Europål!chct
`P¿tert¡mt
`EuropG¡n
`P¡tert Offlcc
`OffIçc Çu.gpóln
`d!¡ bEvatt
`
`Ð
`
`ilil1il lllll llill lllllllllllllll llill llllllllll llll llll
`Boult Wade Tennant
`Verulam Gardens
`70 Gray's lnn Road
`London WClX 8BT
`ROYAUME UNI
`
`European Patent Otfice
`80298 MUNTCH
`GERMANY
`
`ouestions about this communication ?
`Contact Customer Servioes at www.epo.org/contact
`
`Reterenoe
`AJFIP124484EPO
`
`Appl¡oation No./Patent No.
`071 1 3031 .4 - 1559 / 1 8501 51
`
`AppliaanvPropr¡etor
`WesternGeco Seismic Holdings Limited, et al
`
`09-04-20L4
`
`Summons to attend oral proceedings pursuant to Rule 115(1) EPC
`
`You are hereby summoned to attend oral proceedings arranged in connection with the above-mentioned
`European patent.
`
`The matters to be discussed are set out in the communication accompanying this summons (EPO Form
`2906).
`
`The oral proceedings, which will be public, will take place before the opposition division
`
`on 17.09.14 at 10.00 hrs in Room 2.5 atthe
`EPO Rijswijk, Patentlaan 2, NL-2280 HV Rijswijk (ZH)
`
`No changes to the date of the oral proceedings can be made, except on serious grounds (see OJ EPO
`1l2OO9,6a¡. f you do not appear as summoned, the oral proceedings may continue without you (R. 1 15(2)
`EPC).
`
`Your attention is drawn to Rule 4 EPC, regarding the language of the oral proceedings, and to the Special
`edition No. 3 OJ EPO 2007, 128, concerning the filing of authorisations for company employees and
`lawyers acting as representatives before the EPO.
`
`The linal date for making written submissions and/or amendments (R. 116 EPG) is 18.08.14.
`Youarerequestedtoreportingoodtimebeforehandtotheporter¡ntheEPofoyer.Room-is
`available as waiting room.
`1st Examiner:
`Vollmer T
`
`2nd Examiner:
`Meyer M
`
`Ghairman:
`de Jong F
`
`Annexes:
`Confirmation of receipt (Form 2936)
`Rule 4 EPC (EPC Form 2043)
`Communication (EPO Form 2906)
`
`PÒS - âll
`ExHrBrr I oA ^
`
`DATE
`R,EPORTER
`PLnct
`
`LLC
`
`Division
`
`,ô
`'o^
`o4o
`
`Þ
`-Þ
`
`oo
`
`I
`
`a3r$0'
`
`""tt"
`
`ôþ
`
`ooI
`
`Registered lelter with advice of del¡very
`EPO Form2310 12.12 [oRAL03=A0251 (U104t14)
`
`ORAL4
`
`to EPO postal seruice:04.O4.14
`
`PGS Exhibit 1082, pg. 1
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`

`

`de9 brèvelgd
`
`Europâ liches
`Påtêñlåñì
`Europeâh
`Pãtent otfìce
`
`Office européen
`
`European Patent Office - The Hague - Getting there
`
`Tower, Hinge and Shell Buildings
`
`Le Croisé Building
`
`Rijsvoort Building
`
`Visitors address:
`
`Patentlaan 2
`22BB EE Rijswijk
`The Netherlands
`
`Usinq local public tranqp.o$
`
`From The Haque Central Station (Den Haaq CS), Hollands Spoor (Den Haaq HS), Town Centre
`and Riiswiik train station, take the 17 tram (heading for Wateringseveld) to Patentlaan
`
`From Scheveninqen, take the 1 tram (stops at Central Station (CS), Town Centre and Hollands
`Spoor (HS), to Vlietbrug. From here it is a 1O-minute walk (up the staírs, along the footpath on the
`motorway bridge, down the steps and round the building (Tinbergenstraat, Koopmansstraat)to the
`main entrance at the front.
`
`Bv train (Train information: www.ns.nl)
`
`From Rotterdam.Çgntral Station (CS), take the "stoptrein" (heading for Den Haag)to Rijswijk
`From there, lake 17 tram (heading for Statenkwartier) to Patentlaan.
`
`Bv car: (Route planner: www.viamichelin.com)
`
`On the.413 from Rotterdam:
`Follow the signs for Rijswijk, Den Haag. Approaching The Hague, this moton¡vay becomes the 830
`Follow the signs for Rijswijk, Den Haag Zuid, Hoek van Holland (44/N4), i.e. DO NOT take the exit
`for Rilswijk Cenlrum. On the A4lN4, take the Plaspoelpolder exit (white sign with black lettering,
`exit Nr. 10). To get to Plaspoelpolder, turn right at the first set of traffic lights. The main building on
`your right is the EPO. At the next traffic lights, turn right into Veraartlaan.
`
`On the A4 from Amsterdam or the 412 from Utrecht:
`Follow the signs for Rijswijk, Den Haag Zuid, Hoek van Holland (44/N4). On theA4/N4, take the
`Plaspoelpolder exit (white sign with black lettering, exit Nr. 10). From here, follow the directions
`given above.
`
`Parking: Limited number of parking spaces (Tinbergenstraat entrance).
`
`Bv air:
`
`From Schip.hol airport. Amsterdq$., take the direct train to The Hague Central Station (Den Haag
`CS) or Holland Spoor (Den Haag HS). Change lo the 17 tram (heading for Wateringseveld) to
`Patentlaan.
`
`PGS Exhibit 1082, pg. 2
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`

`

`
`
`‘67/ ”Six.
`
`ì.1
`
`.
`
`. T." bu-"(fin'g
`_-1 = ‘l‘.
`.2 3* shfll hulldli‘lg
`3 I Lo. c101" buitdlng
`
`_
`
`.
`
`Ð
`
`(1-,,1
`x,-
`' “‘lg»
`\
`
`/.-
`
`.N'
`
`"on
`
`2.“:-
`
`I
`
`'
`
`waif-49
`
`\‘
`_
`‘Sa‘:;\\1 \
`
`(
`
`å
`
`t1
`
`PGS Exhibit 1082, pg. 3
`PGS V. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`PGS Exhibit 1082, pg. 3
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`

`

`DatumDate 09.04.20I4
`
`Date
`
`Blatt
`Sheet
`Feu¡lle
`
`1
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`ApplìcationNo: 07 f13 031.4
`Demande no:
`
`Preamble
`The following communication presents a pP)û@
`ooiníon based on the documents currently on file.
`
`2
`
`2.1
`
`2.2
`
`2.3
`
`Facts and submiss¡ons
`European patent No EP1850151 is based upon European patent applicat¡on
`No EP 071 13031 , filed on 28.09.1999 and claiming priority of GB 9821277
`filed on 01 .10.1998. Furthermore, the European patent No EP1850151 is a
`divisional filing of the European patent application No EP 99943180, filed on
`O1 .10.1998, which itself is the regional phase of the international application
`PCTilBgg/01590, published as WO/00/20S95 and having a priority date of
`01 .1 0.1 998.
`The mention of the grant of the patent has been published in European Patent
`Bulletin 2011132 of 10.08.201 1 .
`
`Proprietor of the patent are:
`- WesternGeco Seismic Holdings Limited (lT, NL).
`- Services Pétroliers Schlumberger (FR).
`Notice of opposition has been filed by ION Geophysical Corporation
`
`Requests
`With his letter of 10.05.2012 the opponent ION Geophysical Corporation
`requests that:
`- the contested patent be revoked in its entirety in accordance with Articles 99
`and 100 (a) EPC on the ground of lack of novelty (Art. 54 EPC) and on ground
`of lack of inventive step (Art. 56 EPC), on the ground of insufficiency of
`disclosure (Art. 100(b) EPC and 83 EPC) and on the ground of added subject-
`matter that extends beyond the content of the application of the earlier
`application as filed (Art. 100(c) EPC and 123(2) EPC)'
`- auxiliary, oral proceedings to be held (Art. 116 EPC).
`With letter of response of 28.01 .2013 the proprietors request
`- maintenance of the patent as granted; and
`- auxiliary, oral proceedings to be held (Art. 116 EPC)
`- auxiliary, in case that submissions by the Opponent's Representatives are
`
`EPO Form 2906 01.91TR|
`
`PGS Exhibit 1082, pg. 4
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`

`

`Datum
`Dâte
`Date
`
`09.04 .20]-4
`
`Blatt
`Shêei
`Feuille
`
`2
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`Appljcationtilo: 07 113 031.4
`Demande no:
`
`made in an another language than English, then the patentee requests
`simultaneous translation into English of the opponent's Representatives
`submissions .
`Ihe following documents were cited by the opponent:
`E1
`us 5 200 e30 A (ROUQUETTE ROBERT E tusl) 6 Aprit 1998 (1993-04-06)
`
`2.3.1
`
`E2
`
`E3
`
`E4
`
`E5
`
`E6
`
`E7
`
`E8
`
`E9
`
`810
`
`E11
`
`Ê.t¿
`
`813
`
`814
`
`El5
`
`Wo e8/28636 A1 (GECO AS [No]; BTTTLESTON StMoN HASTTNGS tNOl)2
`July 1998 (1998-07-02)
`
`US 5 790 472 A (WORKMAN RTCKY L tUSl ET AL) 4 August 1998
`(1 998-08-04)
`
`EP 0 613 025 A1 (GECO AS tNOl) 31 August 1994 (1994-08-31)
`
`WO s7l113e5 A2 (LAITRAM CORP [US]; OLtv¡rR ANDRE W [US]; RAU
`BRIEN G [US]; ROUQUETTE R) 27 March 1997 (1 9s7-os-27)
`
`US 4 404 664 A (ZACHARIADIS ROBERT G IUSI) 1g September 1983
`(1 e83-0e-1 3)
`
`EP 0 018 053 A1 (SHELL INT RESEARCH tNLl) 29 October 1980
`(1 980-1 0-29)
`
`US 4 890 568 A (DOLENGOWSKI cEORGE A IUSI) 2 January 1990
`(1 9e0-01 -02)
`
`US 4 676 183 A (CONBOY MTCHAEL R tUSl) 30 June 1987 (1987-06-30)
`
`US 4 729 333 A (KIRBY ROBERT A tUSl ET AL) I March 19BB (t 9BB-0s-08)
`
`GB 2 122 562 A (SEISMOGRAPH SERVTCE) 1 8 January 1 984 (1 984-01 -18)
`
`US 5 532 975 A (ELHOLM TOR INOI) 2 July 1996 (1996-07-02)
`
`WO e7l30361 A1 (THOMSON CSF [FR]; BERTHEAS JEAN [FR]; MORESCO
`GILLES [FR]; SUPpn VITO) 21 August 1997 (1992-08-21)
`
`US 5 138 582 A (FURU HARALD tNOl) 1 1 August 1992 (1992-08-1 1)
`
`COURT I N: "Applications of acoustics to streamer/source positioning,,,
`SEG EXPANDED ABSTRACTS, XX, XX, 1 January 1989 (1989-01-01), pages
`61 0-612, XP002480425,
`
`EPO Form 2906 01.91TR¡
`
`PGS Exhibit 1082, pg. 5
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`

`

`Datum
`Date
`Date
`
`09.04 .20L4
`
`Blatt
`Sheet 3
`Feuille
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`ApplicationNo: 07 113 031.4
`Demande n ":
`
`The opponent provided following grounds of opposition:
`- Added subject-matter (Art. 100(c) EPC, 123(2) and (3) EPC) in independent
`cla¡ms 1 and 15, dependent claims 2-14 and 16-28;
`- lnsufficiency of disclosure (Art. 100(b) EPC and 83 EPC);
`- Lack of novelty (Art. 100(a) EPC and Art. 54 EPC) of independent claims 1
`and 15 vis-a-vis Ic1, 82, E3 and E4;
`- Lack of inventive step (Art. 100(a) EPC and Art. 56 EPC) of independent
`claims 1 and 15 vis-a-vis a combination of E2 and E4, a combination of E2
`and E3, a combination of E4 and E2, a combination of E4 and E3;
`- Lack of novelty of dependent claims 5-10 and 15-19 vis-a-vis E1 and E2;
`- Lack of inventive step of alldependent claims vis-a-vis any combination of
`E1 to E9.
`The proprietor counter argued each of the grounds of the opponent.
`
`3
`
`3.1
`
`3.2
`
`Preliminary and non binding opinion of the opposition division
`
`The opposition is deemed admissible.
`With regard to the added subject-matter (Art. 100(c) EPC, 123(2) and (3)
`EPC) in claims 1 and 15:
`
`3.2.1
`
`3.2.1.1
`
`Claim 1:
`The opposition division is of the preliminary opinion that the feature a method
`seems not to add subject-matter, which extends beyond the originally
`disclosed subject-matter of the parent application. The claim as a whole
`seems to be directed to the control of the lateral position of the streamer
`positioning device, by adjusting the wing of the streamer positioning device.
`The opponent did not provide any further example of how towing can be done
`by not using a seismic survey vessel. The opposition division does not see
`any other possibility of towing. Therefore, it seems that this generalisation is
`allowable.
`3.2.1.9 The opposition division is of the preliminary opinion that the feature a oluralitv
`of streamer positioning devices is allowable. On page 19, second last
`paragraph of the parent application it is explicitly disclosed that deflectors and
`tail buoys are considered as streamer positioning devices.
`9.2.1.4 The feature at least one of the streamer positioning devices having a
`wing used to control the lateral position of the streamer positioning
`device implies that there can be one or more among the plurality of streamer
`
`3.2.1.2
`
`EPO Form 2906 01.91TRl
`
`PGS Exhibit 1082, pg. 6
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`

`

`DatumDate 09.04.2014
`
`Date
`
`Blatt
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`4
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`Applicationt\o: 07 113 031.4
`Demande n":
`
`pos¡tioning devices which do not have wings. That means that in the
`embodiment where the the plurality of positioning devices are only birds, there
`are birds w¡thout wings.The parent application as a whole refers to birds as
`pos¡tioning devices. lt is clear from the description of the parent application
`that each of the birds must have a wing. Birds without wings are not directly
`and unambiguously derivable from the description of the parent application.
`Ïherefore, the opposition division is of the preliminary opinion that the wording
`at least one represents a generalisation that introduces subject-matter, which
`extends beyond the originally disclosed subject-matter of the parent
`application.
`ïhe generalized feature
`tem seems
`to introduce subject-matter that extends beyond the originally disclosed
`subject-matter of the parent application. The feature global control system
`seems to be disclosed only in combination with the feature "a distributed
`processing control architecture and behaviour-predictive model based
`control logic to properly control the streamer positioning devices" (page
`6, last paragraph) and it seems that it is essential for the properly
`[transmittingl from a global control system. Therefore, the opposition
`division is of the preliminary opinion that the generalized feature
`[transmittingl from a global control system seems to introduce subject-
`matter that extends beyond the originally disclosed subject-matter of the
`parent application.
`ïhe opposition division is of the preliminary opinion that the generalized
`feature transmitting location information to at least one local control
`system on the at least one streamer positioning devices having a wing
`seems to be allowable. Page I of the parent application discloses two different
`embodiments of acquiring location information:
`1) from a predictor software (lines 1 and 2)
`2) from the vessels navigation system (lines 6-10).
`Furthermore, on page 11 it is directly disclosed that the global control system
`can transmit location information to the localcontrol system.
`
`3.2.1.5
`
`3.2.1.6
`
`3.2.1.7
`
`The opposition division is of the preliminary opinion that the feature adiusting
`the wing usino the local control svstem seems to introduce subject-matter,
`which extends beyond the originally disclosed subject-matter of the parent
`application. The parent application discloses only the possibility to adjust the
`wing by changing the angle of the wing.
`
`EPO Form 2906 01.91TRl
`
`PGS Exhibit 1082, pg. 7
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`

`

`Datum
`Date
`Dâte
`
`09.04 .20r4
`
`Blatt
`Sheel
`Feuille
`
`5
`
`Anmelde-Nr
`Applicat¡onNo: 07 113 031.4
`Demande n":
`
`9.2.1.8 The opposition division is of the preliminary opin¡on that the omission of the
`features
`obtaining an estimated velocity of said streamer positioning device and
`
`3.2.1.9
`
`3.2.2
`
`3.2.2.1
`
`3.2.2.2
`
`3.2.2.3
`
`3.2.2.4
`
`3.2.2.5
`
`calculating a desired change in the orientation of said wing using said
`estimated velocitv of said streamer positioning device
`seems not to introduce subject-matter that extends beyond the originally
`disclosed subject-matter of the parent application.
`
`The opposition division is of the preliminary opinion that the omission of the
`feature
`actuating said wing motor to produce said desired change in the
`orientation of said winq
`seems to introduce subject-matter that extends beyond the originally disclosed
`subject-matter of the parent application. lt appears that the only possibility to
`adjust the wings is done via a wing motor.
`
`Claim 15
`The feature An arrav of seismic streamers seem to be allowable. Figure 1
`of the parent application shows an array of seismic streamers towed by a
`towing vessel. lt is clear from the description of the parent application that the
`positioning devices to be controlled are coupled to the streamers.
`The feature towed by a towing vessel comorising seems to be allowable.
`The opponent did not provide any further example of how towing can be done
`by not using a towing vessel. The opposition division does not see any other
`possibility of towing than via a towing vessel.
`The feature a p!urality of streamer positioning devices seems to be
`allowable. The reasons being the same as mentioned under Point 3.2.1.3.
`The feature on or in-line with each streamer seems to be allowable. Figure
`2 of the parent application shows a positioning [18] device on or in-line with a
`streamer [12]. lt is directly derivable that this counts for all positioning devices
`on all streamers.
`The feature at least one of the streamer positioning devices having a
`wing used to control the lateral position of the streamer oositioning
`device. and seems to introduce subject-matter that extends beyond of the
`originally disclosed subject-matter of the parent application. The reasoning
`being the same as mentioned under point 3.2.1 .4.
`
`EPO Form 2906 01 ,91 TRI
`
`PGS Exhibit 1082, pg. 8
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`

`

`Datum
`Date
`Date
`
`09.04 .20r4
`
`Blatt
`Sheet
`Feu¡lle
`
`6
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`Applicationno: 07 113 031.4
`Demande n ":
`
`3.2.2.6 The feature a global controlsystem seems to introduce subject-matter that
`wh¡ch extends beyond the originally disclosed subject-matter of the parent
`application. The reasoning being the same as mentioned under point 3.2.1.5.
`3.2.2.7 The features transmittinq location information to at least one local
`control svstem and on the at least one streamer positioning device
`having a wing seem to be allowable. The reasoning being the same as
`mentioned under point 3.2.1.6.
`3.2.2.8 Ïhe feature the local control svstem adiusting the wing seems seems to
`introduce subject-matter that which extends beyond the originally disclosed
`subject-matter of the parent application. The reasoning being the same as
`mentioned under point 3.2.1.7.
`g.Z.2.g The omission of the features
`means for calculating an estimated velocitv of said streamer positioning
`device and means for calculating a desired change in orientation of said
`wing using said estimated velocity of said streamer positioning device
`from claim 1 of the parent application seems to be allowable. The reasoning
`being the same as mentioned under points 3.2.1.8.
`3.2.2.10 The omission of the feature
`means for actuating said wing motor to produce said desired change in
`said orientation
`seems to introduce subject-matter that extend beyond the originally disclosed
`subject-matter of the parent application. The reasoning being the same as
`mentioned under points 3.2.1.8.
`3.2.3 Dependent claims
`The opposition division is of the preliminary opinion that the dependent claims
`seem not to be allowable in combination with the independent claims as
`patented. However, for:
`claims 2 and 16: the subject-matter seems to be disclosed on p. 10, last 4
`lines to p. 1.1, first 3 lines of the parent application;
`
`claims 3 and 17: the features seem to be disclosed on p. 10, last 4 lines to p.
`11, l. I of the parent application;
`claims 4 and 18: the features seem to be disclosed on p. 1 1, l. 15-18 of the
`parent application;
`
`claims 5 and 19: the features seem to be disclosed on p. 1 1, l. 15-21 of the
`parent application;
`
`EPO Form 2906 01 .91 TRI
`
`PGS Exhibit 1082, pg. 9
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`

`

`Datum
`Date
`Date
`
`09.04 .20L4
`
`Blatt
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`1
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`ApplicationNo: 07 113 031.4
`Demande n o:
`
`claim 6 and 20:the features seem to be disclosed on p.7,1.28 to p. 9, l. 5; of
`the parent application ;
`
`claim 7 and 21: it seems the wings can be adjusted only by changing the wing
`angle.
`claims I and 22:lhe features are disclosed in claims 7 and 21 of the parent
`application;
`claims 9 and 23: the features are disclosed in claims I and 22 ot The parent
`application;
`claims 10 and 24: Ihe features are disclosed in claims I and 23 of the parent
`application;
`claim 1'1 and 25: the features are d¡sclosed in claims 10 and 24 of lhe parent
`application;
`claim 12 and 26: the features are disclosed in claim '11 and 25 of the parent
`application;
`claim 1 3 and 27: Ihe features are disclosed in claim 1 3 of the parent
`application;
`claims 14 and 28:the features are disclosed in claim 14 of the parent
`application.
`
`With regard to sufficiency of disclosure (Art. 100(b) EPC, Art.83 EPC) the
`opposition division is of the preliminary opinion that:
`the feature location information seems to be sufficiently disclosed. As
`already discussed under Point 3.2.1.6 it seems that there are two different
`embodiments of how to obtain location information;
`the task of the global control system seems to be sufficiently disclosed
`throughout the whole description of the parent application in order to perform
`the claimed invention;
`the feature estimating velocity seems to be sufficiently disclosed in order to
`perform the invention. The calculations on page 17 of the parent application
`incorporate the towing velocity, i.e. the velocity of the streamers. The
`positioning devices are coupled to the streamers. Therefore, the towing
`velocity is also the velocity of the positioning device. This is directly and
`unambiguously derivable from the description on page 17;
`the feature distributed processing control architecture and behaviour-
`oredictive model-based control looic seems to be sufficiently disclosed.
`Page 7 of the parent application discloses how predictor software functions.
`
`3.3
`
`EPO Form 2906 01.91TR|
`
`PGS Exhibit 1082, pg. 10
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`

`

`Datum
`Date
`Date
`
`nq
`
`^L
`
`tr\1 ¿.
`
`Blatt
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`B
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`Applicationno: 07 113 031.4
`Demande n1
`
`dependent claims 2, 3, 13 and 14 seem to be sufficiently disclosed on page
`17 of the parent appl¡cation. lt seems that the calculations on page 17 are
`used to obtain an estimate of the velocity and do not an exact calculations of
`the velocity.
`
`3.4
`
`With regard to novelty (Art. 100(a) EPC, Art.52 EPC, Art. 54 EPC) the
`opposition divislon is of the preliminary opinion that the subject-matter of
`claims 1 and 15 is not new with regard to document E1 .
`
`3.4.1
`
`Claim 1
`
`E1 discloses a method comprising (col. 1, 1.5-10):
`- towing an affay of streamers each having a plurality of streamer positioning
`devices there along (col. 1 ,1. 12-19), at least one of the streamer positioning
`devices having a wing (col. 4, l. 45-47) used to control the lateral posit¡on of
`the streamer positioning device (col. 4, l. 45-47: it is implicitly disclosed that by
`controlling wings of the birds in order to adjust the depth the lateral positions
`of the birds are also controlled; see also col. 3, . 28-31 );
`- transmitting from a global control system location information to at least one
`local control system on the at least one streamer positioning devices having a
`wing (col. 3,1.28-43, col. 4, 1.34-47); and
`- adjusting the wing using the local control system (col. 4, l. 45-47).
`The subject-matter of claim 1 therefore seems not to be new.
`
`3.4.2
`
`Claim 15
`
`E 1 discloses an array ol seismic streamers towed by a towing vessel (col. 1 ,
`l. 12-19, col. 4,1. 4-5) comprising:
`- a plurality of streamer positioning devices on or in line with each streamer
`Figure 1 [26a,b], col. 4, l. 4-5), at least one of the streamer positioning devices
`having a wing (col. 4, l. 45-47) used to control the lateral position of the
`streamer positioning device (col. 4, 1.45-47: it is implicitly disclosed that by
`controlling wings of the birds in order to adjust the depth the lateral positions
`of the birds are also controlled in order to avoid horizontal drift of the
`streamers; see also col. 3, . 28-31);
`- a global control system transmitting location information to at least one local
`control system on the at least one streamer positioning device having a wing
`(col. 3, l.28-43, col. 4, 1.34-47), the local control system adjusting the wing
`(col. 4, l.45-47).
`
`Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 15 seems not to be new.
`
`EPO Form 2906 01 .91 TRI
`
`PGS Exhibit 1082, pg. 11
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`

`

`Datum
`Date
`Date
`
`09.04 .20r4
`
`Blatt
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`9
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`ApplicationNo: 07 113 031.4
`Demande no:
`
`3.4.3
`
`The subject-matter of claims 1 and 15 seems to be new with regard to
`documents E2, E3 and E4:
`E2 seems not to disclose the feature " global control system";
`E3 seems not to disclose the feature "local control system on the at least one
`streamer positioning device" ;
`E4 seems not to disclose feature "a plurality of streamer positioning devices
`on each streamer".
`
`3.4.4
`
`Dependent claims
`
`3.4.5
`
`3.5
`
`E1 (col. 4,1. 34-47) discloses the subject-matter of claim 4.
`Concerning the novelty of the subject-matter of claims 1 and 15 with regard to
`documents E5 to E7. The opponent did not provide any substantiation in order
`to prove the novelty objections. Therefore, the opposition division will not take
`into account the documents E5-E7 for the discussion of the novelty of the
`subject-matter of claims 1 and 15, at this moment.
`With regard to inventive step (Art. 100(a) EPC, Art.52 EPC, Art. 56 EPC) the
`opposition division is of the preliminary opinion that the subject-matter of
`independent claims 1 and 15 lacks of inventive step with regard to a
`combination of documents E1 and E2.
`
`3.5.1
`
`Claim 1
`Considering the feature "global control system" as not being disclosed in E2:
`
`This distinguishing feature results in enhanced steerable streamers.
`The technical problem to be solved by the invention was therefore how to
`better avoid entanglement of streamers.
`It is already known from 83, which is from the same technicalfield as the
`contested patent and E1 and the prior art E2,Io use a global control system
`(E3, col. 4,1. 8-21) in order to avoid the entanglement of the streamers (E3,
`col. 1, l. 28-38). Ihe skilled person would combine the teachings of E2 and E4
`in order to come to the solution proposed. Therefore, the opposition division is
`of the preliminary opinion that the subject-matter of claim 1 seems not to
`involve an inventive step.
`
`3.5.2
`
`Claim 15
`
`The same reasoning would apply to claim 15. Therefore, the subject-matter of
`claim 15 also seems not involve an inventive step vis-a-vis a combination of
`E2 and E3.
`
`EPO Form 2906 01.91TRl
`
`PGS Exhibit 1082, pg. 12
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`

`

`Datum
`Date
`Date
`
`09.04 .20r4
`
`Blatt
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`10
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`ApplicâtionNo: 07 113 031.4
`Demande n ":
`
`3.5.3
`
`3.5.4
`
`ïhe document E4 discloses as much of the subject-matter claims 1 and 1S as
`E2. Therefore, E4 seems to be equally relevant than E2 and it seems not
`necessary at this moment to discuss the inventivity of claims 1 and 15 with E4
`as starting document.
`
`Dependent claims
`Following claims seem not to be inventive:
`Claims 4, 5: see E2, p.6, l. 1-8;
`Claim 7: see E2, p.2, second paragraph;
`Claims 11, 25: see E2, p. 7, second paragraph;
`Claim 12,26: see E2, p.5, third paragraph
`ln conclusion, it appears at least provisionally, that the current patent cannot
`be maintained as granted, for the above mentioned reasons.
`
`3.5.5
`
`With regard to documents E5 to E8, the opponent did not provide any
`substantiation in order to prove the inventive step objections. Therefore, the
`opposition division will not take into account the documents E5-E8 for the
`discussion of the inventivity of the subject-matter of the claims, at this
`moment.
`
`4
`
`Further procedure
`
`The opposition division summons all parties to Oral Proceedings (Art. 1 16(1)
`EPC) to be held on 17.09,20'14, to discuss the grounds for opposition
`mentioned in the notice of opposition.
`
`EPO Form 290ô 01 .91 TRI
`
`PGS Exhibit 1082, pg. 13
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`