Ex Parte Ferber

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 8, 2017

13249005 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 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.
13/249,005 09/29/2011 Ralf Ferber IS 11,0393-US-NP 1669
28116 7590
WestemGeco L.L.C.
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
LOBO, IAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2017 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):
U S Docketing @ sib. com
jalverson@slb.com
SMarckesoni@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RALF FERBER
Appeal 2017-0013981
Application 13/249,0052
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 9, 11, 13—15, 21, and 22.3 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellant’s Second Substitute Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed June 13, 2016), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
November 1, 2016), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
September 6, 2016), and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed June 26,
2015).
2 Appellant identifies WestemGeco, L.L.C. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
3 The rejection of claims 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) has been
withdrawn (Ans. 2).
Appeal 2017-001398
Application 13/249,005
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “demodulating a wavefield”
(Spec. 13).
Claim 9, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim on appeal
and representative of the claimed subject matter:
9. An apparatus comprising:
sensors to acquire data representing spatial samples of a
spatially varying seismic wavefield, the wavefield comprising
spectral components; and
a seismic wavefield demodulator to selectively weight the
samples to spread the spectral components across a wavenumber
spectrum to demodulate the seismic wavefield.
REJECTIONS
Claims 9, 11, 13—15, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vamham (US 6,363,034 Bl, iss. Mar. 26, 2002),
Chambers (US 5,491,669, iss. Feb. 13, 1996), and Engeler (US 4,155,259,
iss. May 22, 1979).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Vamham, Chambers, Engeler, and Vaage et al. (US 2005/0195686 Al, pub.
Sept. 8, 2005) (hereinafter “Vaage”).
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 9 and Dependent Claims 11, 13—15, and 22
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because none of
Vamham, Chambers, and Engeler, individually or in combination, discloses
or suggests “a seismic wavefield demodulator to selectively weight the
samples to spread the spectral components across a wavenumber spectmm to
2
Appeal 2017-001398
Application 13/249,005
demodulate the seismic wavefield,” as recited in claim 9 (App. Br. 7—10;
Reply Br. 2—4).
The Examiner acknowledges that Vamham does not disclose a
seismic wavefield demodulator that ‘“selectively weights the samples to
spread the spectral components across a wavenumber spectrum’ to
demodulate the seismic wavefield,” as claimed (Final Act. 3). The
Examiner cites Engeler to cure the deficiency of Vamham (id. (finding that
Engeler teaches an acoustic wavefield demodulator where the demodulation
includes weighting the samples of the detected waveform)). And the
Examiner concludes that, in view of Engeler, it would have been obvious to
a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention “to
demodulate the seismic wavefield by selectively weighting samples of the
seismic wavefield of Vamham to therefore extend or spread the spectral
components across a wavenumber spectmm so as to improve lateral
resolution over an extended useful range” (id.).
Engeler is directed to an ultrasound imaging system using a transducer
array (Engeler, Abstract), and discloses that a principal object of the
invention is to provide a system in which improved lateral resolution is
obtained over an extended useful range (id. at col. 2,11. 51—54).4 Engeler
discloses that the transducer array includes a plurality of annular transducers,
4 Lateral resolution refers to the minimum separation at which two targets or
object points can be distinguished in a plane normal to the central or z-axis
of the transducer (Engeler, col. 1,11. 50-53). Engeler describes that it is
important to provide good resolution at a particular range, and also highly
desirable to provide good lateral resolution continuously from a range near
the transducer to a range which extends a considerable distance out from the
transducer, i.e. in both the near field and the far field (id. at col. 1,11. 53—58).
3
Appeal 2017-001398
Application 13/249,005
of successively larger radii, arranged concentrically about a central axis of
the array {id. at col. 2,11. 15—18); the radiating surface of the array may
constitute the inner surface of a segment of a sphere, the center of which is
the focal point of the array {id. at col. 2,11. 19-22). Engeler discloses that
the transducers are excited simultaneously by electrical pulses to generate a
burst of ultrasound, and receive echoes of ultrasound produced when the
burst impinges on object points spaced along the central axis of the array {id.
at col. 2,11. 22—25). These echoes arrive at the various annular transducers
at different times depending on the distance between each transducer and a
respective object point,5 which Engeler describes can negatively affect
resolution {id. at col. 2,11. 25—34.). Engeler addresses this problem by
shifting the phase of the demodulating signal used to demodulate each
respective echo signal from a respective transducer {id. at col. 3,11. 1—12).
Then, after demodulation, each demodulated signal is applied to a weighting
circuit “which provides a predetermined gain or attenuation factor” so that
the signal can be appropriately summed with similarly processed signals
from other transducers {id. at col. 6,11. 4—10).
Responding to Appellant’s argument that Engeler fails to disclose or
suggest weighting samples to demodulate a wavefield, i.e., “a seismic
wavefield demodulator to selectively weight the samples to spread the
spectral components across a wavenumber spectrum to demodulate the
seismic wavefield,” as recited in claim 9 (App. Br. 9-10), the Examiner
acknowledges that, in Engeler, weighting occurs after the demodulation of
5 Each echo from a respective object point produces, in the transducers, a
respective set of echo signals, one echo signal in each transducer (Engeler,
col. 2,11. 64—66).
4
Appeal 2017-001398
Application 13/249,005
individual echo samples rather than as part of the demodulation process
itself (Ans. 5). But, the Examiner finds that “the breath of ‘a seismic
wavefield demodulator to selectively weight’ does not exclude such
weighting after demodulating” {id. (also observing that “the functional
language ‘to selectively weight. . . ’ does not provide any positive structural
limitation to the claim” and that claim 9 “does not positively recite that the
demodulator includes actual structure related to the weighting of samples”)).
The Examiner, thus, ostensibly takes the positon that the contested language
merely recites an intended use for the seismic wavefield demodulator, and is
not entitled to patentable weight. We disagree.
We note, as an initial matter, that it is entirely permissible, as
Appellant does in claim 9, to recite features of an apparatus using functional
language. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing
In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-213 (CCPA 1971)). And, in some
circumstances, functional language can be relied on to limit the scope of an
apparatus claim. See K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
Cir. 1999).
Here, claim 9 recites an apparatus comprising (1) “sensors” that
acquire data representing spatial samples of a spatially varying seismic
wavefield; and (2) “a seismic wavefield demodulator to selectively weight
the samples to spread the spectral components across a wavenumber
spectrum to demodulate the seismic wavefield.” Rather than merely
describing an intended use of the seismic wavefield demodulator, we agree
with Appellant that the functional language defines the seismic wavefield
demodulator by what it does and, thus, limits the claimed structure (Reply
Br. 2—3). Therefore, it was incumbent on the Examiner to show that the
5
Appeal 2017-001398
Application 13/249,005
prior art structure is necessarily capable of performing the recited function.
See In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 212—213.
The Examiner has not established here that Engeler discloses structure
capable of performing the recited function, i.e., that the demodulator and/or
weighting circuit, as disclosed in Engeler, would be capable of selectively
weighting spatial samples of a spatially varying seismic wavefield to spread
the spectral components across a wavenumber spectrum to demodulate the
seismic wavefield, as called for in claim 9.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not
sustain the rejection of claims 11, 13—15, 21, and 22, which depend
therefrom. Cf. In reFritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(“dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which
they depend are nonobvious”).
Dependent Claim 21
The Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 21 based on Vaage, in
combination with Vamham, Chambers, and Engeler, does not cure the
deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 9. Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the
same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 9.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 9, 11, 13—15, 21, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
6