441897US
`
`
`
`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
`U.S. Patent No. 7,080,607
`
`———————————
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120, Patent Owner, WesternGeco L.L.C
`
`(“WesternGeco” or “Patent Owner”), submits this Response to the Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review (“Petition”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,080,607 (the “’607 patent”)
`
`filed by Petitioner, Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. (“PGS” or “Petitioner”).
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`THE ’607 PATENT CLAIMS PREDICTIVE STEERING OF
`STREAMER ARRAYS ................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Predict Positions of at Least Some of the Streamer Positioning
`Devices .................................................................................................. 5
`
`Using the Predicted Positions to Calculate Desired Changes ............. 10
`
`C. Global Control System ........................................................................ 12
`
`III.
`
`PRIOR ART ................................................................................................... 17
`
`A. Gikas .................................................................................................... 17
`
`B.
`
`The ’636 PCT Does Not Teach “Predict Positions” or
`“Calculating Desired Changes” ........................................................... 22
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`The ’636 PCT Does Not Teach a Global Control System ........ 23
`
`The European Patent Office (“EPO”) Rejected PGS’s
`Theory Regarding Claims 19-23 ............................................... 25
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Spink .................................................................................................... 28
`
`The ’394 PCT ...................................................................................... 29
`
`IV. THE ’607 PATENT IS NOT OBVIOUS ...................................................... 30
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ’636 PCT and Gikas Do Not Render Claims 16 and 17
`Obvious ............................................................................................... 30
`
`Claims 18-20 Are Not Rendered Obvious By the ’636 PCT,
`Gikas, and Spink .................................................................................. 34
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Claim 18 Is Not Rendered Obvious By the ’636 PCT,
`Gikas, and Spink ....................................................................... 34
`
`Claim 19 Is Not Rendered Obvious By the ’636 PCT,
`Gikas, and Spink ....................................................................... 36
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`C.
`
`Claims 21-23 Are Not Rendered Obvious By the ’636 PCT,
`Gikas, Spink, and the ’394 PCT .......................................................... 41
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Claim 21 Is Not Rendered Obvious By the ’636 PCT,
`Gikas, Spink, and the ’394 PCT ............................................... 41
`
`Claim 22 Is Not Rendered Obvious Due to the ‘636 PCT,
`Gikas, Spink, and the ‘394 PCT ............................................... 41
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER’S EXPERTS ARE NOT CREDIBLE ................................... 42
`
`A. Dr. Evans ............................................................................................. 42
`
`i.
`
`Dr. Evans Made Fundamental Errors In His Analysis ............. 42
`
`B.
`
`Dr. Cole ............................................................................................... 45
`
`VI. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ...................................... 45
`
`VII. THE PETITION IS TIME-BARRED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ............. 51
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Privity is Flexibly Applied and Broader Than Real Party-In-
`Interest ................................................................................................. 51
`
`PGS’s Relationship to the ION Litigation Establishes Privity ........... 53
`
`PGS’s Substantive Legal Relationship With ION Establishes
`Privity .................................................................................................. 56
`
`ION is a RPI Under the Guidelines ..................................................... 58
`
`Additional Discovery was Prejudicially Denied ................................. 59
`
`F. Multi Klient Invest AS is an RPI ........................................................ 60
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`THE ’607 PATENT CLAIMS PREDICTIVE STEERING OF
`STREAMER ARRAYS
`The ’607 patent claims methods and apparatus for using predicted positions
`
`of streamer positioning devices to calculate steering commands to steer miles-long
`
`streamer arrays despite limited location data in order to better image geological
`
`structures, improve the streamers’ effectiveness, repeat surveys over time to
`
`manage resource recovery, and more safely and rapidly deploy and turn the arrays.
`
`Early streamer positioning involved rudimentary devices such as deflectors
`
`and tail buoys. (Ex. 1001, 3:34-39; Fig. 1 elements (16) and (20, respectively).)1
`
`Deflectors were associated with the front end of the equipment and used to
`
`horizontally spread the cables or other tethers at the point nearest the seismic
`
`survey vessel. (Ex. 1001, 1:34-41.) Tail buoys, as the name implies, were
`
`associated with ropes or cables secured to the end of the streamer furthest from the
`
`
`1 Although Figure 1 is captioned “prior art,” one of ordinary skill would recognize
`
`that much of that figure was not prior art, but instead inventive contributions to the
`
`state of the art, such as the global control system, its functionality (e.g., predictive
`
`analysis, streamer positioning device control, etc.), and the distributed processing
`
`control architecture. (Ex. 2075, ¶ 60.) Indeed, the specification refers to Figure 1
`
`in its “Detailed Description of the Invention,” and Figure 1 is never referenced as
`
`prior art within the actual text of the specification.
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`seismic survey vessel, and created drag on that end of the streamer. (Id. at 1:39-
`
`41; 3:37-39.) The tension created on the seismic streamer by the deflector and tail
`
`buoy resulted in a roughly linear shape of the streamer, but only in ideal
`
`conditions. (Id. at 1:34-41.) No steering or lateral forces were provided for the
`
`miles of length along the streamer, leaving the middle of the streamer susceptible
`
`to the environmental factors discussed above.
`
`Streamer positioning devices are generally spaced every 200 to 400 meters
`
`along the length of a streamer. (Ex. 1001, 1:48-49.) For a modest streamer array
`
`consisting of 4-6 individual streamers, this means hundreds of separate streamer
`
`positioning devices are deployed on a given array. Simultaneously controlling this
`
`multitude of independent positioning devices is no easy feat. While it is easy to set
`
`a target depth and little risk exists if that depth is overshot, lateral steering requires
`
`a more holistic consideration of the dynamic movement of neighboring streamers
`
`(including the propagation of forces imparted along the length of each streamer),
`
`and obstructions along miles of cable deployed in the ever-changing open-water
`
`environment of the deep seas.
`
`The complexity of these streamer arrays led to several widely
`
`acknowledged, decades-old problems, including the risk of tangling, a potentially
`
`catastrophic and dangerous failure. (Ex. 1001, 4:5-7.) Movement of the streamers
`
`relative to each other during surveys can lead to gaps in coverage, requiring
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`
`
`repeated passes, or “in-fill,” over the same section of water. And turning such long
`
`arrays in the water can take significant time and effort, and likewise increases the
`
`risk of tangling. Despite a well-known need for the ability to accurately steer these
`
`arrays, the complex nature of the problem prevented a workable solution from
`
`being developed for many years.
`
`Compounding these difficulties were the challenges of even knowing where
`
`the streamers were during surveys. These miles-long cables towed underwater in
`
`the harsh conditions of open deep-water had minimal sensory equipment and long
`
`signal time delay in communicating data to the towing vessel. While GPS could be
`
`relied upon to determine the positions of tail buoys or deflectors floating on the
`
`ocean surface, it could do little to assess the position of streamers, which are towed
`
`underwater. Trying to steer these streamers during a survey would essentially be
`
`“driving blind,” and attempts to steer could prove more dangerous than towing
`
`with no steering at all. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:5-7 (“[i]f the birds 18 are not
`
`properly controlled, horizontal steering can increase, rather than decrease, the
`
`likelihood of tangling adjacent streamers”).) As taught in Petitioner’s art, prior to
`
`Patentee’s inventions, determining positions accurately could only be done after a
`
`survey was completed, using intensive computational processes.
`
`Further, as explained in the background section of the ’607 patent, seismic
`
`arrays typically allow for the determinations of horizontal positions of the
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`
`
`streamers only every 5 to 10 seconds. (Ex. 1001, 2:35-38.) And because complex
`
`data processing is often involved, there may be an additional 5-second delay
`
`between taking of the measurements and the determination of actual streamer
`
`positions. Id. That means the information provided to the control system is not
`
`where the streamer positioning device currently is, but where the streamer
`
`positioning device was at some time in the past. And this location data was
`
`typically obtained from compass measurements, which were aggregated to try to
`
`determine the rough shape of a streamer.
`
`This latency problem associated with lateral positioning was not solved—or
`
`even appreciated—by the prior art. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:40-43 (“the delay period
`
`and the relatively long cycle time between position measurements prevents this
`
`type of [prior art] control system from rapidly and efficiently controlling the
`
`horizontal position of the bird”); Ex. 2045, 387:5-22.) Rather, precise position
`
`information was only needed long after the survey was completed and during on-
`
`shore data processing, to interpret and locate the reflection energy that was
`
`measured during the survey, not during the acquisition itself.
`
`Thus, while the goal of streamer steering was long-known, it went
`
`unresolved for decades. Patent Owner’s patents solved the problems associated
`
`with prior art methodologies by (1) developing predictive lateral steering (as
`
`opposed to reactionary control systems such as that disclosed by Petitioner’s prior
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`
`
`art); (2) using distributed control to apportion intelligence between ship-board and
`
`local control systems; and (3) using global steering modes rather than simply
`
`setting control targets for individual streamers.
`
`In particular, the solution described in the ’607 patent is to use a behavior-
`
`predictive control system to remedy the delays inherent in positional measurement
`
`and data acquisition, and to dynamically steer the seismic streamer array:
`
` “[T]he inventive control system utilizes . . . behavior-predictive
`model-based control logic to properly control the streamer positioning
`devices.”
`
`(Ex. 1001, 4:10-14 (emphases added) ; see also Ex. 1001, 4:28-34; 4:48-55.)
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the America Invents
`
`Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), the Board interprets claims
`
`using the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`A.
`
`Predict Positions of at Least Some of the Streamer Positioning
`Devices
`The broadest reasonable construction of the term “predict positions” is
`
`“determining positions using a behavior-predictive model.” The intrinsic evidence
`
`requires that “predict positions” addresses the time lag between positional
`
`measurements and steering commands arriving at the streamer positioning device,
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`
`
`as well as the forces acting on the streamer. (Ex. 1001, 4:8-14, 4:48-55, 5:4-16;
`
`Ex. 2075, ¶¶ 40, 57, 69-70, 91-92.) The Board preliminarily construed “predict
`
`positions” as “estimating the actual locations,” which is improper because it
`
`ignores the temporal aspect of a “prediction” and because it ignores the intrinsic
`
`evidence regarding behavior prediction. For example, the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the word “predict” or “prediction,” requires a temporal aspect: “an
`
`inference regarding a future event based on probability theory” which the
`
`preliminary claim construction does not address. (Ex. 2074.)
`
`Petitioners have conceded in other proceedings that the ’607 patent’s
`
`“prediction” requires a temporal component: “In other words, the ’607 patent’s
`
`prediction unit uses ‘old’ location information to estimate current, ‘actual
`
`locations.’” (IPR2014-00688, Paper 78 at 5.) The Board’s preliminary
`
`construction improperly reads out this requirement. While some predictions may
`
`be estimates, not all estimates are predictions, e.g., if they lack temporal aspect.
`
`More specifically, predictive 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.) Trying to steer streamers with simple estimates,
`
`rather than time-adjusted data, could prove more dangerous than towing with no
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`
`
`steering at all. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:5-7.) By simply equating the term “predict
`
`positions of at least some of the streamer positioning devices” to “estimated actual
`
`locations,” the construction ignores both the temporal and behavioral components
`
`that are associated with the term as used in the art, and as further explained by the
`
`specification, eviscerating the word “predict.” (Ex. 2075, ¶¶ 69-76.)
`
`Time Delay. As discussed in the background section of the ’607 patent, the
`
`information provided to the control system on the streamer positioning device is
`
`not where that device currently is, but where the device was at some time in the
`
`past. (Ex. 1001, 2:35-38) As recognized by Petitioner’s own expert, and admitted
`
`by Petitioner in a prior proceeding involving the ’607 patent, Patent Owner was the
`
`only one to recognize this time lag problem for steering. (Ex. 2045 at 387:5-22;
`
`IPR2014-00688, Paper 78 at 5.) Not only did Patent Owner recognize this
`
`problem, but Patent Owner solved it using the prediction methodology disclosed
`
`and claimed in the ’607 patent to predict where the streamer positioning device
`
`will be when it receives the control signals. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:51-55.)
`
`The prosecution history confirms that the term “prediction” addresses time
`
`delays and was added to the claims to distinguish prior art on that basis. Patent
`
`Owner amended the claims of the parent application to the ’607 patent (U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,932,017 (“the ’017 patent”)) in response to a rejection based upon European
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. EP 613025 (“Elholm,”)2 to recite “obtaining a predicted position of the
`
`streamer positioning devices.” (Ex. 2073 at 2.) Patent Owner distinguished the
`
`amended claims by pointing out that Elholm failed to disclose or suggest
`
`“predicting the position of streamer positioning devices to avoid delays inherent
`
`in actual position measurements,” and using predicted positions to calculate
`
`desired changes in the streamer positioning devices. (Ex. 2073 at 8.) A notice of
`
`allowance followed, demonstrating that the intrinsic evidence supports a
`
`construction of the term “predict positions” that requires a temporal component
`
`that addresses the “delays inherent in actual position measurements,” and is not
`
`simply an estimated position. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc.,
`
`357 F.3d 1340, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“the prosecution history of one patent is
`
`relevant to an understanding of the scope of a common term in a second patent
`
`stemming from the same parent application”) (citation omitted).
`
`Model. The specification also makes clear that the inventive control system
`
`requires the use of “behavior-predictive model-based control logic,” i.e., the
`
`predictions must be based on a hydrodynamic model that takes into account the
`
`behavior of the streamers. (Ex. 2075, ¶¶ 76, 110.) Behavior prediction is more
`
`
`2 European Patent No. EP 613025, is the European counterpart to U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,532,975 (Exhibit 1005).
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`
`
`sophisticated than simply estimating the actual locations. The Board correctly
`
`cited to the ’607 patent in recognizing in the Institution Decision:
`
`the
`influence
`Localized current fluctuations can dramatically
`magnitude of the side control required to properly position the
`streamers. To compensate for these localized current fluctuations, the
`inventive control system utilizes . . . behavior-predictive model-based
`control logic to properly control the streamer positioning devices.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 4:11-14.) That the ’607 patent’s “prediction” is “behavior prediction” is
`
`well-supported by the specification. (Ex. 1001, 4:28-33 (“The 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.”));
`
`(Ex. 1001, 4:48-51 (“The 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.”)) (Ex. 2075, ¶¶ 69-76.)
`
`Thus, the ’607 patent explains that a “behavior-predictive model-based”
`
`control logic is necessary to properly control the streamers, i.e. the control of those
`
`streamers must take into account some model of the various forces acting on the
`
`array as a whole. Those forces on the streamer could be external, such as those
`
`imparted from localized current fluctuations. Or they could be introduced from
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`
`
`within the system—when a streamer positioning device is steered, it imparts a
`
`force on the streamer that propagates along the streamer towards the tail. (Ex.
`
`2075, ¶¶ 69-76, 110.) If these traveling waves are not considered, streamer
`
`steering can be wildly inaccurate, resulting in more harm than good. (Id.) The
`
`claimed method of “prediction unit adapted to predict positions” solves this
`
`problem by incorporating a behavior-predictive model into its control logic that
`
`takes these forces into account. (Ex. 1001, 4:10-14.) (Ex. 2075, ¶¶ 69-76.)
`
`Claim 15 of the ’607 patent must be read in the context of the specification,
`
`which makes clear that “the inventive control system” requires this behavior
`
`prediction. (Ex. 1001, 4:11-14.) See e.g., Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l,
`
`Inc., 778 F.3d 1021, 1024-1025 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v.
`
`ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Verizon Servs. Corp. v.
`
`Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Chimie v. PPG
`
`Indus., Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Therefore, the broadest reasonable construction of “predict positions” of at
`
`least some of the streamer positioning devices is “determining positions using a
`
`behavior-predictive model.” (Ex. 2075, ¶¶ 69-76, 93-94, 110.)
`
`B. Using the Predicted Positions to Calculate Desired Changes
`The broadest reasonable construction of the term “calculate desired changes”
`
`in position of one or more of the streamer positioning devices (claim 15), requires
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`
`
`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.
`
`Specifically, the broadest reasonable construction of “calculate desired changes” is
`
`“determine forces based on streamer and array behavior.”
`
`The “predict[ed] positions” limitation of claim 15 (element (b)) considers
`
`the dynamic forces acting upon the streamers, and when calculating the desired
`
`horizontal forces and vertical forces to effectuate those predicted positions, the
`
`“calculating desired changes” step of element (c) considers both the streamer
`
`behavior as well as the behavior of the complete streamer array. (Ex. 2075, ¶ 69-
`
`76, 93.) As the ’607 patent explains, “[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.” (Ex. 1001, 4:48-51; see also 4:29-34 (a “dynamic model of each of the
`
`seismic streamers 12” is utilized to “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”); Ex. 1001, 4:10-14.) A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from these statements the
`
`requirement that any calculation in the claimed invention must take into account
`
`the behavior of the array and streamers. In other words, after predicting where the
`
`streamer positioning device will be when a command signal is sent based on
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`
`
`streamer behavior (element (b)), any calculated change to that streamer positioning
`
`device must not only take into account the behavior of the streamer, but also the
`
`behavior of the entire streamer array (element (c)). (Ex. 2075, ¶¶ 76, 93-94.)
`
`Moreover, this construction is dictated by the language of claim 15.
`
`Specifically, element (b) requires “a prediction unit adapted to predict positions of
`
`at least some of the streamer positioning devices” and then element (c) uses those
`
`same predicted positions to calculate desired changes in one or more of the
`
`streamer positioning devices. In other words, where element (b) predicts positions
`
`of some, i.e. more than one device, while element (c) calculates the desired
`
`changes potentially to only one device, indicating that a calculation of desired
`
`changes to even a single streamer positioning device must take into account the
`
`positions of multiple devices. See Almondnet, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 10-CV-298-
`
`bbc, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61405, at *28-29, 31 (W.D. Wisc. June 7, 2011)
`
`(finding that the term “some,” when used in the context of a “plurality” of claim
`
`elements, means “more than one”). Accordingly, the desired changes of one
`
`streamer positioning device is calculated based on the behavior of the streamer on
`
`which it resides, as well as the behavior of the complete streamer array.
`
`C. Global Control System
`The claim language and specification mandate that the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the term “global control system” is “a control system configured to
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`
`
`coordinate all streamer positioning devices in the array.”
`
`As explained by Dr. Triantafyllou, in the context of seismic surveying and
`
`“towing an array of streamers,” a person of ordinary skill would have understood
`
`the ordinary meaning of the term “global” to connote that the entire array of
`
`streamers was being controlled. (Ex. 2075, ¶ 88); see also In re Morris, 127 F.3d
`
`1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“as an initial matter, the PTO applies to the verbiage
`
`of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
`
`ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art”).
`
`The dictionary definition of “global” supports this understanding because the
`
`Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as “of, relating to, or constituting, an
`
`organic whole.” (Ex. 2068.) This comports with its use in computer technology:
`
`“global” is defined in technical references as “[u]niversal, in the sense of being
`
`related to an entire file, document, program, or other entity.” (Ex. 2049.) Further,
`
`Petitioner’s own expert admits the “global control system” is the master controller
`
`of the other devices:
`
`A global control system sends commands to other control systems
`such as those in a streamer positioning device which are configured to
`respond to that signal. So, a global control system is a master
`controller. And when I say master controller, that is a terminology
`used in electronic engineering as the main, head, controlling
`machine, the master controller.
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`
`
`(Ex. 2054 at 201:8-20.)
`
`The ION court’s construction of “global control system” as requiring a
`
`singular control system that commands all of the steering positioning devices—a
`
`construction Petitioner initially advocated—recognized this holistic concept. The
`
`Board, however, opted not to adopt Petitioner’s or any other construction in its
`
`Institution Decision. (Paper 18 at 12.) The term “global,” however, is an express
`
`limitation in claim 19, and must be considered as it is an integral part of “global
`
`control system.” In re Wilson, 57 C.C.P.A. 1029, 1032 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (“All
`
`words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim
`
`against the prior art.”)
`
`Petitioners’ arguments in IPR2014-00687 evidence the potential mischief if
`
`the term “global control system” is not construed. In those proceedings,
`
`Petitioners have argued that any remote control system can be considered a global
`
`control system so long as it sends the later-claimed “location information.”
`
`(IPR2014-00687, Paper 77 at 17-20.) This reads the word “global” out of the
`
`claims, and affords it no role in defining the scope of the invention, despite being
`
`touted as a key feature throughout the specification. While such arguments are
`
`improper even in the lack of a clarifying construction, construing the term would
`
`help avoid burdening the Board with considering such improper arguments.
`
`14
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Claim 15, from which claim 19 depends, recites “an array of streamers” and
`
`“a plurality of streamer positioning devices” on each of those streamers. (Ex.
`
`1001, Claim 15.) Claim 19’s ensuing recitation of a “global control system”
`
`evidences universal control over the prior-recited structures. Although the claim
`
`later recites that the global control system must also communicate with the local
`
`control system “using a respective communication line passing through each
`
`streamer,” this adds to the limitations for the claimed system and does not abrogate
`
`the “global” requirement. A person of ordinary skill would still have understood a
`
`“global control system” to be “a control system configured to coordinate all
`
`streamer positioning devices in the array.” (Ex. 2075, ¶ 90.)
`
`This construction is also mandated by the specification, which confirms that
`
`the term “global” must involve the capability to coordinate all of the seismic
`
`streamers located in the seismic array. See e.g., (Ex. 1001, 3:66–4:1, 4:54-57); see
`
`also, Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“In
`
`claim construction, this court gives primacy to the language of the claims, followed
`
`by the specification.”) (citing In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
`
`The focus throughout the specification is on a distributed control system,
`
`wherein the global control system considers the entire seismic streamer array when
`
`sending commands and location information to the local control system:
`
`The inventive control system is based on shared responsibilities
`
`15
`
`
`

`
`
`
`between the global control system 22 located on the seismic survey
`vessel 10 and the local control system 36 located on the bird. (Ex.
`1001, 10:19-22.)
`
`The 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.”
`(Ex. 1001, 4:48-51.)
`
`The global control system 22 is typically connected to the seismic
`survey vessel’s navigation system and obtains estimates of system
`wide parameters . . . (Ex. 1001, 3:60-62.)
`
`The specification further teaches that the inventive control system primarily
`
`operates in three distinct modes (a feather angle control mode, a turn control mode,
`
`and a streamer separation control mode) that each control the entire streamer array,
`
`and the specification makes clear that: (1) it is the global control system that
`
`implements these modes; and (2) these global control modes control all of the
`
`streamers:
`
`“The inventive control system will primarily operate in two different
`control modes: a feather angle control mode and a tum control mode.
`In the feather angle control mode, the global control system 22
`attempts to keep each streamer” in the desired orientation. (Ex. 1001,
`10:30-33.)
`“In extreme weather conditions, the inventive control system may
`also operate in a streamer separation control mode that attempts to
`minimize the risk of entanglement of the streamers. In this control
`16
`
`
`

`
`
`
`mode, the global control system 22 attempts to maximize the distance
`between adjacent streamers.” (Ex. 1001, 10:57-62.)
`
`A construction of global control system that does not include the capability
`
`of controlling all streamer positioning devices in the array would not be supported
`
`by, and in fact would be contradicted by, the three operational modes described in
`
`the specification. See Papst Licensing GmbH, Co. KG v. Fujifilm Corp. (In re
`
`Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litig.), 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1597 at *12
`
`(Feb. 2, 2015). Claim 19 of the ’607 patent must be read in this context. See
`
`Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006);
`
`Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Thus, the only
`
`reasonable way to construe the term “global control system” must account for the
`
`word “global,” contained in claim 19 and the disclosures contained in the
`
`specification is as “a control system configured to coordinate all streamer
`
`positioning devices in the array.”
`
`III. PRIOR ART
`A. Gikas
`Petitioner asserts that 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) (“Gikas”) discloses “a Kalman filter
`
`used to predict positions in a marine seismic survey array.” (Pet. at 14.) Gikas,
`
`however, never mentions lateral control, let alone any methods of steering
`
`17
`
`
`

`
`
`
`streamers. (Ex. 2075, ¶ 106.) It is not related to the lateral steering.
`
`Rather, Gikas focuses on the quantification and analysis of error propagation
`
`in position measurements. (Ex. 1006 at Abstract, 12.) As set forth in its
`
`“Conclusions,” Gikas addresses “the problem of integrated processing of 3D
`
`marine seismic data,” i.e., what to do with a set of measurements after they are
`
`collected. (Ex. 1006 at 24.) The prior collection of an entire data set is necessary
`
`because “in order for the filter to operate efficiently, raw data should first be
`
`cleaned by removing any outliers.” (Id.) In its exemplary “Implementation and
`
`testing of the method,” Gikas teaches that a complete data set is needed before the
`
`filter is applied, and that “[a]ll measurements are tested for outliers before they are
`
`accepted by the system.” (Ex. 1006, 20-21) This is because “Kalman filtering can
`
`be rather time-consuming from a computational point of view.” (Id. at 12.) The
`
`problem he addresses is “to describe the precision and reliability of the final gun
`
`and hydrophone positions,” i.e., so that the recorded sound waves can accurately
`
`be processed into a sub-sea map. (Ex. 1006 at 12.) This is the “positioning” that
`
`Gikas addresses—the determination of element positions