Appeal for EP1850151
`T2305/14-3,4.03
`W&R Ref: M750826-1
`
`1. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`STATEMENT OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR EP1850151
`
`This is the Statement of Grounds of Appeal from ION Geophysical Corporation of 2015 CityWest Blvd,
`Suite 400, Houston, Texas, TX77042—2839 USA (the Opponent). This statement follows the filing of
`the Notice of Appeal by the Opponent on 15 December 2014.
`
`The Appeal relates to European patent No EP1850151.
`
`European patent No 1850151 was opposed by the Opponent and oral proceedings took place before
`the Opposition Division on 17 September 2014.
`In the Decision dated 15 October 2014,
`the
`Opposition Division allowed the patent to be maintained in amended form according to auxiliary
`request form 1 (the amended Patent).
`
`The Opponent requests the Decision of the Opposition Division is set aside and the amended Patent
`is revoked in its entirety. The Opponent requests oral proceedings under Article 116 EPC.
`
`o
`
`.
`
`The request for revocation ofthe amended Patent is based on the grounds that:
`o
`the subject matter of the amended Patent does not involve an inventive step in accordance
`with Article 56 EPC (Article 100(a) EPC);
`the amended Patent does not disclose the invention in a manner that is sufficiently clear and
`complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art in accordance with Article 83
`EPC (Article 100(b) EPC);
`the amended Patent was granted on a divisional application and the patent extends beyond
`the content of the Parent as originally filed in accordance with Article 76(1) EPC (Article
`100(c) EPC);
`The amended claims of the amended Patent are not clear, concise or supported by the
`description in accordance with Article 84 EPC (Article 101(3) EPC).
`
`o
`
`2. OVERVIEW
`
`European patent No 1850151 is based on European patent application No 071130314. This
`application was filed as a divisional of European patent application No 999431802, which in turn
`stems from International patent application No PCT/l899/01590. The International patent application
`has a priority date of 1 October 1998 and was published as WO 00/20895 (hereinbefore the Parent
`application as originally filed).
`
`3. INDEPENDENT CLAIMS OF THE AMENDED PATENT
`
`Amended independent claim 1 now defines:
`
`1a
`
`1a1
`
`1b
`
`10
`
`1d
`
`A method of controlling streamer positioning devices
`
`using a control system distributed between a global control system located on or near a
`seismic survey vessel and a local control system located on each streamer positioning
`device, comprising:
`
`(a) towing an array of streamers
`
`each having a plurality of streamer positioning devices there along,
`
`each of the streamer positioning devices having a wing used to control the lateral position of
`the streamer positioning device;
`
`PGS v WESTERNGECO (lPR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2154, pg. 1
`
`

`

`Appeal for EP185U151
`T2305/14-3,4.03
`W&R Ref: M750826-1
`
`1e
`
`1f
`
`1h
`
`1i
`
`1i
`
`(b) transmitting from the global control system
`
`location information to at least one local control system
`
`on at least one of the streamer positioning devices; and
`
`(c) adjusting the angle of the wing with a wing motor using the local control system,
`
`wherein the adjusting comprises calculating with a localized conversion program of the at
`least one local control system, a desired force on the at least one streamer positioning device
`using the location information,
`
`the desired force selected from a desired horizontal force, a desired vertical force, and both.
`
`Amended independent claim 14 now defines:
`
`14a
`
`14b
`
`14c
`
`14d
`
`14e
`
`14f
`
`14g
`
`14h
`
`14i
`
`14]
`
`14k
`
`An array of seismic streamers
`
`towed by a towing vessel comprising:
`
`(a) a plurality of streamer positioning devices on or along each streamer,
`
`each of the streamer positioning devices having a wing used to control the lateral position of
`the streamer position device: and
`
`(b) a control system for controlling the streamer positioning devices,
`
`the control system distributed between a global control system located on or near the towing
`vessel and a local control system located on each streamer positioning device,
`
`the global control system transmitting location information to at least one local control system
`on at least one of the streamer positioning devices,
`
`the local control system adjusting the angle of the wing with a wing motor,
`
`wherein the at least one local control system calculates forces
`
`selected from a desired horizontal force, a desired vertical force and both,
`
`on the at least one streamer positioning device with a localized conversion program using the
`location information.
`
`4. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
`
`The following is a list of supporting documents referred to in this Statement.
`
`D1: WO 98/28636 A1 - Published 2 July 1998 - Previously referred to as E2 in the Opposition
`proceedings
`
`D2: EP 0613025 B1 — Published 31 August 1994 — Previously referred to as E4 in the Opposition
`proceedings
`
`D3: US 5,200,930 - Published 6 April 1993 - Previously referred to as E1 in the Opposition
`proceedings
`
`[\J
`
`PGS v WESTERNGECO (lPR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2154, pg. 2
`
`

`

`Appeal for EP185U151
`T2305/14-3,4.03
`W&R Ref: M750826-1
`
`D4: Extract from "Aerodynamics of the Airplane” by Clark B Millikan - Published 1941
`
`D5: Letter dated 25 November 2010 filed by Applicant during prosecution of application
`
`5. ADDED MATTER - ARTICLE 76 EPC
`
`The amended Patent allowed by the Opposition Division contains subject matter beyond the content
`of the Parent application as originally filed.
`
`5.1 "a control system"
`
`Amended independent claims 1 and 14 specify the control system is distributed between a global
`control system located on or near the towing vessel and a local control system located on each
`streamer positioning device (features 1a1 and 14f).
`
`The Opponent submits that the Opposition Division was wrong to conclude that the independent
`claims need not further specify the control system utilizes a distributed processing control architecture
`and behavior-predictive model—based control logic to control the position of the devices.
`
`As submitted previously by the Opponent during the Opposition proceedings, the control architecture
`and behavior-prediction feature of the control system are disclosed in lines 17 to 29, page 6 of the
`Parent as being essential to the control process. Without it, the proper positioning of the streamers
`cannot be achieved and tangling will occur. Teaching throughout pages 7 to 18 of the Parent shows
`how the control architecture and behavior-prediction feature is inherent to different aspects and
`embodiments of the invention.
`
`The Opposition Division's reasoning that the particular control system embodiment disclosed in lines 5
`to 27, page 8 of the Parent (and now defined in amended claims 1 and 14) is able to transmit
`information without the need for behaviour prediction is also spurious — because this control system
`embodiment is actually an enabling disclosure based on the control architecture and behaviour-
`prediction model.
`
`Therefore, the omission of this feature from amended independent claims 1 and 14 contravenes
`Article 76(1) EPC and should be corrected.
`
`5.2 "towing an array of streamers"
`
`Amended independent claim 1 refers to towing an array of streamers (feature 1b), but it does not
`specify the towing apparatus for towing the streamers.
`
`As previously submitted by the Opponent during the Opposition proceedings, the Parent discloses
`that the towing is always done by a seismic survey vessel. See lines 1 to 3 of page 1, lines 12 to 14 of
`page 4, line 17 of page 5 to line 6 and Figure 1 of the Parent.
`
`However, contrary to the Opposition Division's decision, the way in which the seismic survey vessel
`and towing streamers features are listed in amended claim 1 does not allow for the seismic survey
`vessel to be defined in the context of towing the streamers.
`
`Therefore, the disparity between the towing feature disclosed in the Parent and the towing feature
`defined in amended claim 1 does not comply with Article 76(1) EPC.
`
`5.3 "a wing to control the lateral position”
`
`Amended independent claims 1 and 14 specify the streamer positioning device has a wing to control
`the lateral position of the device (features 1d and 14d).
`
`DJ
`
`PGS v WESTERNGECO (lPR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2154, pg. 3
`
`

`

`Appeal for EP185U151
`T2305/14-3,4.03
`W&R Ref: M750826-1
`
`This broad device feature encompasses device with only one wing to control only the lateral position
`of the device.
`
`However, there is no direct and unambiguous basis in the Parent for a device that is able to control
`only its lateral position using only a single wing.
`
`Instead, lines 7 to 27, page 9 of the Parent explain that the invention is able to control the position of
`seismic streamers by using laterally and vertically steerable devices with a number of alternative
`possible designs, including those utilizing one full-moving wing with ailerons, a pair of independently
`moveable wings, three full-moving wings and four full-moving wings. The preferred embodiment of the
`device has a pair of independently movable wings that are rotatable by wing motors to change the
`angle of each wing relative to the horizontal axis of the device body to control the lateral position and
`vertical position.
`
`Moreover, lines 5 to 27 of page 11 of the Parent only disclose the embodiment of the control system
`now defined in amended claims 1 and 14 (where the local control system calculates the desired force
`using a localized displacement/force conversion program) in relation to using the preferred two—
`winged device that is both laterally and vertically steerable.
`
`Therefore, since the wording of the device feature introduces subject matter which extends beyond
`the Parent, amended independent claims 1 and 14 contravene Article 76(1) EPC.
`
`5.4 "ad'usting the angle of the wing"
`
`Amended independent clams 1 and 14 specify the local control system adjusts the angle of the wing
`with a wing motor (features 1h and 14h).
`
`In its current form, this wing adjustment feature should be interpreted broadly as meaning any angle
`of at least one wing is adjusted by at least one wing motor.
`
`However, there is no direct and unambiguous basis in the Parent across the full scope of the wing
`adjustment feature as claimed in amended claims 1 and 14.
`
`The wing adjustment feature should be interpreted in the context of the control system as described in
`lines 5 to 27, page 11 of the Parent where the global control system transmits location information to
`the local control system and the local control system calculates a desired horizontal force and/or
`desired vertical force from the location using a localized conversion program.
`
`Crucially, the Parent only discloses the use of the control system in relation to the preferred two-
`winged embodiment of device. As explained in lines 7 of page 9 to line 4 of page 13 and Figures 2 to
`4 of the Parent, the preferred embodiment of the device is vertically and horizontally steerable and
`comprises a pair of independently movable wings that are arranged to extend generally laterally from
`the device body to create lift and are rotatable to the change the wing angle relative to the horizontal
`axis of the device body. The wings are rotatable using a corresponding wing motor or a single motor
`and a selectively actuatable transmission mechanism. (The change in the wing angle has the effect of
`tilting the leading edge of the wing relative to the trailing edge, along the chord axis of the wing. This
`wing angle is analogous to the "angle of attack" and "pitch angle" in the field of hydrodynamics.)
`
`Therefore, in order to comply with the Article 76(1), independent claims 1 and 14 should be limited to
`the preferred two-winged embodiment of the device, where the angle of each wing relative to the
`horizontal axis of the device body is adjustable to provide lateral and vertical control.
`
`5.5 "calculating a desired force with a localized conversion program"
`
`Amended independent claims 1 and 14 now specify that as part of the wing adjustment process, the
`local control program uses a localized conversion program to calculate the desired horizontal force
`and/or the desired vertical force using the location information (features 1i, 1], Mi, 14j and 14k).
`
`PGS v WESTERNGECO (lPR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2154, pg. 4
`
`

`

`Appeal for EP185U151
`T2305/14-3,4.03
`W&R Ref: M750826-1
`
`This force calculation feature was added after the Opposition Division came to the conclusion that the
`omission of this force feature from the independent claims violated Article 76(1) EPC.
`
`The Opponent agrees with the Opposition Division's conclusion because, as submitted previously
`during the Opposition proceedings, the force calculation using a localized conversion program is an
`essential feature of the control system disclosed in lines 5 to 27, page 11 of the Parent and that the
`omission of this essential feature from the independent claims constitutes a generalization of the
`control system that extends beyond the subject matter of the Parent.
`
`5.6 "a plurality of streamer positioning devices on or along each streamer"
`
`Amended independent claim 14 specifies an array of seismic streamers towed by a towing vessel
`comprises a plurality of streamer positioning devices on or along each streamers (feature 14d).
`
`The Patent previously defined the devices as being on or in-line with each streamer.
`
`The Opposition Division was right to find the wording "in-line with" unallowable with respect to Article
`76(1) EPC because there is no basis for it in the Parent and it erroneously suggests the device could
`be arranged in front of or behind the streamer.
`
`5.7 Dependent claims 6 and 19
`
`Dependent claims 6 and 19 specify the adjusting of the wing using the local control system is
`regulated to prevent the positioning device from stalling.
`
`However, according to lines 1 to 4. page 13 of the Parent, the stalling of the wings is only achieved by
`the regulation of the common wing angle or and splay angle by the local control system. Moreover,
`there is no mention of a regulator.
`
`Dependents claims 6 and 19 thereby violate Article 76(1) EPC and are unallowable in their present
`form.
`
`To summarise, for the multiple reasons set out above, at least the amended independent claims
`offend Article 76(1) EPC and are not allowable.
`
`6. SUFFICIENCY OF DISCLOSURE - ARTICLE 83 EPC
`
`The amended Patent allowed by the Opposition Division does not disclose the invention in a manner
`that is sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.
`
`6. 1 "a wing to control the lateral position"
`
`Amended independent claims 1 and 14 specify the streamer positioning device has a wing to control
`the lateral position of the device (features 1d and 14d).
`
`As explained above, this device feature should be interpreted broadly to encompass a device with
`only one wing to control only the lateral position and also a device with multiple wings to control
`multiple positions.
`
`However, there is no teaching in the amended Patent in relation to a device that is able to control only
`its lateral position using only a single wing. Nor is there sufficient information in the amended Patent
`that will allow a skilled person, using his common general knowledge, to perform only lateral control
`using only a single wing without undue burden and without needing inventive skill. Indeed, a skilled
`person will understand from his common general knowledge of hydrodynamics that a single wing
`must include ailerons for it to provide position control.
`
`PGS v WESTERNGECO (lPR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2154, pg. 5
`
`

`

`Appeal for EP185U151
`T2305/14-3,4.03
`W&R Ref: M750826-1
`
`In direct contrast, paragraphs 23 and 24 of the amended Patent explain that the invention may control
`the position of seismic streamers using laterally and vertically steerable devices with a number of
`alternative possible designs,
`including those utilizing one full-moving wing with ailerons, a pair of
`independently moveable wings, three full—moving wings and four full-moving wings.
`
`Nevertheless, the amended Patent only provides sufficiently clear and complete teaching for a skilled
`person to implement the invention using what is referred to as "the preferred embodiment" - that is a
`device that is a vertically and horizontally steerable device and comprises a pair of independently
`movable wings that are arranged to extend generally laterally from the device body to create lift and
`are rotatable by wing motors to change the wing angle relative to the horizontal axis of the device
`body. (The change in wing angle has the effect of tilting the leading edge of the wing relative to the
`trailing edge, along the chord axis of the wing. The wing angle is analogous to the "angle of attack"
`and "pitch angle" in the field of hydrodynamics.) See for example, patent paragraphs 15, 23 to 32 and
`Figures 2 to 4 of the disclosure. See also the reasoning about the skilled person's understanding of
`the laterally extending wings in the response letter dated 25 November 2010 during the prosecution of
`the divisional patent application (D5).
`
`The preferred embodiment of the device does not provide adequate teaching that would enable a
`skilled person to work the invention across the full breadth of independent claims 1 and 14 without
`undue burden and without needing inventive skill. Accordingly, the amended Patent does not satisfy
`the requirements of Article 83 EPC and so the independent claims of the amended Patent should be
`restricted to the sufficiently described embodiment of the device.
`
`6. 2 "ad'usting the angle"
`
`Amended independent claims 1 and 14 specify an angle of the wing is adjusted by a wing motor.
`
`In its current form, this wing adjustment feature should be construed broadly as meaning any angle of
`at least one wing is adjusted by at least one wing motor. However,
`there is no teaching in the
`amended Patent to suggest any angle of the wing can be adjusted to provide lateral and vertical
`control. Nor is there any teaching in the Patent to suggest the position of the device may be controlled
`using the seemingly disconnected two-step process of calculating a desired force using a localized
`conversion program and adjusting any angle of at least one wing.
`
`o
`
`Instead, the amended Patent details how the angle adjustment process for controlling the lateral and
`vertical position of the device involves a series of sequential steps where:
`o
`the local control system calculates the desired vertical force, desired horizontal force or both
`from the location information using a localized conversion program (see paragraph 29);
`"the local control system 36 controls the movement of the wings by calculating a desired
`change in the angle of the wings" relative to the horizontal axis of the device body (see
`paragraph 25). Paragraphs 30 to 32 and 44 to 47 explain how the desired change in wing
`angle is calculated using the desired forces and an estimate of the device velocity;
`the angle of the wings is adjusted by the desired change so as to introduce a splay angle to
`rotate the device to a desired roll angle (p and introduce a common wing angle to produce the
`magnitude of the total force desired (see paragraphs 30 to 32 and 44 to 47).
`
`0
`
`Thus, the wing adjustment feature as currently claimed in amended independent claims 1 and 14 is
`clearly an ambiguous and unallowable generalisation in accordance with Article 83 EPC because the
`omission of the essential calculations and specific angle adjustments does not allow for position
`control. Therefore, in order to comply with Article 83 EPC, the independent claims of the amended
`patent should be restricted to the sufficiently described embodiment.
`
`6.3 Calculation of the splay angle
`
`Paragraph 32 of the amended Patent states that the invention requires a splay angle to be introduced
`between the wings to produce a rotation movement in the device. This is achieved by rotating the
`wings so that the angles of each wing with respect to the horizontal axis of the device body are
`different.
`
`PGS v WESTERNGECO (lPR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2154, pg. 6
`
`

`

`Appeal for EP185U151
`T2305/14-3,4.03
`W&R Ref: M750826-1
`
`Paragraph 47 confirms that local control system is responsible for adjusting the wing splay angle to
`rotate the device to the desired roll angle cp.
`
`there is no teaching in the amended Patent to explain how (apparatus and method
`However,
`required) the splay angle is calculated and applied to the wings so as to cause the device to rotate to
`the desired roll angle (p. Nor are any working examples of the splay angle given in the amended
`Patent. Without an enabling disclosure about the essential splay angle feature, the skilled person
`shall not be able to implement the invention. More specifically, the skilled person shall not be able to
`introduce the desired roll angle to provide lateral and vertical control without undue burden and
`without needing inventive skill. The risk of overshooting the intended position and subsequent
`undesirable noise in the seismic data will be considerable. The amended Patent
`is therefore
`insufficient and contravenes Article 83 EPC.
`
`
`6. 4 Calculation of the common wing angle
`
`Paragraph 44 of the amended Patent states that the invention requires the calculation of the desired
`roll angle (p and the desired common wing angle or.
`It goes on to explain that by calculating these
`particular angles,
`the invention is distinguished from the feedback-loop type systems that use a
`repeated incremental change/measured response approach to change the angle of the wings.
`
`Paragraphs 44 to 47 then repeatedly states that, as part of the invention, these particular angles are
`calculated using the desired hydrodynamic lifting force that is required to move the device to the
`desired position and an estimate of the velocity of the device.
`
`Paragraphs 44 and 45 set out two alternative equations by which the desired common wing angle or
`can supposedly be calculated using the desired force and an estimate of velocity of the device.
`
`The first equation presented is:
`
`F: % p * A * CL (VtowCOS (O) - chrrentSin((I)) 2
`
`The second equation presented is:
`
`GF = 1/2 p * A * CL (Vtow) 2 ,which is multiplied by cos(0()2 so it relates to the force applied for a
`given common angle.
`
`Where:
`
`F
`GF
`p
`A
`CL
`a
`Vtow
`chrrent
`
`= the magnitude of the force imparted by the wings 28 along the force axis 48
`= the gain factor
`= water density
`= wing area
`= wing lift coefficient
`= common wing angle
`: towing velocity
`: crosscurrent velocity
`
`When using these equations to try and determine the desired common wing angle, it will be apparent
`to the skilled person that the desired roll angle cp of the wings must be taken into account. This is
`because the hydrodynamic lifting force required to move the device to a desired location varies
`depending on the common wing angle and the rotational orientation of the wing as specified by the
`roll angle around the longitudinal axis of the device body.
`
`In the present invention, the desired roll angle q) of the wing may be selected so as to provide lateral
`control, vertical control or both.
`
`PGS v WESTERNGECO (lPR20’l4-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2154, pg. 7
`
`

`

`Appeal for EP185U151
`T2305/14-3,4.03
`W&R Ref: M750826-1
`
`6.4.1 Lateral control:
`
`To provide lateral control only, the wings of the device must be rotated to a roll angle (p where <p=+/-
`90 degrees or cp=+/- 270 degrees so that the wings extend in a vertical orientation relative to the
`earth's horizon, analogous to a rudder.
`
`The towing velocity Vtow acts in a direction parallel
`streamer, as disclosed in paragraphs 21 and 22.
`
`to the device body, which is in—line with the
`
`If the wing is arranged at a common wing angle or relative to the body of the device, the towing
`velocity can be decomposed into vector components, where the cosine vector component of the
`towing velocity vigil/005m)2 extends in a direction that is parallel to the surface of the wing. However,
`applying the principles of vector modelling, the skilled person will appreciate that any velocity vector
`component acting in a direction parallel to the wing is not applicable and does not have any effect on
`the hydrodynamic lifting force acting on the wings. Therefore,
`it
`is incorrect for the cosine vector
`component of the towing velocity to be used in either the first equation or the second equation when
`the wing is orientated for lateral control.
`
`The crosscurrent velocity chrrent acts in a direction perpendicular to the device body, as disclosed in
`paragraphs 21 and 22.
`
`The sine vector component of the towing velocity chrrentsin(q)2 is perpendicular to the surface of the
`wings and thereby has an effect on the hydrodynamic lifting force. However, for the case where the
`common wing angle or = O, the sine vector component of the crosscurrent velocity chrrentsin(a)2 = 0.
`Therefore, for certain common wing angles, the first equation cannot take account of the effects of the
`crosscurrent velocity: no matter how significant they might be.
`
`6.4.2 Vertical control:
`
`To provide vertical control only, the wings of the device must be rotated to a roll angle (p where (p=+/—
`0 degrees or (p =+/— 180 degrees so that the wings extend in a lateral orientation from the device
`body, parallel to the earth's horizon.
`
`the cosine vector component of the towing velocity thwCOS(U)2 extends in a
`In this orientation,
`direction that is parallel
`to the surface of the wing. Likewise,
`the term vcurrentsin(0()2 is a vector
`component of the crosscurrent velocity that is parallel to the surface of the wing, and generally
`orientated along the wing span. Accordingly, since the vector components are not relevant to the
`hydrodynamic lifting force acting on the wing, the use of these vector components is thereby flawed
`and the desired common wing angle cannot be calculated from either equation 1 or 2 when the wings
`are orientated for vertical control.
`
`6.4.3 Both lateral and vertical control:
`
`To provide both lateral and vertical control, the wings of the device must be rotated to a roll angle (p
`where 0 < (p < 90 degrees or 90 < (p < 180 degrees.
`
`For an accurate calculation of the common wing angle, the skilled person will understand that the first
`and second equations must utilize the roll angle cp to determine appropriate vector components of
`both the towing velocity and crosscurrent velocity. However, since this is not part of the first equation
`and second equation, the equations are unsuitable for use when the wings are orientated for both
`lateral and vertical control.
`
`it will be apparent to a skilled person reading the
`following the reasoning above,
`Accordingly,
`amended Patent that both the first equation and second equation are fundamentally flawed and that
`the desired common wing angle cannot be calculated by them.
`
`PGS v WESTERNGECO (lPR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2154, pg. 8
`
`

`

`Appeal for EP185U151
`T2305/14-3403
`W&R Ref: M750826-1
`
`Thus, since the equations are wrong. and the amended Patent does not provide any other methods
`by which the desired common wing angle or can be calculated, the skilled person shall not be able to
`determine the desired common wing angle Cl as required by the invention. If the desired common wing
`angle cannot be determined then the invention cannot be implemented (i.e. the wings cannot be
`adjusted to the desired common wing angle, the resulting desired force cannot act on the wings and,
`in turn,
`the position of
`the device cannot be controlled). Therefore,
`the amended Patent
`lacks
`sufficiency in accordance with Article 83 EPC.
`
`To summarise, for the multiple reasons set out above, the amended Patent offends Article 83 EPC
`and is not allowable.
`
`7. CLARITY OF AMENDED CLAIMS - ARTICLE 84 EPC
`
`The amended claims of the amended Patent allowed by the Opposition Division do not define the
`invention for which protection is sought.
`
`Under Article 84, the amended independent claims 1 and 14 must define all the essential features
`needed to implement the invention. The amended independent claims must be clear, concise and
`supported by the description. Therefore, amended independent claims 1 and 14 should contain all the
`features that are necessary for controlling the lateral and vertical position of a seismic streamer.
`
`The amended Patent seeks to protect an embodiment of the method and apparatus where the
`controlling effect is achieved by:
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`providing a control system distributed between a global control system located on or near a
`seismic survey vessel and a local control system located on each streamer positioning device
`(paragraph 16 of the Patent);
`providing a plurality of streamer positioning devices along each streamer, each device having
`a pair of independently movable wings that are rotatable to change the angle of the wing
`relative to the horizontal axis of the device body (see paragraph 24, 25 and 29 of the Patent);
`transmitting location information from the global control system to the local control system
`(see paragraph 29 of the Patent);
`using a localized conversion program at the local control system to calculate the desired
`horizontal force and/or desired vertical force that must be applied to the pair of wings of a
`device so as to control the horizontal and vertical position of the device, and thereby the
`streamer (see paragraph 29 and 30 of the Parent);
`at the local control system, using the desired horizontal force and/or desired vertical force and
`an estimate of the device velocity to calculate the desired change in the angle of each wing
`relative to the horizontal axis of the device body (see paragraph 25, 30 to 32, 44 to 47 of the
`Patent);
`at the local control system, changing the desired change in angle of each wing so as to
`produce a splay angle to rotate the device to a desired roll angle (p and produce a common
`wing angle (see paragraph 30 to 32 and 44 to 47 of the Parent).
`
`Feature iii was defined in the independent claims when the Patent was granted. Although the
`amendment of the patent during the Opposition proceedings resulted in features i and iv being added
`to the independent claims, essential features ii, v and vi are still missing. Therefore, since the features
`ii, v and vi are inextricably linked as part of the wing angle adjustment process, the controlling effect of
`the invention cannot occur and the independent claims lack clarity in accordance with Article 84.
`
`In order to comply with Article 84, amended independent claims 1 and 14 must be further restricted to
`include features ii, v and vi.
`
`PGS v WESTERNGECO (lPR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2154, pg. 9
`
`

`

`Appeal for EP185U151
`T2305/14-3,4.03
`W&R Ref: M750826-1
`
`3. PATENTABILITY - INVENTIVE STEP -ARTICLE 56 EPC
`
`At least independent claims 1 and 14 lack an inventive step.
`
`The closest prior art is considered to be WO 98/28636 A1 (D1). We agree with the Opposition Division
`that this documents shows:
`
`A method of controlling streamer position devices using a local control system located on
`each streamer positioning device (see control system 26, second full paragraph, page 5 and
`Figures 1 & 2), comprising:
`- towing an array of streamers (see streamer 14 and page 1, second full paragraph) each
`having a plurality of streamer positioning devices there along (see bird 10, page 1, second full
`paragraph and Figure 1), each of the streamer positioning devices having a wing used to
`control the lateral position of the streamer positioning device (see wings 24, see page 1, third
`full paragraph, page 5, second full paragraph and Figure 1);
`- transmitting location information to at least one local control system on at least one of the
`streamer positioning devices (see control system 26, page 4, second full paragraph, page 5,
`
`- adjusting the angle of the wing with a wing motor using the local control system (page 6, first
`full paragraph).
`
`The subject matter of amended independent claim 1 is distinguished from D1 by:
`- using a control system distributed between a global control system located on or near a seismic
`survey vessel and a local control system located on each streamer positioning device; and
`- wherein the adjusting comprises calculating with a localized conversion program of the at least one
`local control system, a desired force on the at least one streamer positioning device using the location
`information, the desired force selected from a desired horizontal force, a desired vertical force and
`both.
`
`These distinguishing features lead to a system with cooperating control systems for controlling the
`position of the seismic streamer positioning device.
`
`The technical problem to be solved by the invention is therefore how to improve controlling the
`position of the streamer positioning devices.
`
`Considering the first distinguishing