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 7,293,520 B2
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JACK H. COLE, PhD.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 3
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................... 4
`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 ............................................................................. 21
`A. The Specification of the ’520 Patent ............................................................. 21
`B. The Time Frame of the ’520 Patent ............................................................... 24
`C. Claims 1, 2, 6, 18, 19, and 23 of the ’520 Patent .......................................... 25
`D. Relevant Claim Terms and Their Construction ............................................. 26
`1. “Control system” ........................................................................................ 27
`2. “Mode” ....................................................................................................... 28
`VIII. THE ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS ......................... 28
`A. Control Systems for Use in Marine Seismic Surveys Were Disclosed in the
`1960s ..................................................................................................................... 28
`B. Control Systems Became More Automated in the 1970s and 1980s with
`Advances in Computer Control Systems ............................................................. 31
`C. Control Systems Continued to Progress in the 1980s and 1990s .................. 36
`D. State of Control Systems Art at the Priority Date ......................................... 43
`IX. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 47
`
`
`
`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. 7,293,520 B2 (“the ’520 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 ’520 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
`
`

`
`
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`4.
`I am a Design and Controls Engineer. I am currently the President of
`
`my own independent research company and a member of the graduate faculty at
`
`the University of Arkansas. I have worked continuously in the field of control
`
`systems design for over 45 years, since 1963, and seismic survey methods,
`
`including marine seismic surveys, for over 31 years, since 1982. I have extensive
`
`research and development experience in academic, national laboratory, and
`
`industrial environments.
`
`5.
`
`I have obtained the following degrees from Oklahoma State
`
`University: a bachelor’s of science in Mechanical Engineering (with a Petroleum
`
`Option) in 1958; a Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, with a Fluid Power
`
`Control Specialty in 1963; and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering with a Control
`
`Systems emphasis in 1968.
`
`6.
`
`I worked for various companies between the time that I graduated
`
`from college and the time I completed my Ph.D. program. From 1959 to 1963, I
`
`worked for American Airlines as a design engineer. From 1963 to 1964, I worked
`
`at General Dynamics, where my responsibilities included working on hydraulic
`
`flight-control systems, including wing sweep actuation. From 1964 to 1968, I
`
`worked in advanced engineering for Rockwell Corporation.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`7.
`
`After completing my Ph.D. program in 1968, I became a Professor of
`
`Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arkansas. My research and teaching
`
`focused on control systems. Courses I taught include: Systems Dynamics I and II,
`
`Control Theory, Fluid Power Control, Fluid Mechanics, Fluid Logic, Dynamic
`
`Systems, Machine Element Design, Design Stress Analysis, and Kinematics. I
`
`introduced five new elective courses that supported the establishment of a Fluid
`
`Power Design and Controls Education Research program. In addition, I developed
`
`an Interdepartmental Design and Controls Program that enabled Mechanical
`
`Engineering students to specialize in design and controls at the Ph.D. level by
`
`taking courses in the Electrical Engineering Department and the Engineering
`
`Science Department. I also established a robotics laboratory and helped obtain a
`
`micro-computer development system for use in embedded controls projects. I
`
`included several Master’s students in my funded research, one of whom conducted
`
`a computer-aided analysis of the hydrodynamic drag forces on various turbine flow
`
`meter blade (hydrofoil) shapes.
`
`8.
`
`During my time at the University of Arkansas, I spent most of my
`
`summers as a Visiting Scientist at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and
`
`Argonne National Laboratory working on advanced instrument design for
`
`experimental nuclear reactors. In 1975, I took a 15 month leave of absence to
`
`serve as a Branch Manager for the INL’s prime contractor’s Reactor Instrument
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Systems Division, leading the Electronics Branch, which consisted of 29 electrical
`
`engineers, mechanical engineers, and physicists. Our projects included intelligent
`
`instruments with embedded microprocessors, high-speed data acquisition systems,
`
`and custom sensors for measuring multiple-phased fluid flow. In addition to the
`
`various types of flow sensing devices, I have a thorough understanding of all
`
`hydraulic machinery, whether hydrostatic or hydrodynamic.
`
`9. My experience in seismic surveying began in 1982, when I left the
`
`University of Arkansas and began working for Conoco, Inc. in Ponca City,
`
`Oklahoma. Conoco had invented and developed the VIBROSEIS™ method of
`
`seismic surveying for use on land and in marine environments. As Director of the
`
`Systems Research and Engineering (SRE) Group in the Exploration R&D
`
`Division, I lead a team of fourteen electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, and
`
`technicians in the successful continued development of VIBROSEIS™ seismic
`
`technology and other technologies supporting exploration geophysics. I was
`
`responsible for the maintenance and operation of thirty large field vehicles, marine
`
`vibrator systems, three research laboratories, a well-equipped precision machine
`
`shop, two high truck bays, and field experiments at Conoco’s 160-acre test site.
`
`While at Conoco, I was named as an inventor or coinventor on twenty-six U.S.
`
`Patents.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`10. While at Conoco, I supervised the construction of a custom water-
`
`filled marine vibrator testing pit at Conoco’s Test Site, where the vibrators, power
`
`supplies and control systems were thoroughly tested. In 1985, I supervised a
`
`year’s long project to refurbish and update several of Conoco’s marine vibrator
`
`systems for use in a joint industry 500 mile marine seismic survey in the Gulf of
`
`Mexico. A marine vibrator seismic survey is similar to the marine seismic surveys
`
`that use one or more air-gun arrays as the seismic source. As part of this project, I
`
`helped design the control systems that would be used for the survey. These control
`
`systems, like many of those addressed in this report, were control systems that
`
`distributed or shared responsibilities between a local control system in the vibrator
`
`and a global control system on the tow vessel. The local and global control
`
`systems operated and communicated with each other using state of the art
`
`electronics and communications technology that I helped design and implement.
`
`11. Subsequent to this marine vibrator seismic survey, I served as
`
`Conoco’s engineering representative to observe the testing of a prototype marine
`
`vibrator in the Gulf of Mexico. After that, the SRE group, under my direction,
`
`designed and built custom control electronics and a data acquisition system to
`
`support an extensive ocean bathymetry survey in the waters offshore Florida. In
`
`order to test that system, I went on board a marine seismic survey vessel while it
`
`was conducting a survey. The SRE group was highly commended because of the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`quality performance of the equipment and the high value of the ocean bottom data
`
`obtained.
`
`12. Near the end of 1994, when Conoco ceased its internal development
`
`of seismic exploration field technology, I persuaded Conoco to transfer
`
`development to the University of Arkansas, with Conoco providing initial funding
`
`and donating research equipment for that effort. I left Conoco in 1994 and returned
`
`to my position as a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of
`
`Arkansas. At the University, I resumed my teaching and research into control
`
`systems and design. In addition to my normal teaching, I taught senior capstone
`
`design courses, in which students work in teams to design, build, and test
`
`prototypes with real-world applications. I served as theses advisor for five
`
`Master’s students. I also received around $400,000 in sponsored research funding
`
`from Conoco, Inc. and the Idaho National Laboratory for the development of
`
`advanced instrument systems for subsurface diagnostics and imaging. Shortly after
`
`returning to the University of Arkansas, I began working with the Geosciences
`
`Department with the intent of helping that department develop its large outdoor
`
`experimental watershed research facility into a world class subsurface diagnostics
`
`and imaging facility.
`
`13.
`
`In 2001, while I was still a Professor at the University of Arkansas, I
`
`co-founded Cal-Zark, LLC in Farmington, Arkansas where I was the Director of
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`Advanced Research and Development. Cal-Zark was established to develop and
`
`manufacture high-performance vehicles using advanced computer design tools. In
`
`this role, I studied autonomous and robotic vehicle concepts and provided general
`
`design and analysis input. I left Cal-Zark in 2006.
`
`14.
`
`I am currently the president of Cole Engineering, Inc., which I
`
`founded in 1999 while still a Professor at the University of Arkansas. Cole
`
`Engineering engages in independent research and engineering support services,
`
`particularly focusing on developing new tools for subsurface imaging. During
`
`2006 and 2007, I designed an advanced suspension system for use on military
`
`vehicles that used a proprietary hydraulic actuator that was controlled by complex
`
`computer electronics.
`
`15.
`
`I am a member of several professional organizations related to control
`
`systems and the seismic survey industry. I have been a member of the Society of
`
`Exploration Geophysicists (“SEG”)—the principal society to which essentially all
`
`practitioners in the field of seismic surveying belong—since the early 1980s. I am
`
`a lifetime member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the
`
`Society of Automotive Engineers. I have also been a member of the Society of
`
`Petroleum Engineers since 2000 and the Arkansas Academy of Mechanical
`
`Engineers since 1995.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`16.
`
`I have been the listed inventor or co-inventor on thirty U.S. patents
`
`over my career, including patents relating to advanced seismic survey methods. I
`
`have also written numerous articles and given multiple presentations relating to
`
`advanced seismic survey methods and control systems.
`
`17.
`
`In recognition of my work as a Professor at the University of
`
`Arkansas, I was awarded the Arkansas Blue Key Award for Outstanding Teaching
`
`and Research in 1976. For the 2009-10 academic year, I received the College of
`
`Engineering Award for Outstanding Service to Mechanical Engineering Students
`
`in recognition of my volunteer work in re-establishing the SAE Baja international
`
`student competition program and teaching vehicle dynamics to the participants.
`
`III.
`18.
`
`COMPENSATION AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE PARTIES
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of three hundred and twenty-five
`
`dollars ($325) per hour for the time I spend on this matter. This is my normal
`
`consulting rate, and my compensation is not dependent on the outcome of this Inter
`
`Partes Review.
`
`19.
`
`It is my understanding that WesternGeco L.L.C. (“WesternGeco”), is
`
`the assignee of the ‘520 Patent. I have not been employed by WesternGeco or
`
`PGS prior to this Inter Partes Review, and as far as I am aware, I do not have any
`
`financial interest in those companies.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`20.
`
`I have been informed of certain legal principles that help form my
`
`opinions. But I am not an attorney and do not anticipate offering legal opinions in
`
`this proceeding.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`21.
`I understand that for purposes of this Inter Partes Review the terms
`
`in the claims of the ’520 Patent are to be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification of the ’520 Patent, as understood by one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of that patent.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`22.
`
`I have been informed that the prior art and validity are assessed
`
`from the perspective of a POSA. I understand that a POSA is a hypothetical
`
`person who is presumed to have known all of the relevant art at the time of the
`
`invention. I have been informed that a POSA may possess the education, skills,
`
`and experience of multiple actual people who would work together as a team to
`
`solve a problem in the field. I have been informed that factors that may be
`
`considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (1) the
`
`educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3)
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made;
`
`(5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in
`
`the field.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`23. Based on my decades of experience solving problems in the field
`
`of marine seismic surveying, it is my experience that the teams tasked with
`
`addressing and solving those problems typically include at least one member who
`
`has training and experience in the area of control systems. Such an individual
`
`would have knowledge of how prior art solutions were implemented from a control
`
`systems perspective and would have at least several years of experience in
`
`designing and implementing control systems in the context of marine seismic
`
`surveying.
`
`24. I have read the definition of a POSA set forth in the Declaration of
`
`Dr. Brian Evans, which I understand is also being submitted in support of the PGS
`
`Petition. I will apply that definition for purposes of my declaration.
`
`V. SUMMARY OF OPINION
`25.
` It is my understanding that PGS (or “Petitioner”) requests Inter
`
`Partes review of Claims 1, 2, 6, 18, 19, and 23 of the ’520 Patent. I have been
`
`informed that, as part of the Inter Partes review, a validity analysis is performed as
`
`of the time the invention was made, and that the ’520 Patent claims priority to an
`
`application filed on October 1, 1998. I have been asked whether or not, in my
`
`opinion, a POSA would have been able to implement what is recited in Claims 1,
`
`2, 6, 18, 19, and 23 of the ’520 Patent relating to control systems as of October 1,
`
`1998, without making any reference to the teachings in the ’520 Patent. It is my
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`opinion that a POSA would have been able to implement Claims 1, 2, 6, 18, 19,
`
`and 23’s function of having a “control system configured to operate” in certain
`
`streamer-steering control modes with ease at the time of the priority date (or more
`
`than a year before the priority date).1
`
`26. To be clear, I have not been asked to form an opinion as to whether
`
`Claims 1, 2, 6, 18, 19, and 23of the ’520 Patent are anticipated and/or rendered
`
`obvious by the prior art (I understand that those issues are addressed in Dr. Evans’
`
`declaration). Rather, I have been asked to address certain issues relating to control
`
`systems, including whether a POSA would have been able to practice the claims at
`
`issue.
`
`VI.
`TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`A. Overview of Marine Seismic Surveying
`27. The ’520 Patent is directed to marine seismic surveying technology.
`
`In seismic surveys, reflected sound waves are used to determine geological
`
`properties of the earth’s subsurface. Marine seismic survey ships (or vessels) have
`
`equipment that emits acoustic sound waves which travel through the water and the
`
`ocean floor and reflect off formations in the ocean’s subsurface. In a towed-
`
`1 My opinion that a POSA would have been able to implement these claims would
`
`not change even if an earlier priority date were applied, including what I
`
`understand to be the critical date of Sept. 28, 1998.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`streamer marine survey, the reflected sound waves are then detected by receivers
`
`that are towed by the survey ship. Receivers with built-in computer intelligence
`
`and memory can temporarily store several seconds of detected data for subsequent
`
`transmission to the survey ship’s data acquisition system. Because the properties
`
`of the recorded sound waves differ depending on the geology of the ocean’s
`
`subsurface, geologists can process the received sound wave data to ascertain
`
`geologic characteristics of the ocean’s subsurface, including physical data about
`
`the existence of oil and gas. Consequently, marine seismic surveying is often used
`
`in offshore oil and gas exploration.
`
`28.
`
`In marine seismic survey systems, marine seismic streamers
`
`(“streamers”) are kilometers-long cables that are towed behind survey ships in
`
`arrays. Generally, the streamer arrays include a plurality of streamers that are
`
`spread out horizontally. The survey ship also tows an acoustic source, such as an
`
`air gun array, which is used to generate, or “shoot,” an acoustic signal (a very loud
`
`noise underwater) directed towards the ocean floor. Seismic sensors, typically
`
`hydrophones and/or geophones, placed along the length of each streamer at pre-
`
`determined intervals detect and sometimes record the reflected acoustic signals.
`
`When conducting surveys, survey vessels towing the streamer array travel at
`
`relatively slow speeds, around five nautical miles per hour, and the air gun
`
`generates acoustic signals at a set interval, such as every ten seconds. The data
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`collected from the recorded acoustic signals can be used to create three-
`
`dimensional maps of the subsurface of the ocean floor, which are used to facilitate
`
`natural resource exploration and management. Below is a graphical depiction of a
`
`modern marine-seismic survey in simplified form:
`
`
`
`This figure depicts a survey vessel towing an array of streamers. The array
`
`contains four streamers—and hydrophones are placed along the lengths of each
`
`streamer to detect seismic data—and an air gun array (the acoustic source).
`
`Marine seismic surveys initially used only one streamer at one time. A single
`
`streamer survey results in a two-dimensional vertical seismic cross section that
`
`does not include out-of-plane information. Beginning in the mid-1980s, marine
`
`seismic vessels began towing arrays of multiple streamers. Towing an array with
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`multiple streamers allows marine seismic survey vessels to survey larger areas
`
`during a single pass, which shortens the overall time of the survey.
`
`29. After the seismic data are detected and briefly recorded by the
`
`hydrophones, those data are sent back to the survey vessel via a communications
`
`line that may be comprised of twisted pair cables or, in more modern systems,
`
`fiber-optic cables. Marine 3-D seismic surveys produce a substantial amount of
`
`seismic data, and those data are stored on the survey vessel either on a computer or
`
`other storage device, such as magnetic disks or tape. The data subsequently are
`
`processed to create a three-dimensional image of the ocean’s sub-surface.
`
`B. Streamer Steering Overview
`30. The ’520 Patent is directed to systems that can control the positions of
`
`streamers. Due to environmental factors such as sea currents, seismic streamers
`
`deviate from their desired path and shape. The ’520 Patent asserts that without the
`
`ability to control the streamers, deviations from desired streamer positions can
`
`create gaps in the seismic data coverage and reduce the efficiency of seismic
`
`survey operations. See Ex. 1001 at 1:47-2:8. For purposes of this report, I have
`
`been asked to assume that it is desirable to have the ability to control the positions
`
`of streamers. I have only been asked to determine, assuming it was desirable to
`
`have a system that can control the positions of streamers, whether or not a POSA
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`would have been able to implement what is recited in Claims 1, 2, 6, 18, 19 and 23
`
`of the ’520 Patent relating to control systems at the time of the priority date.
`
`31. Marine seismic surveyors and marine seismic surveyor equipment
`
`providers have developed streamer positioning devices to control the streamers’
`
`positions. Streamer positioning devices are usually attached to the streamer or
`
`between streamer sections, and they have at least one surface that deflects water,
`
`which can change the streamer’s depth and/or horizontal position. Examples of
`
`these deflecting surfaces include a wing, a fin, and a rudder.
`
`C. Control Systems Overview
`32. Control systems capable of controlling the seismic streamer array with
`
`streamer positioning devices have also been long known in the art. A control
`
`system is “an interconnection of components forming a system configuration that
`
`will provide a desired system response.” Ex. 1021 (Richard C. Dorf & Robert H.
`
`Bishop, Modern Control Systems (8th ed. 1998)) (“Dorf & Bishop”) at 2. In other
`
`words, control systems receive inputs and process them to create outputs. Id.
`
`33. Control systems are divided into two types: open-loop and closed-
`
`loop control systems. An open-loop control system “utilizes an actuating device to
`
`control the process directly without using feedback.” Ex. 1021 at 2. Using a light
`
`switch to turn on a light is an example of an open-loop control system. A closed-
`
`loop control system “uses a measurement of the output and feedback of this
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`[measurement] to compare it with the desired input.” Id. at 3. This type of control
`
`system “tends to maintain a prescribed relationship of one system variable to
`
`another.” Id. An example of a system that uses this feedback loop is a thermostat.
`
`The first known applications of closed-loop control systems were in Greece over
`
`2000 years ago. Id. at 4.
`
`34.
`
` Control systems can be operated either manually or automatically.
`
`Manual control systems are control systems where a human is the control device.
`
`An example of a manually-controlled closed-loop system is a human driving an
`
`automobile. Ex. 1021 (Dorf & Bishop) at 9. The driver is the control device and
`
`attempts to implement the desired output response (the desired direction of travel)
`
`by the steering mechanism to produce the actual course of travel. Id. at 9-10. The
`
`feedback process occurs when the driver compares the actual course of travel with
`
`the desired course through visual feedback—i.e., observing where the car is
`
`located. Id. The process then begins again, with the driver attempting to achieve
`
`the desired course of travel. Id.
`
`35. Automated control systems can operate without human interference
`
`and generally “are capable of performing their functions with greater accuracy and
`
`precision, and in less time, than humans are able to do.” Ex. 1021 at 11. Control
`
`systems can also be “semiautomated,” which involves some level of cooperation
`
`between the human operator and a computer. Id.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`36. Control systems also differ in the means by which they operate.
`
`Control systems encompass mechanical, electronic, and computer control.
`
`Mechanical control is the control of a product, process, or system by forces and
`
`movement, an example of which is a flywheel governor. Electronic control is the
`
`control of a product, process, or system by electronic circuitry, such as air-
`
`conditioning controls. Computer control, a subset of electronic control, is a
`
`general term applied to the control of processes, instruments, and other activities
`
`by some form of software-programmed computer central processor (CPU). By
`
`1998, control systems that involved embedded microprocessors and highly
`
`integrated functions were widespread.
`
`37. Some form of a control system is a prerequisite to any streamer
`
`steering system. The control system can be as simple as having a streamer
`
`positioning device with a depth regulator, which maintains the device’s constant
`
`predetermined depth based on pressure sensing without communication means to
`
`the tow vessel. By adding a two-way communication means between the
`
`positioning device and the vessel, and at least two selectable predetermined depth
`
`options within the device’s local control system, a human operator can remotely
`
`change the predetermined depth, which is another example of a control system. A
`
`control system could also encompass automatic control systems, which maintain
`
`the positions of the devices automatically. In any event, a control system must be
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`
`in place in order to be able to insert inputs (desired positions) and produce an
`
`output (actual positions).
`
`38. Control systems can also be configured to operate in different modes.
`
`Operators of control systems have long been able to use pre-set modes to dictate
`
`how a control system is to operate. See, e.g., Ex. 1026 (U.S. Patent No. 4,671,235)
`
`(“Hosaka”) at 2:30-33, 8:3-7 (a 1987 patent disclosing a “throttle valve control
`
`system” with “preset operation modes,” including an economy, normal, and power
`
`mode); Ex. 1027 (U.S. Patent No. 4,408,292) (“Nakatani”) at 1:59-2:7 (a 1983
`
`patent disclosing a “print control system” that could be configured to operate in
`
`two different preset modes for use in a cash register); Ex. 1028 (Louis Whitcomb
`
`et al., Towards Precision Robotic Maneuvering Survey, and Manipulation in
`
`Unstructured Undersea Environments, Robotics Research – The Eighth
`
`International Symposium (1998)) at 5-6 (stating that “multi-mode” underwater
`
`“vehicle navigation and control system[s]” that could be configured to operate in
`
`five control modes were in existence). For example, Kenneth M. Sobel and Eliezer
`
`Y. Shapiro described a “multimode flight control system” with six modes so that
`
`aircraft performance could be tailored to match the desired characteristics of a
`
`specific task or mission. Ex. 1029 (Kenneth M. Sobel & Eliezer Y. Shapiro,
`
`Eigenstructure Assignment for Design of Multimode Flight Control Systems, 5
`
`Control Systems Mag. 9 (1985)) at 9, 14. Another example is a seismic source,
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`
`
`similar to the VIBROSEIS™ system I worked on, which operated in numerous
`
`modes, including modes whereby the system emits different frequencies. See Ex.
`
`1030 (U.S. Patent No. 4,885,726) (“Myers”) at 5:31-59. It was also well known in
`
`the marine seismic survey field since the 1960s that operations of survey ships
`
`generally demanded control systems with modes for dynamic positioning, stability,
`
`and maneuvering.
`
`39. Operators have long recognized the desirability of implementing pre-
`
`configured control modes in their control systems in order to ensure that the
`
`control system operates as intended in the field and because modes enhance ease of
`
`use and accuracy of control systems in the field. To increase efficiency, operators
`
`prefer to create a pre-configured mode for any function that is likely to arise with
`
`some frequency, even if rare. Configuring a control system to operate in different
`
`modes has been long known and practiced in the art and required minimal effort to
`
`implement at the time of the priority date.
`
`VII.
`THE PATENT AT ISSUE
`A. The Specification of the ’520 Patent
`40. The ’520 Patent is directed to a control system for controlling the
`
`positions of streamers using streamer positioning devices. Ex. 1001. After
`
`discussing the reasons why controlling the positions of streamers is desirable, the
`
`’520 Patent discusses two control systems used to control streamers in the prior art.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`
`
`The first system was disclosed in a UK Patent and “utilize[d] a manually-operated
`
`central control system to transmit the magnitudes and directions of any required
`
`wing angle changes to the birds.” Id. at 2:26-30. The ’520 Patent stated that this
`
`system was inferior because “it is virtually impossible for this type of system to
`
`closely regulate the . . . positions of the birds because it requires manual input and
`
`supervision.” Id. at 2:32-34.
`
`41. The second control system identified in the specification was
`
`disclosed in PCT Application No. WO 98/28636 (“the ’636 PCT”) (Ex. 1006). In
`
`that system, “the desired . . . positions and the actual . . . positions are received
`
`from a remote control system and are then used by a local control system within
`
`the birds to adjust the wing angles.” Ex. 1001 (’520 Patent) at 2:39-44. The ’520
`
`Patent asserted that this system was inferior because it has a “5 second delay
`
`between the taking of measurements and the determination of actual streamer
`
`positions.” Id. at 2:45-47. So, according to the ’520 Patent, “[w]hile this type of
`
`system allows for more automatic adjustment of the bird angles, the delay period . .
`
`. prevents this type of control system from rapidly and efficiently controlling the
`
`horizontal positions of the bird.” Id. at 2:47-53. In fact, as will be discussed
`
`below, none of the claims at issue in the Inter Partes Review of the ’520 Patent is
`
`related to fixing the delay period.
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`
`
`42. The ’520 Patent discloses a system that controls the positions of
`
`streamers. The ’520 Patent first recognizes that the need for efficient and accurate
`
`streamer-steering control systems became more acute over time because “[t]he
`
`trend in the industry is to put more streamers on each seismic survey vessel and to
`
`decrease the horizontal separation between them.” Ex. 1001 at 4:7-10. That trend
`
`began in the mid-1980s and has continued through to this day. See ¶ 28, supra.
`
`The “preferred embodiment” of the ’520 Patent’s system is described as follows: