Ex Parte Laake

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2017

13851327 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 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.
13/851,327 03/27/2013 Andreas W. Laake IS12.3052-US-NP 2342
48879 7590 12/29/2017
SCHLUMBERGER INFORMATION SOLUTIONS
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
HOUSTON, TX 77042
EXAMINER
HANN, JAY B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2017 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 ANDREAS W. LAAKE
Appeal 2017-007458
Application 13/851,3271
Technology Center 2100
Before MARC S. HOFF, JAMES R. HUGHES, and SCOTT B. HOWARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—17, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
Claim 18—20 have been withdrawn. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Schlumberger Technology Corporation, which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-007458
Application 13/851,327
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a seismic attribute
color model transform. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the relevant limitation emphasized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
providing data from at least two data sets in a continuous
color model that comprises at least two color axes;
transforming the data from the continuous color model to
a hue, saturation and value color model to generate at least
saturation data;
applying an edge detection algorithm to the saturation
data to generate enhanced data; and
rendering at least a portion of the enhanced data to a
display.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Etgen US 6,049,759 Apr. 11,2000
Knobloch US 6,950,751 B2 Sept. 27,2005
Imhof US 8,213,261 B2 July 3,2012
Satinder Chopra and Kurt J. Marfurt, Seismic Attributes for Prospect
Identification and Reservoir Characterization (2007) (hereinafter “Chopra”).
REJECTIONS
Claim 6 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35U.S.C. § 112, fourth
paragraph as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit
the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to
2
Appeal 2017-007458
Application 13/851,327
include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Final Act. 6—
7.
Claims 1—4, 6, 10—14, and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knobloch in view of Imhof. Final Act.
8-14.
Claims 5 and 7 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Knobloch in view of Imhof and Etgen. Final Act.
14—15.
Claims 8, 9, 15, and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knobloch in view of Imhof and Chopra.
Final Act. 15—18.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We
are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 1—17.
Section 112, Fourth Paragraph Rejection
The Examiner concludes that claim 6, which recites “wherein the data
comprises data from at least two different sources,” does not further limit
claim 1, which recites “providing data from at least two data sets.” Final
Act. 6. According to the Examiner, “[djata sets are sources so the data from
claim 1 are already necessarily from at least two sources. Therefore claim 6
fails to further limit claim 1.” Id.', see also Ans. 2-4.
3
Appeal 2017-007458
Application 13/851,327
Appellant argues that claim 6 further limits the scope of claim 1. See
App. Br. 4—6; Reply Br. 2—3. Appellant relies on the dictionary definition of
sets and sources and the examples given in the Specification. App. Br. 4—6;
Reply Br. 2—3.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred.
Specifically, as argued by Appellant, the Specification states that “a process
may be applied to different data sets, optionally from different sources.”
Spec. 1131. The use of optionally implies that the different data sets can
also optionally be located in the same data source. Therefore, claim 6
further limits claim 1 by indicating that the optional configuration—different
data sources—is a requirement.
Accordingly, the section 112 rejection of claim 6 is reversed.
Section 103 Rejections
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Knobloch teaches
“transforming the data from the continuous color model to a hue, saturation
and value color model to generate at least saturation data,” as recited in
claim 1. See App. Br. 8—19; Reply Br. 4—6. Specifically, Appellant argues
the Examiner erred in not identifying two different color models and
transforming one color model to another. App. Br. 8. That is, Appellant
argues “that Knobloch merely takes a multidimensional volume (e.g., a 3D
geoscience data set) and represents it directly using hue, saturation, and
intensity.” Reply Br. 6.
The Examiner finds that Knobloch teaches the transformation step
recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 8—9 (citing Knobloch 4:47—56, 7:60-62,
4
Appeal 2017-007458
Application 13/851,327
10:9-12, 10:24); Ans. 4-5 (citing Knobloch 4:47-5:4, 7:53-58, 7:60-62,
10:19—12, 10:24). More specifically, the Examiner finds that:
Taking the prior art color display data as described generally in
the background section of Knobloch column 4—5 and
implementing the HLS color scale as taught by Knobloch col. 7
lines 60—62 and Knobloch col. 10 lines 9—12 and 24 (see Final
Action 8-9) is transforming the previous RGB color model to “a
hue, saturation and value color model.”
Ans. 4
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments as the Examiner has not
identified sufficient evidence or provided sufficient explanation as to how
Knobloch teaches “transforming the data from the continuous color model to
a hue, saturation and value color model to generate at least saturation data”
as recited in claim 1. Although Knobloch discusses displaying data in a
color axis based on hue, saturation and intensity, see Knobloch 7:53—8:5, the
Examiner has not identified sufficiently how that data was generated.
Specifically, the sections cited by the Examiner do not teach or suggest a
transformation of data from a first continuous color model to the hue,
saturation, intensity model.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant the Examiner’s finding that
Knobloch teaches the disputed limitation is in error because it is not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d
671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Examiner’s burden of proving non-patentability is
by a preponderance of the evidence); see also In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,
1017 (CCPA 1967) (“The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the
factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the
invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.”).
5
Appeal 2017-007458
Application 13/851,327
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along with the rejection of claim 14, which
recites a limitation commensurate in scope to the disputed limitation
discussed above, and dependent claims 2—4, 6, 10-13, and 17.
Moreover, because the Examiner has not shown that Etgen or Chopra
cures the foregoing deficiencies regarding the rejection of the independent
claims, we will not sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 5,
7—9, 15, and 16 for similar reasons.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claims 1—17.
REVERSED
6