Trials
`
`,us to. 0V
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Entered: March '17, 2015
`
`Paper 18
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PETROLEUM GEO—SERVICES INC—.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-01478
`
`Patent 7,293,520 B2
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, BEVERLY M. BUNTING,
`and BARBARA A. PARVIS, A drninistrative Parent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`
`Institution of In fer Partes Review
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 1
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01475
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 1
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01478
`
`Patent 7,293,520 B2
`
`A, Background
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petroleum Geo—Services (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to institute an
`
`inter partes review of claims 1-3, 5-20, and 2234 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,293,520 B2 (“the ’520 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet”). WesternGeco LLC
`
`(“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 11 (“Prelim
`
`Respf’).
`
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`
`review under 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of
`
`the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has
`
`established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on certain claims
`
`challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review
`
`for claims 1, 5, 13-17, 20, 22, and 30-34 and of the ’520 patent.
`
`B. Additional Proceedings
`
`Petitioner states that related lawsuits involving the “.520 patent
`
`presently asserted against Petitioner are:
`
`1. WesternGeco LLC v. Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. et al., 4: 13—cv—
`03037, (the “PGS lawsuit”) (S.D. Tex.);
`2. WestemGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. et al., 4:09-cv-01827
`(the “ION lawsuit”), (S.D. Tex); and
`3. WestemGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp, 13-1527 (Fed. Cir.).
`
`Pet. 1-2. Patent Owner identifies proceedings in Paper 7, 1-2.
`
`Petitioner previously filed Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. v.
`
`WesternGeco LLC, IPR2014-00689, (“the first PGS IPR”) upon which we
`
`instituted an interpartes review of claims 1, 2, 18, and 19 of the ’520 patent.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 6, 18, 19, and 23 of the ’520 patent are also challenged in ION
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 2
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PFl2014-01475
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 2
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01478
`
`Patent 7,293,530 B2
`
`Ge0pI2_1-'.s‘iCa/ Carpal-'(z£i'cm and ION ln!er:-7crI'fr)i7a/ S. (I. I’. 1.,
`
`1’.
`
`l/Vesrr.=i'nGec0
`
`LLC, IPR20l5—00S65 ("the [ON IPR“). '
`
`Petitioner also has concurrently filed three additional petitions
`
`challenging the patentability of claims '1 6-23 of U.S. Patent No. 7,080,607
`
`B2 (“the '60? pate11t”_); claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 7,162,967 B2 (“the '‘967
`
`patent") ; and claims 14, [0, 20-2] , 26-29, 35, 39, and 45—47 ofU.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,691,038 B2 (“the ‘O38 patent")? See IPRBUI4-01475;
`
`I'PR’-2014-01476; IPR2014-01477.
`
`C.
`
`The ‘"520 Parent
`
`The ‘520 patent (Ex. 1001'), titled “CONTROL SYSTEM F OR
`
`POSITIONING OF A MARINE SEISMIC STREAMERS," generally
`
`relates to a system for improving marine seismic survey techniques by more
`
`effectively controlling the movement and positioning of marine seismic
`
`streamers towed in an array behind a boat. Ex. 100 I
`
`_, col. 1, II. 24—36. As
`
`illustrated in Figure 1 of the ‘S20 patent, reproduced below, labeled Prior
`
`Art, a seismic source, for example, air gun I4, is towed by boat 10
`
`producing acoustic signals, which are reflected offthe earth below. Id. at
`
`col. 1, 11. 36—41. The reflected signals are received by liydrophones (no
`
`' ION filed a pending Motion for Joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 3 l 5(c) and
`37 C.F.R. §42.122(b) (Paper 4') tojoin IPR2015-00565 with the first PGS
`IPR, IPR2014-00689.
`2 The ‘S20, ’607, and ""967 patents each issued as continuations of
`Application No. 09/787,723, filed July 2, 2001, now US. Patent No.
`6.932.017. which was in turn a 35 U.S.C. § 371 national stage filing from
`Patent Cooperation Treaty application number PCT/IB99/01590, filed
`September 28, 1999, claiming foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 1 19 from
`Great Britain patent application number 982127"/'.3._ filed October 1, 1998.
`See Ex.1001_, col. 1, ll. 7-16.
`
`‘u
`3
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 3
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01475
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 3
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`
`IPR20l4-01478
`
`Patent 7,293,520 B2
`
`reference number) attached to streamers 12, and the signals “digitized and
`
`processed to build up a representation of the subsurface geology.” Id.
`
`Fig.1.
`Prlotnn
`
`20
`
`Figure 1, reproduced above, depicts an array of seismic streamers 12
`
`towed behind the vessel. The ‘S20 patent explains that in order to obtain
`
`accurate survey data, it is necessary to control the positioning of the
`
`streamers, both vertically in the water column, as well as horizontally
`
`against ocean currents and forces, which can cause the normally linear
`
`streamers to bend and undulate and, in some cases, become entangled with
`
`one another. Id. at col. 1, 1. 42—col. 2, l. 25.
`
`As depicted by Figure 1, each streamer 12 is maintained in a generally
`
`linear arrangement behind the boat by deflector 16 which horizontally
`
`positions the end of each streamer nearest the vessel. Id. at col. 1, 11. 43-45.
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 4
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01475
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 4
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`
`IPRBOI4-01478
`
`Patent 7,293,520 B2
`
`Drag buoy 20 at the end of each streamer farthest from the vessel creates
`
`tension along the streamer to maintain the linear arrangement.
`
`Additionally. to control the position and linear shape of the streamer,
`
`a plurality ofstreamer positioning devices, called "‘birds" 18, are attached
`
`along the length ofeach streamerji The birds are horizontally and vertically
`
`steerable and control the shape and position of the streamer in both vertical
`
`(depth) and horizontal directions.
`
`Id. at col. 3, 11. 53-61. The bird’s job is
`
`usually to maintain the streamers in their linear and parallel arrangement,
`
`because, when the streamers are horizontally out of position, the efficiency
`
`ofthe seismic data collection is compromised. Id. at col. 2, ll. 14-17. The
`
`most important task of the birds, however, is to keep the streamers from
`
`tangling.
`
`Id. at col. 4, ll. 4-5.
`
`The invention described in the ‘.520 _patent relies on global control
`
`system 22 located on, or near the vessel, and local control system 36 on or
`
`near each bird, to control the birds on each streamer and maintain the
`
`streamers in their particular linear and parallel arrangement. Id. at col. 3, ll.
`
`62—66, Col. 10, ll. 17-20. The global control system is provided with a
`
`model (desired) position representation of each streamer in the towed
`
`streamer array, and also receives (actual) position information from each of
`
`the birds. Id. at col. 4, ll. 21-23. The global control system uses the desired
`
`and actual position of the birds to “regularly calculate updated desired
`
`vertical and horizontal forces the birds should impart on the seismic
`
`streamers 12 to move them from their actual positions to their desired
`
`positions.“ Id. at C0]. 4, II. 37-40. The local c.ontrol system implements the
`
`3 Although the term “streamer positioning device” may be inclusive of other
`structures besides a "‘bi1'd_,” unless otherwise noted in this Decision, we use
`the terms “birds" and “streamer positioning devices“ interchangeably.
`
`5
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 5
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01475
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 5
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01478
`
`Patent 7,293,520 B2
`
`information from global control system by “adjusting the wing splay angle
`
`to rotate the bird to the proper position.” Id. at col. 10, 11. 24-25.
`
`The Specification explains that the control system, as a whole, has
`
`two primary modes, a feather angle mode, and a turn control mode. Id. at
`
`col. 10, ll. 27- 29. The feather angle mode is used to maintain the linear
`
`form of the streamer at an angle offset from the direction of towing, usually
`
`to account for ocean crosscurrents affecting the streamers. Id. at col. 10, 11.
`
`29-37. The ’520 patent explains “[o]nly when the crosscurrent velocity is
`
`very small will the feather angle be set to zero and the desired streamer
`
`positions be in precise alignment with the towing direction.” Id. at col. 10,
`
`11. 34-36.
`
`The turn control mode is used when the vessel is turning during a
`
`survey operation. Id. at col. 10, 1]. 38-40. In a first part of the turn, birds 18
`
`are instructed to “throw out” the streamer by generating a force in the
`
`opposite direction from the turn. Id. at col. 10, 11. 40-44. In a second part of
`
`the turn, the birds are directed back to the position defined by the feather
`
`angle mode. Id. The control system determines the first and second part of
`
`the turn according to data provided by the vessel navigation system. Id. at
`
`col. 10, 11. 50-53.
`
`During inclement weather conditions the control system can also
`
`operate in streamer separation mode, important for keeping the streamers
`
`from tangling. Id. at col. 10, 11. 54-57. In this mode, the birds are directed
`
`to maintain the streamers a distance apart from one another, where
`
`[t]he streamers 12 will typically be separated in depth and the
`outermost streamers will be positioned as far away from each
`other as possible. The inner streamers will then be regularly
`spaced between these outermost streamers, i.e. each bird 18 will
`receive desired horizontal forces 42 or desired horizontal
`
`6
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 6
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PF{2014-01475
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 6
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`
`IPREOI4-01478
`
`Patent 7.293.520 B2
`
`position irlformation that will direc.t the bird 18 to the midpoint.
`position between its adjacent streamers.
`
`Id. at col. 10, ll. 58—65. These different modes allow the vessel to
`
`operate more efficiently, turn faster and lower the incidents of tangling
`
`during survey operations leading to a reduction in time and equipment costs
`
`of marine surveying. Id. at col. 2. II. 23-25. Col. 10, 11. 44-46.
`
`D. H[Ii'Sfl"'(IIit’€ Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims,
`
`the independent claims are l and 18.
`
`Dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-18 depend directly or indirectly from method
`
`claim 1. Dependent claims 19-20 and 22-34 depend directly or indirectly
`
`from apparatus claim 18. Claims 1 and 18 illustrate the claimed subject
`
`matter and are reproduced below:
`
`I. A method comprising:
`(a) towing an array of streamers each having a plurality of
`streamer positioning devices there along contributing
`to steering the streamers;
`(b) cont1'olling the streamer positioning devices with a
`control system configured to operate in one or more
`control modes selected from a feather angle mode, a
`turn control mode, and a streamer separation mode.
`Ex. 1001, col. 11,11. 16-4].
`
`An apparatus comprising:
`18.
`(a_) an array of streamers each having a plurality of
`streamer positioning devices there along;
`(b) a control system configured to use a control mode
`selected from a feather angle mode, a turn control
`mode, a streamer separation mode, and two or more of
`these modes.
`
`E. The P1-‘£0:-‘Art
`
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art references (Pet. 7—l 1) and
`
`the declaration of Dr. (Ex. 1002):
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 7
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01475
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 7
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01478
`
`Patent 7,293,520 B2
`
` References
`
`Patents/Printed
`
`Publications
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,790,472
`
`
`
`Bertheas
`
`U'.S. Patent No.
`
`6,144,342
`
`’636 PCT
`
`WO 98/28636
`
`‘I53 PCT
`
`WO 84/03153
`
`
`
`Dolengowski
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,890,568
`
`F. The Alleged Grounds of Urzparem‘abilit:V
`
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`
`following specific gr0unds.4
`
`
`
`References
`Claim Challenged
`Workman
`
`3, 5, 20, and 22
` Workman and Bertheas
`
`1-3, 5, 18-20, and 22
` §§102,103
`
`
`
`13-14, 30-31
`
`4 Petitioner supports its challenge with Declarations of Dr. Brian J. Evans,
`Ph.D. (Ex. 1002) (“Evans Declf’) and Dr. Jack H. Cole, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003)
`(“Cole Declf’). See infra.
`
`8
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 8
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01475
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 8
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`
`IPR20 14-0 1478
`
`Patent 7,293,520 B2
`
`N
`lS-17. and 32-34
`9' 103
`Lworkman. Dolengowski
`I
`6-12 and 23-29
`§ 103
`Workman. ‘I53 PCT
`
`
`
`‘($36 PCT, ‘"153 PCT I § 103 7—12, and 24-29
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`In an im‘erpar1‘e.s review. claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`interpreted accorcling to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C-.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`
`also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs, LLC._. No. 14-01301, slip op. at 16, 19 (Fed.
`
`Cir. Feb. 4, 2015) (“Congress implicitly adopted the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard in enacting the AIA." and “the standard was properly
`
`adopted by PTO regulation.”_). Claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customaly meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent
`
`disclosure. In re Tr.:m.s'/ogic Tech, Inc, 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). lfthe specification “1'eveal[s] a special definition given to a claim
`
`term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise
`
`possess[_.] .
`
`.
`
`. the inventor“s Iexicography governs.” P/iillips v. A WH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303. 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
`
`Br':.m3i1-'ick Corp. 288 F.3d 1359. 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Also, we must be
`
`careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written
`
`description into the claim, if the claim language is broader than the
`
`embodiment. See In re I/an Germs, 988 F.2d 1 181,
`
`1 184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
`
`("‘[L]imitations are not to be read i11to the claims from the specification”).
`
`We apply this standard to the claims of the ’520 patent.
`
`9
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 9
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01475
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 9
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01478
`
`Patent 7,293,520 B2
`
`B. Streamer Positioning Device
`
`The dependent claims at issue in this proceeding all depend either
`
`directly, or indirectly, from independent claims 1 and 18. The independent
`
`claims recite the limitation, “streamer positioning device[].” Petitioner
`
`proposes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “streamer
`
`positioning device" is “a device that controls the position of a streamer as it
`
`is towed (e.g., a ‘bird’).” Pet. 13. Patent Owner opposes the proposed
`
`construction and argues that, in accordance with the plain meaning of the
`
`term, the broadest reasonable construction of “streamer positioning device”
`
`is “a device that controls at least the lateral position of a streamer as it is
`
`towed.” Prelim. Resp. 23.
`
`A review of the claims and specification provides context for defining
`
`“streamer positioning device.” Claim 1 recites the step of “controlling the
`
`streamer positioning devices.” There is no specificity provided by the claim
`
`to the manner, trajectory, or direction in which the positioning device is
`
`controlled. The specification of the ‘520 patent describes seismic streamers
`
`being maintained in linear position by “a plurality of streamer positioning
`
`devices known as birds 18. Preferably[,] the birds 18 are both vertically and
`
`horizontally steerable.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, 11. 55-57. The bird is preferably
`
`steered by “a pair of independently moveable wings 28 that are connected to
`
`rotatable shafts 32 that are rotated by wing motors 34 and that allow the
`
`orientation of the wings 28 with respect to the bird body 30 to be changed.”
`
`Id. at col. 5, II. 52-55. However, none of the structure or fllI1ClZiOI1 for
`
`adjusting the wings, or “horizontal,” i.e. lateral, or “vertical” steering, is
`
`required by claim 1.
`
`Because, inter alia, the specification of the ‘520 patent discloses that
`
`“positioning” of the streamer may be accomplished by either horizontal and
`
`10
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 10
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014-01475
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 10
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`
`[PR20l4-01478
`
`Patent 7,393,520 B2
`
`vertical steering, or both, any interpretation including specific directional
`
`terms would read limitations improperly from the specification into the
`
`claims. Consequently, the broadest reasonable interpretation of“streamer
`
`positioning device" is "a device that positions a streamer as it is towed."
`
`C. Army ofSrremners
`
`Patent Owner proposes that we construe the claim term “array of
`
`streamers,“ as “more than one elongate cable-like structure which contains
`
`arrays of seismic sensors and associated electronic equipment along its
`
`length.“ Prelim. Resp. 29-30. Petitioner does not provide a construction for
`
`this term.
`
`Claims I and 18 both plainly call for an “array of streamers,'"" and not
`
`merely “a streamer.” The ‘S20 patent initially describes "[a] marine seismic
`
`streamer” singularly, where a streamer includes “arrays of seismic. sensors?‘
`
`Ex. I001, col. 1, ll. 28-30. The ‘S20 patent then discusses “a plurality of
`
`such streamers" towed behind a marine vessel.
`
`Id. at col. 1, ll. 33-35.
`
`Subsequently, the ’520 patent refers to this plurality of towed streamers as
`
`an "‘array'“ where the positioning devices are for “controlling the positions of
`
`marine seismic streamers in an array of such streamers being towed by a
`
`seismic survey vessel.“ Id. at col. 3, ll. 3-6. The ‘"520 patent also explains
`
`that “[t]he outermost streamers 12 in the array could be 700 meters apart."
`
`Id. at col. 3, 11. 38—39.
`
`The plain meaning of an “array of streamers,” as recited in the claims
`
`and in the context of the specification, compolts with the plain and ordinary
`
`understanding of “array," meaning, a plurality, or, more than one.
`
`Accordingly. for purposes ofthis Decision we interpreted “an array of
`
`streamers" to mean “more than one streamer.”
`
`1
`
`l
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 11
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01475
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 11
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01473
`
`Patent 7,293,520 B2
`
`D. Feather Angle Mode
`
`Independent claims 1 and 18, as Well as dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 19,
`
`20 and 22, recite “a feather angle mode.” Petitioner argues that “feather
`
`angle mode” be construed as “ [a] control mode that attempts to keep each
`
`streamer in a straight line offset from the towing direction by a certain
`
`feather angle.” Pet. 14-15 (emphasis added).
`
`Patent Owner proposes that “feather angle mode” be interpreted as “a
`
`control mode that ‘attempts to set and maintain each streamer in a straight
`
`line offset from the towing direction by a certain feather angle.’” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 30 (emphasis added). Patent Owner specifically argues that the ’520
`
`patent explains “that the streamer’s relative position is ‘input’ or ‘set’ as part
`
`of the ‘global control system.’” In’.
`
`The only difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s
`
`constructions is set forth in italics above. The ’520 patent describes that the
`
`feather angle mode attempts “to keep each streamer in a straight line offset
`
`from the towing direction by a certain feather angle.” EX. 1001, col. 10, ll.
`
`29=32. We understand no substantive difference between the plain meaning
`
`of the terms “to keep” or “to maintain,” leaving the question of whether the
`
`feather angle mode “set[s]” the streamer’s relative position, i.e. the feather
`
`angle.
`
`The specification states that “[t]he feather angle could be input either
`
`manually, through use of a current meter, or through use of an estimated
`
`value based on the average horizontal bird forces.” Ex. 1001, col. 10, ll. 32-
`
`34. We understand from this that the input, or setting, of the feather angle
`
`would be input manually, or via some component of the global control
`
`system 22. It is clear that the feather angle mode uses “a certain feather
`
`12
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 12
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PFl2014-01475
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 12
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01478
`
`Patent 7,293,520 B2
`
`angle,” as it is input. bL1t for purposes ofthis Decision we are not persuaded
`
`that the feather angle mode, itself, actually inputs, or sets, the feather angle.
`
`Accordingly, in the context of the specification on this record, the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of?5$'eafith;eg'an-gl:e'mpde"-is f‘ja_.eont1';o1
`
`modethat attempts to'keep each streamer i-It flsiraight line offlset from the
`
`towin.g--di-rection by a certain fe-athexz angle.’-‘g
`
`E. Streamer Separation Mode
`
`Independent claims 1 and 18, as well as dependent claims l3—l7 and
`
`30-34, recite a “streamer separation mode." Petitioner argues that the
`
`“streamer separation mode” is “a mode wherein the global control system
`
`attempts to direct the streamer positioning to maintain a minimum separation
`
`distance between adjacent streamers.'“ Pet. 16-17.
`
`Patent Owner proposes that “streamer separation mode” be interpreted
`
`as “a control mode that attempts to set and maintain the spacing between
`
`adjacent streamers.” Prelim. Resp. 33.
`
`The ‘S20 patent states that the general purpose of the “streamer
`
`separation mode” is an “attempt[] to minimize the risk of entanglement of
`
`the streamers." Ex. 1001, col. 10, 11. 56-57. This purpose of the streamer
`
`separation mode is also recited in dependent claims 13 and 30 as “attempting
`
`to minimize the risk of entanglement of the streamers.“ The specification
`
`further explains that in the streamer separation mode the global control
`
`system wants to “maximize” the distance between streamers. Id. at 56-58.
`
`Also, that the streamers will be “separated in depth." Id. at 58. Dependent
`
`claims 14 and 31 are specifically drawn to this limitation “maximiz[ing]" the
`
`distance between streamers.
`
`We are not persuaded that the “streamer separation mode" should be
`
`limited to either a “minimum_.'“ as argued by Petitioner, or a “maximum"
`
`13
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 13
`PGS V. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014-01475
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 13
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`
`IPR201-4—01478
`
`Patent 7,293,520 B2
`
`separation as recited in the dependent claims. We also are not apprised of
`
`any evidence in the specification or claims that any specific distance
`
`between the streamers in the separation mode is “set and 1naintain[ed]” as
`
`Patent Owner urges. To the extent that dependent claims 14 and 31 recite an
`
`attempt to “maximize distance between adjacent streamers,” these claims do
`
`not recite that a particular value between streamers is “set and maintained.”
`
`The ‘S20 patent also does not discuss in the specification “set[ting]” or
`
`“maintain[ing]” any specific Value. The specification explains that in the
`
`streamer separation mode the outermost streamers are positioned as far from
`
`one another as possible, and the intermediate streamers “regularly spaced
`
`between these outermost streamers.” Ex. 1001, col. 10, 1. 61.
`
`Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation which comports with the specification and the plain meaning
`
`of “streamer separation mode,” is, “a mode to control separation, or spacing,
`
`between streamers.”
`
`F. A control system configured to use a control mode selectedfrom a
`
`feather angle mode, a turn control mode, a streamer separation
`
`mode, and two or more ofthese modes
`
`Because this limitation in claims 1 and 18 is written as a Markush
`
`group, the prior art discloses the limitation if one alternative, i.e. a feather
`
`angle, a turn control mode, or a streamer mode, is in the prior art. See
`
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. BaxIer1m"l, Inc, 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009)
`
`G. Other claim constructions
`
`Petitioner offers a construction for the term “control system,” “turn
`
`control mode,” and both parties offer a construction for the phrase
`
`“attempting to maximize distance between adjacent streamers.” Pet. 14-19,
`
`14
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 14
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014-01475
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 14
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`
`IPREOI4-01478
`
`Patent 7,293,520 B2
`
`Prelim. Resp. 37-38. We determine that no express construction is needed
`
`for purposes of this Decision for the noted term and phrase.
`
`lll. ANALYSIS
`
`.4. Redzmdcmcy
`
`As an initial matter, we address Patent Owner"s argument that the
`
`grounds presented in the present proceeding are redundant to the grounds set
`
`forth in the first PGS IPR. Prelim. Resp. 6-10.
`
`With respect to the ground including the combination of Workman
`
`and Bertheas. Petitioner has provided no explanation as to why, or how, the
`
`combination of Workman and Bertheas is any different than Workman
`
`alone. Pet. 32—37.
`
`Indeed. Petitioner states that “Bertheas thus solves the
`
`problem of controlling a streamer array the same way as Workman and the
`
`‘S20 iPatent—by sending commands to streamer positioning devices to steer
`
`streamers to their desired positions.
`
`Id. at 34 (citing Evans Decl.1] 209).
`
`The grounds including the combination of Workman and the ’ 153
`
`PCT, as well as the combination of the ’636 PCT and the "'1 53 PCT, are
`
`directed towards claims 6 and 23 and their respective dependent claims 7-
`
`12, and 24—29. We denied institution on claims 6 and 23 in the first PGS
`
`IPR. See Petroleum Geo-Serw'ces. Inc. v. WestemGec0 LLC, Case No.
`
`lPR2014—0O689 Paper 32, slip op. at 37-42 (P.T.A.B Dec. 15. 2014).
`
`Petitioner has not directed us to any persuasive evidence or arguments as to
`
`why the arguments presented herein asserting unpatentability based on
`
`Workman, the ‘636 PCT and the ‘ I 53 PCT, for dependent claims 6—12 and
`
`23-29 are substantially different from the arguments presented in the first
`
`PGS IPR asserting the unpatentability ofclaims 6 and 23 based on the ’636
`
`PCT, the ‘ l 53 PCT and Dolengowski.
`
`Accordingly, we decline t.o institute inter p(m.‘es review with respect
`
`15
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 15
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01475
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 15
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`
`IPR2014—01478
`
`Patent 7,293,520 B2
`
`to claims 1-3, 5, 18-20, and 22 as unpatentable over Workman and
`
`Bertheas; claims 6-12 and 23-29 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`over Workman and the ’153 PCT (Pet. 46-56); and claims 7-12 and 24—29
`
`as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the ’636 PCT and the ’153 PCT.
`
`B. Statutory Bar Under 35 (1.8. C. 59 315(6)
`
`Patent Owner disputes that Petitioner timely filed its Petition for an
`
`interpartes review. Prelim. Resp. 8-12. Specifically, under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(b), a party may not file a petition for inter partes review if the party
`
`had been served with a complaint alleging infringement more than one year
`
`previously. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner was served with a
`
`complaint on March 14, 2011. Id. at 9.
`
`On June 12, 2009, Patent Owner filed, via the district court’s
`
`electronic case filing procedure (“ECF”), a complaint initiating the ION
`
`lawsuit, alleging infringement of the ‘520 patent against ION based on
`
`ION’s “DigiFIN” and other products. Prelim. Resp. 8. Patent Owner also
`
`filed a similar complaint against a company called Fugro, a customer of
`
`ION, initiating litigation that was consolidated with the ION lawsuit. Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 2037). On December 8, 2009, remarking that Petitioner may
`
`have been involved in the design and testing of the ION products, Patent
`
`Owner provided Petitioner via email with a copy of the complaint against
`
`ION. Id. (citing Ex. 2008).
`
`Subsequently, Patent Owner subpoenaed Petitioner on January 22,
`
`2010 to produce documents and evidence relating inter alia to Petitioner’s
`
`use and operation of ION’s DigiFIN product. Id. (citing Ex. 2009). In
`
`response to the subpoena, Petitioner appeared in the ION lawsuit through its
`
`counsel, Heim, Payne & Chorush. Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 2011). On March 14,
`
`2011, Patent Owner filed an amended complaint in the ION lawsuit via the
`
`16
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 16
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PFl2014-01475
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 16
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`
`lPR20 l4—Ol-178
`
`"Patent 7,293,520 B2
`
`court's e.lectronic filing system ("ECF"), naming ION and Fugro. but not
`
`Petitioner.
`
`Id. (citing Ex. 2012). Patent Owner argues that because
`
`Petitioner's counsel, as an ECF notice recipient in the ION lawsuit, received
`
`a copy ofthe amended complaint against Fugro and ION on March 14, 20] 1,
`
`Petitioner was therefore "‘served“ in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 3 l 5(b) the
`
`same day. Id. Thus, it is Patent Owner’s position that because Petitioner
`
`was “served"' with the complaint more than one year before filing the present
`
`Petition, the Petition here is now time-barred.
`
`The Board has dealt with similar arguments regarding the statutory
`
`interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) before in Motorola Mobility‘ LLC v.
`
`Amouse, Case lPR20l3-00010 (PTAB Jan. 30, 2013) (Paper 20) (the
`
`“Motorola dec-ision”"_'). For reasons similar to those set forth in the Motorola
`
`decision, we do not adopt the statutory constructiorl that mere receipt ofa
`
`complaint, via email or even EC F, initiates the one—year time period. We
`
`specifically agree with the Motorola Panel's review and interpretation of the
`
`legislative history and intent of35 U.S.C. § 315(b) in that, “[w]e do not
`
`believe that the Congress intended to have the time period start before a
`
`petitioner is officially a defendant in a law suit.“ In’. at 5.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the present proceeding differs from
`
`Motorola because in the [ON lawsuit “Petitioner was served with process
`
`and formally appeared,“ (_emphasis omitted) and was thus ‘“brought under a
`
`court’s authority, by formal process’ before being served with the amended
`
`complaint.” Prelim. Resp. ?'—8 n.l (citing Mm*p/i_y Bros. Inc. 1;. Miclzetti
`
`Pipe S'tr'iI1g1'ng, Inc. 526 U.S. 344, 347 (1999)). Despite this factual
`
`difference from Motorola, Petitioner was not, and never has been, a party
`
`defendant in the ION lawsuit.
`
`Petitioner, in the ION lawsuit, was served under Fed. R. Civ. 13.45,
`
`17
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 17
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01475
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 17
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01478
`
`Patent 7,293,520 B2
`
`with a third—party subpoena, to produce documents and things relating to the
`
`ION lawsuit. See Ex. 2009. Although a person, or entity, may have been
`
`served properly with a subpoena, and may fall under a court’s authority for
`
`purposes of producing appropriate documents and things not protected by a
`
`privilege or protection, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)—(e) does not express, or imply,
`
`that a person subject to the subpoena is a “defendant” to a lawsuit. Indeed,
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 specifically differentiates between a “person” served with
`
`the subpoena, and “a party” to the lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (d)(2)(B)
`
`(“A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit
`
`inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a
`
`written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the
`
`materials”). We are not aware of any case law or precedent, nor has Patent
`
`Owner cited to any, indicating that serving a person with a subpoena, and
`
`subjecting them to the authority of the court in enforcing such subpoena
`
`under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e), provides sufficient legal process to make such
`
`person a defendant to a lawsuit.
`
`Thus, Petitioner was not a defendant in the ION lawsuit. Concomitant
`
`with the Board’s Motorola decision, we interpret 35 U.S.C. § 3 l 5(b) as
`
`requiring service upon a defendant to the lawsuit. Petitioner was not a
`
`defendant; thus, it was never “served with a complaint” in the ION lawsuit
`
`as required by 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).5
`
`5 Patent Owner’s argument that S.D. Texas L.R. 5-1 states that the ECF
`notice “constitutes service of the document on those registered as Filing
`Users,” is not persuasive as to the intent of Congress with respect to
`§ 315(b). See 157 Cong. Rec. S5429 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of
`Senator Kyl) (“it is important that the section 315(b) deadline afford
`defendants a reasonable opportunity to identify and understand the patent
`claims that are relevant to the litigation”).
`
`18
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 18
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PFi2014-01475
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2047, pg. 18
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`
`IPR20l 4-01478
`
`Patent 7,293,530 B2
`
`C. Rea! Prim'es~2’!-i—Ii-Ire;-"e.sr Under 35 (1.8. C.
`
`5*‘ 3I2(r.':_)
`
`I. PGSAI
`
`The statute governing inter pm-‘res review proceedings sets ‘Forth
`
`certain requirements for a petition for inter par-'re.s‘ review, including that “the
`
`petition identi1‘[y] a!{ real parties in interest." 35 U.S.C. § 312(a) (emphasis
`
`added)