Ex Parte Teyssandier et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 9, 201613687084 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/687,084 11128/2012 Benoit TEYSSANDIER 11171 7590 09/13/2016 Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC P.O. Box 7999 Fredericksburg, VA 22404 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. 0336-025-4-CONT/100172 4926 EXAMINER MURPHY, DANIELL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/13/2016 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): Mailroom@ppblaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) u-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BENOIT TEYSSANDIER and LAURENT RUET Appeal2014-009018 Application 13/687 ,084 Technology Center 3600 Before JILL D. HILL, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-17.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 The real party in interest is identified as CGGVERITAS SERVICES SA. App. Br. 2. 2 Claim 18 was cancelled by Appellants in the Amendment filed December 19, 2013, after the Final Action mailed October 7, 2013. Appeal2014-009018 Application 13/687,084 Claimed Subject Matter The claimed invention relates to techniques for generating a driving signal for vibroseis sources, which are used in marine reflection seismology to locate subterranean hydrocarbon deposits. Spec. i-fi-f l-2. Independent claims 1, 9, and 16 are pending. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A method for determining a driving signal of a vibro- acoustic source element that is configured to generate acoustic waves in water, the method comprising: estimating at least one physical constraint related to operating the vibro-acoustic source element; modeling a ghost function that represents an effect of a surface of the water; setting a target energy spectrum density to be emitted by the vibro-acoustic source element during the driving signal; and determining the driving signal in a controller based on the at least one physical constraint, the ghost function, and the target energy spectrum density. Rejections 1. Claims l and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tenghamn3 and Smith. 4 Final Act. 6-9. 2. Claims 2--4, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tenghamn, Smith, and Osbome. 5 Final Act. 9-14. 3. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tenghamn, Smith, Osborne, and Wilmanowicz et al. 6 Final Act. 14--15. 3 US 2011/0317515 Al, published Dec. 29, 2011. 4 US 6,942,059 B2, issued Sept. 13, 2005. 5 US 4,272,226, issued June 9, 1981. 6 US 8,271,173 B2, issued Sept. 18, 2012. 2 Appeal2014-009018 Application 13/687,084 4. Claims 9--11 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tenghamn, Smith, and Jeffryes. 7 Final Act. 15-20. 5. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tenghamn, Smith, Jeffryes, and Wilmanowicz. Final Act. 20-21. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 8-21; Reply Br. 2-13). We concur with Appellants' argument (App. Br. 8-10) that the Examiner erred in finding that Tenghamn teaches determining or to calculate a driving signal based on a physical constraint, a ghost function, and a target energy spectrum density, as recited in each of independent claims 1, 9, and 16. 8 Claims 9 and 16 recite "calculat[ing]" a driving signal "based on the at least one physical constraint, the ghost function, and the target energy spectrum density." Claim 1, however, recites "determining" a driving signal "in a controller based on the at least one physical constraint, the ghost function, and the target energy spectrum density." The Examiner and Appellants disagree on the correct interpretation of the term "determining" in claim 1. Appellants contend that the term "determining" should be construed to mean "calculating" or determining, generating, or designing through calculations. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4---6. 7 US 2012/0188845 Al, published July 26, 2012. 8 Because all of the rejections rely on the Examiner's finding that Tenghamn teaches determining or to calculate the driving signal in a controller, this issue is dispositive. Accordingly, we need not reach additional issues raised by Appellants' arguments. 3 Appeal2014-009018 Application 13/687,084 The Examiner, however, construes the phrase "determining the driving signal in a controller" to mean "generating the driving signal in a controller" because "actuating" can be a synonym for "determining." Ans. 20-21. The Examiner further states: Appellant's controller's "determining" is broadly interpreted to be "generating" or "actuating", as a controller would normally do in driving a source, and not, e.g., executing a computer program to process "physical constraint" inputs like maximum displacement, maximum speed, maximum current, or maximum voltage in order to calculate a driving signal. Ans. 23. The Examiner concludes that Appellants' Specification does not deviate from the use of the term "determining" in connection with the driving signal. Ans. 20. We do not agree with the Examiner that "determining" in claim 1 may be interpreted more broadly than "calculate" as recited in claims 9 and 16. As recited in claim 1, the driving signal must be determined "in a controller/' based on a physical constraint; ghost function; and target energy density. Considering the language of the claim as a whole, which requires "estimating," "modeling," and "setting" these items, it is not reasonable to consider these items to be anything other than inputs that must be used inside the controller to calculate the driving signal. As Appellants argue (Reply Br. 4 ), this interpretation is also more consistent with their Specification. See Spec. i-f 10 (referring to the purpose of "designing a driving signal that takes into account" particular constraints), i-f 56 ("Another constraint for calculating the driving signal is now discussed in more detail."), i-f 59 (referring to "all ingredients necessary for designing the driving signal" and explaining the "instantaneous frequency law" used in the 4 Appeal2014-009018 Application 13/687,084 control device to use the described inputs to calculate the driving signal), Fig. 10 (illustrating inputs and outputs of the control device). The Examiner considers Tenghamn's driving signal to be generated based on a "physical constraint," because the impedance of the system will affect how the signal is generated. Ans. 26. The Examiner also finds Tenghamn's driving signal is based on the "target energy spectrum density" because T enghamn discusses using springs and weights to tune the system to exhibit specific resonant frequencies over the swept frequency range. See, e.g., Ans. 23. These findings are erroneous because they are based on an incorrect claim construction. Regarding independent claims 9 and 16, the Examiner's finding that Tenghamn teaches a controller configured to "calculate the driving signal based on the at least one physical constraint, the ghost function, and the target energy spectrum density" relies on the same portions of Tenghamn used in rejecting the "determining" limitation in claim 1. Final Act. 12 (citing Tenghamn i-fi-138, 42), 16 (citing same). As noted by Appellants (App. Br. 9), the cited portions of Tenghamn are silent about how its driving signal is determined or calculated, and state that its recording system has devices "for actuating the acoustic vibrators Vl-V5, for example, electrical controller with swept frequency alternating current or other signal." Tengham i142. After review, we discern no disclosure in the cited portions of Tenghamn of calculating a driving signal based on the claimed inputs. Because we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in construing the term "determining" as recited in claim 1, and that the Examiner has not found that Tenghamn teaches calculating the driving signal in a controller based on the inputs recited in claims 1, 9, and 16, on 5 Appeal2014-009018 Application 13/687,084 this record, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1, 9, and 16. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-8, 10- 15, and 17. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-17. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation