Ex Parte Jeffryes

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2016

13011013 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/011,013 0112112011
28116 7590 08/10/2016
WestemGeco L.L.C.
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Benjamin P. Jeffryes
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.
57 .0953-US-NP 3810
EXAMINER
BAGHDASARYAN,HOVHANNES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2016 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):
USDocketing@slb.com
jalverson@slb.com
SMarckesoni@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BENJAMIN P. JEFFRYES
Appeal2014-008991
Application 13/011,013
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-12 and 14--
25. Claim 13 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as WestemGeco, L.L.C., which is
identified as related to Schlumberger Technology Corp. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-008991
Application 13/011,013
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed invention generally relates to a seismic vibrator to
produce a continuous signal used in seismic surveying for identifying
subterranean elements, such as hydrocarbon formations. (Spec. Abstract,
i-f 1.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a control unit of a seismic vibrator, a non-
frequency-swept pilot signal having a predetermined waveform;
in response to the pilot signal, the control unit causing
vibrational actuation of at least one moveable element of the
seismic vibrator; and
generating, by the seismic vibrator due to the vibrational
actuation of the at least one moveable element, a first continuous
seismic signal having content in a first frequency bandwidth of
multiple frequencies.
Rejections
Claims 1-5, 15-19, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bagaini et al. (US 2010/0085836 Al, published Apr. 8,
2010) and Landrum et al. (US 3,568,142, issued Mar. 2, 1971). (Final Act.
2-5, 12.)
Claims 6, 9, 10, 22, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bagaini, Landrum, and Jeffryes (US 2003/0210609 Al,
published Nov. 13, 2003). (Final Act. 5---6, 10-12.)
Claims 7 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bagaini, Landrum, Jeffryes, and Sallas et al. (US
7,859,945 B2, issued Dec. 28, 2010). (Final Act. 6-7.)
2
Appeal2014-008991
Application 13/011,013
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Bagaini, Landrum, Jeffryes, and Bowden et al. (US 4,511,999, issued Apr.
16, 1985). (Final Act. 7-8.)
Claims 11 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bagaini, Landrum, Jeffryes, and Allen (US 5,715,213,
issued Feb. 3, 1998). (Final Act. 8.)
Claims 20 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bagaini, Landrum, Jeffryes, and Silverman (US
3,678,452, issued July 18, 1972). (Final Act. 8-9, 11-12.)
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bagaini, Landrum, Jeffryes, Silverman, and Allen. (Final Act. 9-10.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. (App. Br. 4--17; Reply Br. 1-12.) We
concur with Appellant's argument (App. Br. 6-7) that the Examiner has not
shown the combination of Bagaini and Landrum teaches a non-frequency-
swept pilot signal that is used to generate a first continuous seismic signal
having content in a first frequency bandwidth of multiple frequencies, as
recited in claim 1, and similarly required by independent claims 15 and 22.2
Appellant argues Landrum' s pilot signal is swept from a first
frequency to a second frequency. (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 5-6.) We find
Landrum's Figures 2 and 3, and the description of the pilot signal in column
2 Because all of the rejections rely upon the Examiner finding that Landrum
discloses a non-frequency-swept pilot signal (Final Act. 3), this issue is
dispositive. Accordingly, we need not reach additional issues raised by
Appellant's arguments.
3
Appeal2014-008991
Application 13/011,013
7, are consistent in showing that the pilot signal and the generated signal
consist of sets of signals at particular frequencies ranging from one end of a
frequency range to the other end. The Examiner's finding that an isolated
portion of Landrum's signal consists of only one frequency, and is therefore
a non-frequency-swept pilot signal (see Ans. 14), is inconsistent with claim
1 's requirement that the non-frequency-swept pilot signal be used to
generate a first continuous seismic signal having content in a first frequency
bandwidth of multiple frequencies. Considering a large enough portion of
Landrum's signal to include waveforms oscillating at more than one
frequency, e.g., from the beginning of time ti to the end of time 12 in Figures
2 and 3, it is apparent that Landrum's signal moves from one frequency to
progressively higher frequencies.
Appellant's Specification distinguishes a swept-frequency signal
(Spec. i-f 7) from "a continuous seismic signal that has content over a
predetermined frequency bandwidth (that includes a range of multiple
frequencies)" (Spec. i-f 8). (See also Spec. i-fi-116-17.) The swept-frequency
signal sweeps from one frequency to another, and "a short section of the
output acoustic (seismic) signal from the seismic vibrator does not contain
content from the entire sweep range." (Spec. i-f 7.) In contrast, even fifty
percent or less of the "continuous seismic signal will have frequency content
over substantially the entire bandwidth." (Spec. i-f 8.) Despite the
identification of these characteristics, Appellant's Specification does not
specifically define the term "non-frequency-swept pilot signal," and
Appellant does not provide a definition in the briefs on Appeal. Consistent
with Appellant's arguments and the descriptions in the Specification
discussed supra, we interpret the claimed non-frequency-swept pilot signal
4
Appeal2014-008991
Application 13/011,013
to require a signal with complex waveforms resulting from a mix of multiple
frequencies, rather than simple sine waves changing from one frequency to
another. Thus, we agree with Appellant that the frequency progression
shown in the cited portions of Landrum does not constitute a non-frequency-
swept pilot signal, even if Landrum's signal has discrete steps or rest periods
between frequencies.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bagaini and Landrum. For
the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 2-12 and 14--
25.3
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-12 and 14--25.
REVERSED
3 Although additional references are relied on in rejecting claims 6-12, 14,
20-23, and 25, the Examiner has not shown these additional references
remedy the deficiencies noted with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
5