Ex Parte Wang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2016

12714241 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121714,241 02/26/2010 Yue Wang
34014 7590 09/19/2016
CHEVRON CORPORATION
P.O. BOX 6006
SAN RAMON, CA 94583-0806
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.
T-7847 6303
EXAMINER
ZIMMERMAN, MARK K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2016 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):
patents@chevron.com
kande@chevron.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUE WANG
Appeal2015-000659
Application 12/714,241
Technology Center 2600
Before ADAM J. PYONIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-000659
Application 12/714,241
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-15, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The application "relates to surface smoothing within an earth model of
a geological volume of interest." (Spec. 1:6-7.) Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative:
1. A system for processing an earth model of a geological
volume of interest, the system comprising:
one or more processors configured to execute computer
program modules, the computer program modules comprising:
an earth model module for obtaining the earth model of the
geological volume of interest, wherein the earth model includes
a polygon mesh that describes a position of a surface within the
geological volume ofinterest, the polygon mesh being comprised
of planar polygons defined by three or more vertices, and the
earth model including positional coordinates for the vertices of
the polygons;
a dip module for determining values of the dip of the polygon
mesh within the earth model, wherein determining values of the
dip of the polygon mesh includes determining values of dip for
the individual polygons based on the positional coordinates of
the vertices defining the polygons;
1 Appellant identifies Chevron U.S.A. Inc. as the real party in interest. (See
App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal2015-000659
Application 12/714,241
a smoothing module configured to smooth the values of dip
along the polygon mesh without impacting the positional
coordinates for the vertices of the polygons.
THE REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Godavarthy et al. US 2005/0091016 Al
Deming US 2005/0264554 Al
Koren et al. US 2010/0220895 Al
THE REJECTIONS
Apr. 28, 2005
Dec. 1, 2005
Sept. 2, 2010
1. Claims 1, 3---6, 9, and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Godavarthy. (See Final Act. 3-7.)
2. Claims 2 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Godavarthy and Koren. (See Final Act. 8.)
3. Claims 7, 8, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Godavarthy and Deming. (See Final Act. 9-10.)
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites "a dip module for determining values of the dip of the
polygon mesh within the earth model, wherein determining values of the dip
of the polygon mesh includes determining values of dip for the individual
polygons based on the positional coordinates of the vertices defining the
polygons." Claim 9 similarly recites a method that includes "determining
values of the dip of the polygon mesh within the earth model, wherein
determining values of the dip of the polygon mesh includes determining
3
Appeal2015-000659
Application 12/714,241
values of dip for the individual polygons based on the positional coordinates
of the vertices defining the polygons."
The Examiner finds these limitations in Godavarthy' s natural
neighbor interpolation ("NNI"), which "is a method for estimating the z-
value of an arbitrary point P from the z values of a set of points with known
z-values," where "[t]he z-value represents the elevation at the location on the
earth's surface to which the point on the [triangulated irregular network]
corresponds." (Godavarthy i-fi-133, 92; see Final Act. 4--5.) Godavarthy's
NNI "uses information in the Delaunay triangulation of the known points to
compute a weighted average of the z-values of the natural neighbors of P."
(Godavarthy i192.)
Appellant argues that the rejections are in error because
"Godavarthy' s resulting average or weighted average elevation value used to
interpolate a new surface point is not a value of dip, and no value of dip is
needed for Godavarthy's technique." (App. Br. 9.) We agree.
The Specification describes a system that includes a "dip module" that
"may be configured to determine values of the dip of the polygon mesh (e.g.,
polygon meshes 300 and 402) within the earth model provided by the earth
model module 110." (Spec. i-f 7:20-22.) The Specification explains that
"[d]ip is orientation with respect to a reference direction" and that "[f]or
example, dip may be described generally as the derivative of a surface
spatial function that defines a geological surface." (Id. at 22-24.)
4
Appeal2015-000659
Application 12/714,241
Consistent with the Specification,2 we interpret "dip" to mean "orientation
with respect to a reference direction."
Although Godavarthy does teach a method for determining a value
that is "based on the positional coordinates of the vertices," the value it
computes is simply the z-value associated with an additional, interpolated
surface point, i.e., an interpolated elevation, not an orientation with respect
to a reference direction.
Because we conclude that Godavarthy does not describe the claimed
dip values, we decline to sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
independent claims 1 and 9 and their dependent claims 3---6 and 11-14. And,
because the obviousness rejections are also premised on Godavarthy
teaching dip values, we also decline to sustain the rejections of claims 2, 7,
8, 10, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We do not reach Appellant's
additional arguments.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-15 are reversed.
REVERSED
2 "During examination, 'claims ... are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and ... claim language
should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art." In re American Academy of Science Tech
Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
5