Ex Parte Tonnessen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 25, 2009

10863321 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 25, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RUNE TONNESSEN
____________

Appeal 2008-3973
Application 10/863,321
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: February 25, 20091
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-3973
Application 10/863,321

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Rune Tonnessen (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 10-18, and 40-42. Claims 7-9
and 19-39 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).
THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ invention is drawn towards a method for determining
an ambient water velocity using a measurement device that is located on or
in a deflector unit (hydrofoil) in a marine seismic survey. Specification 2, ll.
6-7 and Specification 6, ll. 13-15.
Claims 1, 40, and 42 are representative of the claimed invention and
reads as follows:
1. A method, comprising:

deploying a survey vessel having one or more streamers
and one or more deflectors coupled to the streamers,
wherein the deflectors are configured to provide a lift to
the streamers;

determining an ambient water velocity using a
measurement device disposed on at least one deflector,
wherein the ambient water velocity is defined as the
water velocity at the location of the at least one deflector
in the absence of the at least one deflector; and

determining an angle of attack of the at least one
deflector based on the ambient water velocity, wherein
the angle of attack is the angle measured from a center
line of the at least one deflector.

Appeal 2008-3973
Application 10/863,321

3
40. A method, comprising:

towing a seismic streamer behind a vessel, wherein the
seismic streamer is coupled to a deflector having a
measurement device disposed thereon;

determining an ambient water velocity using the
measurement device; and

determining a lift of the deflector based on the magnitude
of the ambient water velocity and the orientation of the
ambient water velocity relative to the deflector.

42. A method, comprising:

towing a seismic streamer behind a vessel, wherein the
seismic streamer is coupled to a deflector configured to
provide a lift to the seismic streamer;

determining an ambient water velocity using a
measurement device disposed inside the deflector,
wherein the ambient water velocity is defined as the
water velocity at the location of the deflector in the
absence of the deflector; and

determining a lift of the deflector based on the ambient
water velocity.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:

Shave US 4,138,657 Feb. 6, 1979
Buddery US 5,050,133 Sep. 17, 1991
Perennes US 5,694,372 Dec. 2, 1997
Martin US 6,655,311 B1 Dec. 2, 2003
Hillesund WO 00/20895 Apr. 13, 2000
Appeal 2008-3973
Application 10/863,321

4
The following rejections are before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 1-2, 6, 10-12, 14-18, and 40-41 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hillesund.
The Examiner rejected claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hillesund in view of Buddery.
The Examiner rejected claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hillesund in view of Perennes.
The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hillesund in view of Martin.
The Examiner rejected claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hillesund in view of Shave.

THE ISSUES
1. Has the Appellant demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding
that Hillesund discloses (1) a measurement device disposed on a
deflector; (2) determining an ambient water velocity using the
measurement device positioned on the deflector; and (3)
determining a lift force and an angle of attack based on the
magnitude of the ambient water velocity?
2. Has the Appellant demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
determining that the combined teachings of Hillesund and Buddery
or Perennes would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
art to use a Doppler beam to determine the ambient water velocity
in the method of Hillesund?
3. Has the Appellant demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
determining that the combined teachings of Hillesund and Martin
Appeal 2008-3973
Application 10/863,321

5
would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to use
diverters to determine at least one of a wobble or a stall condition
based on the angle of attack of the deflector in Hillesund?
4. Has the Appellant demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
determining that the combined teachings of Hillesund and Shave
would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to
position a measurement device for determining the ambient water
velocity inside the deflector of Hillesund?

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following enumerated findings of facts (FF) are supported by at
least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 848 F. 2d
1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for
proceedings before the Office).
1. Hillesund discloses a control system and method for a marine
seismic survey which includes a seismic survey vessel 10 that
tows seismic streamers 12, a seismic source 14, a deflector 16,
a tail buoy 20, and streamer positioning devices 18 (birds).
Hillesund 5-6 and fig. 1.
2. The control system and method of Hillesund controls the
motion of the birds 18 by distributing the control between a
global control system 22 located on or near the survey vessel 10
and a local control system located within or near the birds 18.
Hillesund 6 and 14 and fig. 4.
Appeal 2008-3973
Application 10/863,321

6
3. The control method of Hillesund includes obtaining an
estimated velocity of the birds 18, calculating a desired change
in the orientation of the birds 18 using the estimated velocity,
and actuating wing motors to produce the desired change.
Hillesund 4.
4. The global control system 22 calculates a desired vertical and
horizontal force based on the behavior of each streamer and the
complete streamer array. Hillesund 7. From the vessel's
navigation system the global control system 22 acquires the
vessel speed, the vessel heading, the current speed, and the
current heading (water velocity and orientation). Hillesund 8.
The towing velocity and the crosscurrent velocity are either
calculated from these values or they can also be measured
directly by using flow meters attached directly to the birds 18.
Hillesund 8-9.
5. The advantage of determining the towing velocity and the
crosscurrent velocity is that the in-line and cross-line velocities
(the velocity of the bird 18 with respect to the water in the “in-
line” and the “cross-line” directions) will be "inherently
compensated for the speed and heading of marine currents"
acting on the bird 18. Hillesund 8-9.
6. The control system and method of Hillesund can also be
applied to the "deflector" 16 and the tail buoy 20. Hillesund 19.
7. The birds 18 introduce a force into the streamer 12 along an
axis perpendicular to the rotational axis of the wings 28
(longitudinal axis of the bird), that is, along a force axis 48 that
Appeal 2008-3973
Application 10/863,321

7
forms a “bird roll angle” with the horizontal axis. Hillesund 12
and fig. 3.
8. During operation the control system and method of Hillesund
transmits to the birds 18 at regular intervals a desired horizontal
force 42 and a desired vertical force 44 to provide a desired
total force 46. Hillesund 10. The system then calculates and
adjusts the “wing common angle” (the angle of the wings 28
with respect to the bird body 30) to produce the desired total
force 46 and the “splay angle” (the difference between the
angles of the wings 28 with respect to the bird body 30) to
produce the desired orientation such that the force axis 48
becomes aligned with the desired total force 46. Hillesund 12
and fig. 3.
9. As the bird body 30 rotates due to the adjustments made to the
“common angle” and the “splay angle” such that the force axis
48 becomes aligned with the desired total force 46, a desired
“bird roll angle” is determined. Hillesund 17.
10. Stalling of the bird 18 is prevented by controlling the "splay
angle" and the "common angle.” Hillesund 13.
11. According to the Appellant, the common usage of the term
"ambient water velocity'" is "the velocity relative to the
hydrofoil 135 that water at the location of the hydrofoil 135
would have in the absence of the hydrofoil 135." Specification
3, l. 24 through Specification 4, l. 1.
12. The Appellant defines the lift as a combined lift and drag force
217 acting on hydrofoil 200 as it travels through the fluid. The
Appeal 2008-3973
Application 10/863,321

8
Appellant further defines an “angle of attack” 210 that is
measured with respect to the ambient water velocity, that is, the
angle between the water velocity 215 and the longitudinal axis
of the hydrofoil. Specification 9, ll. 13-14 and 20-24 and fig. 2.
13. Buddery discloses a method for determining water velocity
using an acoustic Doppler sonar system to send a signal at an
angle θ (column or selected beam region) towards the seabed.
Buddery, col. 1, ll. 6-10; col. 3, ll. 18-20; and figs. 1 and 2.
14. Perennes discloses a method for determining water velocity
using a Doppler sonar system to send four Doppler beams 102
signal at an angle α (column or selected beam region) with
respect to the vertical towards the seabed. Perennes, col. 1, ll.
7-35 and fig. 1.
15. Martin discloses a system and method for controlling the
separation (horizontal positioning) between a plurality of
seismic streamers 106 using diverters 110 (deflectors). Martin,
col. 2, ll. 41-45; 50-52; and 58-60 and fig. 1.
16. In use, as a vessel tows a diverter 310 (deflector) the water
flows faster along a suction side 330 than along a pressure side
332 such that a lift force is created. As the angle of attack
increases the water flows faster and hence the lift increases.
However, if the angle of attack is too great the water flow may
separate from the surface of the diverter resulting in a loss of
lift, i.e., stall. In order to prevent stall, the vortex generators
Appeal 2008-3973
Application 10/863,321

9
316 are attached to the suction side 330 which prevent
separation of flow. Martin, col. 3, ll. 26-43 and 43-49 and
fig. 4.
17. The system of Martin further includes one or more sensors 724
integrated with the diverter 710 for determining the condition of
the diverter 710, that is, if the diverter is approaching a stall
condition, and an integrated controller 722 for adjusting the
attack angle of the diverter 710 or the position of the vortex
generators 716. Martin, col. 4, ll. 56-65; col. 5, ll. 28-31 and
47-54; and figs. 7 and 8.
18. Shave discloses mounting a Doppler sonar unit in a structure
(“fish”) that is towed behind a ship at a depth of one to two
hundred feet above the sea floor to determine the current-
vectors of deep water masses. Shave, col. 1, ll. 11-13 and col.
2, ll. 10-15.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (1987).
It is not necessary that the reference teach what the subject application
teaches, but only that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference,
i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully met by the
Appeal 2008-3973
Application 10/863,321

10
reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
Obviousness
"Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when 'the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.'" KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, _, 127
S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the
basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and
content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject
matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in
evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1734 ("While the
sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the
[Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.")

Burden
The USPTO has the initial burden of providing a basis in fact and/or
technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the
allegedly inherent characteristic reasonably flows from the teachings of the
applied prior art. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Once the USPTO establishes a prima facie case of anticipation based on
inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to prove that the prior art does
not possess the characteristic at issue. See Id. This is the case whether the
rejection is based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102, prima facie
Appeal 2008-3973
Application 10/863,321

11
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, or both jointly or alternatively. See In
re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).

OPINION2
Claims 1-2, 6, 10-12, 14-18, and 40-41
The Appellant argues the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims
1-2, 6, 10-12, 14-18, and 40-41 together as a group. Therefore, in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2008), we have selected claim 1
as the representative claim to decide the appeal, with claims 2, 6, 10-12, 14-
18, and 40-41 standing or falling with claim 1.
The Appellant argues that in contrast to the claimed invention the
control system and method of Hillesund (1) controls the birds 18 rather than
the deflectors 16 (App. Br. 17-18); (2) fails to determine an ambient water
velocity using a measurement device positioned on at least one deflector
(App. Br. 18); and (3) fails to determine a lift force and an angle of attack
based on the magnitude of the ambient water velocity (App. Br. 19), wherein
“the ambient water velocity is defined as the water velocity at the location of
the at least one deflector in the absence of the at least one deflector” (App.
Br. 17).
With respect to the Appellant’s first point the Examiner takes the
position that Hillesund specifically teaches that its control system and
method can be used with both birds and deflectors. Answer 12. We are in
agreement with the Examiner because Hillesund specifically teaches that in

2 We refer herein to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”), filed September 28,
2007 and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer”), mailed January 9, 2008.
Appeal 2008-3973
Application 10/863,321

12
addition to the birds 18 its control system and method can also be applied to
the deflector 16 and the tail buoy 20 (FF 6).
Regarding the Appellant’s second point, the Examiner takes the
position that,
[t]he flow meters mounted either on the bird
device or the deflector device as disclosed by
Hillesund determine ambient water velocity and
Hillesund discloses that this velocity is used to
adjust the angles of the wings on the bird (angle of
attack and lift) in order to deflect the streamer to
the desired position.

Answer 12.

As shown above, Hillesund teaches that its control system and method
can be used with both birds and deflectors (FF 6). Further, Hillesund
discloses that the towing velocity and the crosscurrent velocity are measured
directly by using flow meters attached directly to the birds 18 or the
deflectors 16 (FF 4). The advantage of measuring the towing velocity and
the crosscurrent velocity is that the in-line and cross-line velocities will be
"inherently compensated for the speed and heading of marine currents” (FF
5) (underlining added). A person of ordinary skill in the art would
reasonably understand this language to imply that the control system and
method of Hillesund determines the relative velocity between the birds 18 or
deflector 16 and the water. The Appellant defines the "ambient water
velocity'" as "the velocity relative to the hydrofoil 135 that water at the
location of the hydrofoil 135 would have in the absence of the hydrofoil
135” (FF 9). In this case, since the flow meters are attached directly to the
birds or the deflectors, the speed and heading of marine currents (water
Appeal 2008-3973
Application 10/863,321

13
velocity and orientation), relative to the birds 18 or deflectors 16, is
determined at the location of the birds 18 or the deflectors 16 of Hillesund.
For the above reasons, we conclude that the teachings of Hillesund
reasonably support the Examiner’s determination that the measured current
speed (and heading) of Hillesund satisfies the claimed "ambient water
velocity," so as to shift the burden to the Appellant to show that this is not
the case. The Appellant has not come forward with any objective evidence
that the measured in-line and cross-line velocity in the control system and
method of Hillesund is different than the claimed “ambient water velocity.”
Finally, with respect to the Appellant’s third point, the control method
of Hillesund includes obtaining an estimated velocity of the birds 18,
calculating a desired change in the orientation of the birds 18 using the
estimated velocity, and actuating wing motors to produce the desired change
(FF 3). As noted above, because Hillesund discloses that the velocity of the
birds 18 is “inherently compensated for the speed and heading of marine
currents” (FF 5), the teachings of Hillesund reasonably support the
determination that the current speed (and heading) represents the "ambient
water velocity.” As such, we find that in the control system and method of
Hillesund, the desired change in the orientation of the birds 18 is based on
the “ambient water velocity.” Specifically, the birds 18 introduce a force
into the streamer 12 along an axis perpendicular to the rotational axis of the
wings 28 (longitudinal axis of the bird), that is, along a force axis 48 that
forms a “bird roll angle” with the horizontal axis (FF 7). During operation,
the control system and method of Hillesund transmits to the birds 18 at
regular intervals a desired horizontal force 42 and a desired vertical force 44
to provide a desired total force 46 (FF 8). The system then calculates and
Appeal 2008-3973
Application 10/863,321

14
adjusts the “wing common angle” (the angle of the wings 28 with respect to
the bird body 30) to produce the desired force 46 and the “splay angle” (the
difference between the angles of the wings 28 with respect to the bird body
30) to produce the desired orientation such that the force axis 48 becomes
aligned with the total force 46 (FF 8). Hence, as the bird body 30 rotates
such that the force axis 48 becomes aligned with the total force 46, a new
“bird roll angle” is determined to correctly position the bird in the water (FF
9). Furthermore, stalling of the bird 18 is prevented by controlling the
"splay angle" and the "common angle,” hence by controlling the “bird roll
angle” (FF 9 and 10). Similarly to Hillesund, the position of the Appellant’s
hydrofoil 200 in the fluid is determined by a combined “lift and drag” force
217 and an “angle of attack” 210 formed between the water velocity 215 and
the longitudinal axis of the hydrofoil (FF 12). We find that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that the total force 46
of Hillesund satisfies the Appellant’s claimed “lift” (combined lift and drag
force). Moreover, the same person would further reasonably understand
that the “bird roll angle” of Hillesund satisfies the Appellant’s claimed
“angle of attack.” In conclusion, we find that Hillesund discloses a “lift”
force and an "angle of attack” that are based on the “ambient water
velocity,” as required by the Appellant’s claimed invention.
In light of the above, the Appellant’s arguments fail to demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We thus sustain the rejection of
claim 1 and claims 2, 6, 10-12, 14-18, and 40-41 standing or falling with
claim 1.
Claims 3-5
Appeal 2008-3973
Application 10/863,321

15
The Appellant argues claims 3-5 together as a group. Thus, we select
claim 3 as the representative claim, with claims 4 and 5 standing or falling
with claim 3. The Appellant points out that neither Buddery nor Perennes
overcome the perceived deficiencies of Hillesund. App. Br. 19. For the
reasons discussed above this argument is not persuasive.
The Appellant further argues that the Examiner has not provided an
“apparent reason” to combine the teachings of Hillesund and Buddery, or in
the alternative, Perennes. App. Br. 19. Claim 3 requires “providing at least
one Doppler beam to at least one column” to determine “the ambient water
velocity in the at least one column.” As shown above, Hillesund discloses
determining the ambient water velocity using flow meters (FF 4). Buddery
discloses determining the water velocity using an acoustic Doppler sonar
system to send a signal at an angle θ (column or selected beam region)
towards the seabed (FF 13). Similarly, Perennes discloses determining the
water velocity using a Doppler sonar system to send four Doppler beams
102 signal at an angle α (column or selected beam region) towards the
seabed (FF 14). We are in agreement with the Examiner that substituting the
Doppler system of either Buddery or Perennes for the flow meters of
Hillesund would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art
(Answer 7 and 8), because it is no more than “the simple substitution of one
known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to
a piece of prior art ready for the improvement.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, _, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). Specifically, it is
merely the substitution of a known fluid velocity measurement system, a
flow meter, with another known fluid velocity measurement system, a
Doppler sonar system. Therefore, the substitution appears to be the product
Appeal 2008-3973
Application 10/863,321

16
not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In conclusion, the
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 3 as unpatentable over Hillesund in view of Buddery, or in the
alternative, Hillesund in view of Perennes. We thus sustain the rejection of
claim 3 and claims 4 and 5 standing or falling with claim 3.
Claim 13
The Appellant points out that the teachings of Martin do not overcome
the perceived deficiencies of Hillesund. App. Br. 20. For the reasons
discussed above this argument is not persuasive. The Appellant further
argues that the Examiner has not provided an “apparent reason” to combine
the teachings of Hillesund and Martin. App. Br. 20. Claim 13 requires
“determining at least one of a wobble and a stall condition based upon the
angle of attack.” Hillesund discloses that stalling of the bird 18 is prevented
by controlling the "splay angle" and the "common angle” (FF 10). Martin
discloses a system and method for controlling the separation (horizontal
positioning) between a plurality of seismic streamers 106 using diverters 110
(deflectors) (FF 15). Martin further discloses one or more sensors 724
integrated with the diverter 710 (deflector) for determining the condition of
the diverter 710 (deflector), that is, if the diverter (deflector) is approaching
a stall condition, and an integrated controller 722 for adjusting the attack
angle of the diverter 710 (deflector) or the position of the vortex generators
716 to prevent stall (FF 16 and 17). Hence, we agree with the Examiner that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to modify
Hillesund to provide the control system of Martin to determine if the
deflector (diverter) is approaching a stall condition and to adjust the attack
angle of the deflector (diverter) in order to prevent stall, and hence “keep the
Appeal 2008-3973
Application 10/863,321

17
spread of seismic streamers from collapsing.” Answer 9. Moreover,
modifying the deflector (diverter) of Hillesund to include the control system
of Martin to prevent stall would not have been uniquely challenging to a
person of ordinary skill in the art because it is no more than “the simple
substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a
known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement.” KSR,
550 U.S. at _, 127 S. Ct. at 1740. Therefore, the modification appears to be
the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. The
Appellant does not provide any evidence to show that the modification of
Hillesund to include the control system of Martin would have been beyond
the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
In conclusion, the Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 as unpatentable over Hillesund in view
of Martin. We thus sustain the rejection of claim 13.

Claim 42
The Appellant points out that the teachings of Shave do not overcome
the perceived deficiencies of Hillesund. App. Br. 20-21. For the reasons
discussed above this argument is not persuasive. The Appellant further
argues that the Examiner has not provided an “apparent reason” to combine
the teachings of Hillesund and Shave. App. Br. 21. Claim 42 requires a
“measurement device disposed inside the deflector.” Hillesund discloses
the use of flow meters, attached directly to the birds 18 (or deflectors 16)
(FF 4), for determining the ambient water velocity. Further, Hillesund
discloses a local control system located within the birds 18 (or deflector 16)
(FF 2). Shave discloses mounting a measurement system (Doppler sonar
Appeal 2008-3973
Application 10/863,321

18
unit) in a structure (“fish”) that is towed behind a ship at a depth of one to
two hundred feet above the sea floor (FF 18). Hence, we agree with the
Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted
to modify Hillesund to position the flow meters inside the bird 18 or the
deflector 16 in order to”measure the current in the area immediately
surrounding the device” and to prevent modifications to the exterior shape of
the bird 18 (or deflectors 16) (by having flow meters attached thereto) which
would “degrade its respective ability to redirect the water around it.”
Answer 10 and 11. Moreover, modifying the bird 18 or the deflector 16 to
include a measurement system (flow meter or a Doppler sonar system)
would not have been uniquely challenging to a person of ordinary skill in the
art because it is no more than because it is no more than “the simple
substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a
known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement.” KSR,
550 U.S. at _, 127 S. Ct. at 1740. Therefore, the modification appears to be
the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. The
Appellant does not provide any evidence to show that the modification of
Hillesund to position the flow meters inside the bird 18 or the deflector 16
would have been beyond the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in
the art.
In conclusion, the Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 42 as unpatentable over Hillesund in view
of Shave. We thus sustain the rejection of claim 42.

CONCLUSIONS
Appeal 2008-3973
Application 10/863,321

19
1. The Appellant failed to demonstrate that Hillesund lacks (1) a
measurement device disposed on a deflector; (2) determining an
ambient water velocity using the measurement device
positioned on the deflector; and (3) determining a lift force and
an angle of attack based on the magnitude of the ambient water
velocity.
2. The Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in
determining that the combined teachings of Hillesund and
Buddery or Perennes would have prompted a person of ordinary
skill in the art to use a Doppler beam to determine the ambient
water velocity in the method of Hillesund.
3. The Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in
determining that the combined teachings of Hillesund and
Martin would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
art to use a control system to determine a stall condition based
on the angle of attack of the deflector in Hillesund.
4. The Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in
determining that the combined teachings of Hillesund and
Shave would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art
to position a measurement device for determining the ambient
water velocity inside the deflector of Hillesund.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6, 10-18, and 40-42 is
affirmed.
Appeal 2008-3973
Application 10/863,321

20
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)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED

vsh

WESTERNGECO L.L.C.
JEFFREY E. GRIFFIN
10001 RICHMOND AVENUE
HOUSTON, TX 77042-4299