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: Unassiggecl
`Patent 7,162,520 B2
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BRIAN EVANS, PhD.
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 1
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. ..1
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ...........................................................................................2
`
`III. COMPENSATION AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE PARTIES ................... ..7
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................... ..8
`
`. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ ..8
`
`. Anticipation ................................................................................................... ..8
`
`. Obviousness ................................................................................................... ..9
`
`. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art................................................................ ..9
`
`V. SUMMARY OF OPINION ............................................................................ ..10
`
`VI. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................... ..11
`
`VII. THE ’S20 PATENT ..................................................................................... ..53
`
`A. Brief Description of the Relevant File History............................................ ..53
`
`B. Relevant Time Frame for Analysis of the ‘S20 Patent..................................54
`
`C. The Specification of the ’520 Patent ........................................................... ..54
`
`C. Relevant Time Frame for Analysis of the ‘S20 Patent ................................ ..76
`
`D. The Specification ofthe ’520Patent
`
`E. Claims 18 and 1 of the ’52{} Patent are Anticipated by Workman ................77
`
`1. Claim 18 ................................................................................................... .38
`
`F. Claims 1, 2, 18 and 19 of the ’520 Patent are Obvious over Workman ...... ..86
`
`1. Streamer Separation Mode ....................................................................... ..87
`
`2. Feather Angle Mode................................................................................. ..91
`
`3. One or More “Modes” .............................................................................. ..94
`
`G. Claims 1, 2, 18 and 19 are Anticipated by Hedberg......................................96
`
`1. Claim 18 ................................................................................................... ..9'}'
`
`H. Claims 1, 2, 18 and 19 are Obvious Over Hedberg................................... ..113
`
`1. Streamer Separation
`
`13
`
`2. Feather Angle Mode............................................................................... ..11S
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 2
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`1. Claims 1. 6. 18. and 23 are Obviolls OVL’l' the ‘C136 PCT in Viv.-':\\-' olllhe ‘I53
`PCT ................................................................................................................... ..l 17
`
`“An array of streamers each having a plurali1_\-' ofstrcamer positioning
`1.
`devices there along” ...................................................................................... ..I 19
`
`2. A Control System Conl'"1gurcd to Use :1 Turn Control Mode ................. ..l2]
`
`J. Claims 1. 6. I8- and 23 are Obvious Over Dolcngowski in view ofthe ‘(>36
`
`-1
`VIII. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... ..l34
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 3
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`I, Dr. Brian Evans, hereby state the following:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. (“PGS"') to
`
`provide technical assistance related to the filing of a Petition for Inter Par-res
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520 B2 (“the ‘S20 Patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`I am
`
`working as a private consultant on this matter and the opinions presented here are
`
`my own.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to prepare a written report,
`
`including comments
`
`related to whether certain claims of the ‘S20 Patent are unpatentablc because they
`
`are anticipated or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in view of the
`
`prior art.
`
`I have reviewed the documents set forth in the attached Appendix of
`
`Exhibits and relied on my decades of knowledge and experience in the field of
`
`seismic marine surveys (detailed in Section II) in reaching my opinions regarding
`
`validity. This report sets forth the bases and reasons for my opinions, including the
`
`additional materials and information relied upon in forming those opinions and
`
`conclusions.
`
`3.
`
`This report is based on infonnation currently available to me. I reserve
`
`the right to continue my investigation and analysis, which may include a review of
`
`documents and information not yet produced. I further reserve the right to expand
`
`or otherwise modify my opinions and conclusions as my investigation and study
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 4
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`continues. and to supplement my opinions and conclusions in response to any
`
`additional iillonnatioit that becomes available to me.
`
`ll. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`l am a Professor of Geophysics in the Department of Petroleum
`
`Engineering at Curtin University located in Bentley, Western Australia.
`
`1 have
`
`worlzed continuously in the field of marine seismic surveying for over 44 years.
`
`since the l970s.
`
`I have been involved in the design of dozens of marine seismic
`
`surveys. and have been onboarcl seismic vessels as they were conducting a marine
`
`seismic survey over one-hundred times.
`
`:1.
`
`I authored a textbook devoted to marine seismic surveying and data
`
`acquisition, entitled “A Handbook for Seismic Data Acquisition in Iixploration."
`
`I
`
`began writing the textbook in 1985 for use in my "Seismic Acquisition" class. and
`
`continued to update it over the years. It was first published in 1997 by the Society
`
`of Exploration Geophysicists (SEC).
`
`the premier international organization for
`
`seismic professionals and researchers. including marine seismic professionals. At
`
`the time of its publication._ it was considered the authoritative. textbook in the tield
`
`of seismic data acquisition. Over the past 15 years, it has been used throughout the
`
`world in seismic surveying courses and on seismic survey Vessels.
`
`6.
`
`I obtained my Diploma ol‘Electrical Engineering, the equivalent ofa
`
`bachelor’s degree, at the .I.M. University of Liverpool in the United Kingdom in
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 5
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`1969.
`
`I took my first job in the marine seismic industry in 1971, working as an
`
`instrument engineer for Geophysical Service, Inc.
`
`In that role, I monitored and
`
`repaired the seismic recording and navigation instruments, including the equipment
`
`that positioned marine seismic streamers and source arrays. As a qualified
`
`electrical engineer,
`
`I also repaired electronic equipment on seismic vessels,
`
`including on-board computers, and navigation/positioning systems. While with
`
`Geophysical Services, Inc.,
`
`I traveled the world working offshore West Afi-ica,
`
`South America, India, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Indonesia, the Philippines, the
`
`South China Sea, and the Gulf of Thailand—all offshore oil exploration areas.
`
`7.
`
`After leaving Geophysical Service, Inc. in 1974, I joined Aquatronics,
`
`a London-based seismic company, where I managed seismic survey ships used in
`
`seismic surveys. In 1975, I joined Southern Geophysical Consultants of London as
`
`a Seismic Acquisition and Surveying Consultant.
`
`In that capacity, I represented
`
`many oil companies while onboard seismic survey ships to ensure the quality of
`
`the acquired seismic data and that the seismic data was within the oil company/‘S
`
`specifications.
`
`I was also involved in deep water operations and rig relocations for
`
`different oil companies during my time at Aquatronics.
`
`8.
`
`In 1976,
`
`I established my own seismic-acquisition consulting
`
`company in Perth, Australia, called “Offshore—Onshore Exploration Consultants
`
`PTY LTD.” As an independent consultant, I participated in seismic surveys on
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 6
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`behalliof my oil company clients to ensure the quality of the seismic data acquired
`
`and that
`
`the seismic data was within the oil comp-any"s specifications. My
`
`consulting company, which employed foul‘ other employees, was
`
`the only
`
`company that did this type of work in Southeast Asia at the time. From 1980 to
`
`1983- while at the peak of my consultancy operations.
`
`I also worked at Shell
`
`Development Australia in Perth. Australia. as a Senior Operations Geophysicist.
`
`My responsibilities at Shell Development
`
`included managing three marine-
`
`seismic-survey ships and two land-seismic-survey crews.
`
`9.
`
`In 1983.
`
`I enrolled at Curtin University {knoxx-"n
`
`then as West
`
`Australian Institute of Technology). From I983 to 1985. as part of a Masters
`
`program in Applied Physics.
`
`I wrote a thesis entitled "The Establishment of a
`
`Digital Seismic Acquisition System and its Subsequent Application in the "Field." I
`
`also designed and built a seismic recording system.
`
`10.
`
`After receiving my Masters in Applied "Physics in 1985. I enrolled in a
`
`Geophysics Ph.D. program at Curtin University.
`
`focusing on 3D Seismic
`
`Surveying Data Processing. As part of the Ph.D program.
`
`I
`
`taught seismic
`
`acquisition, processing, and interpretation and lectured short-courses for industry
`
`(including marine seismic companies) on conventional and 3D seismic acquisition
`
`methods. While working on my Ph.D.
`
`1 continued to consult on marine seismic
`
`data acquisition.
`
`I also established the Department of Exploration Geophysics at
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 7
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`Curtin University.
`
`In 1997, I completed my Ph.D. program, and produced a Ph.D
`
`thesis titled, “Advancements in the Techniques of Low-fold Three Dimensional
`
`Seismic Reflection Surveying.”
`
`11. After completing my Ph.D.
`
`in Geophysics in 1997,
`
`I continued to
`
`teach seismic data acquisition, processing, and interpretation as an Associate
`
`Professor at Curtin University.
`
`I also continued to teach short-courses to the
`
`industry on marine seismic data acquisition. Over the years, I have supervised
`
`twenty Master’s and Ph.D. students, many of whom have written theses pertinent
`
`to the marine seismic industry. I continue to supervise four Ph.D. students today.
`
`12.
`
`I became a tenured Professor of Geophysics in 2002.
`
`I served as
`
`Chair of the Department of Petroleum Engineering from 2007 to 2012.
`
`I then
`
`became the Director of Curtin University’s Faculty of Science and Engineering’s
`
`Oil and Gas Training and Research Project Initiatives in 2013.
`
`In that role, I
`
`establish research projects with industry, establish teams to run projects, and
`
`consult with industry and the research staff to ensure the projects stay on track.
`
`13. Much of my research over the years has involved numerical and
`
`physical modeling of the seismic data acquisition process, including in the context
`
`of 3D and 4D seismic marine surveys. This has entailed both field and laboratory
`
`research, in which I would frequently work onboard seismic survey ships during
`
`marine seismic surveys and later attempt to improve on marine seismic data
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 8
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`acquisition techniques by testing in the laboratory. Building on my research to
`
`optimize 3D and 4D data acquisition.
`
`1 have built
`
`three seismic physical
`
`acquisition simulation labs in Houston. Dhahran. and Rio de Janeiro_ These labs
`
`involved the Lise of physical models to simulate 3D marine seismic surveys. The
`
`Houston lab was built
`
`in 199! and later moved and reconstructed at Curtin
`
`University; the other labs were built in 2005 and are presently operated in Dhahran
`
`and Rio de Janeiro. All ofthese labs are still in use today.
`
`I have also developed a
`
`seismic numerical modeling lab at Curtin University. and a landmark seismic
`
`interpretation lab. which oil companies use to train their employees and to interpret
`
`3D marine seismic data.
`
`14.
`
`Throughout the 19905 and 20005.
`
`1 have continued to consult in the
`
`marine seismic survey field while working at Curtin University.
`
`I have consulted
`
`with various marine seismic survey companies as part of my job representing oil
`
`companies and in my independent consulting company.
`
`In this role, I am typically
`
`asked to evaluate seismic survey plans and to advise companies on their plans‘
`
`suitability‘ for an optimal survey. This often requires me to determine whether the
`
`seismic data acquisition and processing plans are adequate to produce quality
`
`seismic data considering the survey area‘s 3D geology. To Fulfill
`
`this role.
`
`i
`
`closely follow the literature and other available information regarding the latest
`
`marine seismic acquisition technologies.
`
`I continue to do this consulting work to
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 9
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`this day.
`
`I have also consulted on a wide range of other issues relating to marine
`
`seismic data acquisition, processing, and interpretation. For instance, I have had
`
`an Independent Advisory Group since 2004 to review and evaluate oil companies’
`
`seismic data, drilling plans and proposed operations.
`
`15.
`
`I am currently a member of several professional organizations related
`
`to the marine seismic industry, and the oil and gas industry in general. I have been
`
`a member of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysics since 1983 and the
`
`Society of Exploration Geophysicists (“SEG”}—widely recognized as the principal
`
`international society in the field——-since 1993. I was President of the Australian
`
`state chapter of the SEG twice, in 1986 and 1993.
`
`In addition to SEG, I have also
`
`been a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) since 1994 and the
`
`Petroleum Club of Western Australia since 2009, of which I am currently a Board
`
`Member. From 2006 to 2012, I was a Board Member and Education Scholarship
`
`Committee Chair of the West Australian State Government Minerals and Energy
`
`Research Institute (MERIWA).
`
`Ill.
`
`COMPENSATION AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE PARTIES
`
`16.
`
`I am being compensated at an hourly rate of three hundred and fifty
`
`dollars ($350), plus expenses, for the time I spend in Australia studying materials
`
`and issues associated with this matter and providing testimony, and six hundred
`
`twenty five euros (€625)
`
`for the time I spend on this matter outside Australia. This
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 10
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`is my standard consulting rate. l am an independent party and my compensation is
`
`not contingent upon the outcome of this matter.
`
`17.
`
`It
`
`is my understanding that Wcsternfieco I-.l..C. (“WestemGeco"). is
`
`the assignee of the ‘S20 Patent. Prior to this matter. I have not been employed or
`
`retained by WesternGec0 or PGS.
`
`I own no stock in Westernfieco or PGS. and am
`
`aware of no other financial interest I have with those companies.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`18. Although I am not an attomey and do not expect
`
`to otter any
`
`opinions regarding the law.
`
`I have been informed of certain legal principles
`
`relating to standards of patentability that I relied on in Forming the opinions Set
`
`forth in this report.
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`19.
`
`I understand that for purposes of this matter the terms in patent
`
`claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification of the ‘S20 Patent, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as
`
`of the priority date of the ‘S20 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Anticipation
`
`20.
`
`l understand that for a claim to be anticipated, a single prior art
`
`reference must disclose to a person of ordinary skill in the art. either expressly or
`
`inherently, each and every limitation set forth in the claim.
`
`I understand that
`
`claims are unpatentable if they are anticipated by the prior art.
`
`8
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 11
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`C.
`
`Obviousness
`
`21.
`
`I understand that even if a claim is not anticipated, an invention that
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention
`
`is not patentable.
`
`I understand that obviousness is determined by considering
`
`several factors, including: the state of the art at the time the invention was made;
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art; differences between what is described in the
`
`art and the claims at issue; and objective evidence of nonobviousness (such as
`
`commercial
`
`success,
`
`long-felt but unsolved needs,
`
`failure of others, and
`
`unexpected results).
`
`I understand that claims are unpatentable if they would have
`
`been obvious in view of the prior art.
`
`D.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that a person of ordinary skill in the art 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 person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art 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)
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 12
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`rapidity with which innovations are made: (5) sophistication of the technology: and
`
`(6') educational level ofactive workers in the field.
`
`23.
`
`On the basis of my Consitlelalion of these factors and my
`
`experience in solving problems in the area of marine seismic surveys for decades.
`
`including my familiarity with the education. expertise- and experience of the teams
`
`that devise solutions to those problems. I have been asked to opine as to the person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art to which Claims 1. 2. 6. 18. I9. and ‘.23 ofthe ‘"520 Patent
`
`are directed.
`
`In my opinion. such a person oliordinary skill in the art should have a
`
`Mastcr"s degree or Ph.D.
`
`in ocean engineering. mechanical
`
`engineering.
`
`geophysics, applied physics. or
`
`a
`
`related area. who has preferably taken
`
`coursevvork in hydrodynamics. advanced control systems. and other related fields.
`
`Additionally. the person should have at least three years of experience designing
`
`andlor operating seismic surveys. as well as significant experience aboard marine
`
`seismic surve_\_-' vessels during the course ofscveral marine seismic surveys.
`
`V. SUMMARY OF OPINION
`
`24.
`
`It
`
`is my understanding that PGS (or "“Petitioner") requests Inter
`
`Par-res review ot‘Claims 1. 2. 6. 18. 19. and 23 of the ‘"520 Patent, titled "Control
`
`System for Positioning of a Marine Seismic Streamers [sic].'"' which was issued to
`
`Oyvind Hillesund and Simon Hastings Bittleston on November l3_. 2007. and has
`
`been assigned to WestemGeco.
`
`It is my opinion that all of Claims 1. 2. 6. 18. 19.
`
`10
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 13
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`and 23 would have been well-known and obvious to a person of ordinary skill at
`
`the time of the October 1, I998 priority date.
`
`VI.
`
`TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. Overview of Marine Seismic Surveying
`
`25.
`
`The ’520 Patent is directed to marine seismic surveying technology.
`
`Marine seismic surveys use reflected sound waves to determine geological
`
`properties of the earth’s subsurface. Seismic surveying ships (also known as
`
`vessels) tow equipment referred to in the industry as “seismic sources" or “guns”
`
`to create small, controlled explosions underwater.
`
`The explosions generate
`
`acoustic sound waves that travel down through the water, penetrate the ocean floor,
`
`reflect off geological formations in the earth’s subsurface, and travel back towards
`
`the seismic vessel. The reflected acoustic signals are recorded by seismic receivers
`
`known as “hydrophones," which are towed behind the vessel in long cables called
`
`marine seismic “streamers.” Because recorded sound waves have different
`
`properties depending on the geology of the ocean's subsurface, the acoustic signals
`
`recorded by the hydrophones provide information regarding characteristics of the
`
`ocear1‘s subsurface, including evidence about the existence of oil and gas.
`
`26.
`
`In modern marine seismic surveys, a towing vessel will typically tow
`
`a plurality of streamers in a large areal spread known as an “array.” Each streamer
`
`in the array contains groups of hydrophones located at predetermined intervals
`
`ll
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 14
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`along the streamer. The acoustic data acquired by each hydrophone group is
`
`recorded as a function of time and provides information about a two-dimensional
`
`vertical slice of the earth's surface below the area traversed by the streamer. By
`
`towing a plurality ol‘streamers._ the seismic surveyor covers a large area and is able
`
`to record reflected seismic signals at several
`
`locations simultaneously. This
`
`technique results in seismic data from various locations that can be combined and
`
`processed by computers to construct a three-dimensional
`
`image of the earth's
`
`subsurface.
`
`27.
`
`Below is a graphical depiction of a modem marine seismic survey
`
`system:
`
`I
`Hydruphones
`
`28.
`
`This figure depicts a survey vessel towing four streamers, each of
`
`which contains hydrophones to record seismic data that reflects off the ocean's
`
`subsurface, and one air gun array (the acoustic source). This multiple—streamer
`
`12
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 15
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`seismic surveying system became commonplace beginning in the late 19805. See
`
`Ex. 1038 (Brian J. Evans, A Handbook for Seismic Data Acquisition in
`
`Exploration (David V. Fitterman & William H. Dragoset, Jr. eds., 1997))
`
`(“Evans”) at 250.
`
`29.
`
`Seismic data are recorded on a shot-by-shot basis.
`
`In a typical marine
`
`seismic survey, the vessel will travel at approximately five nautical miles per hour
`
`(5 knots) and fire a shot from one or more seismic sources approximately even; ten
`
`seconds. This is recognized as an ideal speed for a marine seismic survey. The data
`
`recorded by each hydrophone group for each seismic shot is known as a “trace.”
`
`With each “shot,” the seismic source emits acoustic signals (i.e., sound waves) that
`
`are reflected at different points on the ocean’s subsurface. These signals are
`
`received by the various hydrophones on the towed streamers, as depicted below:
`
`See Ex. 1038 (Evans) at 9.
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 16
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`30.
`
`As depicted above. when a shot is tired in a marine seismic surve_\,'._
`
`the emanating acoustic signals travel in all directions. including downward. Ex.
`
`1038 (Evans) at 28. When each acoustic signal rellccts off the ocean's subsurface
`
`to a h_vdrophone. the point on the subsurface where it is reflected is halfway (the
`
`midpoint) between the air gun and the hydrophone.
`
`Id. The graphic depicts each
`
`hydrophone recording a seismic trace from a different midpoint, because tor each
`
`acoustic shot. the midpoint between the air gun and the hydrophone is generally
`
`different for each hydrophone.
`
`31.
`
`For each shot or "trace."‘ the hydrophones record the relleeted acoustic
`
`signals as a function oftime. Each hydrophone group occupies a different location
`
`and thus. for each shot, will record different acoustic signals at different positions.
`
`The recorded data from each hydrophone group for each shot are then sent from
`
`the streamers back to the towing vessel via a communications line that may be
`
`comprised of twisted pair cables or. in more modern implementations. fiber-optic
`
`lines. This shot-by-shot process is repeated continuously during seismic surveys,
`
`resulting in a vast amount of seismic data being transmitted to the vessel. The
`
`seismic data acquired during a survey are maintained on the towing vessel by an
`
`on-board computer or other storage device. along with data reflecting the position
`
`and time the signals were 1'eeeived. This data can later be processed to create a
`
`three dimensional image of the earth's subsurface in the surveyed region.
`
`14
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 17
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`32. Marine seismic surveys are carefully planned in advance. Marine
`
`seismic survey data are acquired and organized using a process known as
`1'!
`“binning. When designing and conducting a three-dimensional marine seismic
`
`survey, the area of the ocean subsurface being surveyed is represented as a grid.
`
`Each cell in the seismic survey grid is called a “bin." In a conventional 3D marine
`
`seismic survey, the survey plan calls for the streamers to traverse the survey area
`
`grid in straight
`
`lines back and forth, creating parallel
`
`lines of seismic data
`
`coverage. As practitioners in the marine seismic data acquisition field have long
`
`recognized, one of the primary goals of 3D marine seismic data acquisition is to
`
`conform the actual
`
`survey to the survey plan’s
`
`specifications,
`
`including
`
`maintaining the streamers’ positions along the pre-planned designated course,
`
`thereby producing the desired quality and efficiency of the survey as planned. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1032 (U.S. Patent No. 4,033,278) (“Waters") at 2:15-36; Ex. 1033 (U.S.
`
`Patent No. 4,404,664) (“Zachariadis”) at 1:16-40; Ex. 1004 (U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,790,472) (“Workman”) at 1:10-11 (“During a typical marine seismic survey a
`
`seismic vessel traverses programmed tracks .
`
`.
`
`. .”).
`
`33.
`
`The graphic below depicts (without
`
`the streamers,
`
`for ease of
`
`understanding) a survey area divided into bins. Although their size can vary, bin
`
`sides typically measure about 10-25 meters in length. Ex. 1039 (E. J. W. Jones,
`
`Marine Geophysics (1999)) (“Jones") at 89. Also depicted (but not to scale) is the
`
`15
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 18
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`vessel conducting the survey. A typical vessel would be about 100 meters long
`
`and 25-40 meters wide.
`
`: — Line 0! travel
`
`34. When recording seismic data,
`
`the location of each seismic trace,
`
`which is determined by the midpoint method discussed above is mapped on to the
`
`survey grid. Each seismic trace is, therefore,
`
`located in a bin, and each bin
`
`typically has multiple traces located within it. Survey Vessels tow streamers with
`
`hydrophones back and forth through the survey area in order to acquire numerous
`
`traces in every bin.
`
`B. Streamer Steering Overview
`
`1. Problems Encountered in Marine Seismic Data Acquisition
`
`a. In-filling
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 19
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`35.
`
`As part of the survey design process, seismic surveyors pre-determine
`
`a minimum number of trace data points that they must sum together in each bin to
`
`obtain the desired seismic data quality.
`
`If the surveyor does not obtain the
`
`minimum data points required for a particular bin, there will be data of inadequate
`
`quality or simply gaps in the survey data. The presence of inadequate data quality
`
`or gaps often requires the survey ship to repeat the survey over those areas to fill
`
`the bins. The process of re-acquiring seismic data, known as “in-fi1l[ing],” is very
`
`time—consuming and expensive. See Ex. 1038 (Evans) at 254. Gap or inadequate
`
`data problems were frequently known to occur when currents cause the streamers
`
`and the embodied hydrophones to veer off course from their pre-plarmed paths, so
`
`that in certain bins, the hydro-phones do not record as many data points as planned,
`
`desired, or required. Ex. 1040 (WR. Cotton & J.I. Sanders, The Reality of Trace
`
`Binning in 3-D Marine Surveying, (1983)) (“Cotton & Sanders”) at 565; W 36-38,
`
`47-43, infia.
`
`b. Irregular Spatial Sampling
`
`36.
`
`In addition to ensuring that sufficient traces are recorded in each bin,
`
`seismic surveyors also desire to have the data points as evenly distributed in the
`
`bin as possible. Having the data points unevenly or irregularly spaced within a
`
`bin—ofien the result of streamers (in which the hydrophones are contained)
`
`veering off the planned course—creates “uneven illumination or incomplete
`
`17
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 20
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`illumination ol’ the subsurface." See Es.
`
`I041 {Biondo L. Biondi. 3D Seismic
`
`Imaging (2006)) ("‘Biondi"'_} at 123; see also Ex. 1042 (Christopher L. Liner.
`
`Elements ol'3—D Seismology (1999)) (_“1_.iner"') at 104-05; Ex. 1038 (Evans) 211238.
`
`37.
`
`It was well recognized beliore October I. 1998 that
`
`this irregular
`
`spatial sampling and resultant uneven or incomplete illumination of the subsurface
`
`reduces the quality of the survey data and makes it more difficult and expensive to
`
`process the data. See. r3.g.. Ex. 1043 (Gerald I-Ll’. Gardner & Anal Canning, Eflect
`
`Q/'.‘n'egm'ar sarrrpifiig on 3-D p:'esmc)'r nrt'gror:'on_. SEG Abstracts (1994)) at 1553-
`
`S6; Ex. 1038 (Evans) at 238. For example. where there is regular spatial sampling
`
`in a survey, the individual seismic data points in adjacent bins are generally one
`
`bin length apatt. But, if there is irregular spatial sampling. such as where the data
`
`points collect on one side of a bin and on the Far opposite side of an ad_iacent bin.
`
`this results in a substantial amount of space between seismic data points, creating
`
`large gap areas with no data. On the 3D image, that area could show up having
`
`less detail than the rest of the survey, thereby reducing the quality of the overall
`
`survey data. See Ex. 1041 (Biondil at 123. This problem is referred to as "Spatial
`
`aliasing”:
`
`Spatial aliasing is an effect of [data point] spacing
`
`relative to frequency. velocity. and slope of a seismic
`
`event. With adequate [data point] spacing.
`
`the points
`
`along a seismic event are seen and processed as part of
`
`18
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 21
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`the continuous event. When [data point] spacing is too
`
`coarse, individual points do not seem to coalesce to a
`
`continuous event, which confuses not only the eye but
`
`processing programs as well. This can seriously degrade
`
`data quality and the ability to create a usable image.
`
`Ex. 1042 (Liner) at 104.‘
`
`38.
`
`Irregular spatial sampling caused by irregular streamer positioning
`
`also has “a detrimental effect” on data processing, thereby making it more difficult
`
`and expensive to process the data.
`
`Id. at 104-05; Ex. 1041 (Biondi) at 123-24.
`
`Accordingly, though obtaining the prerequisite number of seismic traces within
`
`each bin is important, that alone does not ensure adequate data quality. To avoid
`
`these degradations and distortions in the data, seismic surveyors seek to position
`
`streamers (and their attached hydrophones) to achieve regular spatial sampling in
`
`‘ Although Liner’s book was published in 1999, he was summarizing what was
`
`previously known in the field about spatial aliasing.
`
`Indeed, Liner cited prior art
`
`that describes the spatial aliasing problem. See, e.g., Ex. 1044 (Christopher L.
`
`Liner & Ralph Gobeli, Bin Size and Linear v(z), Society of Exploration
`
`Geophysics Technical Program Expanded Abstracts) (1996) (“Liner & Gobeli”) at
`
`47.
`
`I also wrote about this problem in my book, see Ex. 1038 (Evans) at 238, and
`
`noted the problem in my class notes in the late 19805.
`
`19
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 22
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`

`

`bins. thereby avoiding holes or uneven distributions of seismic traces that can
`
`Cause poor data quality within the bins.
`
`c. Streamer Tangling
`
`39.
`
`If streamers veer substantially off their
`
`intended course.
`
`for
`
`example due to local eurrents._ they can become entangled. Streamer tangling can
`
`damage the streamers and the devices thereon. Tangling can also take a significant
`
`time to remedy and, thus. forces the survey operators to cease data collection for an
`
`extended period of time. The costs of this can be substantial, as the streamer
`
`equipment is enormously expensive, and the ellicicnt conduct of the survey. with
`
`minimal downtime, is essential to the profitable conduct of the survey. See Ex.
`
`1006 (W0 9898636) (""6363 PCT") at 2.
`
`(1. Turning
`
`40.
`
`It was well known, since at least the 19703. that turning operations
`
`during a survey were encumbered by currents and the centripetal threes of turns
`
`that resulted in certain problems during marine seismic surveys, including streamer
`
`tanglin