SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 29, 2021

2020002084 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2021)

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.
14/472,505 08/29/2014 Jimmy Klinger IS13.3245-US-NP 7597
48879 7590 06/29/2021
SCHLUMBERGER INFORMATION SOLUTIONS
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
HOUSTON, TX 77042
EXAMINER
YUN, CARINA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2021 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 JIMMY KLINGER and LAURENT SOUCHE
Appeal 2020-002084
Application 14/472,505
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, 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 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Schlumberger
Technology Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002084
Application 14/472,505

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to structural modeling of a sedimentary basin
based on various types of features included in the basin using a mesh grid.
See Spec. ¶¶ 2–3. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving data for a geologic environment, wherein the
data comprise seismic image data of the geologic environment
as acquired by acquisition equipment that converts energy
signals sensed by sensors to digital samples;
generating interpretations of structures in the geologic
environment using the seismic image data;
computing coarse scale implicit function values at nodes
of a coarse mesh model of a region of interest in the geologic
environment based at least in part on the interpretations;
formulating constraints based at least in part on the
seismic image data wherein the constraints comprise at least
one orientation constraint for an imaged geologic feature of the
geologic environment;
solving a system of equations for a finer mesh model, as
a seismic image data enhanced stratigraphic model of the
geologic environment, subject to the constraints;
rendering, to a display, a representation of the imaged
geologic feature of the geologic environment using the finer
mesh model, wherein the finer mesh model comprises implicit
function values at nodes of the finer mesh model based at least
in part on solving the system of equations wherein the implicit
function values of the finer mesh model more accurately
represent the imaged geologic feature of the geologic
environment than the implicit function values of the coarse
mesh model.
Appeal Br. 31 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-002084
Application 14/472,505

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kucherov US 2006/0047737 A1 Mar. 2, 2006
Benson US 2012/0010865 A1 Jan. 12, 2012
Aqrawi US 2012/0320712 Al De. 20, 2012
Pita US 2013/0226540 Al Aug. 29, 2013
Mallet US 2013/0262052 Al Oct. 3, 2013
Borcard All-scale spatial analysis of
ecological data by means of
principal coordinates of neighbour
matrices, Ecological Modelling
153, pp. 51–68
2002

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 15–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Mallet, Aqrawi, and Kucherov. Final Act. 3–10.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Mallet, Aqrawi, Kucherov, and Benson. Final Act. 10–11.
Claims 9 and 12–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Mallet, Aqrawi, Kucherov, and Borcard. Final Act. 11–
14.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Mallet, Aqrawi, Kucherov, and Pita. Final Act. 14–15.

Appeal 2020-002084
Application 14/472,505

4
OPINION
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Mallet discloses the recited
steps of (1) “generating interpretations of structures;” (2) “computing coarse
scale implicit function values at nodes of a coarse mesh model;” (3)
“formulating constraints;” (4) “solving a system of equations for a finer
mesh model;” and (5) “rendering, to a display, a representation of the
imaged geologic feature of the geologic environment.” Final Act. 3–5
(citing Mallet ¶¶ 7, 32–36, 88, 254, 264, 274–278). The Examiner further
relies on Aqrawi as disclosing “wherein the data comprise seismic image
data of the geologic environment as acquired by acquisition equipment that
converts energy signals sensed by sensors to digital samples.” Final Act. 5–
6 (citing Aqrawi ¶¶ 2, 44). Additionally, the Examiner relies on Kucherov
as disclosing “wherein the implicit function values of the finer mesh model
more accurately represent the imaged geologic feature of the geologic
environment than the implicit function values of the coarse mesh model.”
Final Act. 6 (citing Kucherov ¶ 42). According to the Examiner, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined Aqrawi with Mallet “to
improve seismic volume analysis for purposes of resource extraction”
whereas adding Kucherov would have improved accuracy. Final Act. 6.
Appellant contends that “Mallet does not disclose a ‘coarse mesh’ and
a ‘finer mesh’” because “in Mallet, there is a single 3D mesh, which has
values fixed at ‘discrete nodes’ of the single 3D mesh and values
interpolated at other nodes of the single 3D mesh.” Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant specifically argues “Mallet uses geological data to set values of a
horizon function h(x, y, z) (an implicit function) at discrete nodes of a single
3D mesh and then interpolates values at other nodes of the single 3D mesh
Appeal 2020-002084
Application 14/472,505

5
subject to constraints.” Id. at 12, (emphasis omitted). Referring to Figure 15
and paragraphs 244–254 of Mallet, Appellant asserts the disclosed function
has values at discrete nodes of a single mesh, which are used to interpolate
values for other nodes of the single mesh. Appellant also argues that Figure
13 of Mallet shows a single resolution seismic image where the quality of
the horizon function h(x, y, z) is inspected and corrected, rather than solving
the equation for a finer mesh, as required by claim 1. Id. at 16. Appellant
further argues that, although “Kucherov recognizes that ‘[i]n real life
systems . . . the accuracy of the simulation improves as the mesh becomes
finer’ and ‘accuracy also improves as the time increment between temporal
iterations is made shorter,’” adding Kucherov’s teachings to Mallet would
not result in the claimed features. Id. at 19. According to Appellant,
“Kucherov does not provide evidence sufficient to support fact finding of
implicit function values of a coarse mesh and implicit function values of a
finer mesh,” and instead, “Kucherov focuses on ‘factors [that] place a
premium on rapid convergence of the [real life] system at each time
increment’ when the iterative Newton’s method is employed to solve
continuity equations derived from fundamental laws of physics.” Id.
The Examiner responds that “Appellant does not clearly define the
scope and meaning of what is meant by implicit function in the claims” and
“[t]here is no evidence that Mallet’s implicit function is any different than
that of appellant’s claims.” Ans. 14, (emphasis omitted). The Examiner
relies on the broadest, reasonable interpretation of an implicit function and
finds that the horizon function h(x, y, z) meets the recited implicit function
which may take different forms, as described in paragraphs 33–37 of Mallet.
Id. at 14. The Examiner also finds Mallet’s disclosure in paragraphs 271 and
Appeal 2020-002084
Application 14/472,505

6
272 of a mesh model of the studied domain, as well as in paragraphs 275 and
276 of interpolating the function h(x, y, z) at the nodes and generating a
piecewise continuous function, meets the claimed coarse and finer mesh
models because more details are displayed in the model. Id. at 15. With
respect to Kucherov, the Examiner also restates the previously mentioned
findings where a finer mesh model improves the accuracy of the simulation.
Id.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own.
We specifically find that Appellant’s description of how an implicit function
is used for building a mesh (see Spec. ¶¶ 76–78, 81–83), which is further
improved by interpolation to result in a finer mesh (see Spec. ¶ 140),
supports the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim term. See Ans. 14–15.
Contrary to Appellant’s contentions (see Appeal Br. 3–4), the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the recited steps does not preclude applying the
method of generating the mesh model of Mallet in a seismic imagery
environment improving the mesh through further iterations. Additionally,
the specific equations and their physical environments which Appellant
discusses on pages 4–7 of the Reply Brief, although may be related to the
subject matter of Appellant’s Application, are not recited in the claims.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s proposed combination is
erroneous because the evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s
motivation for combining Mallet with Kucherov and Aqrawi, and
specifically, Kucherov is related to continuity equations. Appeal Br. 21; see
also id. at 16–19. Similarly, Appellant argues that combining Pita with
Mallet to reject claims 19 and 20 is in error because Pita, like Kucherov,
relates to continuity equations. See id. at 24–29. We are not persuaded. As
Appeal 2020-002084
Application 14/472,505

7
found by the Examiner (Ans. 17–18), the applied prior art references relate
to simulation and modelling of three-dimensional bodies based on node data
to form a mesh model. Kucherov teaches that a finer mesh formed
according to a larger number of nodes results in improved model accuracy.
See Kucherov ¶ 42, 54.
Here, Appellant is arguing the references individually, whereas the
rejection is based on the combination of the cited references where all of the
features of the secondary reference need not be bodily incorporated into the
primary reference (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) and
the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art
reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment (see
Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Mallet with Kucherov’s
increased accuracy in a finer mesh and Aqrawi’s seismic imaging based on
converting energy signals obtained by sensors to digital samples would have
resulted in the recited method, especially when the claimed method is not
limited to any particular implicit function or iteration that achieves a finer
mesh. See Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 5–6. In other words, this is a combination of
familiar elements according to known methods with predicable results. See
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination
of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious
when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Additionally, the
Supreme Court made clear that when considering obviousness, “the analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR,
Appeal 2020-002084
Application 14/472,505

8
550 U.S. at 418. Furthermore, the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton,” and this is a case in which the skilled artisan
would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. We therefore find the Examiner provided
a sufficiently reasonable motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the references based on the above discussed improvements to
Mallet’s system as modified by Aqrawi and Kucherov.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 15–18 over Mallet, Aqrawi, and Kucherov, and
claims 19 and 20 over Mallet, Aqrawi, Kucherov, and Pita. We also sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of the remaining appealed claims
which are not argued by Appellant separately and with sufficient specificity.
See Appeal Br. 21–24, 29–30.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7, 8,
10, 11, 15–
18
103 Mallet, Aqrawi,
Kucherov
1–5, 7, 8,
10, 11, 15–
18

6 103 Mallet, Aqrawi,
Kucherov, Benson
6
9, 12–14 103 Mallet, Aqrawi,
Kucherov, Borcard
9, 12–14
19, 20 103 Mallet, Aqrawi,
Kucherov, Pita
19, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–20
Appeal 2020-002084
Application 14/472,505

9

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED