Ex Parte Südow et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201612657831 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/657,831 01/28/2010 95738 7590 06/03/2016 Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc, West Memorial Place 1 15375 Memorial Drive Suite 100 Houston, TX 77079 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Gustav Goran Mattias Stidow 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-09-49US 8115 EXAMINER MURPHY, DANIELL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/03/2016 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): docketing@pgs.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GUSTAV GORAN MATTIAS SUDOW, ULF PETER LINDQVIST, and ANDRAS ROBERT JUHASZ Appeal2014-001725 Application 12/657 ,831 1 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4 and 7-10. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is "PGS Geophysical, A. S." Br. 1. Appeal2014-001725 Application 12/657,831 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 8 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A depth and level control system for a geophysical streamer, comprising: a plurality of tilt sensors disposed at spaced apart locations along the streamer, the tilt sensors each having a first tilt sensing element arranged to measure tilt of the streamer along a longitudinal dimension thereof and a second tilt sensing element arranged to measure tilt in a direction orthogonal to the first tilt sensing element, the second sensing element in signal communication with a respective one of the controllers; a controller in signal communication with each tilt sensor; and a depth control device in signal communication with each controller, the controller programmed to operate the depth control device to cause the streamer to be level as measured by the tilt sensor, wherein each controller is configured not to operate the respective depth control device when the respective second tilt sensing element indicates the tilt sensor is oriented other than substantially vertically. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 4, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goujon (US 2009/0323467 Al, pub. Dec. 31, 2009), Welker (US 7,755,970 B2, iss. July 31, 2010), McConnell (US 5,251,183, iss. Oct. 5, 1993), and Perkins (US 3,222,013, iss. Dec. 7, 1965). II. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goujon, Welker, McConnell, Perkins, and Hovland (US 7,152,547 Bl, iss. Dec. 26, 2006). III. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goujon, Welker, McConnell, Perkins, and Gina Roos, MEMS tilt 2 Appeal2014-001725 Application 12/657,831 sensor delivers high accuracy, dual mode, and small size, EE Times (Oct. 22, 2007, 9:00 PM),http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id =1306581) (hereinafter "Roos"). IV. Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goujon, Welker, McConnell, Perkins, and Bertheas (US 6,144,342, iss. Nov. 7, 2000). V. Claims 1, 4, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goujon, Welker, McConnell, and Stokkeland (US 2009/0003129 Al, pub. Jan. 1, 2009). VI. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goujon, Welker, McConnell, Stokkeland, and Hovland. VII. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goujon, Welker, McConnell, Stokkeland, and Roos. VIII. Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goujon, Welker, McConnell, Stokkeland, and Bertheas. ANALYSIS Rejections I-IV The Examiner relies on Perkins, and not Goujon, McConnell, or Welker, to teach "wherein each controller is configured not to operate the respective depth control device when the respective second tilt sensing element indicates the tilt sensor is oriented other than substantially vertically," as recited in independent claim 1. See Final Act. 9-10. Specifically, the Examiner finds that "Perkins teaches disabling a control surface of a body in motion through a fluid medium when a measured attitude of the body exceeds a predetermined maximum angle" and, 3 Appeal2014-001725 Application 12/657,831 therefore, teaches the recited configuration of the controller. See id. at 9 (citing Perkins, col. 1, 11. 57----62). The Examiner concludes, among other things, that it would have been obvious to utilize a controller having the recited configuration, as taught by Perkins, to "provide for selective manual control of a depth control device, for example when a portion of the streamer travels through part of a survey area in which strong currents are found." Id. at 9-10. The Appellants disagree with the Examiner's findings regarding Perkins. See Br. 5-7. The Appellants assert that Perkins' s disclosure of "[ d]isabling a roll control device when a roll angle reaches a predetermined maximum is not functionally or conceptually equivalent to disabling a streamer depth control device (which in the frame of reference of an aircraft is equivalent to a pitch control device) when a tilt is not substantially zero (i.e., a minimum possible angle)." Id. at 6. The Appellants, therefore, contend that in claim 1, "the disabled control surface is orthogonal in effect to the disabled control surface disclosed in Perkins" and "the condition under which the disabling takes place ... is, in fact, opposite to that of the condition under which the disabling is disclosed as taking place in Perkins." Id. at 6. The Appellants' contention is unpersuasive. The cited portion of Perkins teaches "disabling [an] attitude device from exerting any control when the roll attitude of the craft reaches a maximum predetermined angle." Perkins, col. 1, 11. 59-62. Perkins's device is responsive to a predetermined roll angle, but it is not limited to disabling roll control, as the Appellants' assertion suggests. As the Examiner explains, Perkins "teaches prevention of [the] application of automatic attitude control devices in general," including "disabling of pitch control for 4 Appeal2014-001725 Application 12/657,831 too large a bank angle." Ans. 28 (citing Perkins, col. 1, 1. 72 - col. 2, 1. 2, col. 17, 11. 27-32). Further, claim 1 does not specify a minimum possible angle for disabling control. See Br. 8. Claim 1 instead recites a contingency of the tilt sensor being "oriented other than substantially vertically." Id. at Claims App. And, the Appellants do not persuasively explain why this contingency is "opposite" (id. at 8) of the disabling contingency taught by Perkins, namely when the bank angle, i.e., roll, reaches a predetermined value (see Perkins, col. 17, 11. 24--27). The Appellants also contend that "one skilled in the art would not have a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining the results of the invention" by combining the teachings of Perkins with those of Goujon, McConnell, and Welker. Br. 8. This contention is based on the Appellants' assertion that Perkins is limited to disabling roll control and, therefore, is unpersuasive of Examiner error. The Appellants assert that"[ o ]ne of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to look to the field of automatic pilots for aircraft to find solutions to marine seismic streamer navigation." Br. 8. The Appellants also assert that "the problem addressed by Perkins has nothing to do with seismic streamer navigation." Id. The Appellants' assertions are not persuasive. Although Perkins describes navigation in the context of an aircraft, Perkins nonetheless deals with navigating a body through a fluid medium, as the Examiner points out (see Ans. 27). As such, and to the extent that the Appellants' contention is tantamount to a non-analogous art argument, we determine that the subject matter of Perkins is reasonably pertinent to the 5 Appeal2014-001725 Application 12/657,831 Appellants' problem of navigating a streamer through water. See Jn re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Moreover, the Examiner has articulated adequate reasoning with some rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Perkins with those of Goujon, Welker, and McConnell. See Final Act. 10. The Appellants' remaining arguments (see Br. 5---6), including those incorporated by reference at page 5 of the Brief, do not explain why the Examiner errs in relying on Perkins to teach the configuration of the controller recited in claim 1. In particular, we acknowledge the Appellants' incorporated arguments pertain to Stokkeland, but the Examiner concludes that claim 1 would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Perkins in combination with Goujon, Welker, and McConnell. Thus, we determine that the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Appellants separately address the rejection of independent claim 8. See Br. 7-8. Independent claim 8 recites "disabling deflecting the streamer if the tilt measured in the orthogonal direction is above a selected threshold" (id. at Claims App.), and the Examiner's rejection of claim 8 relies on the same findings and conclusion discussed above with regard to claim 1 (see Final Act. 13). The Appellants rely on contentions similar to those presented in response to the rejection of claim 1. See Br. 7-8. Thus, we determine that the rejection of claim 8 is supported by a preponderance of the evidence for at least reasons similar to those discussed above. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 8 based on the combination of Goujon, Welker, McConnell, and Perkins. We have considered the Appellants' arguments concerning the 6 Appeal2014-001725 Application 12/657,831 rejections of dependent claims 2--4, 7, 9, and 10 and have determined that they are not persuasive. The Appellants' arguments rely on the arguments discussed above with regard to the rejection of claims 1 and 8. See Br. 8-9. Because we determine that the Appellants' arguments are not persuasive with regard to the rejections of claims 1 and 8, in this case, we likewise determine that the arguments are not persuasive for the rejections of claims 2--4, 7, 9, and 10. Therefore, we also sustain the rejections of claims 2--4, 7, 9, and 10. Rejections V-VIII Our affirmance of above-discussed rejections of claims 1--4 and 7-10 (Rejections I-IV) constitutes a general affirmance of the decision of the Examiner on these claims. 3 7 C.F .R. § 41. 50( a )(1)(2015). Therefore, we do not reach the Examiner's additional rejections of claims 1--4 and 7-10 (Rejections V-VIII). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4 and 7-10. 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 )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation