Wireless Seismic, Inc.v.Fairfield Industries, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 24, 2014

13035665 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 24, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: December 24, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

WIRELESS SEISMIC, INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

FAIRFIELD INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Patent Owner.

Case IPR2014-01115
Patent 8,296,068 B2

Before JAMESON LEE, JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, and
KRISTINA M. KALAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108

IPR2014-01115
Patent 8,296,068 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Wireless Seismic, Inc. (“Wireless Seismic”) filed a Petition (Paper 2,
“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–16 of U.S. Patent
No. 8,296,068 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’068 patent”). Patent Owner, Fairfield
Industries, Inc. (“Fairfield”), filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim.
Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
35 U.S.C. § 314(a) which provides as follows:
THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter partes
review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
information presented in the petition filed under section 311
and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
Upon consideration of Wireless Seismic’s Petition and supporting
evidence, as well as Fairfield’s Preliminary Response, we determine that
Wireless Seismic has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would
prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of claims 1–16 under either
35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103. We do not institute an inter partes review for any
of claims 1–16.
A. Related Proceedings
Wireless Seismic identifies a civil action involving the ’068 patent, in
which it is the defendant, styled Fairfield Industries Inc. d/b/a
FairfieldNodal v. Wireless Seismic, Inc., No. 13-cv-00903 (E.D. Tex.). Pet.
1. Fairfield identifies a civil action involving the ’068 patent, in which it is
the plaintiff, styled Fairfield Industries Inc. d/b/a FairfieldNodal v. Wireless
Seismic, Inc., No. 4:14-cv-02972-KPE (S.D. Tex.). Paper 9, 2.
IPR2014-01115
Patent 8,296,068 B2

3
B. The ’068 Patent
The ’068 patent generally relates to seismic data acquisition, and more
particularly to a method and system for transmitting data between multiple
remote stations in an array and a data collection station utilizing a linked
relay system to communicate therebetween, permitting transmission paths to
be altered. Ex. 1001, 1:14–19. The Title of the ’068 patent is:
“METHOD FOR TRANSMISSION OF SEISMIC DATA.” Id. at 1:1–2.
With respect to the prior art, the ’068 patent describes that, typically,
seismic data are detected by seismic units or stations laid out in an array,
wherein the array consists of a line of stations each having at least one
geophone attached thereto in order to record data from the seismic cross-
section below the array. Id. at 1:34–37. For data over a larger area, multiple
lines of stations may be set out side-by-side, such that a grid of receivers is
formed. Id. at 1:38–40. The ’068 patent also describes, with respect to the
prior art, that in the case of wireless seismic units, transmissions are made
either directly between each seismic unit and a central control station or
directly between each seismic unit and a concentrator. Id. at 2:4–8.
According to the ’068 patent, a disadvantage of the prior art systems
is that the failure of any one intermediate transmission station or cell access
node will prevent communication with a plurality of seismic acquisition
units. Id. at 2:50–53. Also, to the extent that an individual seismic
acquisition unit is prevented from transmitting back to its respective cell
access node due to factors external to the unit, the participation and
operation of that unit within the array is lost. Id. at 2:54–57. In that regard,
the ’068 patent states: “The system should be capable of communication
IPR2014-01115
Patent 8,296,068 B2

4
between functional seismic units even if one or more intermediate stations
fail to operate properly.” Id. at 2:67–3:3.
The ’068 patent describes transmission of radio signals between
individual seismic acquisition units in an array, such that the transmission
can be passed in a relay chain through the array of seismic units. Id. at
3:11–14. Any one seismic acquisition unit in the array is capable of
transmitting radio signals to several other seismic acquisition units
positioned within radio range of the transmitting seismic acquisition unit.
Id. at 3:17–20. Such a network of radio-linked seismic acquisition units
permits seismic data transmission routes back to a central control station to
be varied as desired or needed. Id. at 3:20–23. The transmission path from
any seismic acquisition unit back to the control station is alterable. Id. at
3:23–25.
In the Summary of the Invention portion of the Specification, the ’068
patent states:
Within the transmission network, there are multiple
transmission paths from the most remote unit to the control
station/concentrator. The particular transmission path to be
used for any given transmission will be determined based on
the strength of the signal between communicating units, the
operational status of a unit and path efficiency.
Id. at 4:13–18.
Furthermore, the array of seismic data acquisition units may be
divided into different groups of seismic data acquisition units, such that the
seismic acquisition units within each group would form transmission paths
for the seismic acquisition units within that group. Such an arrangement is
shown in Figure 1 of the ’068 patent, reproduced below:

IPR2014-01115
Patent 8,296,068 B2

5

Figure 1 is a top view of a seismic acquisition array according to one
embodiment of the ’028 patent. Id. at 4:22–24. Array 14 includes multiple
lines 18 (columns placed side-by-side) of seismic data acquisition units 12.
Id. at 4:44–45. Radio transmissions are passed from one seismic acquisition
unit to another, and the transmissions are passed, ultimately, to central
control station 16 through respective corresponding concentrators 20 (20a,
20b, 20c, or 20d in Figure 1). Id. at 4:45–50.
As shown in Figure 1 above, a first group of seismic acquisition units
in array 14 is comprised of the left-most three lines of seismic data
acquisition units 12; a second group of seismic acquisition units in array 14
is comprised of the middle three lines of seismic data acquisition units 12;
IPR2014-01115
Patent 8,296,068 B2

6
and a third group of seismic acquisition units in array 14 is comprised of the
right-most three lines of seismic data acquisition units 12. Within each
group, a particular transmission path is illustrated by links 23 connecting all
the seismic data acquisition units within the group. The ’068 patent states
that a string of seismic units 12 for a particular transmission path is defined
by the selected transmission path by which data is communicated from one
unit 12 to another. Id. at 5:36–40. Thus, “a ‘string’ of units may be
constantly changing between transmissions.” Id. With respect to Figure 1,
the ’068 patent states:
Such an arrangement permits transmissions to be re-routed in
the event of some failure of a unit 12 within the string.
Likewise, transmissions can be re-routed in the event of a weak
signal between units 12 or to overcome topographic or other
obstacles that could interfere with short range, line of site [sic]
transmissions.
Id. at 5:40–45. In case of multiple adjacent transmission paths, or strings,
such as those shown in Figure 1, the ’068 patent states that radio
transmission parameter assignments may be made to minimize interference
with other transmissions and permit reuse of the same transmission
parameters. Id. at 5:54–57. The ’068 patent further states: “For example,
string 18a may transmit data at a first set of radio transmission parameters
while string 18b may transmit data at a second set of parameters.” Id. at
5:57–60. It is described that those skilled in the art would know of many
transmission parameters that can be adjusted, including, inter alia,
frequency, time slots, power, and modulation. Id. at 6:6–12.

IPR2014-01115
Patent 8,296,068 B2

7
C. Illustrative Claims
Claims 1 and 9 are the only independent claims. They are reproduced
below:
1. A method for seismic data transmission comprising the steps of:
A. providing a plurality of seismic acquisition units,
wherein each of the seismic acquisition units is capable of
acquiring seismic data, receiving a short range radio
transmission and transmitting a short range radio transmission;
B. utilizing a first seismic acquisition unit to acquire
seismic data and transmit seismic data along first transmission
path using a first set of transmission parameters, wherein the
first transmission path comprises a first subset of at least two of
the plurality of seismic data acquisition units;
C. utilizing a second seismic acquisition unit to acquire
seismic data and transmit seismic data along a second
transmission path using a second set of transmission
parameters, wherein the second transmission path comprises a
second subset of at least two of the plurality of seismic data
acquisition units, wherein the second set of transmission
parameters are different from the first set of transmission
parameters;
D. wherein the first set of transmission parameters and
the second set of transmission parameters are selected to be
non-interfering with one another.

9. A method for seismic data transmission comprising the steps of:
A. utilizing at least two seismic acquisition units having
a first set of short range radio transmission parameters to
transmit and receive seismic data along a first transmission
path;
B. utilizing at least two seismic acquisition units having
a second set of short range radio transmission parameters to
transmit and receive seismic data along a second transmission
path;
IPR2014-01115
Patent 8,296,068 B2

8
C. wherein the first set of transmission parameters and
the second set of transmission parameters are non-interfering
with one another.
Ex. 1001, 10–11.
D. Prior Art Relied Upon
Wireless Seismic relies upon the following prior art references:
Park U.S. Patent No. 6,219,620 B1 April 17, 2001
(Ex. 1005)
Lindsey Stephanie Lindsey, Cauligi Raghavendra, and Krishna M.
Sivalingam, Data Gathering Algorithms in Sensor Networks
Using Energy Metrics, 13 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
PARALLEL AND DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS 924–935
(September 2002)
(Ex. 1004)
APA “admitted prior art” discussing Park, referenced in
the ’068 patent (Ex. 1001), column 2, lines 37–49.

E. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
Wireless Seismic alleges the following grounds of unpatentability:

Claims Ground Reference(s)
1, 3, 5–9, 11, and 13–16 § 102(b) Lindsey
2, 4, 10, and 12 § 103(a) Lindsey and either
APA or Park

In support of the grounds identified above, Wireless Seismic also
presents a Declaration of James Geier (Ex. 1003).

IPR2014-01115
Patent 8,296,068 B2

9
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
2012). Claims are not interpreted in a vacuum but are part of and read in
light of the specification. Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc.,
810 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also United States v. Adams,
383 U.S. 39, 49 (1966). Indeed, although it is improper to read a limitation
from the specification into the claims, the claims still must be read in view
of the specification of which they are a part. Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech
Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The terms also are given
their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art in the context of the specification. In re Translogic
Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The construction that
stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the inventor’s
description is likely the correct interpretation. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs
Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and
only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
“seismic data”
Each of independent claims 1 and 9 recites “[a] method for seismic
data transmission.” Ex. 1001, 10. Each of claims 1 and 9 also require a first
data transmission path, along which seismic data is transmitted, comprising
IPR2014-01115
Patent 8,296,068 B2

10
at least two seismic acquisition units, and a second data transmission path,
along which seismic data is transmitted, also comprising at least two seismic
acquisition units. Id. at 10–11. Claim 1 expressly recites that each seismic
acquisition unit is capable of acquiring seismic data, and that functionality is
implicit in claim 9. Id. In its Petition, Wireless Seismic does not construe
the term “seismic data.” Fairfield construes the term “seismic data” as
“signals reflected by subsurface seismic reflectors (i.e., interfaces between
subsurface lithologic or fluid layers characterized by different elastic
properties) in response to a generated acoustic signal.” Prelim. Resp. 9.
In the context of the Specification of the ’068 patent, and applying the
standard of “broadest reasonable interpretation” in light of the Specification,
we determine that “seismic data” is not just any data having some
relationship to the ground or obtained by sensing the ground. Rather, it is
“data containing information about lithologic subsurface formations,
obtained by applying an acoustic signal to the ground and receiving the
reflected signal.”
The disclosure of the ’068 patent is directed specifically to seismic
exploration or surveying of subsurface geological formations. For instance,
the Description of the Prior Art portion of the Specification begins with this
paragraph:
Seismic exploration generally utilizes a seismic energy
source to generate an acoustic signal that propagates into the
earth and is partially reflected by subsurface seismic reflectors
(i.e., interfaces between subsurface lithologic or fluid layers
characterized by different elastic properties). The reflected
signals are detected and recorded by seismic units having
receivers or geophones located at or near the surface of the
earth, thereby generating a seismic survey of the subsurface.
The recorded signals, or seismic energy data, can then be
IPR2014-01115
Patent 8,296,068 B2

11
processed to yield information relating to the lithologic
subsurface formations, identifying such features, as, for
example, lithologic subsurface formation boundaries.

Ex. 1001, 1:22–33. Also, the objective of the invention is stated as follows:
“Thus, it would be desirable to provide a communication system for a
seismic survey array that has flexibility in transmitting signals and data to
and from remote seismic units and a control and/or data collection station.”
Id. at 2:63–67. Everything specifically described in the Specification
pertains to the generation of a seismic or geological survey. In that regard,
we note that, as discussed above, the rule of claim construction we apply is
the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification. In light
of this Specification, we deem it unreasonable to construe “seismic data”
broader than “data containing information about lithologic subsurface
formations, obtained by applying an acoustic signal to the ground and
receiving the reflected signal.”
B. Alleged Anticipation of Claims
1, 3, 5–9, 11, and 13–16 by Lindsey
1. Lindsey
Lindsey discloses a web of sensors consisting of nodes with limited
battery power and using wireless communications. Ex. 1004, Abstract:1.
The sensors are deployed to collect useful information from the field, and
each sensor mode has data to be sent to a distant base station. Id. at
Abstract:1–4. Lindsey identifies a variety of potential scenarios in which
such a sensor web may be used, including military surveillance, landmine
detection, and scientific investigation on other planets. Ex. 1004, 1:1:3–7.
If each node transmits its sensed data directly to the base station, then
it will deplete its power quickly. Ex. 1004, Abstract:5–6. Lindsey describes
IPR2014-01115
Patent 8,296,068 B2

12
that there already exists a solution to that problem, in a “LEACH protocol,”
where clusters of nodes are formed to fuse data before transmitting data to
the base station. Id. at Abstract:6–7. Lindsey states that it provides an even
more improved scheme, called “PEGASIS,” in which each node
communicates only with a close neighbor and takes turns transmitting to the
base station. Id. at Abstract:11–12. Lindsey describes that delay can be
reduced in the system by allowing simultaneous transmissions when
possible in the network. Id. at Abstract:18.
Specifically, Lindsey states that with CDMA capable sensor nodes, a
chain-based binary scheme performs best, and if the sensor nodes are not
CDMA capable, then parallel communications are possible only among
spacially separated nodes. Id. at Abstract:22–23. Lindsey describes that in
such a chain-based binary scheme, data fusion is performed at every node
that is transmiting except at the end nodes, and that each node will fuse its
neighbor’s data with its own to generate a single packet of the same length
and then transmit that to the next node. Id. at 7:1:26–30.
Figure 4 of Lindsey is reproduced below:

IPR2014-01115
Patent 8,296,068 B2

13
Lindsey’s Figure 4 illustrates its chain-based binary scheme. Id. at 7. Each
alphanumeric reference c0–c7 indentifies a node; each arrow represents a
transmission of data; and each row represents a round of data transmission.
As is explained by Wireless Seismic (Pet. 13), data from unit c0 is relayed to
unit c1 at the same time data is relayed from unit c4 to unit c5, and then, in
the next round, data is relayed from unit c1 to unit c3 at the same time data
is relayed from unit c5 to unit c7. Id. at 7:1:30–32. Finally, at the end of the
chain, and after multiple rounds of transmissions, all data are sent to the base
station “BS” via node c3. Id. at 7:1:23–25. With regard to parallel
communication, Lindsey describes:
With this CDMA system, it is possible for node pairs that
communicate to use distinct codes to minimize radio
interference. Thus, parallel communication is possible among
50 pairs for a 100-node network. In order to minimize the
delay, we will combine data using as many pairs as possible in
each level, which results in a hierarchy of [log N] levels. At the
lowest level, we will construct a linear chain among all the
nodes, as was done in PEGASIS, so that adjacent nodes on the
chain are nearby.
Ex. 1004, 6–7.
2. Analysis
To establish anticipation of a claim, each and every claim element,
arranged as is recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art
reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383
(Fed. Cir. 2001). In this case, we focus on the one element with respect to
which we have provided pertinent and express claim construction.
IPR2014-01115
Patent 8,296,068 B2

14
Both independent claims 1 and 9 require at least two seismic
acquisition units which transmit “seismic data” along a first transmission
path and also at least two seismic acquisition units which transmit “seismic
data” along a second transmission path. The seismic acquisition units also
are capable of acquiring “seismic data.” By nature of their dependence from
an independent claim, all dependent claims, therefore, also require the
seismic data acquisition units to transmit and receive “seismic data.”
In the Petition, Wireless Seismic regards each sensor node in Lindsey
as a seismic data acquisition unit, and the data transmitted and received by
each sensor node as “seismic data.” Pet. 17–18, 24–25. Specifically,
Wireless Seismic relies on this sentence in Lindsey: “Typically, sensor
nodes collect audio, seismic, and other types of data and collaborate to
perform a high-level task in a sensor web.” Ex. 1004, 1:2:4–6. Indeed,
Lindsey does describe the data its sensor nodes collect as “seismic.”
Consequently, Wireless Seismic regards the data sensed by the sensor nodes
of Lindsey as “seismic data.” Pet. 17–18, 24–25. That approach, however,
is misplaced, because the field of invention of Lindsey does not coincide
with that of the ’068 patent.
Note that an anticipatory reference need not duplicate, word for word,
what is in the claims. Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc.,
953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Anticipation can occur when a
claimed invention is inherent or otherwise implicit in the prior art reference.
Id. By the same token, use of the same term in a prior art reference does not
meet a claim element if the term does not have the same meaning in the prior
art reference as it has in the context of the claim.
IPR2014-01115
Patent 8,296,068 B2

15
Our construction of “seismic data” is “data containing information
about lithologic subsurface formations, obtained by applying an acoustic
signal to the ground and receiving the reflected signal.” Nothing presented
by Wireless Seismic in its Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that it
will demonstrate that the sensor nodes of Lindsey acquire “seismic data” or
that two such sensor nodes communicate “seismic data” with each other
along either a first transmission path or a second transmission path.
3. Conclusion
Wireless Seismic has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would
prevail in establishing the unpatentability of each of claims 1, 3, 5–9, 11, and
13–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as anticipated by Lindsey.
C. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 2, 4, 10,
and 12 over Lindsey and either APA or Park
Wireless Seismic alleges obviousness of each of dependent claims 2,
4, 10, and 12 over Lindsey and either APA or Park. Pet. 31–35. For this
alleged ground of unpatentability, Wireless Seismic relies on Lindsey as
disclosing every element of base claims 1 and 9, from which these claims
depend. Claims 2 and 4 depend directly or indirectly from independent
claim 1, and claims 10 and 12 depend directly or indirectly from
independent claim 9. As presented in the Petition, APA and Park are relied
on by Wireless Seismic only to account for the additional features added by
the dependent claims, and do not cure the deficiencies, already discussed
above, with regard to Lindsey’s not disclosing each element of independent
claims 1 and 9. We recognize that each of APA and Park relates to seismic
surveying and thus the acquisition and transmission of “seismic data.”
Nevertheless, we deem it inappropriate to construct a new theory of
IPR2014-01115
Patent 8,296,068 B2

16
obviousness, based on Lindsey and either APA or Park, that has not been
articulated by Wireless Seismic in the Petition.
Thus, Wireless Seismic has not established a reasonable likelihood
that it would prevail in showing that any of claims 2, 4, 10, and 12 is
unpatentable for obviousness over Lindsey and either APA or Park.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Wireless Seismic has not shown a
reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability
of any of claims 1–16 of the ’068 patent, on any alleged ground of
unpatentability.

IV. ORDER
It is
ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of
the ’068 patent; and
FURTHER ORDERED that no inter partes review is instituted.

IPR2014-01115
Patent 8,296,068 B2

17
For PETITIONER:

Dorothy Whelan
Steven Katz
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
whelan@fr.com
IPR39148-0001IP1@fr.com

For PATENT OWNER:

George Quillin
James De Vellis
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
gquillin@foley.com
jdevellis@foley.com