Filed on behalf of Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc.
`
`
`
`By: David Berl
`Registration No. 72,751
`Williams & Connolly, LLP
`725 12th St., NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: 202-434-5000
`Facsimile: 202-434-5029
`Email:
`dberl@wc.com
`
`REDACTED PUBLIC FILING
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`CASE IPR: Unassigned
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,080,607
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-.123
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`OVERVIEW................................................................................................. 1
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)); PROCEDURAL
`STATEMENTS ........................................................................................... 7
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) .................................. 7
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE
`REASONS THEREFOR (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a) and 42.104(b)) ............... 8
`
`VI.
`
`THE ’607 PATENT ..................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The ’607 Patent’s Specification ............................................................ 8
`
`Claims 16-23 of the ’607 Patent ............................................................ 9
`
`Identification of the Prior Art .............................................................. 11
`
`1.
`
`’636 PCT ............................................................................................. 12
`
`2. Gikas .................................................................................................... 14
`
`3. Spink .................................................................................................... 16
`
`4.
`
`’394 PCT ............................................................................................. 17
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’607 PATENT PROSECUTION HISTORY . 18
`
`THE DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDING AGAINST ION .............. 19
`
`VII.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................... 20
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Streamer Positioning Device: “a device that controls the position of a
`streamer as it is towed (e.g., a ‘bird’).” ............................................... 20
`
`Predicting Positions: “estimate of the real time or future locations” .. 21
`
`“On or In-Line With”: “either in-line with the streamer or attached to
`the streamer, whether fastened on the streamer by clamping or other
`means” ................................................................................................. 22
`
`D.
`
`Means for Determining the Angular Velocity of Each Streamer
`
`

`
`Positioning Device: “a horizontal and vertical accelerometer placed at
`right angles with respect to one another or a rate gyro or their
`equivalents.” ........................................................................................ 22
`
`Global Control System: “a control system that sends commands to
`other devices in a system (e.g., local control systems).” .................... 23
`
`Cycle Rate: “number of cycles a processing unit performs per unit of
`time.” ................................................................................................... 24
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`VIII.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.01(b)). .............. 25
`
`IX.
`
`GROUND 1: CLAIMS 16 and 17 ARE OBVIOUS OVER THE ’636
`PCT IN VIEW OF GIKAS ........................................................................ 26
`
`A.
`
`Claim 15 .............................................................................................. 26
`
`1. “An array of seismic streamers towed by a towing vessel comprising”
` ............................................................................................................. 28
`
`2. “(a) a plurality of streamer positioning devices on or inline with each
`streamer” ............................................................................................. 29
`
`3. “(b) a prediction unit adapted to predict positions of at least some of
`the streamer positioning devices” ....................................................... 29
`
`4. “(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” ............................................................................ 33
`
`Claim 16 .............................................................................................. 35
`
`Claim 17 .............................................................................................. 36
`
`GROUND 2: CLAIMS 18-20 ARE OBVIOUS OVER THE ’636 PCT IN
`VIEW OF GIKAS AND SPINK ............................................................... 37
`
`Claim 18 .............................................................................................. 37
`
`Claim 19 .............................................................................................. 41
`
`1. “a global control system is located on or near said seismic vessel” ... 42
`
`X.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`2. “and a respective local control system is located within or near each
`streamer positioning device” ............................................................... 48
`
`3. “and said global control system and said local control systems
`communicate using a respective communication line passing through
`each streamer” ..................................................................................... 49
`
`C.
`
`Claim 20 .............................................................................................. 50
`
`XI.
`
`GROUND 3: CLAIMS 21-23 ARE OBVIOUS OVER THE ’636 PCT IN
`VIEW OF GIKAS, SPINK , AND THE ’394 PCT ................................... 51
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claim 21 .............................................................................................. 51
`
`Claim 22 .............................................................................................. 54
`
`Claim 23 .............................................................................................. 57
`
`XII.
`
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 60
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`FEDERAL CASES
`Adv. Disp. Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir.
`2000) ................................................................................................................... 46
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............... 45, 46
`
`Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir.
`1988) ....................................................................................................... 37, 42, 48
`
`In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ...................................................... 54
`
`Janssen Pharmaceutica v. Eon Labs Mfg., Inc., 134 Fed. App’x 425
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................... 12
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................ 32
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........... 24, 43
`
`Pharmastem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342 (Fed
`Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................ 37, 42, 48
`
`W. Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Sys., Inc., 626 F.3d 1361 (Fed.
`Cir. 2010)
` ........................................................................................................... 35, 37, 51, 57
`
`STATUTES, RULES & OTHER
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.01(b) ................................................................................................ 25
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 20
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 7
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a) ................................................................................................. 7
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.106(a) ............................................................................................... ..737 C.F.R. §42.106(a) ............................................................................................... ..737 C.F.R. §42.106(a) ............................................................................................... ..737 C.F.R. §42.106(a) ............................................................................................... ..7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.108 ................................................................................................... ..837 C.F.R. §42.108 ................................................................................................... ..837 C.F.R. §42.108 ................................................................................................... ..837 C.F.R. §42.108 ................................................................................................... ..8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) ............................................................................................ 14, 17
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) .......................................................................................... ..14, 1735 U.S.C. § 102 (a) .......................................................................................... ..14, 1735 U.S.C. § 102 (a) .......................................................................................... ..14, 1735 U.S.C. § 102 (a) .......................................................................................... ..14, 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ....................................................................................... 12, 14, 17
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C.§102(b) ..................................................................................... ..12,14,1735 U.S.C.§102(b) ..................................................................................... ..12,14,1735 U.S.C.§102(b) ..................................................................................... ..12,14,1735 U.S.C.§102(b) ..................................................................................... ..12,14,17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ ..835 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ ..835 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ ..835 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ ..8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) .................................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(1) .................................................................................................. ..2235 U.S.C. § 112(1) .................................................................................................. ..2235 U.S.C. § 112(1) .................................................................................................. ..2235 U.S.C. § 112(1) .................................................................................................. ..22
`
`35 U.S.C. § 119(a) ................................................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C.§119(a) ................................................................................................. ..1235 U.S.C.§119(a) ................................................................................................. ..1235 U.S.C.§119(a) ................................................................................................. ..1235 U.S.C.§119(a) ................................................................................................. ..12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................................ ..135 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................................ ..135 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................................ ..135 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................................ ..1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) ................................................................................................. 7
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) ............................................................................................... ..735 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) ............................................................................................... ..735 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) ............................................................................................... ..735 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) ............................................................................................... ..7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 26
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................. ..2635 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................. ..2635 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................. ..2635 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................. ..26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 363 ........................................................................................................ 12
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 363 ...................................................................................................... ..1235 U.S.C. § 363 ...................................................................................................... ..1235 U.S.C. § 363 ...................................................................................................... ..1235 U.S.C. § 363 ...................................................................................................... ..12
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Petroleum Geo-
`
`Services, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of Claims 16-23
`
`(“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,080,607 (the “’607 Patent”) (Ex. 1001),
`
`assigned on its face to WesternGeco L.L.C. (“Patent Owner”). Accompanying this
`
`Petition are the declarations of Drs. Brian Evans (Ex. 1002) and Jack Cole (Ex.
`
`1003). This Petition and its accompanying declarations demonstrate that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to Claims 16-23, and
`
`thus a trial for inter partes review must be instituted.
`
`II. OVERVIEW
`
`The ’607 Patent is directed to marine seismic surveying technology. Marine
`
`seismic surveys are carried out by vessels that tow acoustic energy sources that fire
`
`“shots” of sound waves into the water. The sound waves travel through the
`
`seafloor and into the earth, reflect from the earth’s geological formations, and
`
`return to the surface. The reflected signals are then recorded by acoustic sensors
`
`(“receivers” or “hydrophones”) that are towed in long cables known as seismic
`
`“streamers.” Because recorded sound waves have different properties depending
`
`on the geology of the ocean’s subsurface, the recorded data can be processed to
`
`obtain information regarding characteristics of the ocean’s subsurface, including
`
`evidence about the possible presence of oil and gas. In essence, a marine seismic
`
`
`
`

`
`survey seeks to obtain an image of the ocean’s subsurface in the surveyed area.
`
`In modern marine seismic surveys, a tow vessel typically tows a plurality of
`
`streamers in a spread called an “array.” Ex. 1002 (Evans) ¶ 25. Marine seismic
`
`surveys are planned carefully in advance. To obtain optimal survey data most
`
`efficiently, seismic survey plans generally call for the vessel and towed streamers
`
`to traverse the survey area in straight lines back and forth, ideally obtaining a pre-
`
`determined quantity of data from each portion of the survey area. Id. ¶¶ 30-32.
`
`Currents and other environmental forces, however, tend to cause the streamers to
`
`deviate from their pre-planned paths and configurations. These deviations result in
`
`the collection of data that are distributed irregularly in the survey area, which
`
`degrades the data quality and leads to gaps in the data and, by extension, the
`
`subsurface image the survey seeks to obtain. Id. ¶¶ 32-35. In the event of gaps,
`
`the survey vessel must reacquire the missing data using an expensive and time-
`
`consuming process known as “in-filling.” Id. ¶ 32.
`
`Moreover, streamers that veer off course can become entangled—both with
`
`each other and with external obstructions, such as oil rigs. Ex. 1002 ¶ 37.
`
`Streamer tangling has devastating consequences, as it can damage the expensive
`
`streamers and the devices thereon. Id.; see also Ex. 1065 (U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,404,339) at 2:38-40 (noting that seismic streamer cables cost upwards of $1
`
`million by the mid-1990s). Tangling also interrupts seismic data acquisition for
`
`2
`
`

`
`extended periods of time, and the efficient conduct of a survey with minimal
`
`downtime is critical to the survey’s profitability. Ex. 1002 (Evans) ¶ 37.
`
`The art of streamer steering developed, in large measure, to address these
`
`problems. Streamer positioning is generally comprised of (1) determining the
`
`position of the streamer and (2) steering the streamer to a desired position. Control
`
`systems capable of performing these functions began to arise in the 1960s. They
`
`have used various types of equipment to monitor the streamer positions during the
`
`survey, such as magnetic compasses, acoustic measuring systems, global
`
`positioning systems, shore-based radio positioning, and satellite observations. Ex.
`
`1002 ¶ 66; see, e.g., Ex. 1007 (U.S.P.N. 3,581,273) at 6:43-57 (radar reflectors);
`
`Ex. 1008 (U.S.P.N. 3,605,674) (“Weese”) at 4:33-38 (“horizontal ranging sonar”);
`
`Ex. 1009 (U.S.P.N. 4,809,005) at 2:55-60 (GPS satellites); Ex. 1010 (U.S.P.N.
`
`4,404,664) (“Zachariadis”) at Abstract (magnetic compasses and gyrocompasses).
`
`When the monitoring systems indicate that streamers have deviated from their
`
`desired path, a control system on the vessel sends positioning commands to
`
`“streamer positioning devices” attached or built into the streamer to move them to
`
`the desired position. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 54-67. Streamer positioning devices, which
`
`date back to at least the 1960s, typically have at least one water-deflecting surface
`
`(e.g., a wing, fin, or rudder) that can be positioned at different angles to adjust the
`
`streamers’ depths and/or lateral position. Id. ¶¶ 39-40, 42-43.
`
`3
`
`

`
`The ’607 Patent used the streamer positioning system previously disclosed
`
`in the prior art PCT Application No. WO 98/28636 (“’636 PCT”) (Ex. 1013). The
`
`’607 Patent indicates that certain benefits “can be obtained by using properly
`
`controlled horizontally steerable birds, particularly by using the types of
`
`horizontally and vertically steerable birds disclosed in our published [’636 PCT].”
`
`Ex. 1001 (’607 Patent) at 1:59-63. The only streamer positioning device depicted
`
`in the ’607 Patent’s figures is labeled “18” in Figures 1 and 2, and the ’607 Patent
`
`confirms that “[a] bird 18 of this type is also disclosed in our [’636 PCT].” Id. at
`
`5:27-31; see also id. at 7:35-36.
`
`The ’607 Patent acknowledges that the streamer positioning system in the
`
`’636 PCT discloses a streamer control system wherein a “remote control system”
`
`sends signals indicative of “the desired horizontal positions and the actual
`
`horizontal positions” to a “local control system” built into each streamer
`
`positioning device (in this case a “bird”), and the local control systems within the
`
`birds “adjust the wing angles” to move the streamers from their actual positions to
`
`their desired positions. Ex. 1001 at 2:29-35.
`
`The ’607 Patent attempts to distinguish the control systems of the ’636 PCT
`
`and certain other prior art, however, on the sole basis that they failed to account for
`
`the “5 second delay between the taking of measurements and the determination of
`
`actual streamer positions.” Id. at 2:37-38. Because the streamers are constantly
`
`4
`
`

`
`moving when towed and “[t]he actual horizontal positions of the birds may be
`
`determined every 5 to 10 seconds,” the ’607 Patent asserts that “the delay period
`
`and the relatively long cycle time between position measurements prevents [the
`
`’636 PCT and other prior art] control system[s] from rapidly and efficiently
`
`controlling the horizontal position of the bird[s].” Id. at 2:35-43. The ’607 Patent
`
`purports to overcome this delay problem using a “more deterministic system” for
`
`tracking and controlling streamer positions. Id. at 2:43-44. In particular, its
`
`system uses “position predictor software to estimate the actual locations” of
`
`streamers and streamer positioning devices during the intervals between position
`
`measurements. Id. at 2:28-34, 4:54-55.
`
`That “prediction” concept is the supposedly inventive aspect of Claim 15,
`
`from which the challenged claims depend. The limitations of Claim 15 include
`
`“(b) a prediction unit adapted to predict positions of . . . streamer positioning
`
`devices” and “(c) a control unit adapted to use the predicted positions to calculate
`
`desired changes” in position. Yet, as explained in this Petition, the prior art
`
`repeatedly articulated both the time delay problem that the ’607 Patent purports to
`
`address and the solution of obtaining and using predicted positions of streamer
`
`positioning devices to steer them more accurately. Numerous prior art publications
`
`disclosed the use of prediction methods to monitor streamers and streamer
`
`positioning devices effectively. For example, the 1995 “Gikas” publication
`
`5
`
`

`
`disclosed a “Kalman filter” that uses “knowledge of the motion of the system” to
`
`“make a very accurate prediction of where the network will be at any [time] using
`
`just the previous position and the estimated configuration motion.” V. Gikas et al.,
`
`A Rigorous and Integrated Approach to Hydrophone and Source Positioning
`
`During Multi-Streamer Offshore Seismic Exploration, 77 Hydrographic J. 11, 12
`
`(1995) (Ex. 1006) (“Gikas”). Although other methods had been used to help
`
`surveyors determine the seismic streamer array positions, Gikas disclosed that the
`
`Kalman filter was an improvement “[d]ue to its ability to predict the network.” Id.
`
`at 12. It can resolve problems relating to time delays in the positioning data
`
`because it can “use observations that do not completely define the system”—i.e.
`
`data from position-monitoring systems that have gaps—to predict positions. Id.
`
`Given that prior art streamer positioning systems relied on less accurate
`
`measurements to monitor and control streamer positions, there were strong
`
`incentives to improve those systems by using Gikas’ Kalman filter approach to
`
`“predict” streamer positions, as recited in Claim 15. Patent Owner has admitted
`
`that the use of a Kalman filter meets the allegedly novel “prediction” limitation of
`
`the claim. See Section VI(E), infra.
`
`Nor are the challenged claims that depend from Claim 15 patentable. The
`
`’607 Patent derives its supposed novelty by purportedly resolving the delay
`
`problems with prediction. See Ex. 1001 at 2:35-48. The dependent limitations in
`
`6
`
`

`
`the challenged claims have nothing to do with solving this problem. Rather they
`
`recite basic functions performed by streamer positioning devices long known in the
`
`prior art. Many of the dependent claim limitations are indisputably disclosed in the
`
`’636 PCT and other prior art. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POOS”) would
`
`have clearly continued to use the basic aspects of streamer positioning devices
`
`recited in the challenged claims with a system that “predicts” streamer positions,
`
`such as Gikas’ Kalman filter approach.
`
`Claims 16-23 are obvious primarily over the ’636 PCT streamer positioning
`
`system in view of Gikas. For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner requests inter
`
`partes review and cancellation of Claims 16-23.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)); PROCEDURAL
`STATEMENTS
`
`Petitioner certifies that (1) the ’607 Patent is available for inter partes
`
`review; and (2) Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes
`
`review of any claim of the ’607 Patent on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`This Petition is filed in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a).
`
`Concurrently filed herewith are a Power of Attorney and Exhibit List pursuant to
`
`§ 42.10(b) and § 42.63(e), respectively. The Director is authorized to charge the
`
`fees specified by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) to Deposit Account No. 506403.
`
`IV. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1))
`
`Pursuant to the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`7
`
`

`
`§ 42.8(b)(1), relating to real parties in interest, Petitioner lists the following:
`
`Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. (“PGS”), Petroleum Geo-Services ASA, and PGS
`
`Geophysical AS.
`
`Each related matter is: WesternGeco L.L.C. v. Petroleum Geo-Services Inc.
`
`et al., 4:13-cv-02725 (S.D. Tex.); WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp.
`
`et al., 4:09-cv-01827 (S.D. Tex.); WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.,
`
`13-1527 (Fed. Cir.) (lead case); PGS, Inc. v. WesternGeco LLC, IPR2014-00688.
`
`Lead and backup counsel are David I. Berl (No. 72,751) and Christopher
`
`Suarez (No. 72,553), both of Williams & Connolly LLP, 725 12th St. NW,
`
`Washington, DC 20005; 202-434-5000 (tel); 202-434-5029 (fax). PGS consents to
`
`service by email at: dberl@wc.com, csuarez@wc.com.
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE
`REASONS THEREFOR (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a) and 42.104(b))
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 as to
`
`Claims 16-23 of the ’607 Patent and a ruling that Claims 16-23 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the grounds set forth herein. Petitioner’s detailed
`
`statement of the reasons for relief is set forth in Sections VIII-XI below.
`
`VI. THE ’607 PATENT
`
`A. The ’607 Patent’s Specification
`
`The ’607 Patent discloses a “method of controlling a streamer positioning
`
`device.” Ex. 1001 at Abstract (emphasis added). As relevant here, the ’607 Patent
`
`8
`
`

`
`does not disclose new streamer positioning devices. Rather, it identifies the system
`
`disclosed in the ’636 PCT, in which desired and actual horizontal positions “are
`
`received from a remote control system and are then used by a local control system
`
`within the birds [i.e., streamer positioning device] to adjust the wing angles.” Id. at
`
`2:30-35. The ’607 Patent deems this control system inadequate in one respect,
`
`asserting that “[t]he actual horizontal positions of the birds may be determined
`
`every 5 to 10 seconds and there may be a 5 second delay between the taking of
`
`measurements and the determination of actual streamer positions.” Id. at 2:35-38.
`
`This flaw is alleged to “prevent[] this type of control system from rapidly and
`
`efficiently controlling the horizontal position of the bird.” Id. at 2:40-43.
`
`To address this issue, the ’607 Patent’s “control system runs position
`
`predictor software to estimate the actual locations of each of the birds.” Id. at
`
`4:51-55. The control system uses as potential inputs the birds’ horizontal locations
`
`from the vessel’s navigation system, vessel speed, vessel heading, current speed,
`
`and current heading. Id. at 4:60-65. After running the position predictor software,
`
`the system sends as outputs to a bird’s control system the vertical and horizontal
`
`force needed to move a streamer to a desired position. Id. at 4:67-5:3.
`
`B. Claims 16-23 of the ’607 Patent
`
`Claim 16 depends from Claim 15, which recites:
`
`15. An array of seismic streamers towed by a towing
`
`9
`
`

`
`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.
`
`Claims 16-23 each depend from the claim preceding them. Those claims
`
`contain additional limitations, none of which are, or are disclosed in the
`
`specification to be, distinctions from the prior art. Claim 16 requires an
`
`“[a]pparatus 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.” This limitation describes the features of a standard prior art bird. The
`
`other limitations added by the challenged dependent claims likewise were well
`
`known in the art: “each streamer positioning device is rigidly attached to and
`
`unable to rotate with respect to its streamer” (Claim 17); “means for determining
`
`the angular velocity of each streamer positioning device” (Claim 18); “a global
`
`control system is located on or near said seismic vessel and a respective local
`
`10
`
`

`
`control system is located within or near each streamer positioning device and said
`
`global control system and said local control systems communicate using a
`
`respective communication line passing through each streamer” (Claim 19); “input
`
`values for said local control systems are downloaded over said communication
`
`lines” (Claim 20); “a respective backup communications channel in each streamer
`
`between the global control system and the local control systems of the streamer
`
`positioning devices of the streamer” (Claim 21); “each local control system has a
`
`cycle rate that is at least 10 times greater than the data transfer rate of said
`
`communication line” (Claim 22); and “each local control system comprises a
`
`microprocessor programmed to monitor the current orientation of the wing of its
`
`streamer