Ex Parte Singh et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 22, 2012

11114773 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 22, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ROHITASHVA SINGH,
JOHAN O.A. ROBERTSSON, and OTTAR KRISTIANSEN
____________________

Appeal 2010-002722
Application 11/114,773
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and
PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002722
Application 11/114,773
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
4, 10, 17, 18, 23-25, 29, 30, 32-37, 81-85, and 87. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to the acquisition of seismic
data in a marine environment using a plurality of towed sensor-bearing
cables, known as ‘streamers.’” Spec. 1:1-2. Claims 1 and 82 are the
independent claims on appeal. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A streamer system for acquiring seismic data, comprising:
a plurality of first cable sections each employing a first
sensor configuration therein having a first seismic sensor
composition; and
at least one second cable section operatively connected to
one of the first cable sections and employing a second sensor
configuration therein that is different from the first sensor
configuration and includes a second seismic sensor composition
different from the first seismic sensor composition.
REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 17 and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which Appellants regard as the invention.
2. Claims 1-4, 10, 17, 18, 23-25, 29, 30, 81-85, and 87 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Tenghamn (US 2004/0042341 A1; pub. Mar. 4,
2004).
3. Claims 32-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Tenghamn and Robertsson (WO 00/57027; pub. Sep. 28, 2000).
Appeal 2010-002722
Application 11/114,773
3
CONTENTIONS AND ISSUES
Appellants amended claim 1 to replace “a hydrophone sensor
configuration” with “a first sensor configuration,” and replaced “measuring
particle motion” with “a second sensor configuration.” Ans. 4. This
amendment left the corresponding limitations in dependent claims 17 and
23-25 without antecedent basis. The Examiner concludes that claims 17 and
23-25 are indefinite for two reasons. The first reason is that the terms “the
hydrophone sensor configuration” and “the sensor elements measuring
particle motion” lack antecedent basis. Ans. 4-5. The second reason is that
while claim 1 does not require that the first and second sensors be
hydrophones and particle motion sensors,
applicant’s specification gives support for the first and second
sensor sections NOT being a hydrophone section and a particle
motion section on page 4. Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is
broader than requiring hydrophone and particle motion sensor
sections, and therefore the scope of the dependent claims 17
and 23-25 that seem to require that claim 1 be limited to
hydrophone and particle motion sensor configurations are
indefinite.
Ans. 12-13.
Appellants contend that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the bounds of claims 17 and 23-25 when read in light of the
Specification. App. Br. 11-13.
An issue presented by this appeal is whether claims 17 and 23-25 are
indefinite for the reasons given by the Examiner.
Independent claim 1 calls for a first and second cable section and
similarly independent claim 82 calls for a plurality of single component
sections and a multicomponent section. Thus, claims 1 and 82 each call for
two types of sections. The Examiner found that the portion of Tenghamn’s
Appeal 2010-002722
Application 11/114,773
4
seismic cable 30 having a first sensor (pressure gradient sensors 5)
corresponds to a section, and the portion of Tenghamn’s seismic cable 30
having a second sensor (particle velocity sensors 3) corresponds to another
section. Ans. 5. Appellants argue that “section” is a term of art referring to
“discrete pieces of the stream that are connected together to create the
streamer.” App. Br. 10. Appellants assert that the Specification and several
patents use the term “section” consistent with this meaning. Id.; Reply Br.
2-6.
Another issue presented by this appeal is whether Appellants
established that the Examiner erred in construing the claim limitation of
“section” and finding that Tenghamn discloses a structure that satisfies that
claim limitation.
ANALYSIS
Claims 17 and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The lack of antecedent basis for the terms “a hydrophone sensor
configuration” and “a first sensor configuration,” without more, does not
render claims 17 and 23-25 indefinite.1 See Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l
Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Similarly, that claim
1 is broader than claims 17 and 23-25, without more, does not render claims
17 and 23-25 indefinite. 2 The proper inquiry is whether a person of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the bounds of the claim when read
in light of the Specification. Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs,
Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

1 Although this informality does not render the scope of the claim indefinite,
it is deserving of correction in the event of further prosecution before the
Examiner.
2 Claims 17 and 23-25 depend from claim 1, and are intended to further limit
claim 1. See 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph.
Appeal 2010-002722
Application 11/114,773
5
The Specification describes that the streamer system includes a
plurality of first cable sections, each employing a first sensor configuration,
and at least one second cable section employing a second sensor
configuration. Spec. 2:1-4. In a non-limiting illustration, the Specification
describes that the first and second sensor configuration may include either a
plurality of hydrophones or particle motion sensors.3 Spec. 3:15-17; 4:5-15;
32:6-8.
In view of this disclosure, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that the first and second sensors of claim 1 may be composed of
either a “hydrophone sensor configuration” or “sensor elements measuring
particle motion” (particle motion sensors). Further, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that each of the “hydrophone sensor
configuration” and the “sensor elements measuring particle motion” of claim
17 corresponds to one or the other of the first and second sensor of claim 1,
and the “hydrophone sensor configuration” of claims 23-25 corresponds to
either of the first and second sensors of claim 1. Thus, claims 17 and 23-25
are not indefinite for the reasons identified by the Examiner.

Anticipation by Tenghamn
Appellants’ Specification and the patents cited by Appellants are
consistent with “section” being a term of art meaning “discrete pieces of the
stream that are connected together to create the streamer.”4 App. Br. 10;

3 Contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, the Specification describes a system
having a first sensor composed of a plurality of hydrophones and a second
sensor composed of a particle motion sensor. Spec. 4:5-6, 14-15; contra
Ans. 12-13 (citing Spec. 4).
4 The Examiner did not provide any evidence rebutting Appellants’ assertion
as to the art-recognized meaning of “section.”
Appeal 2010-002722
Application 11/114,773
6
Reply Br. 2-6; see also, e.g., Spec. 2:5-7; 24:7-17; 25:15-20; fig. 3. The
Examiner is correct that limitations not explicit or inherent in the language
of a claim cannot be imported from the Specification. See, e.g., E-Pass
Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
However, here “section” is a term of art, having a meaning ascribed by a
person of ordinary skill in the art. Because the words of a claim are given
their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary
skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution
history, “section,” as used in claims 1 and 82 will carry that meaning. See
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Tenghamn does not disclose that seismic cable 30 is formed of
“discrete pieces of the stream that are connected together to create the
streamer,” and thus cable 30 does not correspond to two types of sections as
called for in independent claims 1 and 82.
Beyond this deficiency, we cannot agree with the Examiner’s finding
that the portion of Tenghamn’s seismic cable 30 having a first sensor
(pressure gradient sensors 5) corresponds to a first section, and the portion of
Tenghamn’s seismic cable 30 having a second sensor (particle velocity
sensors 3) corresponds to another section. Ans. 5. While Tenghamn’s
Figure 5 depicts pressure gradient sensors 5 and particle velocity sensors 3
in different portions of cable 30, this figure is a schematic diagram and does
not necessarily depict how the sensors are positioned in cable 30. Tenghamn
does not explicitly describe sensors 5 and 3 as positioned in different
portions of cable 30; rather, Tenghamn describes sensors 5 and 3 as “co-
located” and as combined in groups treated as a single sensor. Tenghamn, 4,
para. [0053]; 6, para. [0079]. Given these disclosures we cannot conclude
that it is more likely than not that Tenghamn’s first and second sensors
Appeal 2010-002722
Application 11/114,773
7
(pressure gradient sensors 5 particle velocity sensors 3) are positioned in
different portions of cable 30. See App. Br. 8-9.
As such, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 82 and their
respective dependent claims 2-4, 10, 17, 18, 23-25, 29, 30, 81, 83-85, and
87.

Claims 32-37 over Tenghamn and Robertsson
Claims 32-37 depend from independent claim 1. The rejection of
claims 32-37 relies upon the same erroneous finding regarding Tenghamn’s
cable 30 as independent claim 1. Thus, for the reasons explained in the
analysis of claim 1, supra, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 32-37.
CONCLUSIONS
Claims 17 and 23-25 are not indefinite for the reasons given by the
Examiner.
Appellants established that the Examiner erred in construing the claim
limitation of “section” and finding that Tenghamn discloses a structure that
satisfies the claim limitation when the limitation is properly construed.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17 and 23-25
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 10, 17, 18,
23-25, 29, 30, 81-85, and 87 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 32-37 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tenghamn and Robertsson.

REVERSED
nlk