WesternGeco L.L.C.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 21, 2021

2019005744 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 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.
14/517,578 10/17/2014 Joerg H. Meyer 594-25632-US-DIV 1010
28116 7590 06/21/2021
WesternGeco L.L.C.
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
SAXENA, AKASH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2021 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 JOERG H. MEYER, ANNABELLE KANIA, MARK EGAN,
and ANDREW HAWTHORN
____________________

Appeal 2019-005744
Application 14/517,578
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 36–46 and 52–64. Appellant has canceled claims 1–35 and 47–51.
See Appeal Br. 22, 24. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies
WesternGeco LLC, which is a subsidiary of Schlumberger Limited, as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005744
Application 14/517,578

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
optimizing drilling operations by updating a model with petrotechnical data
obtained during the drilling process and modifying a drilling plan in
accordance with the updated model. See Spec. ¶ 4.
Claims 36, 40, 52, and 55 are independent. Claim 36 is representative
(see Appeal Br. 16; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)) of the subject
matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation
emphasized in italics:
36. A method for providing a set of actions for modifying a
drilling plan of a well, comprising:
selecting an earth model for a planned well;
providing an updated earth model by creating a three
dimensional (3D) anisotropic depth model and increasing a
resolution of the selected earth model through multiple iterations
of a 3D tomographic inversion;
comparing a subsurface image, property volume or
interpretation of an earth model of the well with a subsurface
image, property volume or interpretation of the updated earth
model;
generating a set of three dimensional (3D) coordinates for
a well trajectory based on the comparison; and
modifying the drilling plan based on the well trajectory.

Appeal 2019-005744
Application 14/517,578

3
The Examiner’s Rejections2
1. Claims 36–40, 42, 52–55, and 63 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over R. Mottahedeh, Horizontal
Well Geo-Navigation: Planning, Monitoring, And Geosteering, Can. Int’l
Petroleum Conference (Petroleum Society of Canada) (2005)
(“Mottahedeh”); A. Druzhinin, Decoupled elastic prestack depth migration,
54 J. App. Geophysics, 369–89 (2003) (“Druzhinin”); and P. Guillaume et
al., 3D finite-offset tomographic inversion of CRP-scan data, with or without
anisotropy, 71st SEG Int’l Exposition & Ann. Meeting, 31–34 (2001)
(“Guillaume”). Final Act. 9–12.
2. Claims 57 and 58 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mottahedeh, Druzhinin, Guillaume, and
Y. Zhang et al., Delayed-shot 3-D Prestack Depth Migration, 2003 SEG
Ann. Meeting (Society of Exploration Geophysicists) (2003) (“Zhang”).
Final Act. 12–13.
3. Claims 59–62 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mottahedeh, Druzhinin, Guillaume, Zhang, and
D. Colombo et al., Geophysical modeling via simultaneous joint inversion of
seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic data: Application to prestack depth
imaging, The Leading Edge, 326–31 (March 2007) (“Colombo”). Final
Act. 13–15.
4. Claims 41, 43–46, and 56 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mottahedeh, Druzhinin,

2 The Examiner had also rejected claims 36–46 and 52–64 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 7. The
Examiner has since withdrawn this rejection. See Ans. 4.
Appeal 2019-005744
Application 14/517,578

4
Guillaume, and I. Jones, A Review of 3D PreSDM Model Building
Techniques, 21, No. 3 First Break , 1–11 (2003) (“Jones”). Final Act. 15–
16.
5. Claim 64 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mottahedeh, Druzhinin, Guillaume, and Carrazzone
et al. (US 5,583,825; Dec. 10, 1996) (“Carrazzone”). Final Act. 17.3
ANALYSIS4
Status of Mottahedeh, Zhang, and Jones as Prior Art
Appellant disputes that Mottahedeh, Zhang, and Jones qualify as prior
art to Appellant’s invention. Appeal Br. 6–10; Reply Br. 2–10. In
particular, Appellant argues that the copies of Mottahedeh and Zhang
indicate that they were retrieved from the OnePetro database. Appeal Br. 7–
10; Reply Br. 2–10. However, Appellant asserts that the OnePetro database
did not exist until at least 2007 and there is no evidence that either
Mottahedeh or Zhang were available via OnePetro prior to the December 14,
2007 effective filing date of the instant application. Appeal Br. 7–10.
Absent evidence of the date that Mottahedeh and Zhang were publicly

3 In the rejection, the Examiner mistakenly identifies the claim as claim 65,
instead of claim 64. See Final Act. 17. In the Answer, the Examiner
corrects the identification of the claim. Ans. 3. Appellant has not alleged
prejudice due to the original misidentification of claim 64. As such, we treat
the Examiner’s typographical error as harmless.
4 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
January 22, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed July 22, 2019
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 3, 2019 (“Ans.”); and
the Final Office Action, mailed July 13, 2018 (“Final Act.”), from which this
Appeal is taken.
Appeal 2019-005744
Application 14/517,578

5
posted (i.e., available), Appellant asserts the references may not be relied on
as prior art. Appeal Br. 7–10.
Moreover, Appellant argues that the version of Mottahedeh identified
by the Examiner, Mottahedeh states that the paper is a “pre-print” and that
the paper “is to be presented,” not that it actually was presented. Appeal
Br. 8 (emphases omitted); Reply Br. 4, 6. Because Mottahedeh is a pre-print
version, Appellant asserts there is an expectation of confidentiality
associated with the paper, which weighs against a determination that it was
publicly available. Appeal Br. 8–9. In addition, Appellant argues that other
than a cover sheet from the OnePetro database, there is no date on Zhang
indicating when it was published. Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 9. Further,
Appellant asserts that although Jones has a cover sheet indicating a
publication date in 2003, the cover sheet “is not consistent with a copy of a
document that was actually published.” Appeal Br. 10.
Whether a reference qualifies as printed publication is a legal
conclusion based on underlying factual findings. M&K Holdings, Inc. v.
Samsung Elecs. Co., 985 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Such a
determination involves a case-by-case inquiry as to whether the putative
prior art document was publicly accessible. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d
1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “A reference will be considered publicly
accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent
that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art
exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Blue Calypso, LLC v.
Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Kyocera
Wireless Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir.
2008)); see also Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d
Appeal 2019-005744
Application 14/517,578

6
765, 772 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (public accessibility “has been called the touch-
stone” in determining whether a reference qualifies as a printed publication).
Public accessibility may be demonstrated by a showing that the
documents were presented at a conference, trade show, or group meeting, or
were otherwise available in a repository (e.g., a library or on the Internet).
See Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1347–52; SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,
511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In Massachusetts Institute of
Technology v. AB Fortia, 774 F.2d 1104, 1109–10 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the
court concluded that copies of a reference presented at a conference that
were made available to interested persons without restrictions as to
confidentiality qualified as being publicly available documents.
As an initial matter, the relevant inquiry is not whether the documents
were posted on the OnePetro database prior to Appellant’s effective filing
date, but rather whether the documents were otherwise publicly accessible
prior to the effective filing date. As discussed below, we conclude that
Mottahedeh, Zhang and Jones were publicly accessible and, accordingly,
qualify as prior art.
a. Mottahedeh
In the copy provided by the Examiner, the Mottahedeh reference is
identified with DOI identifier https://doi.org/10.2118/2005-017; is further
identified by Document ID PETSOC-2005-017; is indicated to have been
published by the Petroleum Society of Canada in 2005; and was sourced by
the Canadian International Petroleum Conference, held June 7–9 in Calgary,
Alberta. The version of Mottahedeh provided by the Examiner includes a
statement that “[t]his paper is to be presented at [the Canadian International
Appeal 2019-005744
Application 14/517,578

7
Petroleum Conference]” and that it is a “pre-print and subject to correction.”
Mottahedeh 1 (emphasis added).
Thus, the issue is whether the Mottahedeh reference was presented at
the International Petroleum Conference, as planned.
A cursory search for PETSOC-2005-017 provides a result identifying
the Mottahedeh document, identified by the same DOI identifier and same
Document ID (i.e., Paper Number). See R. Mottahedeh, Horizontal Well
Geo-Navigation: Planning, Monitoring, And Geo-Steering (available at
https://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-abstract/05CIPC/All-
05CIPC/PETSOC-2005-017/4809) (last visited April 27, 2021). The search
result indicates on its face that the Mottahedeh “[p]aper [was] presented” at
the Canadian International Petroleum Conference in June 2005 and was
published June 7, 2005. This is consistent with the Examiner’s additional
finding in which another reference (CRAIN’S PETROPHYSICAL
HANDBOOK) identifies the Mottahedeh reference and notes that “This
paper was presented at the Petroleum Society’s 6th Canadian International
Petroleum Conference (56th Annual Technical Meeting), Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, June 7 – 9, 2005.” See Ans. 7–8.
Accordingly, because we find that the Mottahedeh reference was
presented at a conference prior to Appellant’s effective filing date, we
conclude that Mottahedeh qualifies as prior art to Appellant’s claimed
invention.

b. Zhang
Regarding Zhang, the OnePetro website has cataloged the
Proceedings Papers for all papers that were presented at the 2003 SEG
Appeal 2019-005744
Application 14/517,578

8
(Society of Geophysicists) Annual Meeting, held October 26–31, 2003 in
Dallas, Texas. See Proceedings Papers (available at https://onepetro.org/
SEGAM/SEG03/conference/All-SEG03) (last visited June 5, 2021).
Selecting the Zhang reference from among the other presented papers
indicates that Zhang was published October 26, 2003. In addition to listing
the authors, paper number, and publication date, the website states the Zhang
was a “[p]aper presented at the 2003 SEG Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas,
October 2003.” See https://onepetro.org/SEGAM/proceedings-
abstract/SEG03/All-SEG03/SEG-2003-1027/90588 (last visited June 5,
2021). Moreover, the Society of Exploration Geophysicists online library
(available at https://library.seg.org) includes the SEG Technical Program
Expanded Abstracts 2003, which includes the Zhang reference. See Y.
Zhang, Delayed-shot 3-D prestack depth migration, SEG Technical Program
Expanded Abstracts 2003, (available at https://library.seg.org/doi/10.1190/
1.1817446) (last visited April 27, 2021).
In addition, we note that Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(“MPEP”) § 2128(II)(B)(3)(9th ed., Rev. 10.2019, June 2020), as argued by
Appellant (see Reply Br. 9) relates to the use as a prior art reference of an
electronic publication. However, as discussed above, Zhang was presented
at the 2003 SEG Conference. Thus, consistent with MPEP § 2128(I), Zhang
qualifies as a printed publication because the document was made available
to the public via its presentation at the 2003 SEG Annual Conference. See
also Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d at 1351 (noting that the disputed reference was
displayed at an industry meeting (the American Association of Cereal
Chemists)—a meeting attended by those possessing ordinary skill in the
art—“a reference, however ephemeral its existence, may be a printed
Appeal 2019-005744
Application 14/517,578

9
publication if it goes direct to those whose interests make them likely to
observe and remember whatever it may contain that is new and useful.”)
(internal quotations omitted).
Accordingly, because we find the Zhang reference was presented at a
conference prior to Appellant’s effective filing date, we conclude that Zhang
qualifies as prior art to Appellant’s claimed invention.

c. Jones
We do not find Appellant’s argument that the cover sheet of Jones “is
not consistent with a copy of a document that was actually published” (see
Appeal Br. 10) to be persuasive. Rather, we note that the header on each
page of the Jones reference identifies the title of the article and includes
information that it was included in volume 21, no. 3 of the First Break
publication that was published in 2003. See Jones, passim; see also
https://www.earthdoc.org/content/journals/0.3997/1365-2397.21.3.25408
(last visited June 5, 2021) (indicating Jones was published online: March
2003). Consistent with MPEP § 2128(II)(B), we find Jones contains the
requisite evidence of publication date.
Accordingly, because we find the Jones reference was published in
2003, prior to Appellant’s effective filing date, we conclude that Jones
qualifies as prior art to Appellant’s claimed invention.

Rejection of claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
In rejecting independent claim 36, inter alia, the Examiner relies on
the combined teachings of Mottahedeh, Druzhinin, and Guillaume. See
Final Act. 9–10. In particular, the Examiner finds Mottahedeh teaches all of
Appeal 2019-005744
Application 14/517,578

10
the limitations of claim 36 but fails to “explicitly disclose” that
Mottahedeh’s model is an anisotropic depth model (and relies on Druzhinin
for this teaching), or increasing the resolution of the selected earth model
through multiple iterations of a 3D tomographic inversion (for which the
Examiner relies on Guillaume). Final Act. 9–10.
Appellant asserts that, contrary to the Examiner’s reasoning, one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the
teachings of Mottahedeh with those of Druzhinin because the proposed
combination would “increase the level of complexity and not simplify it as
these [(i.e., Mottahedeh’s geo-model and Druzhinin’s velocity model)] are
different types of models.” Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 11–12. Further,
Appellant argues the Examiner’s explanation in the Advisory Action (mailed
December 13, 2018) suggests that Druzhinin’s velocity model is used only
as a precursor step to Mottahedeh’s geo-model and that Mottahedeh’s geo-
model remains otherwise unchanged. Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 14.
In addition, Appellant argues neither Mottahedeh nor Druzhinin
teaching increasing the resolution of the model through multiple iterations of
a 3D tomographic inversion. Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 14–15. Appellant
asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would not turn to Guillaume
because Guillaume is directed to construction of a velocity model and has no
relevance to Mottahedeh’s geo-model. Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 15, 17–18.
Appellant also argues that Guillaume fails to teach increasing a resolution of
the selected earth model, but rather suggests reducing resolution to improve
turnaround time in performing velocity analysis. Appeal Br. 13–15; Reply
Br. 17–21. Still further, Appellant asserts the Examiner’s rejection and
Appeal 2019-005744
Application 14/517,578

11
proposed combinations are based on impermissible hindsight. Appeal
Br. 15–16; Reply Br. 12–13.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of Examiner error.
Regarding the proposed combination of Mottahedeh and Druzhinin,
the Examiner finds Mottahedeh’s geo-model (“or earth model with depth
model as claimed”) is created using 3D seismic data. Ans. 12 (citing
Mottahedeh 2, Fig. 2). The Examiner further explains that the process of
generating a depth model from seismic data is often obtained using P-wave
and S-wave velocity modeling and involves a depth migration process to
account for velocity variations. Ans. 13. The Examiner relies on
Druzhinin’s elastic prestack depth migration process to “show the details
and enhancements to generate the depth model” in an anisotropic (i.e., non-
homogeneous) environment, which may be used in Mottahedeh’s disclosed
approach. Ans. 13, 16. The Examiner further notes that by improving the
3D seismic generated surface of Mottahedeh by using the migration process
of Druzhinin would “yield better visualization of [the] trajectory.” Adv.
Act. 2. Moreover, the Examiner explains that Mottahedeh’s geo-model
already uses seismic generated data (i.e., a velocity model), so that, contrary
to Appellant’s assertions, the proposed combination would not increase the
level of complexity. Adv. Act. 2.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held the relevant inquiry in an
obviousness analysis is whether the Examiner has set forth “some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with
approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). An
obviousness analysis can “consider a range of real-world facts to determine
Appeal 2019-005744
Application 14/517,578

12
‘whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the
fashion claimed by the patent at issue.’” Intercont’l Great Brands LLC v.
Kellogg N. Am. Co., 869 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting KSR,
550 U.S. at 418). In addition, an obviousness analysis can “take account of
the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Further, “obviousness concerns
whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been
motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at
the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk–Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073
(Fed. Cir. 2015).
Here, we find the Examiner has set forth articulated reasoning with
rational underpinnings to support the proposed combination of Mottahedeh
and Druzhinin. Moreover, the Examiner explains that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Druzhinin
with Mottahedeh to “yield better visualization of [the] trajectory.” Adv.
Act. 2. Further, contrary to Appellant’s assertions (see, e.g., Reply Br. 14),
the Examiner’s proposed combination modifies the geo-model of
Mottahedeh to incorporate the teaching of Druzhinin. Ans. 16. In
particular, the Examiner explains “[t]he seismic data is converted to this
depth data image using pre-stack depth migration of the velocity (model)
data . . . for inhomigenous [sic: inhomogeneous] anisotropic media.”
Ans. 16.
To the extent Appellant argues that neither Mottahedeh nor Druzhinin
teaches increasing the resolution of a 3D anisotropic depth model “through
multiple iterations of a 3D tomographic inversion,” (see Appeal Br. 13;
Reply Br. 14–15), we note that the Examiner relies on Guillaume to supply
Appeal 2019-005744
Application 14/517,578

13
this teaching rather than Mottahedeh or Druzhinin. See Final Act. 10;
Ans. 17–19. At least because Appellant’s arguments are not responsive to
the Examiner’s rejection, they are not persuasive of error.
Regarding Appellant’s argument that “Guillaume has no relevance to
Mottahedeh’s geo model” because Guillaume is directed to a velocity model
(see Appeal Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 17), we disagree. As discussed
above, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Mottahedeh and
Druzhinin—specifically replacing/modifying Mottahedeh’s geo-model with
Druzhinin’s velocity model. See Ans. 16. As such, Appellant’s argument is
not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner and,
accordingly, is not persuasive of error.
In addition, we disagree with Appellant (see Appeal Br. 13–15; Reply
Br. 17–21) that Guillaume fails to teach increasing a resolution of the
selected earth model through multiple iterations of a 3D tomographic
inversion. Figure 2 of Guillaume illustrates an “[i]terative inversion
algorithm.” Guillaume 32 (Fig. 2). Guillaume describes combining a multi-
offset tomographic inversion technique (which “find[s] the best set of linear
equations to describe a non-linear problem, and . . . leave it to another run of
pre-stack depth migration to produce updated images for further analysis”)
with a migration scanning technique (“that produces the ‘best’ initial
velocity guess as a starting point for the estimation”). Guillaume 31. In
other words, Guillaume describes using the inversion to define a starting
point. See Guillaume 33. Guillaume further states that the disclosed
approach allows for reduced runs for velocity analysis. Guillaume 31. In
addition, Guillaume describes the approach as one that “contributes to the
Appeal 2019-005744
Application 14/517,578

14
construction of velocity models in complex areas.” Guillaume 31. Further,
Guillaume explains:
The forward modeling step of the inversion uses a ray based
kinematic migration for computing a residual curvature in the
perturbed or updated model. The inverse modeling step consists
in back projecting the depth errors over the modeled offset ray
paths, to update the illuminated velocity parameters in a
tomographic manner. The process stops when the residual
curvature of the picked events reaches a minimum.
Guillaume 31. Contrary to Appellant’s assertions, (see, e.g., Appeal Br. 14),
we do not find that Guillaume suggests the use “of a coarse, reduced
resolution for improving turnaround.” Rather, Guillaume suggests an
approach to generate an updated model that is closer to the actual map, while
using fewer pre-stack migration runs, suggesting the model offers increased
resolution. See Guillaume 31, 33.
Appellant also argues the Examiner’s proffered combination is the
result of impermissible hindsight. See Appeal Br. 15. We disagree.
It is improper to base a conclusion of obviousness upon facts gleaned
only through hindsight. To draw on hindsight knowledge of the patented
invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is
to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction—an illogical
and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability. Sensonics
Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing W.L.
Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
However,
[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of
ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and
Appeal 2019-005744
Application 14/517,578

15
does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s
disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392 1313–14 (CCPA 1971).
Here, the Examiner does not rely on information gleaned only from
Appellant’s Specification in reaching the legal conclusion of obviousness.
See, e.g., Final Act. 9–10. In addition, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
general assertions of improper hindsight. As such, we do not determine that
the Examiner relied on impermissible hindsight.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 36. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 40, 52, and 55, which recite similar limitations and were
not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 16; see also 35 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In addition, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 37–39, 41–46, 53, 54, and 56–64, which depend therefrom and were
not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 16; see also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 36–46 and 52–64
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2019-005744
Application 14/517,578

16
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
36–40,
42, 52–
55, 63
103(a) Mottahedeh,
Druzhinin,
Guillaume
36–40, 42,
52–55, 63

57, 58 103(a) Mottahedeh,
Druzhinin,
Guillaume, Zhang
57, 58
59–62 103(a) Mottahedeh,
Druzhinin,
Guillaume, Zhang,
Colombo
59–62
41, 43–
46, 56
103(a) Mottahedeh,
Druzhinin,
Guillaume, Jones
41, 43–46,
56

64 103(a) Mottahedeh,
Druzhinin,
Guillaume,
Carrazzone
64
Overall
Outcome
36–46,
52–64

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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED