435220US
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————————
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`———————————
`
`Case IPR2014-00689
`U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520
`
`———————————
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120, Patent Owner, WesternGeco L.L.C
`
`(“WesternGeco” or “Patent Owner”), submits this Response to the Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review (“Petition”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520 (the “’520 patent”)
`
`filed by Petitioner, Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. (“PGS” or “Petitioner”).
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`THE ’520 PATENT CLAIMS PRECISION CONTROL OF
`STEERABLE SEISMIC ARRAYS ................................................................ 1
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Feather Angle Mode .............................................................................. 7
`
`Streamer Separation Mode .................................................................... 9
`
`III.
`
`PRIOR ART ................................................................................................... 10
`
`A. Workman ............................................................................................. 10
`
`B.
`
`Hedberg ............................................................................................... 15
`
`IV. THE ’520 PATENT IS NOT ANTICIPATED OR OBVIOUS .................... 19
`
`A.
`
`Claim 1 and 18 Are Not Anticipated By Workman ............................ 19
`
`i. Workman does not disclose each and every limitation of
`claims 1 or 18 ............................................................................ 19
`
`ii. Workman Does Not Disclose a Control System
`Configured to Operate in One or More Control Modes as
`Recited in Claims 1 and 18 ....................................................... 19
`
`iii. Workman Does Not Disclose a Control Mode Selected
`from a Feather Angle Mode, a Turn Control Mode, and a
`Streamer Separation Mode ........................................................ 20
`
`B. Workman Does Not Render Claims 1, 2, 18 and 19 Obvious ............ 23
`
`i. Workman Does Not Render Obvious the Streamer
`Separation Mode ....................................................................... 25
`
`ii. Workman Does Not Render Obvious the Feather Angle
`Mode ......................................................................................... 28
`
`C.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 18 and 19 Are Not Anticipated by Hedberg ................... 34
`
`i.
`
`Hedberg Does Not Disclose The Claimed Invention ............... 34
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`ii.
`
`Hedberg Lacks a Streamer Separation Mode ........................... 35
`
`iii. Hedberg Lacks a Feather Angle Mode ..................................... 38
`
`D.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 18 and 19 Are Not Obvious In View Of Hedberg. ......... 41
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Hedberg Does Not Render Obvious the Streamer
`Separation Mode ....................................................................... 41
`
`Hedberg Does Not Render Obvious the Feather Angle
`Mode ......................................................................................... 44
`
`V.
`
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ............... 47
`
`VI. THE PETITION IS TIME-BARRED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ............. 49
`
`A.
`
`ION is an Unnamed RPI ...................................................................... 49
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`ION’s Involvement with Petitioner ........................................... 51
`
`.............................................. 49
`
`iii.
`
`ION is an RPI Under the Guidelines ........................................ 53
`
`iv. Additional Discovery was Prejudicially Denied ....................... 56
`
`B. Multi Klient Invest AS is an RPI ........................................................ 57
`
`C.
`
`Service ................................................................................................. 58
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`THE ’520 PATENT CLAIMS PRECISION CONTROL OF
`STEERABLE SEISMIC ARRAYS
`The ’520 patent covers methods and apparatus for laterally steering a
`
`plurality of streamer positioning devices along an array of
`
`streamers using one or more of three different control
`
`modes. Although the need for control systems for
`
`streamer steering was known for years, no one in the
`
`industry had succeeded in developing the capability of
`
`streamer steering along the length of the streamer prior to
`
`the ’520 patent. This was due to the challenges in
`
`constructing a functioning system capable of controlling
`
`hundreds of positioning devices at once, as well as
`
`designing the devices themselves.
`
`Early streamer positioning involved rudimentary
`
`devices such as deflectors and tail buoys. (Ex. 1001, 3:43-45; Fig. 1 elements (16)
`
`and (20), respectively)1 Deflectors were attached to the front end of the streamer
`
`
`1 Although Figure 1 of the ’520 patent is captioned as “prior art,” one of ordinary
`
`skill would recognize that much of that figure was in fact not prior art, but
`
`instead constituted inventive contributions to the state of the art, such as the
`
`global control system, its functionality (e.g., predictive analysis, control modes,
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`and used to horizontally spread the end of the streamer nearest the seismic survey
`
`vessel. (Ex. 1001, 3:45-47.) The tail buoy created drag on the end of the streamer
`
`farthest from the seismic survey vessel. (Ex. 1001, 3:47-49.) The tension created
`
`on the seismic streamer because of the deflector and tail buoy resulted in a roughly
`
`linear shape of the streamer. (Ex. 1001, 3:49-52.) Tail buoys floated at the surface
`
`and could rely on GPS to determine their positions. Deflectors attached to the
`
`front of the array and created fixed spacing through tension at front of the system.
`
`No steering was provided for the miles of length along the streamer.
`
`Streamer positioning devices are generally spaced every 200 to 400 meters
`
`along the length of a streamer. (Ex. 1001, 3:56-58.) For a modest streamer array,
`
`this means hundreds of separate streamer positioning devices are deployed on a
`
`given array. Simultaneously controlling this multitude of independent positioning
`
`devices is no easy feat. While it is easy to set a target depth and little risk exists if
`
`that depth is overshot, lateral steering requires considerations of the dynamic
`
`movement of neighboring streamers and obstructions along miles of cable
`
`deployed in the ever-changing open-water environment of the deep seas. Unless
`
`
`streamer positioning device control, etc.), and the distributed processing control
`
`architecture. (Ex. 2042, ¶ 67.)
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`
`
`properly controlled, lateral steering can make streamer arrays more dangerous than
`
`no steering at all.
`
`To properly control the horizontal positions of streamer positioning devices,
`
`the control system needs to know where they are. As explained in the Background
`
`section of the ’520 patent, prior art seismic array controllers typically allow for the
`
`determinations of horizontal positions of the streamers only every 5 to 10 seconds.
`
`In addition, the streamers are subject to various currents and eddies that can vary
`
`along their length. These forces, along with forces introduced to the streamer by
`
`streamer positioning devices, will propagate along the streamer further
`
`complicating the dynamics of the streamers. And because complex data
`
`processing is often involved, there may be an additional 5-second delay between
`
`taking of the measurements and the determination of actual streamer positions.
`
`That means the information provided to the control system is not where the
`
`streamer positioning device currently is, but where the streamer positioning device
`
`was at some time in the past. Trying to steer such streamer arrays with prior art
`
`control systems is therefore even more difficult as, to a certain extent, they have to
`
`be steered blind. This problem was not solved—or even appreciated—by the prior
`
`art. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:47-52 (“the delay period and the relatively long cycle
`
`time between position measurements prevents this type of [prior art] control
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`
`
`system from rapidly and efficiently controlling the horizontal position of the
`
`bird”).)
`
`It is not enough merely to be able to impart a lateral force on a given
`
`streamer vis-à-vis each single device. Actual horizontal steering requires
`
`controlling the entire streamer spread, and that control can only work if it is based
`
`on the behavior of the entire array. For example, it was acknowledged in
`
`Petitioner’s principal reference, Workman, that:
`
`While the prior art discloses a series of discrete devices for locating
`and controlling the positions of streamer cables, it does not teach any
`method or system wherein these individual devices are unified into a
`single system for controlling the position and shape of the marine
`seismic streamer cables. (Ex. 1004, 2:32-37.)
`
`This statement by Workman shows that the goal of streamer steering on a
`
`global basis was long-known and, as discussed below, unmet by Workman itself.
`
`The ’520 patent solved the problems associated with prior art methodologies in
`
`several ways including use of global steering modes rather than simply setting
`
`threshold parameters for individual streamers.
`
`In particular, the inventors created a control system capable of using steering
`
`control modes—enabled by the proactive and behavior-predictive controls detailed
`
`in the specification—and taught three specific modes of operating the streamer
`
`spreads: feather angle mode, turn control mode, and streamer separation mode.
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`
`
`(Ex. 1001, 10:27-65.) “In the feather angle control mode, the global control
`
`system 22 attempts to keep each streamer in a straight line offset from the towing
`
`direction by a certain feather angle.” (Ex. 1001, 10:27-32.) It is key that the
`
`streamers are kept in a “straight line,” so that even when “current fluctuations …
`
`dramatically influence” the streamers as described earlier in the specification, the
`
`streamers maintain their shape in a straight line parallel relative to each other so as
`
`to maximize the 3D data quality.
`
`“The turn control mode is used when ending one pass and beginning another
`
`pass during a … line change.” (Ex. 1001, 10:38-53.) As the inventors recognized,
`
`“[b]y doing this, a tighter turn can be achieved and the turn time of the vessel and
`
`equipment can be substantially reduced.” (Ex. 1001, 10:44-50.)
`
`Streamer separation mode is a mode to control separation, or spacing,
`
`between streamers. For example, the specification discloses “regular horizontal
`
`spacing” of 100 meters in some configurations. (Ex. 1001, 3:35-40.) In some
`
`circumstances, e.g., extreme weather, streamer separation mode is meant to prevent
`
`streamer tangling and is characterized primarily by “the global control system
`
`attempt[ing] to maximize the distance between adjacent streamers.” (Ex. 1001,
`
`10:57-58.)
`
`The use of control modes involves configuring the control system to
`
`automatically achieve targeted goals despite variable environments. For example,
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`
`
`“[t]he global control system 22 preferably calculates the desired vertical and
`
`horizontal forces based on the behavior of each streamer and also takes into
`
`account the behavior of the complete streamer array.” (Ex. 1001, 4:54-57,
`
`emphasis added; see also Ex. 1001, 4:16-20, 4:34-40.) These modes, which are
`
`recited in each independent claim, are intimately tied to the disclosed global
`
`control system:
`
`•
`“[i]n the feather angle control mode, the global control system 22
`attempts to keep each streamer” in the desired orientation. (Ex. 1001, 10:29-
`32.)
`•
`In the turn control mode, “[t]he vessel navigation system will
`typically notify the global control system 22 when to start throwing the
`streamers 12 out, and when to start straightening the streamers.” (Ex. 1001,
`10:50-53.)
`•
`In the streamer separation control mode, “the global control system
`22 attempts to maximize the distance between adjacent streamers.” (Ex.
`1001, 10:57-59.)
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the Leahy-Smith
`
`America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), the Board
`
`interprets claims using the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`
`also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012). There is a “heavy presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and
`6
`
`
`

`

`
`
`customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002). However, the terms must be construed “in their ordinary usage as
`
`they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account
`
`whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded
`
`by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris,
`
`127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`A.
`Feather Angle Mode
`The Board stated that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “feather angle
`
`mode” is “a control mode that attempts to keep each streamer in a straight line
`
`offset from the towing direction by a certain feather angle.” (Paper 33 at 12.) The
`
`only difference between Patent Owner’s and the Board’s construction of the
`
`“feather angle mode” is “set and maintain” versus “keep.” The Board recognizes
`
`that a target feather angle must be input somehow into the control mode. Id.
`
`Patent owner’s proposed language merely incorporates this concept—a specific
`
`angle is set as part of the mode. Patent Owner is not asserting that the mode itself
`
`has to dynamically choose the angle, which appears to be a concern expressed by
`
`the Board. Id.
`
`The construction stated by the Board appears to incorporate the concept of
`
`setting the feather angle because keeping each streamer of the array of streamers in
`
`a straight line offset from the towing direction by a “certain feather angle” requires
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`
`
`lateral control and a specific selection/input (whether manually or through other
`
`means) of the angle into the global control system. On this basis, Patent Owner
`
`agrees with the Board’s construction.
`
`The construction should not encompass, as Petitioner appears to suggest
`
`(See, e.g., Pet. at 20-21, 36), that the random alignment of streamers due to weather
`
`or ocean conditions could comprise a “feather angle mode,” because no feather
`
`angle is set anywhere or otherwise targeted by the control system. Nor would such
`
`environmental happenstance meaningfully “keep” the streamers at a specified
`
`angle using “control.” Such an interpretation is improper as it would render
`
`meaningless the claimed requirement that the feather angle mode “control[s] the
`
`streamer positioning devices” (claim 1), and is a part of a “control system
`
`configured to use” the feather angle mode (claim 18). See, e.g., Lantech, Inc. v.
`
`Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 546 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (reversing a district court’s
`
`claim construction for reading out a limitation “clearly stated in the claims” and
`
`stating “[a]ll limitations in a claim must be considered meaningful”) (citation
`
`omitted). See also MPEP § 2143.03; In re Wilson, 57 C.C.P.A. 1029, 1032
`
`(C.C.P.A. 1970) (“All words in a claim must be considered in judging the
`
`patentability of that claim against the prior art”).
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`Streamer Separation Mode
`The broadest reasonable construction of the term “streamer separation
`
`mode” is “a control mode that attempts to set and maintain the spacing between
`
`adjacent streamers.” The Board’s preliminary construction—“a mode to control
`
`separation, or spacing, between streamers” (Paper 32 at 15)—is incomplete. While
`
`Patent Owner generally agrees that a streamer separation control mode is one that
`
`controls separation, or spacing, between streamers, the construction fails to define
`
`what it means to “control separation.”
`
`The specification of the ’520 patent confirms that, in all embodiments, the
`
`claimed streamer separation control mode seeks to control the separation between
`
`the streamers. (Ex. 2042, ¶¶ 81, 94.) For example, as correctly recognized by the
`
`Board, when operating in one disclosed embodiment of the streamer separation
`
`mode, “the outermost streamers are positioned as far from one another as possible,
`
`and the intermediate streamers [are] ‘regularly spaced between the[] outermost
`
`streamers.’” (Paper 32 at 14 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:61).) Each streamer positioning
`
`device is directed to a specific position, i.e., “to the midpoint position between its
`
`adjacent streamers.” (Ex. 1001, 10:53-65.) Thus, the streamer separation mode is
`
`precisely controlling, and therefore maintaining, this relative separation or spacing
`
`between streamer positioning devices on adjacent streamers of the streamer array.
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`
`
`The specification makes clear that “[t]he inventive control system utilizes . .
`
`. behavior-predictive model-based control logic to properly control the streamer
`
`positioning devices.” (Ex. 1001, 4:16-20.) This predictive analysis is used in all
`
`embodiments to ensure that when a control signal is sent to a streamer positioning
`
`device, it is based upon the likely position of the device in order to counteract the
`
`signal time delay problem identified in the ’520 patent. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:44-
`
`54.) Similarly, the control system “compensate[s] for … localized current
`
`fluctuations” (Ex. 1001, 4:14-17). When operating in the streamer separation
`
`mode, this type of behavior-predictive control is necessary for effective lateral
`
`control of streamers. (Ex. 2042, ¶¶ 56, 57, 81, 83, 94.) Accordingly, in all
`
`embodiments, the streamer separation mode is “a control mode that attempts to set
`
`and maintain the spacing between adjacent streamers.”
`
`III. PRIOR ART
`A. Workman
`Workman was considered during prosecution of the ’520 patent, and claims
`
`1 and 18 were found valid during the ION litigation in view of this reference.
`
`Thus, this very Office as well as an Article III court have found that Workman
`
`does not render the challenged claims unpatentable. This Board should not reach a
`
`contrary result. In re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(“When a party who has lost in a court proceeding challenging a patent, from
`
`which no additional appeal is possible, provokes a reexamination in the PTO, using
`10
`
`
`

`

`
`
`the same presentations and arguments, even with a more lenient standard of proof,
`
`the PTO ideally should not arrive at a different conclusion.”)
`
`In any event, Workman teaches away from the claimed invention. Workman
`
`is not concerned with accurate spacing and predictive positioning of streamers or
`
`streamer positioning devices. Rather, Workman focuses on reducing the noise
`
`caused by devices on seismic streamers (Ex. 1004, 1:63 – 2:9) and therefore
`
`reluctantly moves the devices only after certain “threshold parameters” are
`
`exceeded and only when the noise level does not exceed a certain limit. (Ex.
`
`1004, 3:58 – 4:8; Fig. 3.) Although one threshold parameter could be a minimum
`
`separation, Workman does not enforce any maximum separation, because it is
`
`primarily concerned with reducing noise rather than streamer spacing like the ’520
`
`patent. Moreover, Workman does not direct any streamer positioning device to a
`
`particular desired position or to any particular desired separation. Every time a
`
`streamer positioning device is controlled, it produces noise, which Workman’s
`
`entire strategy is to avoid. Workman therefore does not attempt to set and
`
`maintain the position of its streamer positioning devices like the ’520 patent, but
`
`waits until the streamers exceed their threshold parameters before even attempting
`
`any kind of a correction and will not do so if the noise level is too high. (Ex. 2042,
`
`¶¶ 98, 105, 190-197.)
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Specifically, Workman uses a “threshold parameter” to provide for a very
`
`limited amount of device control. However, Workman’s forces are limited to
`
`correcting for the violation of the “threshold”; not for achieving specific modes or
`
`configurations. If the threshold parameter (e.g., minimum allowable separations
`
`between streamer cables) is not exceeded, then the system restarts and no
`
`commands are sent to any devices in the system. (Ex. 1004, 3:63-65, Fig. 3.) In
`
`other words, the system disclosed by Workman does nothing in this scenario. (Ex.
`
`1004, 4:31-35.)
`
`If a threshold parameter is exceeded, a correction command will be sent to a
`
`device if (a) the towed streamer cable encounters an “at risk” situation, or (b)
`
`hydrophone noise level is sufficiently low. (Ex. 1004, 4:36-58, Fig. 3.) If the
`
`streamers are not “at risk,” and the hydrophone noise level exceeds the maximum
`
`allowable noise threshold, the system disclosed by Workman does nothing,
`
`despite a threshold parameter being exceeded. (Ex. 1004, 5:14-30, Fig. 3.) And
`
`even if a threshold were violated, Workman would merely apply forces to push
`
`streamers back within a threshold generally; there is no teaching of any particular
`
`target. In short, Workman prioritizes noise reduction over streamer control and
`
`therefore tries at all costs to not control the streamer positioning devices. Thus,
`
`aggressive, precise, or even approximate, streamer positioning is not disclosed by
`
`Workman and is in fact discouraged. (Ex. 2042, ¶¶ 98-105, 190-197.)
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Workman is also inapposite because it focuses on the location of streamers
`
`and sources, but not on the location of streamer positioning devices. There is no
`
`indication that the location sensors 15 are associated with the streamer positioning
`
`devices 14 in Workman.
`
`
`
`As shown in the excerpted image of Figure 1, above, label 13 represents the
`
`seismic cable, label 14 depicts Workman’s streamer positioning devices, and label
`
`15 represents location sensing devices. (Ex. 1004, 2:64 – 3:29.) The reference
`
`gives no indication that the location sensing devices 15 are associated with
`
`Workman’s streamer positioning devices, each of which are merely a few feet long
`
`and positioned along a cable measuring three to eight kilometers. (Ex. 1004, 1:20-
`
`24.) Indeed, Workman’s own description of Figure 1 confirms its approximate
`
`nature: “FIG. 1 shows a generalized schematic of a marine seismic survey
`
`system.” (Ex. 1004, 2:56-57.) (Ex. 2042, ¶ 145.)
`
`Dr. Evans also admitted this drawing was not to scale. (Ex. 2039 at 147:6-
`
`21 (“It can’t be drawn to scale. I assume it is a schematic, rather than being drawn
`
`to scale.”).) Dr. Evans’ analysis is the product of improper hindsight bias; he can
`
`only assume that the location sensing devices 15 are directly connected to
`
`Workman’s streamer positioning devices 14 in light of the ’520 patent’s disclosure.
`13
`
`
`

`

`
`
`The Board’s reliance on this figure as disclosing the co-location of streamer
`
`positioning devices and location sensing devices was in error, as even PGS’ expert
`
`concedes. See also Nystrom v. TREX Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(“Under the principles set forth in our prior cases, the speculative modeling
`
`premised on unstated assumptions in prior art patent drawings cannot be the basis
`
`for challenging the validity of claims reciting specific dimensions not disclosed
`
`directly in such prior art.”).
`
`Workman does not disclose or even address goal-oriented automatic
`
`configurations, i.e., “control modes,” or issues like signal latency or array
`
`behavior, which are necessary to enable the steering taught and claimed in the ‘520
`
`patent. In particular, Workman does not disclose any sort of behavior-predictive
`
`model of the system to determine where the streamer positioning devices will be
`
`when steering commands are sent. Instead, Workman’s control system only
`
`determines if a correction needs to be made after comparing “real time” positional
`
`data to minimum threshold parameters. (Ex. 1004, 3:46-62.) (Ex. 2042, ¶¶ 98-
`
`105, 190-197.)
`
`Adjusting the streamers only when threshold parameters are exceeded is
`
`insufficient to ensure active control of the shape of the spread, i.e., that all
`
`streamers maintain a common feather angle, or that they have a set and maintained
`
`spacing between streamers (i.e., a streamer separation mode) during the survey and
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`
`
`during turns. Further, there is no teaching in Workman of maintaining the
`
`streamers in any particular configuration. Nor does Workman disclose “modes”
`
`capable of targeting achievement of different configurations. However, this is
`
`precisely what Patent Owner invented and claimed in the ’520 patent as each of the
`
`modes involves some aspect of lateral control.
`
`B. Hedberg
`Hedberg was filed approximately 30 years prior to the ’520 patent and
`
`Workman, and bears little resemblance to the type of streamer steering at issue in
`
`the ’520 patent. Rather, Hedberg addresses technology that was old when Hedberg
`
`was filed, the use of “conventional paravanes.” (Ex. 1005, 6:20-26; Paper 32 at
`
`36.) The first of Hedberg’s three embodiments is shown in figures 1-3 with a
`
`spread 4 comprising a plurality of hydrophones 6 on cable 10. This is at most a
`
`single streamer, not an “array of streamers” as defined in the Institution Decision
`
`to mean “more than one streamer.” (Ex. 2042, ¶ 121.)
`
`The second embodiment is shown below in figure 6, modified to show the
`
`longitudinal spread 4 in red and the cross or transverse spread 80 in blue. The
`
`longitudinal spread 4 includes hydrophones 6 on cable 10. The transverse spread
`
`80 includes hydrophones 82 and is maintained in a perpendicular configuration
`
`relative to longitudinal spread 4 by paravanes 81a and 81c (misspelled as 18c in
`
`Figure 6).
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`To the extent these two cables comprise a “plurality of streamers”, they are fixed
`
`Figure 6 of Hedberg
`
`with regard to each other and inapposite to lateral steering. For example, there can
`
`be no “separation” between them because they intersect and there is no “feather
`
`angle” because spread 80 is perpendicular to the vessel path and cannot form a
`
`straight line offset. (Ex. 2042, ¶¶ 122-123.)
`
`Petitioner’s arguments focus primarily on the third embodiment shown
`
`below in figure 8.
`
`
`
`
`This embodiment shows “multiple spreads” arranged in “parallel lines.” (Ex.
`
`Figure 8 of Hedberg
`
`1005, Fig. 8, 6:10-19.) This embodiment discloses only a single positioning
`
`16
`
`
`

`

`
`
`device on each of the two outer streamers—paravanes 81a and 81c. This
`
`embodiment does not disclose “an array of streamers each having a plurality of
`
`streamer positioning devices there along” each streamer as recited in Claims 1 and
`
`18. The center streamer, 4a, has no streamer positioning devices at all. And it
`
`shows that Hedberg refers to unsteered cables as assuming “parallel lines,” i.e.,
`
`that his discussion of “parallel” is only in a gross sense and in terms of a paper
`
`drawing of a potential configuration assuming ideal water conditions—not precise
`
`positioning under actual in-sea conditions. Because Hedberg teaches that these
`
`cables will be at least 1/4-1/2 miles apart, gross parallelism is all that is desired and
`
`at most what is enabled. There is no teaching in Hedberg of controlling the
`
`streamers’ respective positions, or even a desire to do so. (Ex. 2042, ¶¶ 124-128.)
`
`Figure 9 of Hedberg separately depicts a conventional spread of
`
`hydrophones “subject to error due to the set and drift or displacement of the spread
`
`by marine currents at the successive times when shots or impulses are generated
`
`for recording purposes.” (Ex. 1005, 6:31-33.) Hedberg alleges that these errors,
`
`which are due to deviations of the paravanes, can be overcome through the use a
`
`single cable with multiple paravanes, as shown below in figures 10-12. (See also
`
`Ex. 1005, 6:31-33.)
`
`17
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Figures 10-12 of Hedberg
`
`
`
`However, as shown in figure 13, the system used to control the paravanes
`
`features a radar control responding to signals reflected by a radar reflector. (Ex.
`
`1005, figure 13 and 6:47-52.) Use of a radar control means in order to control the
`
`paravanes would require surface connections because the radar must be out of the
`
`water, creating significant drag, and therefore would be unworkable for any
`
`significant degree of control, and particularly the control modes recited in the
`
`challenged claims. (Ex. 2042, ¶ 127.)
`
`Hedberg does not disclose any “control modes” for maintaining the cables in
`
`parallel positions to each other once surveying has begun. Gross parallelism, as
`
`shown by the embodiment in figure 8, is not the same as keeping multiple
`
`streamers in precise relationships. There is no discussion in Hedberg of relative
`
`steering, keeping any streamer, let alone more than one streamer, at a set feather
`
`angle, or controlling a target separation or spacing in Hedberg between adjacent
`
`streamers. (Ex. 1005, 6:10-20.) Hedberg fails to disclose a feather angle mode or
`
`18
`
`
`

`

`
`
`streamer separation mode even under the definitions of those terms as set forth in
`
`the Institution Decision.
`
`IV. THE ’520 PATENT IS NOT ANTICIPATED OR OBVIOUS
`A. Claim 1 and 18 Are Not Anticipated By Workman
`i. Workman does not disclose each and every limitation of
`claims 1 or 18
`Workman does not disclose a control system configured to operate in control
`
`modes, let alone a streamer separation mode or a feather angle mode.2 Workman is
`
`concerned with noise minimization rather than generating noise through actively
`
`controlling streamer positioning devices. Workman in fact does nothing unless
`
`and until a threshold is violated, and even then only pushes the system back within
`
`that threshold—no position is specified nor maintained. Workman does not
`
`anticipate claims 1 and 18.
`
`ii. Workman Does Not Disclose a Control System Configured
`to Operate in One or More Control Modes as Recited in
`Claims 1 and 18
`The ’520 patent claims a control system “configured to use a control mode.”
`
`As used in the ’520 patent, a “control mode” refers to a goal-oriented automated
`
`
`2 Petitioner has not argued that Workman or Hedberg discloses a turn control
`
`mode, and the Board declined institution on those references that Petitioner
`
`argued disclosed such a mode. Indeed, neither references discloses how to
`
`control the array of streamers during a turn. (Ex. 2042, ¶ 188, n. 7.)
`
`19
`
`
`

`

`
`
`configuration. (Ex. 2042, ¶¶ 190-191.) For example, the “feather angle mode”
`
`automatically steers the streamer positioning devices to achieve and maintain a
`
`certain feather angle; the “turn control mode” automatically steers the streamer
`
`positioning devices to result in a more efficient turn, and the “streamer separation
`
`mode” automatically steers the streamer positioning devices to set and maintain
`
`desired separations. Workman does not disclose any modes. Instead, Workman
`
`teaches a single, static loop using manually input threshold parameters, as shown
`
`in figure 3. (Ex. 1004, figure 3.) No control mode is disclosed nor is there any
`
`teaching of a control system configured to use modes. Workman, based on manual
`
`inputs rather than control modes, does not anticipate claim 1 or 18
`
`iii. Workman Does Not Disclose a Control Mode Selected from
`a Feather Angle Mode, a Turn Control Mode, and a
`Streamer Separation Mode
`Claims 1 and 18 require at least one of three recited modes. Petitioner does
`
`not argue that Workman discloses a “feather angle mode” or a “turn control
`
`mode.” (Petition at 9-11; 28-38.) Petitioner argues only that Workman discloses
`
`the “streamer separation mode,” but Petitioner is demonstrably wrong.
`
`Accordingly, Workman cannot anticipate claims 1 or 18.
`
`Workman does not disclose streamer spacing. Workman only repositions
`
`streamers in limited “at risk” situations