Ex Parte Falkenberg et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 22, 201612080198 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/080, 198 03/3112008 95738 7590 06/24/2016 Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc, West Memorial Place 1 15375 Memorial Drive Suite 100 Houston, TX 77079 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jon Falkenberg 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-08-0lUS 3881 EXAMINER BREIER, KRYSTINE E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/24/2016 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): docketing@pgs.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JON FALKENBERG and SVERRE OLSEN Appeal2014-005281 Application 12/080,198 Technology Center 3600 Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the non-final rejection of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal2014-005281 Application 12/080,198 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention relates to marine geophysical data acquisition. Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A system for determining geodetic positions of a plurality of marine geophysical sensor streamers, comprising: a plurality of laterally spaced apart sensor streamers each functionally coupled at a forward end thereof to a towing vessel; a paravane disposed laterally outwardly on each side of the plurality of streamers, the paravanes configured to maintain lateral selected separation between adjacent streamers; a plurality of acoustic transmitters disposed at spaced apart locations along the streamers, the transmitters configured to transmit signals enabling identification of each of the transmitters from which the signals originate; a plurality of acoustic receivers disposed at spaced apart locations along the streamers, the receivers configured to receive the signals from the transmitters; a geodetic position signal receiver, and at least one of the acoustic receivers disposed on each paravane; at least one processor configured determine identities of transmitters of received acoustic signals and travel times of the received acoustic signals, the processor configured to convert the travel times to distances in both an in-line direction along streamers between transmitters and acoustic receivers in the same streamer, and in a cross line direction between transmitters and acoustic receivers in different streamers, the processor configured to determine relative positions of the streamers from the distances, the processor configured to determine geodetic positions of the streamers from the relative positions and the signals detected by the geodetic position signal receiver on each paravane. 2 Appeal2014-005281 Application 12/080,198 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Hatteland Kriz Hoogeveen Welker Stokke land us 5,668,775 us 6, 157 ,592 US 2007 /0230268 Al US 7,391,674 B2 US 7,404,370 B2 Sept. 16, 1997 Dec. 5, 2000 Oct. 4, 2007 June 24, 2008 July 29, 2008 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1, 2, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Welker and Hatteland. 2. Claims 3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Welker, Hatteland, and Hoogeveen. 3. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Welker, Hatteland, and Kriz. 4. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Welker, Hatteland, and Stokkeland. OPINION Unpatentability of Claims 1, 2, 6, and 9 over Welker and Hatteland Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 6, and 9 as a group. Appeal Br. 5-9. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). The Examiner finds that Welker discloses the claimed invention except for the limitations directed to determining the identity of transmitters and determining relative positions of the streamers. Non-Final Action 3--4. The Examiner relies on Hatteland for such limitations. Id. at 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary 3 Appeal2014-005281 Application 12/080,198 skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify \Velker with the identifying signal system of Hatteland. Id. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to determine a more accurate position. Id. Appellants traverse the Examiner's rejection by arguing that Welker lacks a para vane as claimed. Appeal Br. 7. Appellants argue that the component of Welker identified by the Examiner as a para vane is not, in fact, a paravane nor is it "any known equivalent" of a paravane. Id. More specifically, Appellants argue that Welker's "streamer deflector" is not a paravane. Id. at 8. According to Appellants, a "paravane" is a device that maintains lateral separation of streamers. Id. at 7. Appellants argue that Welker's streamer deflector controls the depth of a streamer in the water. Id. at 8. In response, the Examiner states that Welker' s streamer deflector is more fully described in US Patent 7 ,499,373 (the "'373 Patent"), the application of which was incorporated by reference in Welker. Ans. 3. According to the '373 Patent, "Streamers 2 and 2' are deflected laterally with seismic deflectors." Id. (citing the '373 Patent, col 9, 11. 26-27). The Examiner states that this disclosure shows that the deflectors discussed in Welker are performing the lateral separation function which Appellants require with regards to their definition of para vane. Id. In reply, Appellants reiterate that the term "paravane" is known in the art to mean a device that provides a lateral force to spreader cables. Reply Br. 2. We agree with the Examiner that Welker discloses a device at the leading end of each streamer that provides a lateral force to facilitate the 4 Appeal2014-005281 Application 12/080,198 lateral separation between streamers. Figure l of \Velker depicts two streamer diverters 7 and 9 at the leading end of each of two respective streamers 6 and 8. The streamer diverters are each depicted with the shape of a hydrofoil. See Welker, Fig 1. Streamer diverter 7 on seismic streamer 6 is shown with an angle of attack relative to the direction of seismic vessel 2 that would apply a lateral force that would tend to increase the lateral separation between streamer 6 and streamer 8. Id. In other words, the angle of attack of streamer diverter 7 would tend to pull streamer 6 to the left. Similarly, streamer diverter 9 and seismic streamer 8 is shown with an angle of attack relative to the direction of seismic vessel 2 that would also tend to increase the lateral separation between streamer 6 and streamer 8. Id. In other words, the angle of attack of streamer 9 would tend to pull streamer 8 to the right. The foregoing analysis of Welker's Figure 1 is reinforced by the teachings of the '373 Patent relied on by the Examiner and incorporated by reference into column 2 of Welker. Ans. 3, Welker, col. 1, 1. 61- col. 2, 1. 10; '373 Patent, col. 9, 11. 26-28. 1 Although not relied on by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 1, Stokkeland also shows that, prior to Appellants' date of invention, it was known in the art to use "paravanes" to generate lateral forces for seismic streamers. As shown in FIG. 1, the towing equipment can include two para vane tow ropes 16 each coupled to the vessel 10 at one end through a winch 19 or similar spooling device that enables changing the deployed length of each paravane tow rope 16. The other end of each paravane tow rope 16 is functionally coupled to a paravane 14, typically through a set of cables 1 "Streamers 2 and 2' are deflected laterally with seismic deflectors ... " '373 Patent, col. 9, 11. 26-27 (emphasis added). 5 Appeal2014-005281 Application 12/080,198 called a "bridle", which will be further explained herein. The paravanes 14 are each configured to provide a lateral force component to the various elements of the seismic survey system deployed in the water 11 when the paravanes 14 are towed in the water 11, as will be explained below. In various aspects of the present invention, such lateral force component can be adjustable or controllable. Lateral in the present description means essentially transverse to the direction of motion of the vessel 10. The lateral force component of each paravane 14 is opposed to that of the other para vane 14, and is generally in a direction outward from the centerline of the vessel 10. The combined lateral force of the para vanes 14 separates the paravanes 14 from each other until they put one or more spreader ropes or cables 24, functionally coupled end to end between the paravanes 14, into tension. Stokkeland, Fig 1, col. 4, 11. 7-24. Although Welker and Stokkeland use different names for analogous features, a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Welker would understand that streamer diverters 7 and 9 perform essentially the same lateral separation function as the "paravanes" of Stokkeland and Appellants' invention. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (a reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test). The Examiner's finding that Welker discloses a para vane is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 Next, Appellants argue that Welker fails to disclose a GPS or similar receiver on a para vane. Appeal Br. 9. Appellants argue that Welker only 2 We have considered Appellants' argument that Welker's streamer deflector is only used to control the depth of the streamer. Appeal Br. 8. This argument, which is based on how the term "deflector" is used in another, unapplied reference, is without merit. A person of ordinary skill in the art understands that a hydrofoil can be employed to maneuver horizontally, vertically, or a combination of the two. See Welker, col. 9, 11. 12--48. 6 Appeal2014-005281 Application 12/080,198 discloses satellite receivers on the tow vessel and at the ends of the streamers. Id. In response, the Examiner directs our attention to columns 1-2 of Welker that states, in pertinent part: the "seismic cable apparatus or system" includes seismic streamers and seismic seabed cables, as well as "streamer- related" items such as streamer section connectors, sensors in or on the streamers, connectors between streamers ... , streamer deflectors, separation cables, steerable and non-steerable tail buoys, and the like, including control surfaces and bodies of such devices, and one or more instruments integral with or attached to any of these, such as hydrophones, GPS receivers, compasses, inertial measuring devices, and the like. Welker, col. 1, 1. 61 - col. 2, 1. 10 (emphasis added). In reply, Appellants argue that Welker's disclosure does not describe the placement of satellite receivers "specifically," and asserts that merely stating that a system contains certain components is not a per se disclosure of the specific relationship between the components. Reply Br. 3. Appellants argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not read Welker as teaching that a GPS receiver is necessarily affixed to a streamer deflector, even if it may be. Id. According to Appellants, in order to meet the standard of inherent disclosure, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have to read Welker and conclude that a GPS receiver is necessarily attached to a streamer deflector. Id. Appellants' arguments regarding the location of the GPS receiver are not persuasive. First, the principles of inherency do not come into play here, as the Examiner has directed our attention to an express disclosure in Welker. Second, the rejection under consideration is an obviousness rejection. The pertinent question, therefore, is whether a person of ordinary 7 Appeal2014-005281 Application 12/080,198 skill in the art would have found it obvious to place a GPS on a paravane (or streamer deflector) of Welker. Welker's disclosure of a list of components, which includes a streamer deflector, accompanied by an express teaching that GPS receivers and hydrophones, can be integral with or attached to "any of these,"3 (Welker, col. 2, 1. 8) is a sufficient teaching from which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to dispose a GPS receiver and an acoustic receiver (or hydrophone) on a para vane as claimed. In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine that the Examiner's findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that the Examiner's legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-founded. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, and 9. Unpatentability of Claims 3-5, 7, 8, and 10 over combinations based on Welker Claims 3-5, 7, 8, and 10 depend from claim 1 and add various dependent limitations. Claims App. The Examiner rejected these claims over combinations based on Welker and Hatteland, together with various other references. Non-Final Action 5-8. Appellants do not argue for the separate patentability of these claims. In their Appeal Brief, Appellants request only that the Board review the rejection of Claims 1, 2, 6, and 9 over Welker and Hatteland. Appeal Br. 5. However, according to our Rules, an appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection unless cancelled by an 3 In context, "these" is understood as referring to system components, including the streamer deflector. 8 Appeal2014-005281 Application 12/080,198 amendment filed by Appellants and entered by the Office. 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c) (2015). In view of Appellants' failure to advance separate arguments for the patentability of these claims, our decision to sustain the rejection of claim 1, and our governing rules, we summarily sustain the rejection of claims 3-5, 7, 8, and 10. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-10 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation