Ex Parte Holo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2012

11213246 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANDREAS THIBLIN HOLO
____________

Appeal 2010-005352
Application 11/213,246
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005352
Application 11/213,246

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 22-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Zajac (US 6,691,038 B2, issued Feb. 10, 2004). Claims 1-21
have been canceled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 22 and 32 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 22,
reformatted and reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
22. A system comprising:
a marine seismic spread comprising a
towing vessel and a seismic spread element towed
by the vessel, the seismic spread element
comprising a steering mechanism; and
a control subsystem adapted to
determine a first difference between a
tracking point of the seismic spread and a
position from a pre-determined path,
determine a new track based on the
first difference,
determine a second difference
between the new track and a measured track,
and
selectively steer the vessel and the
steering mechanism of the seismic spread
element based at least in part on the second
difference.
Appeal 2010-005352
Application 11/213,246

3
OPINION
Zajac discloses a seismic survey vessel 10 towing an array of marine
seismic streamers 12 and an active streamer positioning devices (ASPDs) 18
positioned on streamers 12. Col. 6, ll. 34-40, 43-48, fig. 1. The control
system for the ASPDs 18 may be distributed between a master controller 26,
which could be located remotely on the towing vessel 10, and a group of one
or more separate controllers built into one or more ASPDs 18. Col. 7, ll. 13-
19, fig. 1. The master controller 26 also accepts data from environmental
sensors associated with vessel 10, including “wind speed and direction; tidal
currents velocity and direction; ocean bottom depth/angle; local current
velocity and direction; wave height and direction; ocean bottom depth/angle;
and water temperature and salinity.” Col. 7, ll. 38-46. An optimal path
processor 24 collects real-time positioning data, environmental data, and
maneuverability data for the array and the towing vessel, and computes
predictions for the array behavior and computes the optimal path1 through
the seismic survey area during the acquisition run, and the master controller
26 receives the predicted array behavior and takes it into account in
generating and issuing positioning commands to the array ASPDs and the
towing vessel. Col. 8, ll. 39-48, figs. 2, 6.
Claim 22, and similarly claim 32, requires three separate
determinations. App. Br., Claims Appendix. The first determination is a
determination of a first difference between a tracking point of the seismic
spread and a position from a pre-determined path. The Examiner found that

1 The optimal path refers to “a desired seismic acquisition path during
primary seismic data acquisition or during in fill shooting.” Col. 8, ll. 10-12.
Appeal 2010-005352
Application 11/213,246

4
Zajac teaches a first determination where a difference is determined between
Zajac’s measured position data and the optimal path. Ans. 8.
The second determination is a determination of a new track, which is
based on the first difference from the first determination. The Examiner
found that Zajac teaches a second determination, i.e., a new track, by issuing
“steering commands generated based on the difference [between] the
measured and desired paths.” Id.
The third determination is a determination of a second difference
between the new track of the second determination and a measured track.
As such, for Zajac’s disclosure to anticipate claim 22, Zajac must disclose a
third determination whereby a difference is determined between the steering
commands, i.e., the “new track”, and a measured track.
The Examiner has not adequately explained how Zajac discloses
determination of a second difference between the new track and a measured
track. The Examiner has found that the “measured track” is the track of
measured data taken from the vessel and the vessel spread elements. See Id.
However, the Examiner has relied on Zajac’s disclosure of an iterative
process whereby new steering commands are issued based on a
determination between the optimal path 24 and measured data, i.e., where
the first and second determinations described above are repeated
continuously. Id. (“Zajac discloses that this comparison is done
continuously throughout the marine seismic survey run (real time processing
of positioning and environmental data, continuous repositioning throughout
the survey) (Column 7, Lines 49-61; Column 8, Line 1 to Column 9, Line
53).”).
Appeal 2010-005352
Application 11/213,246

5
Thus, the rejection of claims 22-39 as anticipated by Zajac is not
sustained.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 22-39.

REVERSED

Klh