Ex Parte Knutsen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2016

13290775 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/290,775 11/07/2011
28116 7590 03/14/2016
WestemGeco L.L.C.
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thorleiv Knutsen
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.
14.0304-US-DIV 1613
EXAMINER
CHARI OU!, MOHAMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2857
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2016 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)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THORLEIV KNUTSEN 1
Appeal2014-005729
Application 13/290,775
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 2, and 4--19 as unpatentable
over Iseli et al. (US 2005/0259514 Al published Nov. 24, 2005 (hereinafter
"Iseli")) in view ofWerb et al. (US 2007/0258508 Al published Nov. 8,
2007 (hereinafter "W erb")) as well as claims 3 and 20 as unpatentable over
these references in combination with Burkholder et al. (US 2005/0232078
1 WestemGeco, LLC is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-005729
Application 13/290,775
Al published Oct. 20, 2005 (hereinafter "Burkholder")). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellant claims a seismic acquisition system comprising a sensor
unit configured to send seismic data to a recorder via a first communication
path and to send the seismic data again via a second, different
communication path if an acknowledgment signal is not received by the
sensor unit (independent claim 1; see also independent claim 10).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A seismic acquisition system, comprising:
a seismic recorder for recording seismic data;
a plurality of seismic sensor units in communication with
the seismic recorder through a communications network,
wherein at least one of the sensor units is configured to:
send the seismic data to the seismic recorder via a
first communication path; and
send the seismic data again to the seismic recorder
via a second communication path if an acknowledgement
signal is not received by the at least one sensor unit,
wherein the first communication path is different from
the second communication path.
Appellant presents arguments specifically directed to the independent
claims only (App. Br. 13-21 ), of which claim 1 is representative. Therefore,
the appealed claims will stand or fall with claim 1.
We sustain the above rejections for the reasons given in the Final
Action, the Answer, and below.
2
Appeal2014-005729
Application 13/290,775
The Examiner finds that Iseli discloses a seismic acquisition system of
the type defined by claim 1 except that Iseli' s sensor unit is not configured
to perform the claimed function of sending the seismic data again via a
second, different communication path if an acknowledgment signal is not
received (Final Action 2). The Examiner concludes that, in view of Werb's
i-f 429 disclosure ("If no acknowledgment is received within the expected
time, the Star node 1 may attempt to resend the packet and may attempt to
utilize a different transmission path."), it would have been obvious to
provide the sensor unit of Iseli with the capability of performing this claimed
function (Final Action 2-3).
Appellant argues that "[t]he Examiner's proposal of using the seismic
acquisition system of Iseli with the decentralized and independent decision-
making of the individual nodes as taught in W erb would significantly change
the principal of operation of the seismic acquisition system taught in Iseli"
(App. Br. 19).
Appellant's argument is not persuasive because it is based on an
incorrect premise that the Examiner proposes bodily incorporating into
Iseli' s acquisition system the decentralized and independent decision-
making of the individual nodes taught by Werb. Rather, the Examiner
proposes modifying Iseli in view of W erb so that, for example, "if the base
station 210d [of Iseli] fails, then the sensor 205e could transmit the data to
the recorder 220 through base station 210b instead" (Ans. 4).
In reply, Appellant contends that the Examiner's modification would
require sensor 205e to have a slot in a communication channel for each of
the two separate base stations and that "[ n ]owhere in Iseli is this dual-slot
implementation taught or disclosed" (Reply Br. 3).
3
Appeal2014-005729
Application 13/290,775
Appellant's contention is not well taken. Iseli expressly teaches that
the sensor selects a base station channel for transmission, that another
channel is selected if the originally selected channel is impaired, and that
"[the step of] selecting a channel includes selecting a base station" (i-f 182).
Therefore, contrary to Appellant's belief, Iseli discloses a sensor configured
to select from a number of different channels and a number of different base
stations.
Appellant further argues that, "[i]n regard to claim 1, both
'transmission path' and 'communication path' are terms of art, and a
'transmission path' [as disclosed in i1429 ofWerb] is not the same thing as a
'communication path' [as recited in claim 1]" (App. Br. 20). According to
Appellant, "Werb merely proposes switching a transmission path, not a
communication path, in response to receiving no acknowledgment" (id. at
21).
Appellant does not cite any Specification support for the argument
that the "communication path" of claim l must be interpreted as different
from the "transmission path" of Werb. For this reason, we find no
convincing merit in Appellant's position that there is a difference between
the claimed "communication path" and Werb's "transmission path." In any
event, Appellant also does not explain with any reasonable specificity why
Werb's i1429 teaching of using a different transmission path would not have
suggested using a different communication path in the system of Iseli.
For the reasons given above and by the Examiner, Appellant's
arguments fail to reveal error in the Examiner's rejection of representative
claim 1.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
4
Appeal2014-005729
Application 13/290,775
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).
AFFIRMED
5