IN THE 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
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JACK H. COLE, PhD.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2062, pg. 1
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 3
`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 4
`II.
`III. COMPENSATION AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE PARTIES ................ 10
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................. 11
`A.
`Claim Construction .................................................................................... 11
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................ 11
`V.
`SUMMARY OF OPINION ........................................................................... 12
`VI. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................... 13
`A. Overview of Marine Seismic Surveying .................................................... 13
`B.
`Streamer Steering Overview ...................................................................... 16
`C.
`Control Systems Overview ........................................................................ 17
`VII. THE PATENT AT ISSUE ............................................................................. 20
`A.
`The Specification of the ’607 Patent .......................................................... 20
`B.
`The Time Frame of the ’607 Patent ........................................................... 23
`C.
`Claims 1 and 15 of the ’607 Patent ............................................................ 23
`D.
`Relevant Claim Terms and Their Construction ......................................... 24
`“Control unit” ................................................................................................... 25
`VIII.
`THE ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS ..................... 25
`A.
`Control Systems for Use in Marine Seismic Surveys Were Disclosed in
`the 1960s ............................................................................................................... 25
`B.
`Control Systems Became More Automated in the 1970s and 1980s with
`Advances in Computer Control Systems ............................................................. 27
`C.
`Control Systems Continued to Progress in the 1980s and 1990s .............. 32
`D.
`State of Control Systems Art at the Priority Date ...................................... 40
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 45
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2062, pg. 2
`
`

`
`
`
`I, Dr. Jack Cole, hereby state the following:
`I. INTRODUCTION
`1.
`Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. (“PGS”) has retained me to provide
`
`consulting services related to the filing of a Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7.080,607 B2 (“the ’607 Patent”) (Ex. 1001). All opinions presented in
`
`this report are my own.
`
`2.
`
`PGS has asked me to provide an opinion as to whether or not a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have been able, by the applicable
`
`priority date, to implement certain claims of the ’607 Patent relating to control
`
`systems. This report describes my opinions and the reasons for them. In reaching
`
`my opinion, I have relied on my extensive expertise in the control systems field
`
`and the materials in the table below. I have attached the list of materials that I
`
`relied on in this report as Appendix A.
`
`3.
`
`I have reached the opinions in this report on the basis of the materials
`
`and information currently available to me. I reserve the right to modify my
`
`opinions, including to supplement my opinions in light of information that
`
`becomes available to me. I also reserve the right to continue my investigation and
`
`analysis, including concerning materials that have not yet been produced.
`
`
`
`3
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2062, pg. 3
`
`

`
`
`
`channel, two-wire communication system for sending commands and data requests
`
`to and receiving data [f]rom many positioning sensors and cable-leveling devices
`
`[i.e., streamer positioning devices] distributed along a seismic streamer.” Id. at
`
`3:24-28. Rouquette’s system includes “a central controller comprising an
`
`intelligent modem that can scan the many streamer devices for cable-positioning
`
`data each seismic shot interval,” and the modem “polls each device in an efficient
`
`and orderly fashion.” Id. at 3:29-34.
`
`71. Parallel, high-speed communications over fiber optic lines was also
`
`known by the priority date. See Ex. 1042 (U.S. Patent 6,011,753) (“Ambs”) at
`
`3:10-13. Loring C. Chien filed for a patent on March 19, 1998, and the patent was
`
`issued and entitled “Control and Monitoring of Devices External to a Marine
`
`Seismic Streamer.” Ex. 1042. Chien disclosed a system that “has high speed
`
`communications optimized for large amounts of data.” Id. at 5:1-5. One
`
`embodiment of Chien’s system used fiber optic cables so that “a large number of
`
`external devices may be transmitted to and/or received from in parallel.” Id. at
`
`6:2-5. Thus, communications systems and distributed computer control technology
`
`available on the priority date allowed seismic surveyors to easily control a
`
`substantial number of streamer positioning devices at near-instantaneous response
`
`times.
`
`
`
`39
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2062, pg. 4
`
`

`
`
`
`72. Automatic control systems and sophisticated control units on the
`
`streamer positioning devices that could perform positioning calculations and
`
`distribution of the overall control load between the global control system and the
`
`control units on the streamer positioning devices was known in the art and
`
`practiced in the 1980s and 1990s. Those systems could therefore have been
`
`implemented at the time of the disclosures of Rouquette, Elholm, and the ’636 PCT
`
`and certainly could have been implemented by a POSA with minimal effort by
`
`October 1, 1998.
`
`D. State of Control Systems Art at the Priority Date
`73. By the time of the priority date, global control systems and control
`
`units that could perform positioning calculations were well known in the art.
`
`Automatic computer control and distributed control for use in streamer steering
`
`systems were also well known in the art. The following two references, Workman
`
`and Ambs, reflect this state of the art around the time of the priority date, October
`
`1, 1998.
`
`74.
`
`In August 1998, Ricky L. Workman was issued a patent entitled
`
`“Adaptive Control of Marine Seismic Streamers.” Ex. 1004 (U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,790,472) (“Workman”). He disclosed what he characterized as an “improved
`
`system for controlling the position and shape of marine seismic streamer cables.”
`
`Ex. 1004 (Workman) at 1:6-8.
`
`
`
`40
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2062, pg. 5
`
`

`
`
`
`75. Workman disclosed that “[l]ocation sensing devices and methods for
`
`determining the positions of the seismic sources and seismic streamer cables
`
`[were] also well known in the art,” including GPS and acoustic positioning
`
`systems. Id. at 2:10-15. Workman stated that he disclosed “an improved system
`
`for controlling the position and shape of marine seismic streamer cables” using,
`
`among other things, a network solution that would implement a Kalman filter. Id.
`
`at 2:32-37; 3:46-48. Kalman filters use “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.” Ex. 1006
`
`(Vassilis Gikas et al., A Rigorous and Integrated Approach to Hydrophone and
`
`Source Positioning during Multi-Streamer Offshore Seismic Exploration, 77
`
`Hydrographic J. 11 (1995)) at 12 [hereinafter “Gikas Article”]. The Kalman filter
`
`can be used to compute “[t]he position of any point of interest throughout the
`
`spread,” including the streamer positioning devices, hydrophones, and the source.
`
`See id. at 24.
`
`76.
`
`I understand that Kalman filters are addressed in Dr. Evans’s
`
`declaration, and I have been asked to assume that use of a Kalman filter in this
`
`context would satisfy the limitation of a “prediction unit” that “predicts positions
`
`of at least some of the streamer positioning devices.” I have been asked whether a
`
`POSA could have implemented a system that uses a Kalman filter to predict
`
`
`
`41
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2062, pg. 6
`
`

`
`
`
`positions of streamer positioning devices and use those predicted positions to
`
`calculate desired changes in positions of streamer positioning devices at the time of
`
`the priority date. It is my opinion that a POSA could have implemented a system
`
`that uses a Kalman filter to predict positions of streamer positioning devices with
`
`ease at the time of the priority date. See, e.g., id. at 12, 24; Ex. 1041 (Vassilis N.
`
`Gikas, Least Squares Filtering and Testing for Positioning and Quality Control
`
`During 3D Marine Seismic Surveys 3 (Aug. 1996)) at 28-29, 66-67 [hereinafter
`
`“Gikas Thesis”] (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Newcastle upon Tyne) (on file with
`
`Newcastle University Library); Ex. 1014 (R.P. Loweth, Manual of Offshore
`
`Surveying for Geoscientists and Engineers (1st ed. 1997)) at 73-74. Kalman filters
`
`were commonly used components of control systems. See Ex. 1006 (Gikas
`
`Article) at 15.
`
`77. Moreover, a POSA could have used the positional information from
`
`the Kalman filter to calculate desired changes in the positions of streamer
`
`positioning devices such as birds. From a control systems perspective, whether
`
`positions are obtained by prediction or some other method is irrelevant to
`
`implementing Claim 1 and 15’s limitation of calculating desired changes in
`
`position of one or more of the streamer positioning devices. Whatever position
`
`information is used to calculate a desired change in position, a control unit would
`
`
`
`42
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2062, pg. 7
`
`

`
`
`
`operate in the same way to implement that limitation—namely, by comparing the
`
`positions with the desired positions of the streamer positioning devices.
`
`78. Workman disclosed a “streamer cable control processor for deciding
`
`when the streamer cables should be repositioned and for calculating a position
`
`correction to reposition the streamer cables.” Ex. 1004 (Workman) at 3:59-63. In
`
`Workman’s system, the operator would enter “threshold parameters” into the
`
`streamer cable control processor, which could include “minimum allowable
`
`separations between streamer cables,” for example. Id. at 3:65-4:7. The streamer
`
`control processor would then evaluate “real time signals” received from the
`
`streamer positioning devices and navigation system, among others, and compare
`
`those signals to the threshold parameters to “determine when the streamer cables
`
`need to be repositioned.” Id. at 4:8-15. Then the streamer control processor would
`
`“calculate the position correction required to keep the streamer cables within the
`
`threshold parameters,” and “the position correction is used by the streamer device
`
`controller to adjust the streamer positioning devices and reposition the streamer
`
`cables.” Id. at 4:15-21.
`
`79. Workman thus disclosed a sophisticated global control system that
`
`receives many real-time inputs, compares them to threshold parameters input by an
`
`operator, and, if need be, calculates position corrections and sends commands to
`
`the streamer positioning device’s local control system to reposition the device.
`
`
`
`43
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2062, pg. 8
`
`

`
`
`
`80. Loran D. Ambs and Ronald E. Chambers filed an application for a
`
`patent on August 3, 1998, and it was granted and entitled “Seismic Streamer
`
`Position Control Module.” Ex. 1042. In one embodiment of his invention, Ambs
`
`disclosed that “[c]ommands generated by a tow vessel may instruct the bird to
`
`change streamer depth and/or lateral position.” Ex. 1042 (Ambs) at 3:3-5. Those
`
`commands are sent to the bird, which contains a “bird microprocessor” that uses
`
`“fuzzy or proportional control algorithms” to “adjust the bird ‘wing’ angles to
`
`achieve a desired change in position.” Id. at 3:5-8. The “streamer-position-module
`
`controller” can either be located on “the tow vessel and is in communication with
`
`the [streamer positioning device],” or, in an alternative embodiment, on the bird.
`
`Id. at 6:4-9.
`
`81. This “streamer-position-module controller” “computes an angle-of-
`
`attack for each wing.” Id. at 6:10-12. In practice, “[a] computer assisted navigator
`
`apparatus (or a human operator) generates ‘STREAMER CONTROL SIGNALS’
`
`(e.g. depth setting, movement right or left),” and “[t]hese signals are sent via the
`
`streamer to the bird’s control apparatus (‘FUZZY LOGIC CONTROL’).” Ambs
`
`thus discloses a sophisticated and automatic global control system that calculates
`
`and sends commands to a sophisticated control unit that performs its own
`
`calculations to produce a desired change in position of the streamer positioning
`
`device.
`
`
`
`44
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2062, pg. 9
`
`

`
`
`
`82. Ambs and Workman are examples of state of the art computer
`
`technology, control systems, and control theory in the context of streamer
`
`positioning around the time of the priority date. They demonstrate that advanced
`
`global control systems and control units on the streamer positioning device capable
`
`of performing positioning calculations and were disclosed and capable of being
`
`implemented by the priority date.
`
`IX.
`CONCLUSION
`83. As demonstrated by the foregoing discussion, a POSA would have
`
`been able to implement Claim 1 and 15’s function of “a control unit adapted to use
`
`predicted positions,” determined by a prediction unit, “to calculate desired changes
`
`in positions of one or more of the streamer positioning devices” with ease at the
`
`time of the priority date. I conclude that a POSA would have been able to
`
`implement Claims 1 and 15 of the ’607 Patent at the time of the priority date with
`
`minimal effort and, indeed, more than a year before the priority date.
`
`84.
`
`I understand that this report will be filed as evidence in a contested
`
`case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office. I also understand that I may be subject to cross-examination
`
`concerning this report, and I will appear for cross-examination, if required of me,
`
`during the time allotted for cross-examination.
`
`
`
`45
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2062, pg. 10
`
`

`
`
`
`85.
`
`I hereby declare that all of the statements made herein of my own
`
`knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with knowledge
`
`that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or
`
`imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Codes.
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`Dr. Jack H. Cole
`
`
`
`Date: April 22, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`46
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2062, pg. 11