Ex Parte Vigen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 14, 2014

12126894 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ERIK VIGEN and NICOLAS GOUJON
________________

Appeal 2012-005584
Application 12/126,894
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, DENISE M. POTHIER and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s 1
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 48, 10, 1219, 21, 23 and 24 under 35 2
U.S.C. § 103(a) (2011) as being unpatentable over Summerfield2 (WO 3
2008/008127 A2, publ. Jan. 17, 2008); Optimizing USBL Subsea Positioning 4
Systems for Seismic Surveys, 25 FIRST BREAK 9599 (European Ass’n5

1 The Appellants identify as the real party in interest WesternGeco,
L.L.C., “which is related to Schlumberger Technology Corporation.” (App.
Br. 1).

2 Both the Examiner and the Appellants refer to this reference as
“Plummer.” (See, e.g., App. Br. 5; Ans. 4).
Appeal 2012-005584
Application 12/126,894

2
Geoscientists & Eng’rs, Dec. 2007) (“Optimizing USBL”);3 Cyr (US 1
4,401,987, issued Aug. 30, 1983); and Langeland (US 4,992,990, issued 2
Feb. 12, 1991). Claims 3, 9, 11, 20 and 22 are cancelled. We have 3
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 4
We AFFIRM. Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), 5
we designate our affirmance new grounds of rejection. 6
Claims 1, 7 and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is representative and 7
recites, with italics added for emphasis: 8
1. An electromagnetic source for 9
electromagnetic survey of a subsea formation, 10
comprising: 11
a towfish configured to be towed by a 12
surface vessel; 13
a plurality of electrodes attached to the 14
towfish, wherein the plurality of electrodes are 15
configured to generate at least one electromagnetic 16
field; and 17
an acoustic ranging system having acoustic 18
components individually attached to 19
corresponding ones of the towfish and the plurality 20
of electrodes, wherein the acoustic ranging system 21
is configured to determine a geometry of the 22
plurality of electrodes, wherein the acoustic 23
component attached to the towfish is a transceiver, 24
and the acoustic components attached to respective 25
ones of the plurality of electrodes are transponders, 26
wherein the transceiver is configured to 27
transmit pulses to the transponders and to a 28
transponder at the surface vessel, and the 29
transceiver is configured to receive reply signals, 30

3 The Examiner refers to this reference as “Optimizing … surveys.”
(See, e.g., Ans. 5). The Appellants refer to this reference as “First Break.”
(See, e.g., App. Br. 5).
Appeal 2012-005584
Application 12/126,894

3
responsive to the pulses, form the transponders 1
attached to the electrodes and the transponder at 2
the surface vessel. 3
Claim 7 recites a system for electromagnetic survey of a subsea 4
formation including “a first acoustic ranging system having acoustic 5
components individually attached to corresponding ones of the towfish and 6
the plurality of electrodes, wherein the acoustic component attached to the 7
towfish is a transceiver.” Claim 15 recites a method for electromagnetic 8
survey of a subsea formation including the step of “transmitting an 9
electromagnetic field into the subsea formation using an electromagnetic 10
source towed by a surface vessel at a selected distance above the seafloor.” 11
The electromagnetic source used to transmit the electromagnetic field 12
includes “an acoustic ranging system having acoustic components 13
individually attached to corresponding ones of the towfish and the plurality 14
of electrodes, wherein the acoustic component attached to the towfish is a 15
transceiver.” 16
Summerfield describes steerable horizontal electric dipole (“HED”) 17
source systems for underwater deployment as moving sources for use in 18
electromagnetic surveying of subsurface regions for hydrocarbons. 19
(Summerfield 11, para. 36). Figure 19 of Summerfield depicts an HED 20
source system for a controlled-source electromagnetic (“CSEM”) survey. 21
The HED source system includes a towfish or head fish 197; a tail drogue 22
198; head and tail electrodes 26, 27; and a streamer 28 for attaching the 23
electrodes 26, 27 to the head fish 197 and transmitting electric power from 24
the head fish 197 to the electrodes 26, 27. (Summerfield 25–26, para. 25
61(i)(A); see also id. 3, paras. 9–13, and Fig. 2). The head fish 197 is 26
Appeal 2012-005584
Application 12/126,894

4
coupled to a tow cable 11 to pull the HED source system through the water. 1
(Summerfield 26, para. 61(i)(A); see also id. 1, para. 3). 2
The HED source system also includes an acoustic ranging system for 3
estimating the shape of the streamer, thereby determining the geometry of 4
the electrodes 26, 27. (See Summerfield 24–25, para. 61). The acoustic 5
ranging system includes acoustic transponders 195 located at the head fish 6
197 and the tail drogue 198. (Summerfield 25–26, para. 61(i)(A)). The 7
acoustic ranging system also includes a “transducer” 196 positioned on the 8
surface vessel used to tow the HED source system. (Id.) Summerfield 9
describes the acoustic ranging system as performing ultra short baseline 10
(“USBL”) acoustic positioning. 11
Optimizing USBL describes techniques for addressing sources of 12
error and maintenance needs in an USBL system used to compute the range 13
and bearing relative to a surface vessel of each of a plurality of acoustic 14
transponders attached to subsea targets. (Optimizing USBL 95, first col. and 15
95, second col. – 96, first col.). The USBL system includes a transceiver 16
deployed on the surface vessel. (See Optimizing USBL 98, second col.). As 17
indicated in Optimizing USBL, the transceiver interrogates (that is, signals) 18
each transponder; the transponder replies with a signal of its own; the 19
transceiver determines the range and bearing of each transponder by 20
processing the timing and direction of the transponder’s reply. (Cf. 21
Optimizing USBL 99, col. 1 – col. 2 (describing improvements to the 22
process of interrogating the transponders and receiving the replies)). 23
One may infer from this description of USBL acoustic positioning, 24
and from Summerfield’s description of the acoustic ranging system of 25
Figure 19 as performing USBL, that Summerfield’s “transducer” 196 is 26
Appeal 2012-005584
Application 12/126,894

5
either a transceiver itself or a component of a transceiver. Furthermore, one 1
may infer that the “transducer” 196, or a transceiver including the 2
transducer, interrogates the transponders 195 and processes replies from the 3
transponders to determine positions of the head fish 197 and the tail drogue 4
198 relative to the surface towing vessel. 5
Cyr describes an acoustic ranging system that operates in a similar 6
fashion. The acoustic ranging system includes a ship set 10. The ship set 10 7
includes a transmitter 14 and a receiver 16. The transmitter 14 propagates 8
an interrogation signal to an underwater transponder 12 at a fixed known 9
position on the ocean floor. The transponder 12 includes a receiver 20 10
which senses the interrogation signal and a transmitter 18 which responds to 11
the receipt of the interrogation signal by propagating a reply signal. The 12
receiver 16 in the ship set 10 senses the reply signal. The amount of time 13
which passes between the propagation of the interrogation signal and the 14
receipt of the reply signal provides a measure of the range from the ship to 15
the unwater transponder 12. (Cyr, col. 7, ll. 20–51; see also id., col. 1, ll. 16
25–35). 17
Even were one to find that Optimizing USBL failed to describe the 18
mode of operation of a USBL system in sufficient detail to support the 19
findings of the previous paragraph, the teachings of Cyr would have 20
indicated that Summerfield’s “transducer” 196 was a transceiver or a 21
component of a transceiver. Furthermore, Cyr’s teachings would have 22
provided one of ordinary skill in the art reason to operate Summerfield’s 23
ranging system by using the “transducer” 196, or a transceiver including the 24
transducer, interrogates the transponders 195; and processing replies from 25
Appeal 2012-005584
Application 12/126,894

6
the transponders to determine ranges of the head fish 197 and the tail drogue 1
198 relative to the surface towing vessel. 2
Summerfield teaches: 3
The USBL transducer and control electronics [for 4
actuating various control surfaces and generating 5
lateral forces to maintain the source dipole along a 6
predetermined direction] can be packaged to 7
withstand the pressures associated with deep tow 8
operations and be mounted (not shown) on the 9
marine CSEM head fish 225 [Figure 22]. The 10
head fish is instrumented with high quality 11
orientation and attitude sensors for routing head 12
fish positioning. These orientation and attitude 13
observations can be used to remove the local head 14
fish undulations from the USBL observations. The 15
resultant positions will not be absolute, but will be 16
relative to the head fish, which acts as the origin 17
for the streamer profile. Placing the USBL 18
transducer on the head fish will improve the 19
relative precision due to the significantly shorter 20
ray paths. 21
(Summerfield 27, para. 61(ii)). 22
In view of this teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art would have 23
had reason to replace the transponder 195 on the head fish 197 depicted in 24
Figure 19 of Summerfield with a transducer (that is, a transceiver). One of 25
ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to make this substitution in 26
order to improve the relative precision of the system by significantly 27
shortening the distance traveled by the acoustic waves (that is, rays) making 28
up the interrogation and reply signals used to range the plurality of 29
electrodes. Instead of traveling from the surface to the electrodes as in the 30
system depicted in Figure 19 of Summerfield, the acoustic waves in the 31
Appeal 2012-005584
Application 12/126,894

7
modified system would have had to travel only from the head fish to the 1
electrodes and back. 2
The Examiner correctly finds “Langeland teaches that the acoustic 3
nodes of the ranging system are all the prescient points for which the 4
position is required, including the surface vessel, and all the sources, and 5
floats.” (Ans. 6, citing Langeland, col. 3, ll. 51–63). When replacing the 6
transponder 195 on the head fish 197 depicted in Figure 19 of Summerfield 7
with a transceiver, one of ordinary skill in the art also would have had reason 8
to replace the transducer on the hull of the towing vessel with a transponder, 9
allowing the transceiver on the head fish 197 to determine the range and 10
bearing to the vessel rather than the other way around. Furthermore, one of 11
ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to install transponders on all 12
of the electrodes in the system in order to fully characterize the shape of the 13
HED source system. The positions of the electrodes relative to the towing 14
vessel on the surface could have been determined by numerical processing 15
of the ranges and bearings determined relative to the head fish 197. 16
The Appellants argue that Optimizing USBL and Cyr teach away 17
from replacing the transponder 195 on the head fish 197 depicted in Figure 18
19 of Summerfield with a transceiver. The Appellants observe that 19
Optimizing USBL and Cyr describe systems in which, like the system of 20
Figure 19 of Summerfield, the transceivers are located on the towing vessel 21
rather than the head fish or towfish. Optimizing USBL goes slightly farther, 22
teaching that the “deployment of the USBL transceiver is critical. It should 23
ideally be rigidly mounted to the vessel well below the keel away from any 24
weather or vessel induced aeration.” (Optimizing USBL 98). This argument 25
Appeal 2012-005584
Application 12/126,894

8
appears to presuppose that Summerfield itself does not teach replacing the 1
transponder 195 on the head fish 197 with a transceiver. 2
Our reviewing court instructs us that “a given course of action often 3
has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not 4
necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 5
437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As noted above, Summerfield 6
teaches replacing the transponder 195 on the head fish 197 depicted in 7
Figure 19 of Summerfield with a transceiver. Cyr does not criticize 8
positioning the transceiver on the head fish. Optimizing USBL describes the 9
positioning of the transceiver as “critical” and teaches that the transceiver 10
must be “rigidly mounted to the vessel.” On the other hand, Summerfield 11
teaches placing attitude and orientation sensors on the head fish with the 12
transceiver “to remove the local head fish undulations from the USBL 13
observations.” (Summerfield 27, para. 61(ii)). Furthermore, the head fish 14
is “well below the keel away from any weather or vessel induced aeration.” 15
One of ordinary skill in the art balancing the teachings of Summerfield, 16
Optimizing USBL and Cyr might not only have had reason to replace the 17
transponder 195 on the head fish 197 with a transceiver, but also a 18
reasonable expectation that the replacement would succeed in improving the 19
relative precision of the system. 20
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. 21
Nevertheless, in doing so, we observe that the Examiner never expressly 22
addresses the limitation “wherein the acoustic component attached to the 23
towfish is a transceiver” or explains where the cited prior art teaches the 24
limitation. (See generally Ans. 5–6). Although the Appellants fail to point 25
this out explicitly, we believe that the interests of justice would be served by 26
Appeal 2012-005584
Application 12/126,894

9
allowing the Appellants to reframe their arguments to address the teachings 1
of paragraph 62 of Summerfield. For this reason, we designate our 2
affirmance new grounds of rejection. 3
Those of the remaining claims separately addressed by the Appellants 4
are addressed only on the basis of arguments also raised in connection with 5
claim 1. (See App. Br. 11–12). 6
7
DECISION 8
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10, 12–19, 21, 23 and 9
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Summerfield, “Optimizing 10
USBL,” Cyr, and Langeland. Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. 11
§ 41.50(b), we designate our affirmance new grounds of rejection. 37 12
C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this 13
paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 14
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN 15
TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise 16
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection 17
to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: 18
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an 19
appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or 20
new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or 21
both, and have the matter reconsidered by the 22
examiner, in which event the proceeding will be 23
remanded to the examiner . . . 24
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the 25
proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board 26
upon the same record . . . 27
28
Appeal 2012-005584
Application 12/126,894

10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 1
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). 2
3
AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 4
5
6
7
Klh 8