Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 71
`Entered: July 11, 2016
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`____________
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 71
`Entered: July 11, 2016
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`____________
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`
`A. Background
`Petroleum Geo-Services (“Petitioner,” or “PGS”) filed a Petition to
`institute an inter partes review of claims 16–23 of U.S. Patent No. 7,080,607
`B2 (“the ’607 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). WesternGeco LLC (“Patent
`Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 12 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We instituted trial in Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc., v. WesternGeco L.L.C.,
`Case IPR2014-01477, for claims 16–23 of the ’607 patent on certain
`grounds of unpatentability alleged in the Petition. Paper 18 (“Decision to
`Institute” or “Inst. Dec.”). Patent Owner, in due course, filed a Response.
`Paper 45 (“PO Resp.” or “Response”). Petitioner subsequently filed a
`Reply. Paper 47 (Reply).1
`An oral hearing was held on November 10, 2015. A transcript of the
`hearing is included in the record. Paper 64 (“Tr.”).
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has proven, by a
`preponderance of the evidence, that claims 16–23 of the ’607 patent is
`unpatentable.
`B. Additional Proceedings
`Lawsuits involving the ’607 patent presently asserted against
`Petitioner include WesternGeco LLC v. Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc., 4:13-
`cv-02725 (the “PGS lawsuit”) in the Southern District of Texas and
`
`
`1 We refer here to the paper numbers of the redacted versions of Patent
`Owner’s Response and Petitioner’s Reply.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 4:09-cv-01827 (the “ION
`lawsuit”) also in the Southern District of Texas, and WesternGeco LLC v.
`ION Geophysical Corp., 13-1527 (Fed. Cir.). Pet. 8.
`The ’607 patent was also challenged in Petroleum Geo-Services Inc.,
`v. WesternGeco LLC (IPR2014-00688) (PTAB Aug. 5, 2014) (the “first PGS
`IPR”); and ION Geophysical Corporation v. WesternGeco LLC (IPR2015-
`00567) (PTAB Jan. 14, 2015).2
`C. The ’607 Patent
`The ’607 patent (Ex. 1001), titled “SEISMIC DATA ACQUISITION
`EQUIPMENT CONTROL SYSTEM,” generally relates to a method and
`apparatus for improving marine seismic survey techniques to more
`effectively control the movement and positioning of marine seismic
`streamers towed in an array behind a boat. Ex. 1001, 1:16–24. As
`illustrated in Figure 1 of the ’607 patent reproduced below, labeled “Prior
`Art,” a seismic source, for example air gun 14, is towed by boat 10
`producing acoustic signals, which are reflected off the earth below. Id. at
`1:24–30. The reflected signals are received by hydrophones (no reference
`number) attached to streamers 12, and the signals “digitized and processed
`to build up a representation of the subsurface geology.” Id. at 1:31–33.
`
`
`
`2 IPR2015-00567 was joined with IPR2014-00688 and a Final Written
`Decision in that proceeding was mailed by the Board on December 15, 2015.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`
`
`Figure 1, reproduced above, depicts an array of seismic streamers 12
`towed behind the vessel. 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 1:42–2:16.
`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. Drag buoy 20 at the
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`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 streamers,
`a plurality of streamer positioning devices, called “birds” 18, are attached
`along the length of each streamer.3 Id. at 3:47–49. 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 3:49–55.
`The bird’s function is usually to maintain the streamers in their linear and
`parallel arrangement, because, when the streamers are horizontally out of
`position, the efficiency of the seismic data collection is compromised. Id. at
`2:5–7. The most important function of the birds, however, is to keep the
`streamers from tangling. Id. at 3:65–66.
`Figure 2 of the ’607 patent, reproduced below, illustrates a preferred
`embodiment of bird 18 as it relates to the described invention.
`
`
`3 Although the term “streamer positioning device” is inclusive of other
`structures besides a “bird,” unless otherwise noted in this Decision, we use
`the terms “birds,” “SPD,” and “streamer positioning devices”
`interchangeably.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`
`
`As depicted by Figure 2 of the ’607 patent, reproduced above, when
`the streamers are towed, birds 18 are capable of controlling their own
`position, and hence the position of streamers 12, in both horizontal and
`vertical directions. Id. at 5:34–36. The ’607 patent explains that “[t]he bird
`18 preferably has 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 5:43–47.
`The invention described in the ’607 patent relies on global control
`system 22 located on or near the vessel to control the birds on each streamer
`to maintain the streamers in their particular linear and parallel arrangement.
`Id. at 3:56–60. The control system is provided with a model (desired)
`position representation of each streamer in the towed streamer array, and
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`also receives (actual) position information from each of the birds. Id. at
`4:15–19. The 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 4:28–34.
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 16–23 are dependent directly or indirectly upon independent
`claim 15, claims 15 and 16 are reproduced below:
`
`
`15. An array of seismic streamers towed by a towing vessel
`comprising:
`(a) a plurality of streamer positioning devices on or inline with
`each streamer;
`(b) a prediction unit adapted to predict positions of at least some
`of the streamer positioning devices; and
`(c) a control unit adapted to use the predicted positions to
`calculate desired changes in positions of one or more of the
`streamer positioning devices.
`
`16. Apparatus as claimed in claim 15, in which each streamer
`positioning device has a first hydrodynamic deflecting surface
`and a second hydrodynamic deflecting surface, said first
`deflecting surface and said second deflecting surface being
`independently moveable to steer the streamer positioning device
`laterally and vertically.
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 12:26–40.
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01477
`
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`PUBLIC — REDACTED
`
`E. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`
`following specific groundsf‘
`
`’636 PCT5 and Gikas‘
`
`§ 103
`
`16 and 17
`
`
`
`’6336 PCT, Gikas, and
`S 0 ink7
`
`’636 PCT, Gikas,
`Sink, and ’394 PCT8
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`18-20
`
`21-23
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`interpreted according 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, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278-79 (Fed. Cir-
`
`2015) (“Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by
`
`PTO regulation”), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`
`136 S. Ct. 980 (mem_) (2016). Claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`4 Petitioner supports its challenge with Declarations of Dr. Brian J. Evans,
`Ph.D. (Ex. 1002) (“Evans Decl.”) and Dr. Jack H. Cole, Ph.D. (Ex.1003)
`(“Cole Decl.”). See infra.
`5 Ex. 1013, WO 98/28636 (published July 2, 1998).
`6 Ex. 1006, V. Gikas et al., A Rigorous and Integrated Approach to
`Hydrophone and Source Positioning during Multi—Streamer Oflfshore
`Seismic Exploration, 77 THE HYDROGRAPIHC JOURNAL 11-24 (July 1995).
`7 Ex. 1058, U.S. Patent No. 3,560,912 (issued Feb. 2, 1971).
`8 Ex. 1059, W0 97/1 1394 (published March 27, 1997).
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`customary 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 Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). If the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim
`term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise
`possess[,] . . . the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
`Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
`If an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must
`be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,
`1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). If a feature is not necessary to give meaning to what
`the inventor means by a claim term, it would be “extraneous” and should not
`be read into the claim. Id.; E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips
`Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Only terms which are
`in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`We apply these general rules in construing the claims of the ’607
`patent.
`In our Decision to Institute we construed several terms, determining
`that a “streamer positioning device,” is “a device that positions a streamer as
`it is towed.” Inst. Dec. 9–10. We determined that “means for determining
`the angular velocity of each streamer positioning device” as recited in claim
`18 is: “a horizontal accelerometer and a vertical accelerometer, placed at
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`right angles with respect to one another and a vibrating rate gyro as
`described in the ’607 patent, or their equivalents.” Id. at 11. We also
`interpreted “cycle rate” as “the number of data sampling cycles a processing
`unit performs per unit of time.” Id. at 12. Based on the full record
`developed during trial, we adopt those constructions for purposes of this
`Decision.
`We further determined that “predict[ing] positions” means “estimating
`the actual locations.” Id. at 10. Because Patent Owner argues for a different
`construction of this term, we re-analyze our construction, below, and also
`provide construction for the term “global control system” as recited in
`claims 19, 21, and 23.
`B. Predict Positions
`We determined in the Decision to Institute that “predict positions”
`recited in claim 15 means “estimating the actual locations.”9 Inst. Dec. 10.
`Patent Owner disagrees with this construction and contends that the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of “predict positions” is “determining positions
`using a behavior-predictive model.” PO Resp. 5. Patent Owner argues that
`“[t]he intrinsic evidence requires that ‘predicting positions’ addresses the
`time lag between positional measurements and steering commands arriving
`at the streamer positioning device, as well as the forces acting on the
`streamer.” Id. at. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:8–14, 48–55, 5:4– 16; Ex. 2075 ¶¶
`40, 57, 69–70, 91–92.). Petitioner’s position is that our construction in the
`Decision to Institute is correct. Reply 3.
`
`
`9 All of the limitations of claim 15 are included in the challenged claims 16–
`23 which depend therefrom.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`Patent Owner argues that the proper understanding of “predicting
`positions” begins with the plain and ordinary meaning of the word
`“predicting” as having a temporal aspect, which must be accounted for in the
`broadest reasonable interpretation. PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2074). We agree
`with Patent Owner, at least to the extent that an ordinary meaning of the
`word “predict[ing]” can generally be understood as having a temporal aspect
`relating to the future. Patent Owner states further in their Response that:
`[p]redictive control as recited in claim 15 requires a prediction as
`to (1) where the streamer positioning device will be at the time
`when commands are received at the device and (2) taking into
`consideration the forces acting on the streamers, i.e. the behavior
`of the streamer array. (See e.g. Ex. 2075, ¶¶ 69–76, 93–94, 110.)
`Id. First, we note that claim 15 does not recite “predictive control” as stated
`here by Patent Owner. See Ex. 1001, 12:26–34. Second, with respect to
`point (1), our claim construction accounts for exactly this temporal, i.e.
`future, aspect of “predicting.” As explained in our Decision to Institute:
`the received position data of any bird 18 is old, i.e., not
`instantaneous, or current, but is used to estimate a position of bird
`18, and assess the estimate as an actual position of bird 18.
`Inst. Dec. 10. Our claim construction relies specifically on the nature of the
`temporal component described in the ’607 patent specification which states
`“the global positioning system runs position predictor software to estimate
`the actual locations of each of the birds 18.” Ex. 1001, 4:51–55. Based on
`the specification, the estimated “actual locations” recited in our construction
`is a future prediction relative to the old (measured) position data that takes
`into account the time delay, or lag, and as stated in Patent Owner’s point (1)
`above. The “actual location” in our claim construction is “where the
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`streamer positioning device will be at the time when commands are received
`at the device” as contended by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 6. Regarding point
`(2), here Patent Owner argues that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`“predict[ing] positions” must consider not only positional data, but also
`force data and behavior. Id. Patent Owner contends that the specification is
`clear that “predicting positions” requires “behavior prediction” and that
`“[b]ehavior prediction is more sophisticated than simply estimating the
`actual locations.” Id. at 8–9 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:11–14. To support its
`position that a “behavior-predictive model” should be part of the
`construction Patent Owner draws our attention to certain portions of the
`specification that discuss control of the streamer positioning devices:
`the inventive control system utilizes a distributed processing
`control architecture and behavior-predictive model-based control
`logic to properly control the streamer positioning devices.
`Ex. 1001, 4:11–14. Also,
`[t]he global control system 22 preferably maintains a dynamic
`model of each of the seismic streamers 12 and utilizes the desired
`and actual positions of the birds 18 to regularly calculate updated
`desired vertical and horizontal forces the bird should impart on
`the seismic streamers 12 to move them from their actual positions
`to their desired positions.
`Id. at 4:28–34. And,
`[t]he global control system 22 preferably calculates the desired
`vertical and horizontal forces based on the behavior of each
`streamer and also takes into account the behavior of the complete
`streamer array.
`Id. at 4:48–51. Using these specification examples, Patent Owner includes
`“behavior-predictive model” in its claim construction for “predict[ing]
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`positions” as part of the overall dynamic model controlling the streamer
`array that “must take into account some model of the various forces acting
`on the array as a whole.” PO Resp. 9–10 (citing Ex. 2075 ¶¶ 69–76, 110).
`We must take care, however, when reading a patent specification to interpret
`and understand the claims and requisite claim language in light of the
`disclosure, while not inappropriately importing variations and specific
`embodiments into a claim interpretation. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV
`Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). (“Though
`understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations
`contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim
`limitations that are not a part of the claim.”). A claim construction analysis
`begins with, and is centered on, the claim language itself. See Interactive
`Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir.
`2001). Claim 15, recites the limitation “predict positions.” A plain meaning
`of the word “position” is “the point or area occupied by a physical object.”
`MERRIAM WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY, http://www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/position (last visited Mar. 8, 2015). On its face,
`therefore, the word itself does not impart any dynamic characteristic to the
`limitation as a whole. The claims also do not recite the terms “dynamic
`model,” “behavioral-predictive model,” or “force.” It is understood from a
`plain reading of the claims, that the “predicted positions” are used, for
`example as recited in claim 15 “by a control unit . . . to calculate desired
`changes in positions of one or more of the streamer positioning devices.”
`This at least implies that to control the streamer positioning device some
`force will be imparted by the streamer positioning device based on the
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`control units’ calculations. It does not however, express to the reader that
`such forces utilized in a dynamic or “behavior-predictive model,” are
`required by the prediction unit to “predict positions.” Addressing the
`specific portions of the ’607 patent relied upon by Patent Owner, these
`examples discuss dynamic model, streamer and SPD behavior including,
`calculated forces and estimated actual locations of the SPD’s as separate
`functional elements or components of a “global control system 22.” See e.g.
`Ex. 1001, 4:48–55. The specification states explicitly that these are
`preferred embodiments. Id. “While . . . claims are to be interpreted in light
`of the specification and with a view to ascertaining the invention, it does not
`follow that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims.”
`Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir.
`1998) (citation omitted). Further, Patent Owner’s construction would
`require the term “predict positions” to include a “behavior predictive
`model,” a term that is recited only one time in the specification and without
`any specific definition, other than as “control logic to properly control the
`streamer positioning device.” Ex. 1001, 4:16–20. We are not persuaded
`from the claim language itself or the written description of the ’607 patent
`that the “behavior-predictive model” to control all the streamer positioning
`devices in the array should necessarily be read into “predict[ing] positions,”
`as recited in claim 15.
`Patent Owner relies upon the testimony of its Declarant, Dr. Michael
`Triantafyllou, in support of its position that “predicting positions” requires a
`behavior-predictive model. PO Resp. 5–6,10–12 (citing Ex. 2075 ¶¶ 40, 57,
`69–70, 91–92). Dr. Triantafyllou has over 40 years of experience in the
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`field of marine vehicle dynamics and control. Ex. 2075 ¶ 1. He has a
`bachelor’s degree in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, as well as
`a Master of Science and Mechanical Engineering, a Master’s of Science in
`Ocean Engineering, and a Ph.D in Ocean Engineering from MIT. Id. at ¶ 2.
`Since 1979, Dr. Triantafyllou has been an MIT faculty member and
`professor, including Director of the Center for Ocean Engineering at MIT, as
`well as a visiting research scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic
`Institute. Id. ¶¶ 6, 9. We understand from Dr. Triantafyllou’s testimony,
`that in a large array of towed seismic streamers, it is particularly helpful to
`synchronize all the streamer positioning devices that control the numerous
`parallel streamers, and “to continuously coordinate all the streamer
`positioning devices in the array, combined with a behavior-based predictive
`model, and then send commands to each local control system helps prevent
`the type of overcorrection that can increase the likelihood of streamer
`tangling.” Id. ¶ 64. Although Dr. Triantafyllou’s testimony is helpful in
`understanding how the specification of the ’607 patent attempts to describe
`the preferred aspects of the invention disclosed therein, for example that the
`behavior-predictive model “uses past information and knowledge about the
`dynamics of a system to determine how that system configuration will
`change over time,” his testimony does not explain why, as discussed above,
`we should interpret the claim term “predict positions” as requiring a
`preferred embodiment from the specification. Ex. 2075 ¶ 75, see also Ex.
`1001, 4:28–29 (In an embodiment described in the specification “[t]he
`global control system 22 preferably maintains a dynamic model of each of
`the seismic streamers 12.”) In the instant case, Patent Owner has not
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`brought any language from the specification to our attention where Patent
`Owner purported to be its own lexicographer and defined “predict[ing]
`positions” in a manner that requires a behavior-predictive model relying on
`dynamics of the system as a whole. It is well settled that “claims will not be
`read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to
`limit the claim scope using words of expressions of manifest exclusion or
`restriction.” Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363,
`1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`To the extent the term “predict positions” needs any interpretation, we
`determine based on the specification, claim language, and evidence from the
`complete record before us, that under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
`and giving the words their plain and ordinary meaning consistent with the
`specification that, “predict positions” means “estimating the actual
`locations.”
`C. Calculate Desired Changes
`Patent Owner contends that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`“calculate desired changes” as recited in claim 15 is to “determine forces
`based on streamer and array behavior.” PO Resp. 10–11. Patent Owner
`argues that this claim limitation “requires the desired changes to take into
`account not only the streamer on which the streamer positioning device is
`located, but also the complete streamer array.” Id. We are not persuaded to
`read such a limitation into this claim phrase. First, in the context of claim
`15, the complete phrase is, “calculate desired changes in positions.” The
`plain meaning of “calculate” is essentially interchangeable with “determine,”
`and thus we see no reason to clarify this aspect of the claim language. The
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`direct object of the verb “calculate” is “changes in position” of the SPD, and
`thus the proposed claim construction would substitute “forces based on
`streamer and array behavior” for “changes in position.” The asserted claim
`construction, however, naturally expresses how changes in position are, or
`could be accomplished. For example, “force” acting on an object is, from a
`physics perspective, a different quantity than the “position” of the object. A
`certain force may cause a change in position but it is not the “change in
`position” itself. We are, therefore, not persuaded by the plain meaning of
`the claim language that “changes in position” is required to be limited to any
`particular causational definition or quantity. Patent Owner’s claim
`construction relies upon preferred embodiments from the specification; for
`example, the specification states that “[t]he global control system 22
`preferably calculates the desired vertical and horizontal forces based on the
`behavior of each streamer and also takes into account the behavior of the
`complete streamer array.” See Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:48–51).
`Furthermore, to the extent that Patent Owner is relying on the “global
`control system 22” as predicting or calculating such forces, the specification
`includes an alternative embodiment where the global control system does
`not calculate the forces, but alternatively, “can transmit location information
`to the local control system 36 instead of force information.” Ex. 1001, 6:38–
`39.
`
`Accordingly, we determine based on the specification, claim
`language, and evidence from the complete record before us, that under the
`broadest reasonable interpretation, and giving the words their plain and
`ordinary meaning consistent with the specification, that the phrase
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`“calculating desired changes in position” needs no construction and should
`be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning.
`D. Global Control System
`Patent Owner contends that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`“global control system” is “a control system configured to coordinate all
`streamer positioning devices in the array.” PO Resp. 12–13 (emphasis
`added). Patent Owner argues that “[t]his construction is mandated by the
`claim language, specification, and the very purpose of the ’607 invention.”
`Id. at 15.
`Patent Owner asserts that the proper understanding of “global control
`system” is dependent on the ordinary meaning that the word “global” would
`impart to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 13. Patent Owner initially
`points to an ordinary meaning from the Webster’s Third New International
`Dictionary (EX. 2068), defining “global” to mean “of, relating to, or
`constituting, an organic whole.” Id. (citing Ex. 2068). Based on this
`dictionary definition, Patent Owner contends that in the context of a seismic
`survey vessel towing “an array of streamers” as recited in claim 15, to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art, “global” means “that the entire array of
`streamers were being controlled.” Id. (citing Ex. 2075 ¶ 88) (emphasis
`added). Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Triantafyllou testifies also that
`[m]y understanding of a “global control system” stems from the
`use of the word “global.” This term is specific. To a POSA, it
`means that the control system oversees and affects the entire
`system. It is aimed at coordinated control.
`Ex. 2075 ¶ 88. In support of his testimony Dr. Triantafyllou points to the
`specification of the ’607 patent for two examples of how coordinated control
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`of the entire system can occur, e.g. by “delivering force values ‘as separate
`values for each bird 18 on each streamer continuously during operation of
`the control system,’” (Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 5:20–23)); and also “that ‘[t]he
`global control system 22 preferably calculates the desired vertical and
`horizontal forces based on the behavior of each streamer and also takes into
`account the behavior of the complete streamer array.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1001,
`4:54–57). Based on such examples from the specification Dr. Triantafyllou
`concludes that “global control system” is not merely control of the entire
`array of streamers, but that it is “a control system configured to coordinate
`all streamer positioning devices in the array.” Id. ¶ 90 (emphasis added).
`We must take care when reading a patent specification to interpret and
`understand the claims and requisite claim language in light of the disclosure,
`while not inappropriately importing variations and specific embodiments
`into a claim interpretation. See Superguide Corp. 358 F.3d at 875.
`(“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the
`explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to
`import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”). The written
`description portions relied upon by Dr. Triantafyllou in support of Patent
`Owner’s claim construction are preferred embodiments and examples in the
`’607 patent specification explaining how to control the streamers. For
`example, the specification states that “[i]n the preferred embodiment of the
`present invention, the global control system 22 monitors the actual positions
`of each of the birds 18.” Ex. 1001, 4:15–17. Also, the ’607 patent describes
`that “[t]he global control system 22 preferably calculates the desired vertical
`and horizontal forces based on the behavior of each streamer.” Id. at 4:49–
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`50. The ’607 patent is replete with language and examples indicating
`alternative and exemplary embodiments, including the statement just prior to
`the claim listing that “[t]he present invention includes any novel feature or
`novel combination of features disclosed herein, either explicitly or
`implicitly.” Id. at 11:12–14 (emphasis added). “[W]hile . . . claims are to be
`interpreted in light of the specification and with a view to ascertaining the
`invention, it does not follow that limitations from the specification may be
`read into the claims.” Comark 156 F.3d at 1186. The use of the terms
`“preferably” and “preferred” in the above examples from the specification
`indicates that complete control of every bird may be desired and
`accomplished by the preferred embodiment, but it does not persuade us that
`control of less than all birds is excluded. We find no description or evidence
`in the specification, nor does Patent Owner point us to any language or
`evidence indicative of any intent, express or inherent, to limit the claimed
`invention to the preferred embodiments. See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v.
`Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Even when the
`specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent
`will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear
`intention to limit the claim scope using words or expressions of manifest
`exclusion or restriction.”) (quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299
`F.3d 1313, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded that any of the exemplary
`embodiments from the specification or Dr. Triantafyllou’s interpretation
`based on such specific embodiments that allegedly “coordinate all streamer
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED
`positioning devices” should be read into “global control system.” See Ex.
`2075 ¶ 90.
`It is also not clear from Dr. Triantafyllou’s testimony why one of
`ordinary skill in the art would limit the term global control system to
`“coordinate all streamer positioning devices in the array” as propounded in
`Patent Owner’s claim construction. We are not apprised of any persuasive
`evidence in Dr. Triantafyllou’s testimony that all the SPD’s in the array
`must be coordinated in order to guide all the streamers and achieve a
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
