Philip William. Kitchenside

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 22, 2019

14151594 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2019)

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.
14/151,594 01/09/2014 PHILIP WILLIAM KITCHENSIDE IS12.3460-US-NP 7377
28116 7590 10/22/2019
WesternGeco L.L.C.
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
FAIRBANKS, BRENT ALAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2862
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2019 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):
SMarckesoni@slb.com
USDocketing@slb.com
jalverson@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PHILIP WILLIAM KITCHENSIDE
____________

Appeal 2018-007628
Application 14/151,594
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11, and 13–20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification of January 9, 2014
(Spec.), Final Office Action of September 7, 2017 (Final), Appeal Brief of
February 1, 2018 (Appeal Br.), Examiner’s Answer of March 22, 2018
(Ans.), and Reply Brief of May 15, 2018 (Reply Br.).
2 WesternGeco L.L.C. is the applicant under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is
identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. The Appeal Brief states
Appeal 2018-007628
Application 14/151,594

2
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to a method (see, e.g., claim 1), a computer
system (see, e.g., claim 11), and an article comprising at least one non-
transitory machine-readable storage medium (see, e.g., claim 19). The
method, computer system, and storage medium are used for characterizing a
subsurface earth region from survey data. See claims 1, 11, and 19.
The process of characterizing a subsurface earth region from survey
data involves collecting survey data from seismic sources that produce
seismic wavefields propagated into the subsurface earth region. Spec. ¶ 2.
Structures in the earth reflect a part of the wavefield and the reflected
wavefields are detected by seismic receivers. Id. The detected wavefields
can be used to produce a representation (e.g., an image) of a subsurface
structure. Id.
The detected wavefield data may contain ghost data due to secondary
reflections such as the reflection of the wavefield off the air-water interface
in a marine environment. Spec. ¶¶ 3–4. Ghost data reduces the accuracy of
the representation (e.g., image) formed from the data. Id. Appellant uses an
algorithm to process out the ghost data (e.g., the ghost reflections) from the
desired upgoing wavefield reflected from a subsurface structure. Spec. ¶¶
16–18. Specifically, Appellant uses an iterative process that includes an
orthogonoal matching pursuits (OGMP) technique. Spec. ¶ 18; see, e.g.,
claim 1, steps b1–b4). Claim 1 illustrates the method:
1. A method comprising:

that WesternGeco L.L.C. is related to Schlumberger Technology
Corporation. Id.
Appeal 2018-007628
Application 14/151,594

3
[a] receiving survey data corresponding to a subsurface
earth region and acquired by survey receivers;
[b] determining, as part of a process of characterizing
the subsurface earth region, a wavefield traveling through the
subsurface earth region by iteratively performing in a plurality
of iterations until a specified condition is satisfied:
[b1] selecting, for a current iteration based at least
in part on a current residual representing an
approximation error, a selected element that includes a
representation of at least one portion of the wavefield,
wherein the selected element is determined from the
received survey data and is a function of a location of a
survey receiver;
[b2] computing, for the current iteration, a
respective orthonormal vector from the selected element,
wherein if the current iteration is after a first iteration
the respective orthonormal vector is computed further
from an orthonormal vector computed in a previous
iteration before the current iteration;
[b3] orthogonally projecting the respective
orthonormal vector onto a space spanned by a plurality
of orthonormal vectors including the respective
orthonormal vector, wherein the respective orthonormal
vector is orthogonal to other orthonormal vectors of the
plurality of orthonormal vectors; and
[b4] updating the current residual based at least in
part on the orthogonally projecting of the respective
orthonormal vector; and
[c] performing interpolation of the received survey data
to compute survey data at one or more interpolation points at
which the survey receivers are not located, using the
determined wavefield.
Appeal Br. claims appendix i.
Appeal 2018-007628
Application 14/151,594

4
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
A. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11, and 13–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) or § 112 ¶ 2 as incomplete for omitting essential
elements;
B. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11, and 13–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter;
C. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–8, 13, and 15–18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Ozbek3 in view of Wang4 and Tropp.5

OPINION
Rejection A
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11, and 13–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) or § 112 ¶ 2 as “being incomplete for omitting essential elements,
such omission amounting to a gap between the elements.” Final 2.
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in this rejection.
The rejection is focused on the following limitation found in all the
independent claims: “wherein if the current iteration is after a first iteration
the respective orthonormal vector is computed further from an orthonormal
vector computed in a previous iteration before the current iteration.” Claims
1, 11, and 19 (emphasis added).

3 Ozbek et al., US 2009/0296523 A1, issued December 3, 2009 (“Ozbek”).
4 Jian Wang et al., Generalized Orthogonal Matching Pursuit, 60 IEEE
Transactions on Signal Processing 6202 (2012) (“Wang”).
5 Joel A. Tropp & Anna C. Gilbert, Signal Recovery From Random
Measurements Via Orthogonal Matching Pursuit, 53 IEEE Transactions on
Information Theory 4655 (2007) (“Tropp”).
Appeal 2018-007628
Application 14/151,594

5
The dispute is over the meaning of “a” and “an” in the above
recitation. Although “a” and “an” are used in the claims, the Specification
indicates that each successive vector is computed using all the previous
vectors. Paragraph 45 of the Specification explains the calculation as
follows:
The orthonormal vectors that make up the orthonormal
basis can be denoted by u. In iteration n+1, the vector (un)
added to the orthonormal basis is given by:

In the foregoing, dn represents a dictionary element as
expressed by Eq. 5 below. For example, after three iterations,
the following three respective orthonormal vectors are
constructed:
u0 = d0
u1 = d1 – < d1, u0 > u0
u2 = d2 – < d2, u1 > u1 – < d2, u0 > u0
Spec. ¶ 45. Thus, according to the Specification, each successive vector is
calculated using the previously calculated vectors. The Specification
contains no broadening language that allows for the calculation of
successive vectors beyond the second vector using only a single previous
vector.6

6 The difference in scope between the broad language of the claim and the
narrower disclosure of the Specification gives rise to a potential question of
enablement. In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 1233 (CCPA 1976). There
being no enablement question before us, we do not decide any issue of
enablement here.
Appeal 2018-007628
Application 14/151,594

6
The Examiner and Appellant agree that if “an” is interpreted to mean
only a single orthonormal vector and “a” is interpreted to mean only a single
previous iteration, the claims exclude the vectors computed in iterations
beyond the second iteration. Compare Appeal Br. 8–9, with Ans. 4.
Appellant contends that “an” and “a” should be interpreted as “one or more.”
Appeal Br. 8–9. The Examiner responds that Appellant should amend the
claim to specifically recite “one or more.” Ans. 2.
The dispute in this case evinces that there are two possible meanings
for “an” and “a.” The indefinite articles “a” and “an” can sometimes mean
“only one,” but can sometimes mean “one or more.” The meaning depends
on the context of its use in the claim and specification. See TiVo, Inc. v.
EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 516 F.3d 1290, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“whether
‘a’ or ‘an’ is treated as singular or plural depends heavily on the context of
its use”). Here, Appellant and the Examiner agree that the true meaning of
“a” and “an” is “one or more.” Given that Appellant is free to amend the
claims to make them more precise during prosecution, we cannot say
Appellant has provided a persuasive reason for not amending the claims to
state what Appellant and the Examiner agree is the true meaning. Appellant
is required to use language as precise as the subject matter reasonably
permits. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting
Georgia–Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 258 F.2d 124, 136 (2d Cir.
1958). “An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that
are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can
uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the
administrative process.” Id. (quoting In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321–22
(Fed. Cir. 1989).
Appeal 2018-007628
Application 14/151,594

7
In fact, in our estimation, the most precise recitation would be
“wherein if the current iteration is after a first iteration the respective
orthonormal vector is computed further from the orthonormal vectors
computed in the previous iterations before the current iteration.” This is
because the Specification discloses that it is the orthonormal vectors
computed in the previous iterations that are used in the calculation of the
orthonormal vector un of the current iteration. Note that because the second
and further iterations inherently have previous iterations, in which previous
vectors have been calculated, it is appropriate to use “the” before
“orthonormal vectors” and “previous” to identify the preceding vectors and
iterations. “Inherent components of elements recited have antecedent basis
in the recitation of the components themselves.” Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc.,
274 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting MPEP § 2173.05(e)).
Because “a” and “an” must be read in light of the claim and
Specification to discern its meaning, Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2011), Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338,
1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and TiVo, 516 F.3d at 1303, using more precise
language is likely to reduce disputes requiring court resolution, such as those
addressed in Baldwin, Harari, and TiVo, and conform the scope of the claim
to what is described in the Specification.
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11, and 13–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or
§ 112 ¶ 2 as “being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such
omission amounting to a gap between the elements.”

Appeal 2018-007628
Application 14/151,594

8
Rejection B
The Examiner also rejects claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11, and 13–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final 3–6.
Appellant focuses the arguments on the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 12–
23. We select claim 1 as representative for resolving the issue on appeal.
35 U.S.C. § 101 states that:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,
subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Although this section of the statute appears expansive at first, the
Supreme Court has held that it “contains an important implicit exception:
Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.”
Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n
for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589
(2013)). The exception is implied because laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas “are the basic tools of scientific and
technological work that lie beyond the domain of patent protection.”
Myriad, at 589 (internal quotations omitted). And “monopolization of those
tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more
than it would tend to promote it, thereby thwarting the primary object of the
patent laws.” Alice, at 216. (quoting Mayo Collaborative Services v.
Prometheus Labs., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012) and citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8,
cl. 8 (Congress “shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and
useful Arts”)); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 648–649 (2010)
(Stevens, J., concurring) (“The Constitution allows Congress to issue patents
‘[t]o promote the Progress of ... useful Arts,’ Art. I, § 8, cl. 8,” and “[t]he
Appeal 2018-007628
Application 14/151,594

9
Court has kept this ‘constitutional standard’ in mind when deciding what is
patentable subject matter under § 101.”).
The Supreme Court explains that “the concern that drives this
exclusionary principle as one of pre-emption.” Id. In Alice, the Court
extended a framework that had been used in Mayo for distinguishing claims
pre-empting laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from
claims amounting to patent-eligible applications of those concepts. As
stated in Alice:
First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to
one of those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, what
else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question,
we consider the elements of each claim both individually and as
an ordered combination to determine whether the additional
elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible
application. We have described step two of this analysis as a
search for an “inventive concept”—i.e., an element or
combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
upon the ineligible concept itself.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The
USPTO refers to the first “directed to” step as Step 2A and the second
“search for an inventive concept” step as Step 2B. MPEP § 2106. Patent-
ineligible subject matter is referred to as judicial exceptions. Id.
In January of 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance for
applying the Alice framework. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). This
guidance breaks the Step 2A “directed to” analysis into two prongs.
Guidance § III ¶ 1. In Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites
a judicial exception by referring to the subject matter groupings of abstract
Appeal 2018-007628
Application 14/151,594

10
ideas in Section I of the Guidance, which lists mathematical concepts,
certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental
economic practice, and mental processes as abstract ideas. Guidance §
III.A.1. A claim that includes one of these abstract ideas must be further
reviewed in Prong 2 to determine whether the claim integrates the abstract
idea into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception. Guidance § III.A.2. If the claim does not integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application, examiners proceed to Step 2B to
see if the additional elements “provide an inventive concept, (i.e., whether
the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception
itself).” Guidance § III.B. This Guidance is useful for considering the
issues arising under Alice, which both the Examiner and Appellant discuss,
and, thus, we will consider the questions arising using the Guidance.
Step 2A, Prong 1
First, under Prong 1, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial
exception by referring to the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas in
Section I of the Guidance, which lists mathematical concepts, certain
methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, and mental processes as abstract ideas.
Here, there is no dispute that claim 1 recites an abstract idea as found
by the Examiner. Compare Final 3–5, with Appeal Br. 12–23. Claim 1
recites steps of determining a wavefield by an iterative computation method
and using the resulting determined wavefield to perform an interpolation of
the received survey data to compute survey data at interpolation points. The
steps of determining and interpolating are steps of calculating that occur in a
controller (see Spec. ¶¶ 29–39 and 45–51) and, thus, those steps involve
Appeal 2018-007628
Application 14/151,594

11
mathematical concepts and mental processes that can be performed in the
human mind. These are abstract ideas according to Supreme Court
precedent. See Guidance n.12.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Next under Step 2A, Prong 2, we consider whether the claim
integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception. We determine that claim 1 does
not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as, according to
Supreme Court and Federal Circuit caselaw, it does not impose a meaningful
limit on the judicial exception, i.e., the mathematical concepts and mental
processes.
According to Appellant, “[c]laim 1 of the present application thus
focuses ‘on a specific means or method that improves the relevant
technology’” and thus is patent-eligible according to McRO. Appeal Br. 12–
13; see McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We therefore look to whether the claims in these patents
focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology
or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and
merely invoke generic processes and machinery.”).
McRO does not support Appellant’s argument. Appellant contends
that:
Using the method of claim 1, from the computed wavefield that
is derived according to the inventive process, a useful result is
obtained by interpolating the received survey data to compute
survey data at one or more interpolation points at which the
survey receivers are not located. This allows for deployment of
a less dense arrangement of survey receivers, which improves
the efficiency of performing a survey.
Appeal 2018-007628
Application 14/151,594

12
Appeal Br. 13–14 (bolding converted to italics). The problem is that the
result is itself an abstract idea. The mathematical concept and mental
process of interpolating (a mathematical estimation process) leads to more
survey data. Because the result is itself part of the abstract idea
(mathematical concepts and mental processes), the result does not represent
an additional element beyond the judicial exception that integrates the
exception into a practical application.
Appellant has not persuaded us that claim 1 is “directed to” patent-
eligible subject matter instead of abstract subject matter, under the step 1
framework of Alice (Step 2A of the Guidance). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217
(“First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those
patent-ineligible concepts.”).
Step 2B
Where, as here, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application in a manner within the confines of the caselaw, we
proceed to the second portion of the Alice/Mayo framework (Step 2B of the
Guidance) to see if the additional elements “provide an inventive concept,
(i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the
exception itself).” Guidance § III.B; see Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–218 (“We
have described step two of this analysis as a search for an “inventive
concept”—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to
ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
upon the ineligible concept itself.”) (internal quotations and alterations
omitted).
To support the argument that claim 1 includes additional elements that
amount to “significantly more than the judicial exception itself,” Appellant
Appeal 2018-007628
Application 14/151,594

13
contends that the method of claim 1 improves “the technology or technical
field of surveying a subsurface earth region to characterize the subsurface
earth region using survey data acquired by physical devices in the form of
the survey receivers.” Appeal Br. 22. Although claim 1 recites additional
elements, i.e., survey receivers, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s
finding that the claimed arrangement of seismic receivers is generic and
conventional. Compare Ans. 19, with Reply Br. 15–16. Additionally, the
improvement of data is an improvement in the abstract idea itself. “‘[I]f a
claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical
formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is
nonstatutory.’” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595 (1978).
The improvement is essentially in the software. We are cognizant of
the fact that software is not automatically an abstract idea, even if
performance of a software task involves an underlying mathematical
calculation or relationship. See Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850
F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“That a mathematical equation is required
to complete the claimed method and system does not doom the claims to
abstraction.”); McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316 (methods of automatic lip
synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-
implemented rules were not directed to an abstract idea); Enfish, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims to self-
referential table for a computer database were not directed to an abstract
idea). But, taking a data gathering step (step (a)) and adding data
manipulation steps (steps (b) and (c)) with the result being an information-
based result, i.e., survey data at interpolation points, does not, according to
Supreme Court precedent, integrate the mathematical building blocks of the
Appeal 2018-007628
Application 14/151,594

14
algorithm into something more thereby transforming those building blocks
into a patent-eligible invention. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. Here, the software
is used as a tool for performing calculations. Appellant does not direct the
claims to systems and methods that use sensors in a non-conventional way
as done in Thales. Thales, 850 at 1348–49 (holding patent-eligible claims
directed to using sensors in a non-conventional way to reduce errors in
measuring the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a
moving reference frame). Nor are the claims directed to a particular
improvement in the computer itself as in Enfish. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339
(holding patent-eligible claims to a self-referential table for a computer
database because the claims were directed to a particular improvement in the
computer’s functionality as the claimed self-referential table was “a specific
type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and
retrieves data in memory.”)
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that claim 1 fails to include additional elements that amount to
“significantly more than the judicial exception itself.”

Rejection C
The Examiner also rejects claims 1, 2, 4–8, 13, and 15–18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ozbek in view of Wang and Tropp.
The Examiner acknowledges that Ozbek does not teach the required
respective orthonormal vector that is computed from the selected element or
“orthogonally projecting the respective orthonormal vector onto a space
spanned by a plurality of orthonormal vectors including the respective
orthonormal vector, wherein the respective orthonormal vector is orthogonal
Appeal 2018-007628
Application 14/151,594

15
to other orthonormal vectors of the plurality of orthonormal vectors” as
required by claim 1 (emphasis added). Final 9. Instead, the Examiner relies
on Wang and Tropp to support a finding of a suggestion of using an
orthonormal vector that is orthogonal to other orthonormal vectors of the
plurality of orthonormal vectors. Final 9–11.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately
supported the finding that Wang and Tropp provide the required suggestion.
Appeal Br. 25–27.
The Examiner finds that Wang teaches obtaining the LS solution Λk
(Final 10) and that Λk is the orthonormal vector generated at iteration k
(Final 35). The Examiner further interprets Wang’s step of creating the term
ФΛk Λk as an orthonormal projection of x onto the plurality of orthonormal
vectors Ф. Final 10. The Examiner acknowledges that Wang does not teach
that the respective orthonormal vector is orthogonal to other orthonormal
vectors of the plurality of orthonormal vectors, but finds that Tropp teaches
the orthogonal arrangement. Final 10–11.
First, the Examiner has not established that Λk is the required
respective orthonormal vector and ФΛk Λk is the required projection.
According to the Examiner, ФΛk is “a space spanned by a plurality of
orthonormal vectors.” Final 35. However, as pointed out by Appellant,
Wang calls Ф a “sensing matrix.” Appeal Br. 25; Wang § I (“Tropp and
Gilbert [8] showed that, for a K-sparse vector x and an m n Gaussian
sensing matrix Ф, the OMP recovers x from y = Фx with overwhelming
probability if the number of measurements follows m ~ K log n.”).
Appellant states that “[ФΛk] appears to be a k-th iteration of the sensing
matrix computed in the gOMP algorithm described in Section II on page
Appeal 2018-007628
Application 14/151,594

16
6203 of Wang” and “Wang does not state that sensing matrix ФΛk includes a
plurality of orthonormal vectors, where the respective orthonormal vector
(which is included as part of the plurality of orthonormal vectors) is
orthogonal to other orthonormal vectors of the plurality of orthonormal
vectors.” Id. (bolding converted to italics).
The Examiner does not further explain the basis for the finding that
Λk represents the respective orthonormal vectors of the claim and ФΛk Λk
represents the projection. Ans. 20.
In response to Appellant’s argument that “Wang does not state that its
sensing matrix ФΛk includes a plurality of orthonormal vectors, where the
respective orthonormal vector (which is included as part of the plurality of
orthonormal vectors) is orthogonal to other orthonormal vectors of the
plurality of orthonormal vectors,” the Examiner merely states that
Wang’s paper is replete with reference to “orthogonal”,
including “the projection onto the orthogonal complement”,
“the projection of y onto the orthogonal complement space”,
and “the residual of the gOMP is orthogonal to the columns”.
Using a broadest reasonable interpretation, at a given iteration,
Wang’s algorithm produces an orthonormal vector that is
orthogonal to all previously generated orthonormal vectors.
Ans. 20. This response is not persuasive because it does not address
Appellant’s argument and it is not clear whether the Examiner accepts that
sensing matrix Ф includes the respective orthonormal vectors or whether the
Examiner is maintaining that Λk represents the respective orthonormal
vectors of the claim.
As pointed out by Appellant, Tropp does not add to what is already
described in Wang. Appeal Br. 26. Both Wang and Tropp state that the
Appeal 2018-007628
Application 14/151,594

17
residual (rk in Wang, rt in Tropp) is orthogonal to the columns of matrix Ф.
Wang § II (“the residual rk of the gOMP is orthogonal to the columns”);
Tropp (“It is important to recognize that the residual rt is always orthogonal
to the columns of Фt.”). Tropp refers to Ф as the measurement matrix and it
contains rows of measurement vectors. Tropp § II ¶ 1.
The Examiner has not provided adequate evidence or technical
reasoning supporting the finding that the combination of Wang and Tropp
teaches or suggests computing a respective orthonormal vector from a
selected element that includes a representation of at least one portion of the
wavefield and “orthogonally projecting the respective orthonormal vector
onto a space spanned by a plurality of orthonormal vectors including the
respective orthonormal vector, wherein the respective orthonormal vector is
orthogonal to other orthonormal vectors of the plurality of orthonormal
vectors” as required by claim 1.
All of the claims require the orthogonal respective vector. Thus, we
do not sustain the obviousness rejection of any claim.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–9,
11, 13–20
112(b)/
112 ¶ 2
Indefiniteness 1, 2, 4–9,
11, 13–20

1, 2, 4–9,
11, 13–20
101 Eligibility 1, 2, 4–9,
11, 13–20

1, 2, 4–8,
13, 15–18
103(a) Ozbek, Wang,
Tropp
1, 2, 4–8,
13, 15–18
Appeal 2018-007628
Application 14/151,594

18
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–9,
11, 13–20

The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED