CGG SERVICES SAS

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 17, 2021

2020003741 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 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.
15/521,647 04/25/2017 Gordon POOLE 0336-516-4/100885 1936
11171 7590 05/17/2021
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
754 Warrenton Road
Suite 113-314
Fredericksburg, VA 22406
EXAMINER
PEREZ BERMUDEZ, YARITZA H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/17/2021 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):
Mailroom@ppblaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GORDON POOLE
Appeal 2020-003741
Application 15/521,647
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed April 25, 2017
(“Spec.”); the Final Office Action dated May 2, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the
Appeal Brief filed November 14, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s
Answer dated March 13, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed April 17,
2020 (“Reply Br.”)
2 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 CGG
Services SA. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003741
Application 15/521,647

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and device for processing seismic
data using sparseness weights that are a function of time and frequency.
Spec. ¶ 2.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below from the Claim Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, with emphasis to highlight a key disputed limitation, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for processing input seismic data d, the
method comprising:
receiving the input seismic data d recorded in a data
domain;
solving a linear inversion problem constrained by input
seismic data d to obtain a model domain energy, wherein the
linear inversion problem is dependent on sparseness weights
that are simultaneously a function of both time and frequency;
reverse transforming the model domain energy to the
data domain; and
generating an image of a surveyed subsurface based on
the reverse transformed model domain energy.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal (Ans. 3;
Final Act. 3–12):
Rejection 1: Claims 1, 2 and 8–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) based on Trad;3

3 Daniel Trad et al., Latest Views of the Sparse Radon Transform, 68
Geophysics 386–399 (2003).
Appeal 2020-003741
Application 15/521,647

3
Rejection 2: Claims 3–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Trad in view of Poole ’135;4
Rejection 3: Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Trad in view of Poole ’222;5
Rejection 4: Claims 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Trad in view of Berkovitch;6 and
Rejection 5: Claims 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Trad in view of Berkovitch and Poole ’135.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1 – Anticipation based on Trad
The Examiner rejects clams 1, 2, and 8–13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) based on Trad. Final Act. 3.
Appellant separately argues for the patentability of claims 1 and 11.
Appeal Br. 5–7, 10–11. Appellant does not present separate patentability
arguments with respect to claims 2, 8–10, and 12–13. Id. at 5. Thus, we
focus our discussion on claims 1 and 11, each of which contains limitations
disputed by Appellant. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Trad teaches “solving a linear inversion
problem . . . wherein the linear inversion problem is dependent on sparseness
weights that are simultaneously a function of both time and frequency,” as

4 Poole, US 2014/0365135 A1, published Dec. 11, 2014.
5 Poole, US 2015/0212222 A2, published July 30, 2015.
6 Berkovitch et al., US 2009/0248313 A1, published Oct. 1, 2009.
Appeal 2020-003741
Application 15/521,647

4
required by claim 1. Final Act. 3. Specifically, the Examiner finds that
because Trad discloses implementing equations in the “time-frequency
domains,” and discloses the Radon operator L, “where L is a function of
frequency and time,” Trad discloses “sparseness weights that are
simultaneously a function of both time and frequency,” as in claim 1. Ans. 4
(citing Trad 387, 390). The Examiner explains that “frequency is 1/T, where
T (period) is the time for the wave to complete a cycle,” and thus, a domain
being a function of frequency is a function of time. Id.
Appellant contends that Trad’s disclosure only discloses sparseness
weights that are dependent on time or frequency, not sparseness weights
dependent on time and frequency as claimed. Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant
further argues that the reference to the time-frequency domain in Trad is
“likely” related to sparse weights that are in time domain rather than a
function of time and frequency as claimed. Reply Br. 2. Finally, Appellant
concedes that although there is a relationship between time and frequency,
“it does not prove that time is a variable” in Trad’s sparseness weights. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. “A claim
is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Appellant does not argue that Trad does not teach
solving a linear inversion problem dependent on sparseness weights, but
contends only that the sparseness weights taught by Trad are not
simultaneously a function of both time and frequency. Reply Br. 2.
However, Trad’s reference to solving the equation in the “time-frequency
domain” is evidence to the contrary. Trad 387. Furthermore, as Examiner
Appeal 2020-003741
Application 15/521,647

5
points out, Trad teaches applying a frequency-dependent operator to
sparseness weights that are a function of time. Trad 390. Thus, on this
record, we are not persuaded that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding
that Trad’s sparseness weights are “simultaneously a function of both time
and frequency.”
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the § 102 rejection of claims 1, 2,
8–10, 12, and 13 based on Trad.
Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and requires that “the linear inversion
problem derives a convolutional filter.” Appeal. Br. 16 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Trad teaches “the linear inversion problem
derives a convolutional filter” as required by claim 11. Final Act. 4 (citing
Trad Abstract, 390).
Appellant discusses the teachings of Trad, generally, and argues the
disclosure of Trad “seems irrelevant to the claimed feature.” Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error because
merely reciting the claim language, and asserting that the Examiner’s
findings do not describe such limitations is not a persuasive argument. See In
re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board
reasonable interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”).
On this record, Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding that because “Trad teaches convolution is applied, and
an approximated zero-phase and zero mean wavelet can be used with the
Appeal 2020-003741
Application 15/521,647

6
purpose of band-filtering the RT space,” Trad discloses the requirements of
claim 11. Ans. 11 (citing Trad 390).
Accordingly, we sustain the § 102 rejection of claim 11 based on
Trad.
Rejection 4 – Obviousness over Trad in view of Berkovitch
The Examiner rejects claims 15, 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Trad in view of Berkovitch. Final Act. 8. Claims 15 and 20 are
independent claims that recite limitations similar to those recited in claim 1
discussed above. Appeal Br. 16–18 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that
Trad teaches those limitations for the same reasons discussed above with
respect to claim 1. Final Act. 8–10.
Appellant presents the same arguments as those presented for claim 1.
Appeal Br. 7–8.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error for the
same reasons as those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claims 15, 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection 2 – Obviousness over Trad and Poole ’135
The Examiner rejects claims 3–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Trad in
view of Poole ’135. Final Act. 4.
The present application, filed April 25, 2017, is a national stage
application filed under 35 U.S.C. § 371 of Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)
International Application PCT/IB2015/002516, filed November 13, 2015.7
Given the PCT filing date, this application is subject to the provisions of the

7 Appellant’s application further claims the benefit of priority of various
earlier-filed U.S. provisional applications. Spec. ¶ 1.
Appeal 2020-003741
Application 15/521,647

7
America Invents Act (AIA). See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) § 2159.02 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017 Jan. 2018); Final Act. 2
(examining the present application under the first inventor to file provisions
of AIA).
Poole ’135 does not qualify as prior art under § 102(a)(1) because
Poole ’135 is a U.S. application that published on December 11, 2014, less
than one year before the effective filing date of the present application (i.e.,
November 13, 2015). Because Poole ’135 and the present application both
list Gordon Poole as the sole inventor, Poole ’135 does not name “another
inventor” and does not qualify as prior art under § 102(a)(2).
To serve as a basis for rejecting a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a
reference must be prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102. See Panduit Corp. v.
Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Because Poole
’135 does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the Examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness.8 Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 3–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection 3 – Obviousness over Trad in view of Poole ’222
The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Trad in
view of Poole ’222. Final Act. 7–8.
Poole ’222 does not qualify as prior art under § 102(a)(1) because
Poole ’222 is a U.S. patent application that published on July 30, 2015, less

8 Because the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness,
the burden of persuasion did not shift to Appellant. Therefore, we need not
consider what implications, if any, should be attributed to Appellant’s failure
to raise the issue of Poole ’135’s qualification as prior art in the Appeal
Brief.
Appeal 2020-003741
Application 15/521,647

8
than one year before the effective filing date of the present application (i.e.,
November 13, 2015). Because Poole ’222 and the present application both
list Gordon Poole as the sole inventor, Poole ’222 does not name “another
inventor” and does not qualify as prior art under § 102(a)(2).
Because Poole ’222 does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.9
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Rejection 5 – Obviousness over Trad in view of Berkovitch and Poole ’135
The Examiner rejects claims 17–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Trad
in view of Berkovitch and Poole ’135. Final Act. 10–12.
As discussed above, because Poole ’135 does not qualify as prior art
under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 17–19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 8–13 102 Trad 1, 2, 8–13
3–7 103 Trad, Poole ’135 3–7
14 103 Trad, Poole ’222 14
15, 16, 20 103 Trad, Berkovitch 15, 16, 20

9 Because the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness,
the burden of persuasion did not shift to Appellant. Therefore, we need not
consider what implications, if any, should be attributed to Appellant’s failure
to raise the issue of Poole ’222’s qualification as prior art in the Appeal
Brief.
Appeal 2020-003741
Application 15/521,647

9
17–19 103 Trad, Berkovitch,
Poole ’135
17–19
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 8–13,
15, 16, 20
3–7, 14, 17–
19

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 IN PART