Filed on behalf of Petroleum Geoservices, Inc.
`
`By: Jessamyn Berniker
`Registration No. 72,328
`Williams & Connolly, LLP
`725 12th St., NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: 202-434-5000
`Facsimile: 202-434-5957
`Email:
`jberniker@wc.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`CASE IPR: Unassigned
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,080,607
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-.123
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................ 1
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)); PROCEDURAL
`STATEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 7
`IV. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) ......................................... 7
`V. STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE
`REASONS THEREFOR (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a) and 42.104(b)) ............................. 8
`VI. THE ’607 PATENT ............................................................................................ 9
`A. The ’607 Patent’s Specification ....................................................................... 9
`B. Claims 1 and 15 of the ’607 Patent................................................................ 10
`C. Prior Art ......................................................................................................... 11
`1. Elholm ........................................................................................................ 11
`2.
`’636 PCT .................................................................................................... 12
`3. Gikas ........................................................................................................... 14
`4. Workman .................................................................................................... 16
`D. SUMMARY OF THE ’607 PATENT PROSECUTION HISTORY ............ 17
`E. THE DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDING AGAINST ION ......................... 18
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 21
`A. Streamer Positioning Device: “a device that controls the position of a
`streamer as it is towed (e.g., a ‘bird’).” ................................................................ 22
`B. Predicting Positions: “estimate of the real time or future locations” ............ 23
`C. “on or in-line with”: “either in-line with the streamer or attached to the
`streamer, whether fastened on the streamer by clamping or other means” .......... 25
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.01(b)). .................. 26
`A. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1 AND 15 ARE ANTICIPATED BY
`WORKMAN ......................................................................................................... 26
`B. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 1 AND 15 ARE OBVIOUS OVER
`WORKMAN ......................................................................................................... 40
`C. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1 AND 15 ARE OBVIOUS OVER
`WORKMAN IN VIEW OF ELHOLM ................................................................ 42
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`D. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 1 AND 15 ARE OBVIOUS OVER GIKAS IN
`
`VIEW OF THE ’636 PCT .................................................................................. ..45
`
`D. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 1 AND 15 ARE OBVIOUS OVER GIKAS IN
`VIEW OF THE ’636 PCT .................................................................................... 45
`E. GROUND 5: CLAIMS 1 AND 15 ARE OBVIOUS OVER GIKAS IN
`VIEW OF ELHOLM ............................................................................................ 56
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`E. GROUND 5: CLAIMS 1 AND 15 ARE OBVIOUS OVER GIKAS IN
`
`VIEW OF ELHOLM .......................................................................................... ..56
`
`IX.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ ..60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 21
`
`Janssen Pharmaceutica v. Eon Labs Mfg., Inc.,
`134 Fed. App’x 425 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................. 13
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................ 42, 44, 51
`
`Primos, Inc. v. Hunter’s Specialties, Inc.,
`451 F.3d 841 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 23
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42 et seq. ........................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ..............................................................................1, 8, 11, 14, 16, 26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................ 1, 8, 26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 119 ........................................................................................................ 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ........................................................................................................ 26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 363 ........................................................................................................ 13
`
`Shashank Upadhy, Generic Pharmaceutical Patent and FDA Law
`(April 2013)) ...................................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`Upchurch, Intellectual Property Litigation Guide: Patents and Trade
`Secrets § 15:5 (Oct. 2013) ............................................................................ 13
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Petroleum Geo-
`
`Services, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests Inter Partes review of Claims 1 and 15 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,080,607 (the “’607 Patent”) (Ex. 10011), assigned on its face to
`
`WesternGeco L.L.C. (“Patent Owner”). Accompanying this petition are the
`
`declarations of Drs. Brian Evans (Ex. 1002) (“Evans”) and Jack Cole (Ex. 1003)
`
`(“Cole”). This Petition and its accompanying declarations demonstrate that there
`
`is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to the challenged
`
`claims, and thus a trial for Inter Partes review must be instituted. Evidence
`
`presented and cited in this petition establishes that Claims 1 and 15 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Therefore, Petitioner respectfully
`
`requests that these claims be judged unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. OVERVIEW
`The ’607 Patent is directed to marine seismic surveying technology. Marine
`
`seismic surveys are carried out by vessels that tow acoustic energy sources that fire
`
`“shots” of sound waves into the water. The sound waves travel through the
`
`seafloor and into the earth, reflect from the earth’s geological formations, and
`
`return to the surface. The reflected signals are then recorded by acoustic sensors
`
`(“receivers” or “hydrophones”) that are towed in long cables known as seismic
`
`
`1 Citation to “Ex. ___” in this Petition refers the PGS Exhibits attached hereto.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`“streamers.” Because recorded sound waves have different properties depending
`
`on the geology of the ocean’s subsurface, the recorded signals provide data that
`
`can be processed to provide information regarding characteristics of the ocean’s
`
`subsurface, including the presence of oil and gas. In essence, a marine seismic
`
`survey seeks to obtain an image of the ocean’s subsurface in the surveyed area.
`
`In modern marine seismic surveys, towing vessels typically tow a plurality
`
`of streamers in an areal spread called an “array.” Below is a simplified depiction
`
`of a survey vessel towing an acoustic energy source and an array of streamers:
`
`
`Marine seismic surveys are planned carefully in advance. To obtain optimal
`
`survey data most efficiently, seismic survey plans generally call for the vessel and
`
`towed streamers to traverse the survey area in straight lines back and forth, ideally
`
`obtaining a pre-determined quantity of data from each portion of the survey area.
`
`Ex. 1002 (Evans) ¶¶ 31-33. Currents and other environmental forces, however,
`
`tend to cause the streamers to deviate from their pre-planned paths and
`
`configurations. These deviations result in the collection of data that are distributed
`
`irregularly in the survey area, which degrades the data quality and leads to gaps in
`
`the data and, by extension, the subsurface image the survey seeks to obtain. Id.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`¶ 33. In the event of gaps, the survey vessel must reacquire the missing data using
`
`an expensive and time-consuming process known as “in-filling.” Id.
`
`Moreover, streamers that veer off course can become entangled—both with
`
`each other and with external obstructions, such as oil rigs. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38, 78.
`
`Streamer tangling has devastating consequences, as it can damage the expensive
`
`streamers and the devices thereon. Tangling also can result in the interruption of
`
`seismic data acquisition for extended periods of time, and the efficient conduct of a
`
`survey with minimal downtime is critical to the survey’s profitability. Id.¶ 38.
`
`The art of streamer positioning developed, in large measure, to address these
`
`problems. Streamer positioning is generally comprised of determining the position
`
`of the streamer and steering the streamer to a desired position. Control systems
`
`capable of performing these functions began to arise in the 1960s. They have used
`
`various types of equipment to monitor the streamer positions during the survey,
`
`such as magnetic compasses, acoustic measuring systems, global positioning
`
`systems, shore-based radio positioning, and satellite observations. Ex. 1002 ¶ 67;
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1007 (U.S.P.N. 3,581,273) at 6:43-57 (radar reflectors); Ex. 1008
`
`(U.S.P.N. 3,605,674) (“Weese”) at 4:33-38 (“horizontal ranging sonar”); Ex. 1009
`
`(U.S.P.N. 4,809,005) at 2:55-60 (GPS satellites); Ex. 1010 (U.S.P.N. 4,404,664)
`
`(“Zachariadis”) at Abstract (magnetic compasses and gyrocompassess). When the
`
`monitoring systems indicate that streamers have deviated from their desired path, a
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`control system on the vessel sends positioning commands to “streamer positioning
`
`devices” attached or built into the streamer to move them to the desired position.
`
`See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 51-65. Streamer positioning devices, which date back to at least
`
`the 1960s, typically have at least one water-deflecting surface (e.g., a wing, fin, or
`
`rudder) that can be positioned at different angles to adjust the streamers’ depths
`
`and/or lateral position. Ex. 1008 (Weese); Ex. 1011 (Waters); Ex. 1012 (Buller).
`
`
`
`The ’607 Patent purports to improve upon the streamer positioning system
`
`disclosed in PCT Application No. WO 98/28636 (“’636 PCT”) (Ex. 1013). The
`
`’607 Patent acknowledges that the ’636 PCT discloses a streamer control system
`
`wherein a “remote control system” sends signals indicative of “the desired
`
`horizontal positions and the actual horizontal positions” to a “local control system”
`
`built into each streamer positioning device (in this case a “bird”), and the local
`
`control systems within the birds “adjust the wing angles” to move the streamers
`
`from their actual positions to their desired positions. Ex. 1001 at 2:39-48.
`
`The ’607 Patent suggests that the control systems of the ’636 PCT and
`
`similar prior art systems were deficient because “[t]he actual horizontal positions
`
`of the birds may be determined every 5 to 10 seconds and there may be a 5 second
`
`delay between the taking of measurements and the determination of actual streamer
`
`positions.” Id. at 2:35-38. Because the streamers are constantly moving when
`
`towed, the ’607 Patent asserts that “the delay period and the relatively long cycle
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`time between position measurements prevents [the ’636 PCT and other prior art]
`
`control system[s] from rapidly and efficiently controlling the horizontal positions
`
`of the bird[s].” Id. The ’607 Patent purports to overcome this delay problem using
`
`a “more deterministic system” for tracking and controlling streamer positions. Id.
`
`at 2:43-44. In particular, its system uses “position predictor software to estimate
`
`the actual locations” of streamers and streamer positioning devices during the
`
`intervals between position measurements. Id. at 4:54-55.
`
`
`
`That “prediction” concept is the supposedly inventive aspect of Claims 1 and
`
`15, the limitations of which include “(b) a prediction unit adapted to predict
`
`positions of . . . streamer positioning devices” and (c) a control unit adapted to use
`
`the predicted positions to calculate desired changes” in position. Yet, as explained
`
`in this Petition, the prior art repeatedly articulated both the time delay problem that
`
`the ’607 Patent purports to address and its solution of obtaining and using
`
`predicted positions of streamer positioning devices to steer them more accurately.
`
`
`
`Numerous prior art publications disclosed the use of prediction methods to
`
`monitor streamers and streamer positioning devices more effectively. For
`
`example, the 1995 “Gikas” publication disclosed a “Kalman filter” that uses
`
`“knowledge of the motion of the system” to “make a very accurate prediction of
`
`where the network will be at any [time] using just the previous position and the
`
`estimated configuration motion.” V. Gikas et al., A Rigorous and Integrated
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Approach to Hydrophone and Source Positioning During Multi-Streamer Offshore
`
`Seismic Exploration, 77 Hydrographic J. 11, 12 (1995) (Ex. 1006) (“Gikas”).
`
`Although other methods had been used to help surveyors determine the seismic
`
`streamer array positions, the Kalman filter was an improvement “[d]ue to its ability
`
`to predict the network.” Id. at 12. It can resolve problems relating to time delays
`
`in the positioning data, because it can “use observations that do not completely
`
`define the system”—i.e. data from position-monitoring systems that have gaps—to
`
`predict positions. Id.; see also R.P. Loweth, Manual of Offshore Surveying for
`
`Geoscientists and Engineers 73-74 (1st ed. 1997) (Ex. 1014) (“Continuity of data is
`
`no longer a problem” because a Kalman filter can “run for 3 or 4 shots with no new
`
`data at all, without causing a major deterioration in accuracy”).
`
`Given that prior art streamer positioning systems relied on less accurate
`
`measurements to monitor and control streamer positions, there were strong
`
`incentives to improve those systems by using Gikas’ Kalman filter approach to
`
`“predict” streamer positions. Prior art U.S. Patent No. 5,790,472, entitled
`
`“Adaptive Control of Marine Seismic Streamers”, did just that. Ex. 1004
`
`(“Workman”). Workman disclosed an “adaptive control” system that utilized a
`
`Kalman filter that obtained and utilized the “predicted positions” for more effective
`
`streamer positioning, as recited in the challenged claims. By using a Kalman filter,
`
`Workman’s system could “determine the real time position” of the seismic
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`streamer cables. Id. at 2:16-17. It then uses the real-time positions generated by
`
`the Kalman filter and other information to “determine when the streamer cables
`
`need to be repositioned and to calculate the position correction required,” which
`
`correction is then transmitted to the streamer positioning devices to adjust their
`
`positions. Id. at 4:8-21. This is precisely what is recited in Claims 1 and 15.
`
`Claims 1 and 15 are anticipated by Workman. Alternatively, they are
`
`obvious over Workman in view of the streamer positioning systems in U.S. Patent
`
`Number 5,532,975 (“Elholm”). These claims are also obvious over the ’636 PCT
`
`streamer positioning system, in view of Gikas. For the reasons discussed herein,
`
`Petitioner Requests Inter Partes review and cancellation of Claims 1 and 15.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)); PROCEDURAL
`STATEMENTS
`Petitioner certifies that (1) the ’607 Patent is available for inter partes
`
`review; and (2) Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes
`
`review of any claim of the ’607 Patent on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`This Petition
`
`is filed
`
`in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a).
`
`Concurrently filed herewith are a Power of Attorney and Exhibit List pursuant to
`
`§ 42.10(b) and § 42.63(e), respectively. The Director is authorized to charge the
`
`fees specified by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) to Deposit Account No. 506403.
`
`IV. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1))
`Each Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)): Petroleum Geo-
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Services, Inc- (“Petitioner”).
`
`Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)): WestemGec0 L.L. C.
`
`V. Petroleum Ge0—Servic:e.s'
`
`Inc.
`
`et
`
`01.,
`
`4:l3—cv—02725
`
`(S.D. Tex.);
`
`and
`
`WestemGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp. er al., 4:09-cv-01827 (S .D- Tex.)-
`
`Designation of Lead and Back—Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`Jessamyn Berniker (Reg. No. 72,328)
`Williams & Connolly, LLP
`725 Twelfth St. N.W.
`
`Christopher Suarez (Reg. No. _)
`Williams & Connolly, LLP
`725 Twelfth St. N.W.
`
`Csuarez { Wc.com
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`202-434-5474 (telephone)
`202-434-5029 (facsimile)
`Ibemiker 5 wc.com
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`202-434-5000 (telephone)
`202-434-5029 (facsimile)
`
`Notice of Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)): Please direct all
`
`correspondence regarding this Petition to lead counsel at
`
`the above address.
`
`Petitioner consents to service by email at: jberniker@wc.com-
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE
`
`REASONS THEREFOR (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a) and 42.104(b))
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review under 37 C.F.R. § 42-108 as to
`
`Claims 1 and 15 of the ’607 Patent and a ruling that Claims 1 and 15 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S_C. §§ 102 or 103 based on the grounds set forth herein.
`
`Petitioner’s detailed statement of the reasons for relief is set forth in § VIII below-
`
`2 Passed USPTO Registration Examination on March 18, 2014. Admission
`
`awaiting final approval.
`
`

`
`
`
`VI. THE ’607 PATENT
`A. The ’607 Patent’s Specification
`The ’607 Patent discloses a “method of controlling a streamer positioning
`
`device.” Ex. 1001 at Abstract. As relevant here, the ’607 Patent discloses methods
`
`for controlling prior art streamer positioning devices. It first points to the system
`
`disclosed in the ’636 PCT, in which desired and actual horizontal positions “are
`
`received from a remote control system and are then used by a local control system
`
`within the birds [i.e., streamer positioning device] to adjust the wing angles.” Id. at
`
`2:30-35. The ’607 Patent deems this control system inadequate, asserting that
`
`“[t]he actual horizontal positions of the birds may be determined every 5 to 10
`
`seconds and there may be a 5 second delay between the taking of measurements
`
`and the determination of actual streamer positions.” Id. at 2:35-38. According to
`
`the ’607 Patent, this alleged flaw “prevents this type of control system from rapidly
`
`and efficiently controlling the horizontal position of the bird.” Id. at 2:40-43.
`
`In response, the ’607 Patent’s “control system runs position predictor
`
`software to estimate the actual locations of each of the birds.” Id. at 4:51-55. The
`
`control system uses as potential inputs vessel speed, vessel heading, current speed,
`
`current heading, and the birds’ horizontal locations from the vessel’s navigation
`
`system. Id. at 4:60-65. After running the position predictor software, the system
`
`sends as outputs to the bird’s control system the vertical and horizontal force
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`needed to move the streamers to the desired positions. Id. at 4:67-5:3.
`
`B. Claims 1 and 15 of the ’607 Patent
`Independent Claim 15 of the ’607 Patent is directed to a system that obtains
`
`and uses predictions of the positions of streamer positioning devices:
`
`(b)
`
`15. An array of seismic streamers towed by a towing vessel
`comprising:
`(a)
`a plurality of streamer positioning devices on or inline with
`each streamer;
`a prediction unit adapted to predict positions of at least some of
`the streamer positioning devices; and
`a control unit adapted to use the predicted positions to calculate
`desired changes in positions of one or more of the streamer
`positioning devices.
`
`(c)
`
`Claim 1 of the ’607 Patent, which is a method claim containing substantially
`
`identical limitations to Claim 15, reads as follows:
`
`1. A method comprising:
`(a)
`towing an array of streamers each having a plurality of streamer
`positioning devices there along;
`
`(b)
`predicting positions of at least some of the streamer positioning
`devices;
`
`(c)
`using the predicted positions to calculate desired changes in position
`of one or more of the streamer positioning devices; and
`
`(d)
`implementing at least some of the desired changes.
`
`Claim 15 is substantively identical to claim 1 except that it also includes limitation
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`(d) that requires “implementing at least some of the desired changes.”
`
`C. Prior Art
`This Petition relies on four prior art references that anticipate or render
`
`obvious Claims 1 and 15. The ’636 PCT and Elholm disclose sophisticated
`
`streamer positioning systems that determine the positions of the streamer
`
`positioning devices and then use them to calculate desired position changes.
`
`Gikas, a third reference, was before neither the examiner nor the District Court in
`
`previous litigation; it explained the drawbacks of systems that do not use predicted
`
`positions and the benefits of using a Kalman filter to predict positions of any point
`
`in the streamer array, including resolving problems related to the time delays.
`
`Workman discloses a system that predicts positions using a Kalman filter and uses
`
`them to calculate desired changes in the positions of streamer positioning devices.
`
`1. Elholm
`The Elholm Patent issued on July 2, 1996 and is therefore prior art to the
`
`’607 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b). See infra at 12-13.
`
`Elholm disclosed a streamer positioning device for controlling the horizontal
`
`position and depth of the streamers. See Ex. 1005 at Abstract; 5:25-34. Elholm’s
`
`streamer positioning device is called a “vessel.” Id. at 2:61-63. The streamer
`
`positioning device is equipped with acoustic positioning equipment to “transmit
`
`and receive sound in such a manner that it is possible to calculate the distance
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`between units in the towing system.” Id. at 3:13-17. Control signals in the Elholm
`
`system are transmitted through electrical cables to the streamer positioning device
`
`“via a central source or a computer programme on board the ship, and information
`
`from the various instruments would be transmitted from the [streamer positioning
`
`device] to the boat.” Id. at 3:17-21, 3:34-37. On the basis of positional data and
`
`other information received from the streamer positioning device, such as “depth,
`
`pressure, speed, separation out to the side, etc.,” the computer on the towing vessel
`
`is “able to calculate which control signals should be transmitted to the [streamer
`
`positioning device] in order to guide it into the correct position.” Id. at 3:37-41.
`
`2. ’636 PCT
`The ’636 PCT (Ex. 1013), titled “Control Devices for Controlling the
`
`Position of a Marine Seismic Streamer,” was published on August 4, 1998.
`
`Because it was published before the October 1, 1998 filing date of the Great
`
`Britain application to which the ’607 Patent claims priority, it is § 102(a) prior art.
`
`The ’636 PCT also constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it
`
`issued on August 4, 1998, and the critical date of the ’607 Patent for § 102(b)
`
`purposes is September 28, 1998—one year before its PCT filing date. The ’607
`
`Patent issued from an application that claims priority to PCT application No.
`
`99/01590, filed on September 28, 1999. The filing date of the international PCT
`
`application is the effective U.S. filing date and is used to determine the critical date
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See 35 U.S.C. § 363 (“An international
`
`application designating the United States shall have the effect, from its
`
`international filing date under article 11 of the treaty, of a national application for a
`
`patent regularly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office.”); 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)
`
`(1994) (“no patent shall be granted on any application for patent for an invention
`
`which had been patented or described in a printed publication in any country more
`
`than one year before the date of the actual filing of the application in this country”
`
`(emphasis added). These provisions establish that the critical date is based on the
`
`PCT application date, not the date of an earlier filed foreign patent application.
`
`See, e.g., Janssen Pharmaceutica v. Eon Labs Mfg., Inc., 134 Fed. App’x 425 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005); Ex. 1057 (Upchurch, Intellectual Property Litigation Guide: Patents
`
`and Trade Secrets § 15:5 (Oct. 2013) (“the PCT application is the U.S. filing date”
`
`and “the critical date for § 102(b) prior art” is one year before that date, rather than
`
`one year before the earlier British application date)); Ex. 1058 (Shashank Upadhy,
`
`Generic Pharmaceutical Patent and FDA Law § 1.71 (April 2013)).
`
`The ’636 PCT recognized that streamers can deviate from their ideal paths,
`
`which can “adversely affect the coverage of the survey” and can cause streamer
`
`tangling. Ex. 1013 at 2. In response, the ’636 PCT disclosed birds that could
`
`control streamer lateral and depth position. Id. at 2-3. As in streamer steering
`
`systems of the prior art, the ’636 PCT uses actual and desired location information
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`to adjust the streamers to their desired course. The ’636 PCT’s remote control
`
`system sends control signals—i.e., signals indicative of the “the actual and desired
`
`lateral positions of the bird” and signals indicative of the “desired vertical positions
`
`of the bird”—to the bird’s control circuit. Id. at 6. The bird’s control circuit uses
`
`that information to “calculate the roll angle of the bird and the respective angular
`
`positions of the wings which together will produce the necessary combination of
`
`vertical force (upwardly or downwardly) and lateral force (left or right) required to
`
`move the bird to the desired depth and lateral position.” Id. The control circuit
`
`then “adjusts each of the wings by means of the stepper motors so as to start to
`
`achieve the calculated bird roll angle and wing angular positions.” Id.
`
`3. Gikas
` In a 1995 journal article, Vassilis Gikas disclosed a Kalman filter used to
`
`predict positions in a marine seismic survey array. Ex. 1006. Because it was
`
`published before the critical date, Gikas is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Gikas addresses the same limitation of prior art streamer positioning that the
`
`’607 Patent addresses—i.e., that prior art systems typically estimate positions
`
`based on individual measurements taken at discrete intervals. Ex. 1001 (’607
`
`Patent) at 2:30-43. Gikas explains that “[t]he most common approach currently
`
`applied to the positioning problem” is an “epoch by epoch” or “least squares”
`
`approach that uses only discrete position measurements and therefore “does not use
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`knowledge of the motion of the system” to determine streamer positions. Ex. 1006
`
`(Gikas) at 11. Gikas explains that “it is almost impossible to describe the precision
`
`and reliability” of positioning measurements obtained by a “step-by-step approach”
`
`that uses only “previous position” measurements to determine positions of
`
`constantly moving equipment. That is because, as Gikas explains, “[n]ot using this
`
`‘knowledge or motion’ is effectively disregarding information,” which therefore
`
`“leads to poorer results” in positioning calculations. Id. at 12.
`
`To address this well-known problem, Gikas discloses “a rigorous and
`
`integrated approach” for more accurately determining the position of equipment in
`
`a multi-streamer seismic array. Ex. 1006 (Gikas) at Abstract. Gikas proposes
`
`configuring seismic positioning systems with software that can run a recursive
`
`algorithm known as a “Kalman filter,” which Gikas explains “is probably the best
`
`known of the commonly used recursive algorithms for estimation of the parameters
`
`of a time-varying system.” Id. at 15. Gikas concludes that: “Due to its ability to
`
`predict the network, a Kalman filter is a far more powerful tool than simple least
`
`squares” systems commonly employed by prior art systems. Id. at 12.
`
`Gikas identifies various advantages of using a Kalman filter. Because
`
`Kalman filters use “knowledge of the motion of the system,” they allow an
`
`operator to “make a very accurate prediction of where the network will be at any
`
`[time] using just the previous position and the estimated configuration motion.”
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`Id. Gikas also discloses that the Kalman filter can be used to compute “[t]he
`
`position of any point of interest throughout the spread . . .” Id. at 24.
`
`Gikas explains that his dynamic positioning method is “easily incorporated
`
`into a Kalman filter model for real time positioning.” Ex. 1006 at 14. He explains
`
`that operational equations for, and the recursive nature of, the Kalman filter are
`
`well known; thus, once the relevant inputs for calculations have been specified,
`
`“their implementation within a Kalman filter is, in principle, trivial.” Id. at 15.
`
`4. Workman
`Workman, titled “Adaptive Control of Marine Seismic Streamers,” issued on
`
`August 4, 1998, before the October 1, 1998 priority date and September 28, 1998
`
`critical date. Ex. 1004. It is § 102(a) and (b) prior art. See supra at 12-13.
`
`Workman discloses an “improved system for controlling the position and
`
`shape of marine seismic streamers.” Ex. 1004 (Workman) at 1:6-8. To perform
`
`this streamer steering, Workman disclosed streamer positioning devices that could
`
`control the streamers’ lateral movement and depth during a survey. Id. at 1:45-61.
`
`Workman acknowledged that “[l]ocation sensing devices and methods for
`
`determining the positions of the seismic sources and seismic streamer cables
`
`[were] . . . well known in the art,” describing both a GPS system and an acoustic
`
`positioning system. Id. at 2:10-15. It disclosed that those systems “may then be
`
`used to determine the real time position of the seismic sources and seismic
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`streamer cables by computing a network solution to a Kalman filter.” Id. at 2:15-
`
`19. Workman’s system uses a Kalman filter on positioning data to “output[] real
`
`time streamer cable shapes, streamer cable positions, and streamer cable
`
`separations.” Id. at 3:46-51. It then uses the real-time positions generated by the
`
`Kalman filter and other information to “determine when the streamer cables need
`
`to be repositioned and to calculate the position correction required,” and transmits
`
`the correction to the positioning devices to adjust their positions. Id. at 4:8-21.
`
`D. SUMMARY OF THE ’607 PATENT PROSECUTION HISTORY
`The ’607 Patent issued on July 25, 2006 from application Ser. No.
`
`11/070,614, which was a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/787,723, filed as
`
`application number PCT/IB99/01590, on September 28, 1999. The application
`
`c