Ex Parte Robinson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2013

11418756 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2013)

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.
11/418,756 05/05/2006 INV001Gary Charles Robinson 8645/3(a) 2089
23381 7590 03/20/2013
Dorr, Carson & Birney, P.C.
5299 DTC Boulevard
Suite 340
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
EXAMINER
BREIER, KRYSTINE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GARY CHARLES ROBINSON
____________________

Appeal 2011-001405
Application 11/418,756
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: WILLIAM V. SAINDON, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001405
Application 11/418,756
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
7. App. Br. 5. Claims 1, 5 and 7 are the independent claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
The present invention is directed to a method for improving the time-
depth correlation between seismic data obtained from seismic sensors on the
earth’s surface and well log data from sensors positioned in a well, or bore,
below the earth’s surface. Spec., paras. [0002]-[0004]. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for improving the time-depth tie between a well
log and seismic data, said method comprising:
inverting the seismic data to obtain a seismic impedance
trace in the time domain using an initial time-depth function;
converting the seismic impedance trace in the time domain
to a function of depth using the initial time-depth function;
comparing the well log with the converted seismic
impedance trace in depth; and
revising the time-depth function based on depth differences
between the well log and the converted seismic impedance
trace.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
He
Marin
US 5,798,982
US 6,925,387 B2
Aug. 25, 1998
Aug. 2, 2005
Tobias US 2004/0225442 A1 Nov. 11, 2004

Appeal 2011-001405
Application 11/418,756
3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1 - 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over He and Marin. Ans. 3.
Claims 4-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over He, Marin and Tobias. Ans. 6.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 - 3 as unpatentable over He and Marin.
Claim 1.
The Examiner found that He1 disclosed all the steps of the seismic
data inversion method recited in claim 1 with the exception of “converting
the seismic impedance trace in the time domain to a function of depth using
the initial time-depth function.” Ans. 4. The Examiner also found that He
disclosed the equivalence of time and depth functions where the geophysical
strata properties were known. Id. The Examiner turned to Marin for the
teaching that it is conventional in the art to provide time-to-depth conversion
of seismic domains. Ans. 5. The Examiner determined that where the
relative comparison of seismic impedance traces and well log data occur in
the depth domain, the correlation, i.e., depth differences, between the
seismic and well log data accordingly revised the time depth function in
He’s iterative, seismic inversion method. Id. The Examiner reasoned that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar with time-to-depth
conversions and would have readily “modif[ied] the method of He with the

1 “He,” as used throughout this opinion, is a noun referring in all instances to
the He et al. reference, and not as a personal pronoun relating to either the
Examiner or Appellant.
Appeal 2011-001405
Application 11/418,756
4
depth domain conversions of Marin since such a modification would have
produced more accurate stacked images and provide complementary data.”
Ans. 6.
At the outset Appellant asserts neither He nor Marin discloses the
“converting,” “comparing” or “revising” steps currently recited in claim 1.
In regards to the “converting” step, Appellant argues that He’s methodology
occurs in the time domain where sub-surface well log data is converted from
depth-to-time, in order to be compared in the time domain with the synthetic
seismograms generated by the seismic inversion from the surface sensed
seismic data. Br. 6. Marin discloses that it is well known that data
comparisons derived in each domain are limited by the characteristics of
each domain, for example “[i]n the time domain, events are mispositioned
laterally, while in the depth domain, they should be closer to true geological
position, depending on the Earth velocity model correctness.” Marin col. 1,
l. 65 – col. 2, l.1. As the Examiner points out, Marin teaches inter alia that
time-to-depth conversion is conventional. Ans. 5 citing Marin col. 2, ll. 19-
24. Appellant argues that Marin discloses the time-to-depth conversion
using a velocity model, not the time-depth function as recited in this step.
Br. 6. The Examiner has not however used Marin to disclose the time-depth
function, only that it is conventional to convert domains from time-to-depth.
The Examiner found that He “us[es] an initial time-depth function” (Ans. 4)
to derive the seismic impedance trace(s) from the seismic data sets. He,
Abstr.
Appellant contends that the Examiner has misconstrued He as
disclosing operations in the time domain and depth domain are “virtually
equivalent.” Br. 6. This argument is unpersuasive because even if, as the
Examiner states, time equals depth (a “one-to-one correlation”), that
Appeal 2011-001405
Application 11/418,756
5
relationship is itself a time-depth function used to map one to the other. See
Br. 6-7; see also He, col. 5, ll. 47-51 (stating that time “may be equated to
depth”)2.
With respect to Appellant’s position that neither He nor Marin teaches
or suggests the step of “comparing” the well log data and the converted
seismic impedance trace in the depth domain, the Examiner found that He
teaches using the acoustic impedance trace (He, Fig. 2(d)) derived from the
well log data as constraints “to stabilize the seismic inversion.” Ans. 7
citing He col. 6, ll. 19-21. Appellant argues that this stabilization, or
comparison step is not accomplished in the depth domain. Br. 7. Given the
knowledge of one of ordinary skill able to convert time-to-depth domains
from Marin, the Examiner concluded that such comparison, or stabilization
operation of data sets can be performed in either the time, or the depth
domain. Ans. 7. Appellant’s argument here attacks He in isolation, whereas
the Examiner’s proposed combination is predicated on a combination of the
teachings of He and Marin. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references”). Accordingly, we are also not apprised here of
error in the Examiner’s position.
The Examiner found that He also disclosed the last step of claim 1
including “revising” the time-depth function based on the comparison
discussed supra of the well log derived impedance constraints and the

2 As an aside, we note that “equating” does not only mean “to make equal”
as is the Examiner’s position, but it also means “to make comparable,”
which is a much broader meaning merely requiring a relationship, not
limited to equality. For example, energy may be equated to mass using the
formula E=mc^2.
Appeal 2011-001405
Application 11/418,756
6
seismic inversion where the time-depth function would be revised by every
iterative adjustment of the seismic inversion as the data correlation method
converged toward the acoustic impedance solution. Ans. 5 citing He, col. 6,
ll. 13-31. Appellant asserts that (1) “[r]evision of the time-depth function,
and the time-depth function itself, is not mentioned in the cited text” and (2)
in any event, that He discloses performing the operation in the frequency
domain. Br. 7. However, to the first point, a reference need not describe a
limitation in haec verba. The Examiner cites to several passages of He at
pages 4-5 of the Answer and explains how these portions describe the
claimed revision. Appellant’s general allegation that this passage does not
set forth the particular claim language fails to apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s findings and explanation. As to the second point, the Examiner
explains that He merely “discusses using band-limited seismic and well log
data, which is data limited to specific frequencies” as the limits of providing
high and low frequency matching in determining the impedance constraints,
and that the superimposing of the impedance constraints derived from the
well logs in conjunction with the acoustic impedance of the seismic data
occurs in the time/depth domain, not in the frequency domain as urged by
Appellant. Ans. 8. Again, the Examiner has set forth the findings and
explanation upon which the rejection is made, and Appellant has not offered
any evidence or technical explanation in response to the Examiner’s
characterization and explanation of the disclosure of He to persuade us to the
contrary. Accordingly, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s
findings or reasoning and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.

Claim 2.
Appeal 2011-001405
Application 11/418,756
7
Appellant argues that neither He nor Marin teach an initial time-depth
function as recited in claim 2 that is “generated by an initial correlation
between the well log and seismic data.” Br. 9. The Examiner explained
previously with respect to the time-depth function that “He uses an iterative
method of seismic inversion using the model from the previous iteration in
the subsequent iteration” and that the updating, or revising of the time-depth
function is based on the comparison of the well log and seismic data. Ans.
9. Appellant’s argument attacking He individually as performing these
operations in the time domain exclusively does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s reasoning where, as discussed supra, the Examiner relies on
Marin to teach that it is within the ordinary skill in the art to convert between
time-to-depth, as well as depth-to-time domains, and where the Examiner
relies on He teaching the iterative seismic inversion for revising the time-
depth function based on the comparison of the well log and seismic
impedance trace as a function of time/depth. The Examiner offered a reason
and rational underpinnings for this conclusion, and Appellant does not
apprise us of error. Accordingly we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 2.
Claim 3.
Appellant further argues that He does not disclose the step of
“modifying the correlation between the well log and seismic data using the
revised time-depth function” as recited in claim 3. Br. 9. However, the
Examiner offered a reason and rational underpinning in support of the
conclusion that He teaches iteratively constraining the seismic inversion
according to the correlation of the seismic and well log data where each
iteration provides a modified correlation between the seismic and well log
data. Ans. 10. Appellant’s position merely takes issue with the Examiner’s
Appeal 2011-001405
Application 11/418,756
8
citation of certain disclosure in He at column 6. Id. Appellant contends that
the iterative updating described in He does not revise the time-depth
function, but does not explain why the Examiner has erred in this finding,
nor why He’s disclosure of the convergence of compared data towards the
inverted acoustic impedance solution, does not also include a revised time-
depth function. Because Appellant has not apprised us of error in the
Examiner’s reasoning and rational underpinnings, we sustain the rejection of
claim 3.
Claims 4-7 as unpatentable over He, Marin and Tobias.
Appellant argues claims 4-7 as a group, where claims 5 and 7 are
independent claims. Separate argument is not presented with respect to any
of the claims individually, and where the “correlation” step at issue in each
of these claims is substantively the same, we select claim 4 as representative
of the group where claims 5-7 stand or fall with claim 4. See 37 C.F.R.
41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner refers to Tobias for the teaching that it is well known to
correlate points between the well log and seismic impedance trace as recited
by the additional method step in claim 4. Ans. 10. Appellant restates the
argument relative to He and Marin and further argues that nothing in Tobias
teaches or suggests the “correlating” step. Br. 10. Appellant asserts that
Tobias uses well flow data, as opposed to well log data and that “well flow
data does not provide information on the variation of velocity as a function
of depth or time.” Id. The Examiner points out that the well flow data is
only one type of well data disclosed by Tobias. Ans. 10. Indeed, Tobias
discloses that in addition to the dynamic well flow log data, static well log
data which includes determining sub-surface rock properties and strata is
used by Tobias to correlate the well data and seismic data. Tobias, para.
Appeal 2011-001405
Application 11/418,756
9
[0032] . Appellant’s claims are not limited to a specific type of well log, and
Tobias is cited only with respect to the “correlation” step which does not
include any claim limitation relative to the variation of velocity as a time-
depth function. Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
position and thus we also sustain the rejection of claims 4-7.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7 is
AFFIRMED.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED

hh