HEGNA, STIAN et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 15, 2020

12806098 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/806,098 08/05/2010 STIAN HEGNA PGS-10-08US 7791
137491 7590 04/15/2020
OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC
P.O. BOX 4277
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
HULKA, JAMES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/15/2020 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
joanne@olympicpatentworks.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STIAN HEGNA and GREGORY ERNEST PARKES
Appeal 2019-004853
Application 12/806,098
Technology Center 3600
BEFORE LYNNE H. BROWNE, LISA M. GUIJT, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–29. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The real party in interest is PGS Geophysical AS. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004853
Application 12/806,098

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Sole independent claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
21. In a process for generating an image of geological
structures located beneath the surface of the earth using marine
seismic techniques in which at least first and second
substantially collocated sources are activated in a body of water
at distinct depths and at first and second times, respectively, the
reflections from which activations are captured in a recording
for use in generating the image, the specific improvement
comprising:
generating first and second modified versions of the
recording, wherein: the first modified version is time shifted to
account for a difference between the activation time of the first
source and a selected time relative to the initiation of the
recording, and also to account for the effect of the depth of the
first source on energy arrival times in the recording; and the
second modified version is time shifted to account for a
difference between the activation time of the second source and
the selected time relative to the initiation of the recording, and
also to account for the effect of the depth of the second source
on energy arrival times in the recording;
combining the first and second modified versions of the
recording to generate a new recording deghosted wavefield
corresponding to that of a new single source activation at the
selected time but having greater amplitude than either of the
first or the second sources; and
using the new recording deghosted wavefield in
generating the image, thereby enhancing the image due to the
greater amplitude of the new single source but without the
necessity of actually activating a single source with such
amplitude in the body of water.

Appeal Br. 37 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-004853
Application 12/806,098

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Grion US 2006/0227660 A1 Oct. 12, 2006
Krohn US 2006/0250891 A1 Nov. 9, 2006
Robertsson US 2009/0097357 A1 Apr. 16, 2009
Dragoset US 2009/0245022 A1 Oct. 1, 2009
Cambois US 2010/0039891 A1 Feb. 18, 2010
Abma US 2010/0039894 A1 Feb. 18, 2010
REJECTIONS2
Claims 21–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Robertsson, Grion, and Abma.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Robertsson, Grion, Abma, and Krohn.
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Robertsson, Grion, Abma, and Cambois.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Robertsson, Grion, Abma, and Dragoset.
OPINION
Claims 21–26
As will be described in more detail below, we agree with Appellant
that the Examiner has not adequately explained how or why the elements

2The rejection of claims 21–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 was withdrawn by the
Examiner. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-004853
Application 12/806,098

4
disclosed by Robertsson, Grion, and Abma would be combined in such a
way as to teach the claimed invention.
The Examiner finds that Robertsson discloses all of the limitations of
claim 21 except that
Robertsson does not explicitly teach the first modified version
[of the recording] is time shifted to account . . . for the effect of
the depth of the first source on energy arrival times in the
recording . . . the second modified version is time shifted to
account . . . for the effect of the depth of the second source on
energy arrival times in the recording . . . combining the first
and second modified versions of the recording to generate a
new recording corresponding to that of a new single source
activation at the selected time but having a greater amplitude
than either of the first or second sources; or using the new
recording in generating the image, thereby enhancing the image
due to the greater amplitude of the new single source but
without the necessity of actually activating a single source with
such amplitude in the body of water (Robertsson briefly
mentions a plurality of sources could be used to act as a single
source in [0049] and also briefly discusses improved imaging
quality in [0036] and [0079]).
Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner finds that
Grion teaches the first modified version is time shifted to
account . . . for the effect of the depth of the first source on
energy arrival times in the recording. . . the second modified
version is time shifted to account . . . for the effect of the depth
of the second source on energy arrival times in the recording
[Abstract; 0014; 0028; 0037] . . . combining the first and
second modified versions of the recording to generate a new
recording corresponding to that of a new single source
activation at the selected time but having a greater amplitude
than either of the first or second sources [Abstract; 0014; 0028;
0037] and or using the new recording in generating the image,
thereby enhancing the image due to the greater amplitude of the
new single source but without the necessity of actually
Appeal 2019-004853
Application 12/806,098

5
activating a single source with such amplitude in the body of
water [0037].
Id. at 4. The Examiner further finds that
Abma teaches generating first and second modified versions of
the recording (de ghosted wavefield), wherein the first (second)
modified version is time shifted to account for a difference
between the activation time of the first (second) source and the
selected time relative to the initiation of the recording and for
the effect of the depth of the first (second) source on energy
arrival times in the recording [0058-62; 0065; 0078].
Id.
Based on these findings, the Examiner reasons that
[i]t would have been obvious to modify the method of
Robertsson to include depth adjustments for time arrivals, and
combining the first and subsequent wavefields to determine a
deghosted wavefield in seismic survey to reduce or eliminate
notches in the data set, and to improve quality and resolution of
the seismic data set or image, and because it is possible to
convert seismic traces from one axis unit to another using
standard mathematical conversion techniques (e.g. between
time and depth) (Abma [0045]).
Final Act. 4.
Appellant contends “[t]he teachings of Robertsson do not provide
evidence for the Examiner’s allegations regarding the first step of claim 21.”
Appeal Br. 24. Appellant asserts that “the first modified version of the
recording is time shifted to account for two limitations.” Id. Specifically, as
claimed, the recording is time shifted ‘“1) to account for a difference
between the activation time of the first source and a selected time relative to
the initiation of the recording,’ and 2) ‘to account for the effect of the depth
of the first source on energy arrival times in the recording.’” Id. Appellant
argues that “the Examiner has not offered an analysis that explains how the
Appeal 2019-004853
Application 12/806,098

6
descriptions in paragraphs [0037] – [0041], [0058] and FIGS. 2A-2B map to
the elements and limitations of the first claim step.” Id.
Appellant explains that “[f]or example, paragraphs [0037] and [0041]
mention time shifts, but . . . these time shifts do not relate to time shifted
recorded seismic data.” Appeal Br. 24. According to Appellant, “[t]here is
no mention of the limitation ‘selected time relative to the initiation of the
recording’ anywhere in cited paragraphs [0037] – [0041], [0058] and FIGS.
2A-2B. Id. Rather, “[p]aragraphs [0037] – [0041] describe activating two
source groups according to two orthogonal sequences (i.e., the two source
activating by alternating the activation times – See FIG 2A).” Id. Noting
that “[t]he reference to ‘time shifts’ in paragraph [0037] is to time shifting
the sequences for activating the sources,” Appellant contends that this
paragraph “does not describe generating a ‘time shifted’ first recording of
seismic data that accounts ‘for a difference between the activation time of
the first source and a selected time relative to the initiation of the
recording.’” Id. at 25. Likewise, according to Appellant, “Robertsson does
not teach or suggest generating a ‘time shifted” first recording of seismic
data in paragraphs [0038] – [0040]” and “[p]aragraph [0041] also mentions
time shifts. But, again, the time shifts are in reference to time shifts applied
to the sequences for activating the sources.” Id. Turning to paragraph 58,
Appellant asserts that in this paragraph “Robertsson describes grouping or
sorting the seismic data according to shot locations for sources activated for
positions r0 and r1 in FIG 2A. Robertsson does not teach, suggest, or
mention time shifting the seismic data ‘to account for a difference between
the activation time of the first source and a selected time relative to the
initiation of the recording.’” Id. at 26. Appellant argues that “[t]herefore,
Appeal 2019-004853
Application 12/806,098

7
paragraphs [0037] – [0041], [0058] and FIGS. 2A-2B do not provide
evidence that Robertsson teaches or suggests that the first modified version
of the recording is time shifted ‘to account for a difference between the
activation time of the first source and a selected time relative to the initiation
of the recording.’” Id.
In response, the Examiner argues that Appellant is arguing the
references separately, instead of addressing their combined teachings. Ans.
3. The Examiner explains that Grion “shows an example of two sources
(and two receivers) in great detail, co-located, but separated by a small depth
difference.” Id. at 4 (citing Grion, Fig. 4). The Examiner explains that
paragraph 11 “explicitly mentions combining the over and under source
signals (different depths) to account for a time lag.” Id. at 5. The Examiner
argues further that “Abma in paragraphs [0045] and [0058] to [0061] [is]
rather comprehensive in discussing time shifts for seismic shots, along with
explicit descriptions about shifting because of a relationship to a zero time
(activation time of the source).” Id. The Examiner asserts that “[w]hen all
these references are considered as a whole, they clearly teach that time lags
are present at receiver signals from two different sources due to depth
differences.” Id. The Examiner reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art
“would piece these explicit details together to mathematically create a
combined source signal where the peaks would thus add together (if at the
same frequency) or overlap if the sources were at different frequencies - as
primary reference Roberts son alludes to in [0036].” Id. Noting that Abma
teaches that “depth shifts can be accounted for by shifting for time by a
conversion between time and depth,” the Examiner asserts that
Appeal 2019-004853
Application 12/806,098

8
This has the advantage of allowing for notch reduction in a data
set, as well as avoiding the cost of performing a two source
activation in a marine environment during a survey to
mathematically create a dual source activation signal
mathematically by combining two signals time shifted that their
peaks add in amplitude.
Id. (citing Abma ¶ 45).
In reply, Appellant argues that “[n]owhere in the discussion in the
Examiner’s Answer does the Examiner present an analysis as to how the
teachings of Robertsson, Grion, and Abma would be combined with a
reasonable expectation of success.” Reply Br. 11. Appellant also asserts
that “the Examiner has not offered a reasoned analysis as to how the cited
references would be combined by someone skilled in the art,” thus, the
Examiner has not provided a motivation with a reasonable expectation of
success. Id. at 12.
We agree with Appellant. Even if we assume that Robertsson, Grion,
and Abma describe the individual elements of claim 21, the Examiner has
not adequately explained how or why the elements disclosed by these
references would be combined in such a way as to teach the claimed
invention. For example, in the Examiner’s reason to combine analysis, the
Examiner has not explained why notch reduction in a data set is
advantageous or why the elimination of two source activation renders the
limitations of claim 1 obvious. Thus, the Examiner’s reasoning lacks
rational underpinning.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 21, and claims 22–26 which depend therefrom.
Claims 27–29
Appeal 2019-004853
Application 12/806,098

9
The Examiner rejections of claims 27–29 rely upon the same
incomplete reasoning as the rejection of claim 21 discussed above. None of
Krohn, Cambois, or Dragoset cure this deficiency. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 27–29 for the same reason
we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 21.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are REVERSED
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–26 103(a) Robertsson, Grion,
Abma
21–26
27 103(a) Robertsson, Grion,
Abma, Krohn
27
28 103(a) Robertsson, Grion,
Abma, Cambois
28
29 103(a) Robertsson, Grion,
Abma, Dragoset
29
Overall
Outcome
21–29

REVERSED