Ex Parte Herrmann et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 21, 2013

12156401 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PHILIPPE HERRMANN, GILLES LAMBARE,
PATRICE GUILLAUME, and ERIC SUAUDEAU
____________________

Appeal 2011-012543
Application 12/156,401
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-012543
Application 12/156,401

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-91. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The rejected claims are directed to a method of seismic data
processing. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the only independent claim.
1. A method of seismic data processing,
wherein the data includes at least one set of
seismic traces, with each trace including a signal
recorded by a sensor after having been propagated
in a subsurface area, with the signal being defined
by an amplitude as a function of time, including
the steps of:
migration of at least one set of seismic traces
according to an initial time-velocity model;
picking in the time-migrated data one or
more event(s) corresponding to one or more
subsurface reflector(s) so as to obtain facets locally
approximating the respective event;
performing kinematic demigration of the
picked facets so as to obtain processed seismic
data comprising a set of facets and a set of
attributes associated with the facets,
wherein at least one set of attributes is used
to produce one or more images representing the
characteristics of said subsurface area.

1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed May 30,
2008), Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed April 25, 2011), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed July 25, 2011), as well as the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.,” mailed May 26, 2011).

Appeal 2011-012543
Application 12/156,401

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
Claims 1-5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee (US 7,493,241 B2, iss. Feb. 17, 2009) in view of
Broto (US 7,345,951 B2, iss. Mar. 18, 2008);
claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee
in view Broto, and further in view of Summerfield (US 2009/0116336 A1,
pub. May 7, 2009); and
claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee
in view Broto, and further in view of Krebs (US 6,002,642, iss. Dec. 14,
1999).
ANALYSIS
With respect to the rejection of claim 1, Appellants argue the
Examiner’s rejection is in error because the combination of Lee and Broto
does not teach or suggest the claimed limitation “performing kinematic
demigration of the picked facets,” where the facets are “pick[ed] . . . [from]
the time-migrated data.” Specifically, Appellants argue Broto, on which the
Examiner relies to teach “performing kinematic demigration,” teaches
demigration on depth-migrated data rather than on time-migrated data (App.
Br. 5), and the Examiner’s statement that it is obvious to perform the
demigration of Broto on the time-migrated data of Lee is in error (App. Br.
11-12).
In support of the rejection, the Examiner does not disagree that Broto
teaches demigration of time-migrated data, but states “[m]igration and
demigration (also known as reverse migration) are both well known in the
Appeal 2011-012543
Application 12/156,401

4
art. Furthermore, time migration and depth migration are also well known in
the art” (Ans. 8), and that:
It is well known in the art that, given a
velocity model, time and depth are virtually
equivalent. (see US 7881154 B2: “Traces may be
migrated in time or in depth depending on the
complexity of the geological velocity model used
for the migration. The two migration types are
equivalent for constant velocity or vertically
variable velocity”, Col 4, lines 50-53). It is
furthermore well known in the art to convert
between the two domains. Given this, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art that the kinematic demigration taught in Broto
would be sufficient to supply the deficiency of Lee
in teaching the limitations of claim 1.
(Ans. 9). However, Appellants point out in the Appeal Brief that Lee itself
states, in column 8, lines 11-24, that time-migrated data and depth-migrated
data differ from one another (App. Br. 8). We note the Examiner does not
address this argument in the Answer. Appellants also point out that the
portion of US 7,881,154 cited by the Examiner states only that under certain
conditions time-migration and depth-migration are equivalent (Reply Br. 2).
Further, Appellants filed a Declaration under 37 C.F.R. §1.132 of Mr.
Gilles Lambaré on December 21, 2010 (hereinafter “Lambaré Declaration”),
stating that:
7. In view of the above, one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention would not
perform kinematic demigration on the time-
migrated data of Lee because that would be
contrary to the disclosure of Broto to use
demigration on depth-migrated data to convert
information collected in the depth domain to
temporal information to obtain the required
Appeal 2011-012543
Application 12/156,401

5
traveltimes; and (2) time-migrated data and depth-
migrated data are not equivalent and do not
produce the same results, so one of ordinary skill
in the art would not employ their results
interchangeably.
8. Further, it would not have been straight-
forward for one of ordinary skill in the art to
perform demigration of time migrated data. In
particular, it was the understanding of one skilled
in the art that kinematic demigration is performed
on depth-migrated domain only, and a person
skilled in the art would be reluctant to use time-
migrated data for such a process because of
concerns that assumptions valid for depth-migrated
data are not valid for time-migrated data.
(Lambaré Declaration, paras. 7-8.) We note the Examiner does not respond
to these statements by providing any reasons why it would be obvious to
apply the demigration of Broto, which Broto teaches is applied to depth-
migrated data, to the time-migrated data of Lee. In KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) the Supreme Court at 418 noted that in an
obviousness analysis “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” In this case, in view of Appellants’ arguments
and evidence we do not find that the Examiner has sufficiently articulated a
reason why one would apply demigration, which Broto teaches is applied to
depth-migrated data, to the time-migrated data of Lee. We therefore do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Inasmuch as we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, we also do not
sustain the rejections of claims 2-9 depending from claim 1.
Appeal 2011-012543
Application 12/156,401

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 is REVERSED.
REVERSED

mls