,
659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The purposes of the invention and the prior art are
important in determining whether a reference is reasonably pertinent to the
problem the invention attempts to solve. Therefore, if a reference disclosure
has the same purpose as the claimed invention, it relates to the same problem
and that fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness rejection. Id.
We agree with the Examiner that Carrier discloses features directed to
the same purpose as Appellants' claimed method. Ans. 3 ( determining the
features described in the 'Carrier Sense' and 'Multiple Access' paragraphs
of Carrier are essential to the performance of Appellants' invention).
Appellants confronted the problem of how to synchronize continuous
ZenSeisâ„¢ seismic surveys. Spec. ,r 4. ZenSeisâ„¢ involves multiple source
seismic acquisition techniques that use multiple source vibrators to emit
uniquely encoded vibratory energy to sweep an area of interest. Id. ,r 25. To
synchronize individual vibrator units, Appellants employ an autonomous
system where each vibrator unit scans a radio frequency to determine if the
frequency is in use. Id. ,r 51. If not, the vibrator unit starts its sweep by
broadcasting a unique tone on that frequency ( channel). Id. If the vibrator
unit finds a frequency in use, it moves to another frequency and starts its
sweep. Id. The other units perform this scanning for available channels and
broadcasting in sequence until all of the units are conducting sweeps. Id.
Vibrating units also broadcast blocking signals to inform other units in the
network that the channel is taken and to go find another channel. Id. ,r 58.
4
Appeal2018-002771
Application 14/476,107
The problem Appellants confronted was allowing multiple sources
(seismic vibrator units) to share a network autonomously (without human
intervention) so each unit synchronizes its transmissions with other units on
the network. Id. ,r,r 15-23. The purpose of their method is to allow multiple
units to share a network with a protocol where units select and use individual
frequency channels without interfering with broadcasts of other units on the
network. See id. ,r 58. This problem is not unique to seismic surveys. See
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1481-82 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (finding the problem
of connecting a display to computer was not unique to portable computers).
The purpose of Carrier is the same. Carrier discloses a media access
control protocol that controls access to a shared network by allowing each
node on the network to verify the absence of other traffic on the network
before transmitting on that shared medium. Carrier, 1. Each transmitter
uses feedback from a receiver to detect the presence of an encoded signal
from another transmitting station on the network before trying to transmit. If
a carrier wave from another node is detected, the station waits for the
transmission to finish before starting its own transmission. Id. ("CSMA is
based on the principle of 'sense before transmit' or 'listen before talk'.").
CSMA autonomously synchronizes transmissions of nodes on a network.
Wu is directed to the same purpose of controlling access to channels
of a network by stations. To start or end a communication session, each of
the calling stations uses the well-known CSMA technique. Wu, 6:44--47.
Each calling station first listens to the intended channel to determine the
presence of a signal from another station before transmitting. If no signal is
detected, the station transmits a channel blocking tone for a fixed time and
then initiates transmission on that channel. Id. at 6:48-7:3.
5
Appeal2018-002771
Application 14/476,107
Appellants' argument that Carrier is from a different field of endeavor
does not refute the Examiner's finding that Carrier is reasonably pertinent to
the problem Appellants addressed of controlling access to a shared network
through a network communication protocol that allows units to synchronize
their communications over channels of the network. Br. 3--4. Appellants
acknowledge that Carrier controls communications on a shared transmission
medium. See id. at 3 ( asserting Carrier teaches "a node verifies the absence
of other traffic before transmitting on a shared transmission medium").
Moreover, the Examiner also relies on Wu to teach the network
synchronization and sharing protocols missing from Howe. Final Act. 5---6;
Ans. 4. The teachings of Wu and Howe render obvious the subject matter of
claim 1, and Appellants do not dispute the combination of their teachings.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16,
and 17.
Claims 4, 7, 12, and 15
Unpatentable Over Howe, Carrier, Wu, and Chiu/Bobbitt
Appellants do not present arguments for the rejections of dependent
claims 4, 7, 12, and 15. See Br. 3--4. Therefore, we summarily sustain these
rejections.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-1 7.
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
6