Ex Parte Südow et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 13, 201612798935 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121798,935 04/14/2010 Gustav Goran Mattias Stidow 95738 7590 05/17/2016 Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc, P.O. Box 42805 Houston, TX 77242-2805 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. PGS-09-52US 1070 EXAMINER MCANDREW, CHRISTOPHER P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2858 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/1712016 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): docketing@pgs.com sophie.bolt@pgs.com ana.matute@pgs.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte GUSTAV GORAN MATTIAS SUDOW, ULF PETER LINDQVIST, and ANDRAS ROBERT JUHASZ Appeal2014-007572 Application 12/798,935 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's August 26, 2013 decision finally rejecting claims 1--4, 6, 7, and 9-16 ("Final Act."). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as PGS Geophysical, A.S., (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal2014-007572 Application 12/798,935 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' invention is directed to a method for marine geophysical surveying (Abstract). The method includes towing a first streamer cable behind a vessel in a body of water (id.). The first streamer cable includes a reference line, a plurality of spaced apart measuring electrodes electrically insulated from the reference line, and a voltage measuring circuit functionally coupled between each measuring electrode and the reference line (id.). The method also includes towing a second streaming cable which is configured like the first streamer cable, the second streamer cable being displaced from the first in both a vertical and horizontal direction (id.). At selected times an electromagnetic field is imparted into the water, and a voltage difference is determined between each measuring electrode and the reference line, and a difference between voltages measured at at least one electrode on each of the first and second streamer cables is also determined (id.). The Specification illustrates an apparatus used to carry out the invention in the following annotated version of FIG. 1: F!G.1 An annotated version of FIG. 1 shows FIG. 1 is a perspective view of an electromagnetic signal acquisition system that may be used in accordance with the claimed invention. 2 Appeal2014-007572 Application 12/798,935 Claim 1, which is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, is representative of the claims on appeal (key limitations in italics): 1. A method for acquiring electromagnetic data in at least two dimensions, comprising: towing a first streamer cable behind a vessel in a body of water, the first streamer cable comprising: a reference line extending substantially along the entire length of the cable; a plurality of spaced apart measuring electrodes disposed along the cable and electrically insulated from the reference line; and a plurality of voltage measuring circuits functionally coupled between each measuring electrode and the reference line; towing at least a second streamer cable behind the vessel at corresponding distance from the vessel as the first streamer cable, the second streamer cable configured substantially as the first streamer cable, the second streamer cable displaced from the first streamer cable in one of a horizontal plane and a vertical plane; at selected times, imparting an electromagnetic field in the body of water; measuring voltage difference at each measuring electrode with respect to the reference line; and determining a difference between voltages measured at at least one electrode on each of the first and second streamer cables; wherein each reference line is electrically insulated from reference lines in other streamer cables; and each reference line terminates in an electrode in electrical contact with the body of water sufficiently distant from a place of the imparting an electromagnetic field such that a voltage at each electrode is substantially zero notwithstanding the imparted electromagnetic field, thereby eliminating a source of voltage induced by towing the streamers. 3 Appeal2014-007572 Application 12/798,935 REJECTIONS Claims 1--4, 6, 7, and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tenghamn2 in view of Davidsson3, and further in view of Mayes. 4 Because Appellants do not offer separate arguments for any of the appealed claims (see, generally, Appeal Br. 5-11), we focus our discussion on the rejection of independent claim 1. DISCUSSION The Examiner determines, and Appellants do not dispute, that the disclosures of Tenghamn and Davidsson would have suggested each step in the method of claim 1, except that the combined teachings of Tenghamn and Davidsson do not teach the final limitation in claim 1: "each reference line terminates in an electrode in electrical contact with the body of water sufficiently distant from a place of the imparting an electromagnetic field such that a voltage at each electrode is substantially zero notwithstanding the imparted electromagnetic field, thereby eliminating a source of voltage induced by towing the streamers" (Final Act. 5-7, citing Tenghamn, Abstract, FIGS. 2, 3, and 4A--4C, i-fi-1 8, 33-38, and Davidsson, Abstract, 6:3-8). The Examiner finds that Mayes suggests this element (Final Act. 9, citing Mayes, FIGS. 1and2,2:10-18, and4:15-37). In particular, the 2 Tenghamn, U.S. Patent Pub. 2010/0045296 Al, published February 25, 2010. 3 Cheng et al., U.S. Patent Pub. 2007/0276612 Al, published November 29, 2007. 4 Mayes, U.S. Patent No. 3,182,250, issued May 4, 1965. 4 Appeal2014-007572 Application 12/798,935 Examiner finds that reference electrode N in Fig. 1 of ivfayes corresponds to the claimed electrode which terminates the claimed reference line in claim 1 (Final Act. 8-9, FIG. 1). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine this suggestion with the combined teachings of Tenghamn and Davidsson because doing so would have allowed for one to provide an indication of the average potential of the electrodes with respect to the reference, and the claimed electrode which terminates the claimed reference line would be sufficiently distant so as to be free from interference caused by the operation of the system itself (Final Act. 9). Appellants contend that Mayes is directed to a galvanic resistivity measuring system, which causes electric current to flow between a current source electrode and current return electrode through a medium whose electrical properties are to be measured (Appeal Br. 6). According to Appellants, galvanic resistivity measuring systems, like the one disclosed by Mayes, do not make any measurements related to any property of an induced electromagnetic field, which is the underlying principle of the claimed method (id.). Therefore, Appellants argue, the electrodes in Mayes identified by the Examiner as corresponding to the claimed terminal electrodes "are not applicable to what is stated in Appellants' claims" and a person of skill in the art "would have no basis to use the disclosure of Mayes to infer" the final limitation of claim 1 (Appeal Br. 6-8). In essence, Appellants argue that Mayes is non-analogous art, and that the Examiner has not provided an adequate explanation of why a person of skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Mayes with those of Tenghamn and Davidsson to arrive at the claimed invention. 5 Appeal2014-007572 Application 12/798,935 Appellants' arguments are not persuasive, essentially for the reasons set forth by the Examiner at pages 3 and 4 of the Answer. With respect to the non-analogous art argument, in order for a reference to be considered analogous art, it must be either in the field of the applicant's endeavor or be reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned. In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 986-87 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Mayes, like both Tenghamn and the invention on appeal, is directed to prospecting for hydrocarbon deposits underneath the sea floor using towed arrays (Mayes, 1: 10-40). Thus, Appellants have not shown that the references are non- analogous art. In order to make out a prima facie case of obviousness, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. The Examiner has provided a detailed explanation (Ans. 3--4) of why a person of skill in the art would have made the necessary combination. In particular, the Examiner explains that Mayes shows that a grounded electrode can be placed anywhere on the line, and that a person of skill in the art would understand that any electromagnetic system would have benefited from having a fixed, grounded reference potential, which would lead one to place the grounding electrode a distance far from the towing vessel and any electromagnetic sources (id.). Appellants do not challenge these findings, other than to reiterate that Mayes does not directly disclose an electromagnetic field source and therefore cannot be used to show that its electrode is unaffected by an electromagnetic field. However, Appellants have not challenged the Examiner's finding's regarding what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the disclosure of 6 Appeal2014-007572 Application 12/798,935 ivfayes. Accordingly, Appellants have not demonstrated that a preponderance of the evidence shows reversible error in the rejection. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 7, and 9-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tenghamn in view of Davidsson, and further in view of Mayes. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation