PGS Exhibit 1125, pg. 1
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-01477)
`
`

`
`REPLY TO THE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OF THE OPPONENT
`
`European Patent Number EP1850151 (Application Number 07113031.4) of
`WesternGeco Seismic Holdings Limited and
`Services Petroliers Schlumberger and
`Opposition thereto by lon Geophysical Corporation
`Appeal Number: T2305/14-3.4.03
`Our Ref: AJF/JAS/P124484EPOO
`
`Introduction
`
`The Patentees, WesternGeco Seismic Holdings Limited of Citco Building, P.O. Box 662 Road
`Town, Tortola, VG and Services Petroliers Schlumberger of 42, rue Saint Dominique, 75007
`Paris, France, and the Opponent have both appealed the decision of the Opposition Division
`dated 15 October, 2014.
`
`These observations are the Patentees' reply to the Opponent's Grounds for Appeal. The
`Opponent's Grounds for Appeal have been directed to the claims found allowable by the
`Opposition Division. These claims were filed with the Patentees' Grounds for Appeal as the First
`Auxiliary Request. Accordingly, and for reasons of conciseness, it is the First Auxiliary Request
`that is considered below. However, to the extent that the Opponent wishes its comments to be
`considered to in relation to any or all of the other requests, the Patentees hereby reserve the
`right to repeat the arguments below in those contexts.
`
`In addition to the requests filed previously, additional Auxiliary Requests are enclosed herewith
`as discussed below.
`
`The new Auxiliary Requests have been filed only as precautionary measure- the Patentees
`believe that the Opponent's objections are without merit. Oral Proceedings are hereby requested
`should the Board of Appeal decide not to maintain the patent in the form of the Main Request
`filed with the Patentees' Grounds for Appeal.
`
`Admissibility of document 04
`
`Article 12(4) RPBA clearly indicates that the Board has discretion to admit or to not admit
`evidence that could have been filed earlier in proceedings.
`
`In the present case, the new prior art document D4 (an extract from "Aerodynamics of the
`Airplane") has been cited thirty-three months after the opposition period expired. No reason has
`been given for this late filing. Indeed, the Opponent has not even acknowledged in the statement
`of Grounds for Appeal that this document is late-filed.
`
`It is notable that the form of the claims maintained by the Opposition Division is as a result of an
`amendment made to the Patent in response to the Opponent's objection of intermediate
`generalisation. That is, the features added to the claim were requested by the Opponent
`themselves on page 11 of the Notice of Opposition. Such features incorporated into the
`
`PGS Exhibit 1125, pg. 2
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-01477)
`
`

`
`independent claims could not possibly have come as a surprise to the Opponent; they were
`clearly considered by the Opponent before the expiry of the opposition period.
`
`The Board will note from section 3.5 of the Opposition Division's Grounds for the Decision under
`appeal that the Opponent has already argued that there has not been any search of the feature
`introduced into claim 1 during the opposition proceedings, and that this has been dismissed
`because, firstly, the feature was in the claims of the application as originally filed and, secondly,
`the question of whether claims have been searched by the Search Division or not during
`prosecution is wholly irrelevant to an Opposition.
`
`Since the document is cited as common general knowledge, it is assumed that the Opponent
`would consider that it would be readily available to the Skilled Person. Therefore, it seems
`unlikely that it would have been difficult to uncover this reference earlier. On the other hand, if its
`existence has only recently been brought to the attention of the Opponent, then this must be
`evidence that it is, in fact, not common general knowledge at all.
`
`Of course, the Board has discretion to admit the document on the basis of its relevance to the
`question of inventive step. In this regard, the Patentee submits that the document is clearly
`irrelevant. Firstly, it relates to aircraft, whereas the Patent is concerned with control of marine
`seismic survey vessels. Secondly, it is dated 1941 , whereas the priority date of the Patent is
`1998. The Patentee suggests that it is rather unlikely that a Skilled Person in the field of marine
`positioning equipment would consider a fifty-seven year-old textbook on airplanes when
`considering the disclosure of D1 (itself dated 1998).
`
`Furthermore, the particular "tables" of D4 that the Opponent has relied upon for evidence that the
`Skilled Person would use a look-up table in D1 do not have any relation to the problem of
`steering marine seismic streamers. In fact, the "tables" are not tables, but graphs. They are
`certainly not look-up tables; they do not provide any motivation to use a look-up table in any
`control method. They would not even motivate the use of a look-up table in an aircraft!
`
`It is not immediately clear why the Opponent has made reference to look-up graphs of Figures
`1 .42 and 1 .43 of D4 in the analysis. For completeness, it is noted that the graphs plot CL against
`C0 . That is, they show the relationship between lift and drag in the context of an aircraft in which
`drag is undesirable because it leads to greater fuel requirements and thereby greater weight of
`the aircraft. As the Board will appreciate, this is at odds with the context of the Patent, where
`some drag can be desirable; drag can help to pull the streamer into a straight line. Indeed,
`devices such as tail buoys are often used to deliberately apply drag to the trailing end of the
`streamers. Whilst there are parallels between the sciences of aerodynamics and fluid dynamics
`at the most fundamental level, this alone is not sufficient to establish textbooks from one practical
`technical field (airplane design) as common general knowledge in a different practical technical
`field (control of marine streamers) which deals with different real-world problems.
`
`In summary, D4 is irrelevant as a whole, and the specific part of D4 referred to by the Opponent
`is even less relevant.
`
`In view of (i) the Opponent's failure to explain why the document was filed so late, (ii) the fact it
`could have easily been uncovered much earlier, (iii) the fact it lies in a completely different art
`
`PGS Exhibit 1125, pg. 3
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-01477)
`
`

`
`from the Patent, and (iv) the fact that it is prima-facie irrelevant to the present case, it is therefore
`requested that the Board exercise its discretion to find the document inadmissible.
`
`02, 03, and 04 are not Common General Knowledge
`
`Article 56 EPC
`
`The Opponent has raised a single objection of lack of inventive step against the claims deemed
`allowable by the Opposition Division. Specifically, the Opponent has objected that the
`independent claims, claims 1 and 14, lack an inventive step over the combination of document
`01 with the common general knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the art of marine
`seismic streamer positioning devices. The Opponent has attempted to exemplify the Skilled
`Person's common general knowledge using 02, 03 and 04.
`
`The Patentees disagree that these documents are relevant to common general knowledge. As
`made clear from decision T475/88, a single publication cannot normally be considered to
`represent or evidence the common general knowledge of the skilled person. The Opponent has
`provided no evidence of why the Skilled Person would be aware of the disclosure of documents
`02, 03, or 04.
`
`In this regard, it is noted that documents 02 and 03 are merely patent specification and are not
`technical journal documents or textbooks, and therefore cannot normally be considered common
`general knowledge. Furthermore, it is noted that document 04, whilst a textbook, does not relate
`to marine seismic apparatus. 04 discusses the aerodynamics of the airplane, which for the
`reasons explained above, has no relevance to the specific technical problems confronting the
`Skilled Person in the field of marine seismic streamer control.
`
`Accordingly, it is disputed that any of 02, 03, or 04 would form part of the Skilled Person's
`common general knowledge. To establish the Skilled Person's common general knowledge
`requires more than simply their citation without evidence, and the burden of proof lies with the
`Opponent to establish the nature of these documents.
`
`Finally, it is noted that whilst the Opponent has identified a technical problem solved by the two
`distinguishing features, this technical problem forms no further part of the analysis on inventive
`step. In other words, while the Opponent has attempted to show that the Skilled Person could
`make a combination of features falling within the scope of the claims using common general
`knowledge, there is no argument suggesting that the Skilled Person would make such a
`combination. The Opponent's analysis thus applies hindsight.
`
`The Opponent has not presented any objection based on the combination of two prior art
`documents. Reference to documents 02, 03, and 04 have been provided in the Opponent's
`Grounds for Appeal, purely as evidence of the common general knowledge of the Skilled Person.
`Since the common general knowledge in the field of the Patent does not include 02, 03, or 04,
`the Opponent's only inventive step objection fails and the ground of inventive step need not be
`considered further. However, for completeness, in the sections below the other problems with the
`Opponent's analysis are highlighted.
`
`PGS Exhibit 1125, pg. 4
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-01477)
`
`

`
`Novel features
`
`The Opponent has conceded that there is no disclosure in document 01 of the features of:
`(1) "using a control system distributed between a global control system located on or
`near a seismic survey vessel and a local control system located on each streamer
`positioning device"; and
`(2) "the adjusting comprises calculating with a localised conversion program of the at
`least one local control system, a desired force on the at least one streamer positioning
`device using the location information, the desired force selected from a desired horizontal
`force, a desired vertical force and both".
`
`It is the Patentees' position that neither of these features is disclosed in any prior art document
`(whether individually or collectively).
`
`The Patentees note that 02 fails to disclose the distribution of a control system between two
`locations. The passage from line 14 to 20 in column 4 indicates that either a computer
`programme will calculate how to steer the device (column 4, line 15- this is a complete control
`system located on board the ship), or the calculation may be made on the device (column 4, lines
`19 and 20- this is a complete control system located within the positioning device). As clearly
`expressed in this passage, the control system is not distributed, but is a complete control system
`at either location. There is no disclosure of both of these optional control systems being provided
`simultaneously and acting collectively. Moreover, there is no need for two control systems to be
`provided, since the alternative control systems can both carry out the entire control process.
`
`02 is also silent on the nature of the calculations made in the control system and provides no
`disclosure of a look-up table nor any indication that force is a consideration in any way.
`
`The Patentees submit that 03 fails to disclose any form of control system in the sense claimed.
`The disclosure of 03 relates solely to a communications system for transmitting control signals.
`03 is silent on the origin of those signals and the use of the signals. The "central controller"
`discussed on lines 28 to 31 of column 3 is an "intelligent modem". That is, it controls the
`protocols for the transmission of signals between the vessel and the streamer equipment; it has
`no role in how to control that equipment and it does not calculate what control signals to send.
`This intelligent modem simply transmits the pilot's instructions to the bird. The passage on
`column 4, lines 45 to 47, states "control signals are received by the bird electronics 50 to control
`the wings of the bird". In this generic description, "bird electronics" is simply the actuator that
`receives the unspecified "control signals" from the modem and actuates the motor (for example,
`bird electronics could be a motor driver) and the sensors that measure various operating
`parameters. 03 is silent on the nature of the control signals, fails to disclose distributed control,
`and provides no indication that force is a consideration in any part of the system.
`
`04 discloses nothing of any relevance to these features.
`
`In summary, it is disputed that any of the documents discloses the novel features of the claims.
`More generally, the Patentees submit that these novel features do not form part of the Skilled
`Person's common general knowledge.
`
`The two novel features cannot be considered using the partial problems approach
`
`PGS Exhibit 1125, pg. 5
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-01477)
`
`

`
`It is the Patentees' position that neither of features (1) or (2) is disclosed in any prior art
`document (whether individually or collectively). However, for completeness, the following is
`noted.
`
`In the inventive step analysis in the Opponent's Grounds for Appeal, features (1) and (2) are
`treated separately. However, the Opponent has given a single technical problem that is solved by
`"the invention", i.e. "how to improve controlling the position of the streamer positing devices". The
`solution to this single problem is contributed to by both of the novel features and therefore
`features (1) and (2) cannot be considered separately using the partial problems approach.
`
`In order to avoid setting out the objection using the problem-and-solution approach and to avoid
`justifying the treatment of the two novel features as partial problems, the Opponent has sought to
`combine the disclosure of document 01 with common general knowledge exemplified by multiple
`prior art documents, namely 02, 03 and 04. In doing so, the Patentees submit that the Opponent
`has erred.
`
`A correct application of the problem-and-solution approach must include both of these features in
`a single prior art document, since these features have synergy and cannot be considered using
`the partial problems approach. Nonetheless, in order to address the Opponent's flawed
`argument, the features are considered separately to highlight the errors in the Opponent's
`analysis in the following section.
`
`Inventive Step
`
`The Patentees disagree that the Skilled Person's common general knowledge includes the
`distribution of a control system between a global control system located on or near a seismic
`survey vessel and a local control system located on each streamer positioning device. In every
`document relied upon by the Opponent there is a single control system that carries out the
`complete control procedure. There is no disclosure in any document of a distributed control
`system.
`
`It is the Patentees' position that the claims involve an inventive step on the basis that, when
`considering document 01, the Skilled Person learns of a complete control system- control circuit
`34 takes sensor readings as inputs and provides motor commands as outputs. Thus, the Skilled
`Person is taught to locate a complete control system on a bird 10.
`
`Since every prior art document discloses a single complete control system, the Skilled Person is
`not provided with any hint to distribute the functionality of the control system. Moreover, without
`any positive benefit suggested in relation to distributing the control system, the Skilled Person
`would be able to derive only the negative consequences of increased cost owing to the need to
`provide additional, redundant, processing components.
`
`It is in any event unclear how this could be done from the starting point of 01. It is only with
`knowledge of the Patent that the Skilled Person is told to distribute the functionality in the manner
`claimed. Without such guidance, the Skilled Person would find no motivation to move away from
`the system described in 01 in the paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7.
`
`PGS Exhibit 1125, pg. 6
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-01477)
`
`

`
`The Patentees note that the argument given above is the same as the reasoning given by the
`Opposition Division in section 3.6.1.5 of the Grounds for the Decision under appeal. The
`Opponent has not challenged the Opposition Division's reasoning on this point at all. It is noted
`that this argument applies to all of the requests on file.
`
`In the claims found allowable by the Opposition Division, the distribution of the control system is
`achieved in an advantageous way using the localised conversion program that calculates a force
`from location information.
`
`There is nothing in any of the prior art documents or in common general knowledge to motivate
`the Skilled Person to modify the disclosure of document D1 to incorporate features (1) and/or (2)
`in order to solve the objective technical problem of how to control a streamer positioning device.
`Accordingly, the claims involve an inventive step.
`
`Article 83 EPC
`
`The Opponent alleges that the Patent does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently
`clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. In contrast, it is the
`Patentees' opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find no difficulty in arriving at the
`claimed invention. Notably, the Opponent has not provided any evidence to support the
`allegation. The burden of proof for establishing insufficiency is on the Opponent and the mere
`allegation of insufficiency is not adequate to meet that burden.
`
`In Section 6.1, the Opponent has attempted to identify a point in the application where the
`disclosure is not exhaustive. Specifically, the Opponent has highlighted that there is no
`disclosure of use of a single wing to control lateral position. However, the Skilled Person would
`be knowledgeable in the field of marine seismic streamer positioning devices and would be
`aware of the existence of "rudders". A rudder is a device used to control the lateral position of a
`marine vessel. Typically, only a single rudder is provided. The Skilled Person would have no
`difficulty in carrying out the claimed invention in the light of the disclosure of the description.
`
`In Section 6.1, at the top of page 6, the Opponent acknowledges that there is sufficient
`disclosure in the Patent for the Skilled Person to carry out the preferred embodiment. It is
`submitted that the Skilled Person could easily carry out the invention across the full breadth of
`the claims with the guidance of the preferred embodiment, making only minor changes where
`necessary.
`
`In Section 6.2, the Opponent has suggested that the Patent is insufficient because there could be
`some other angle of the wing that is adjusted by the wing motor. To the extent that this objection
`is understood, it is suggested that the Opponent has not construed the claim with "a mind willing
`to understand". Clearly the Skilled Person would know which angle of the wing to modify in order
`to put the invention into effect.
`
`Furthermore, it is noted that in T515/00 the board pointed out that "an invention cannot be
`considered to be irreproducible merely because a claim encompasses a hypothetical
`embodiment which lies outside the breadth of the claim as determined by the Protocol on the
`Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC 1973, which embodiment cannot be reproduced". The Patentees
`
`PGS Exhibit 1125, pg. 7
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-01477)
`
`

`
`consider that the Opponent's attempt to skew the meaning of the claim deliberately to read on to
`something that would not work is not a correct approach to Article 83 EPC.
`
`In Section 6.2, the Opponent has also suggested that the Patent lacks sufficiency because claim
`1 is "an ambiguous and unallowable generalisation in accordance with Article 83 EPC" because
`of the omission of certain features. This objection has nothing to do with sufficiency and reflects a
`misunderstanding of Article 83 EPC. When considering sufficiency the question is whether the
`Patent as a whole discloses sufficient guidance for the Skilled Person. In fact, the Opponent's
`comments highlight that the Patent does provide sufficient disclosure, since the Opponent has
`indicated the disclosed "series of sequential steps" that the Opponent concedes can be used to
`achieve the invention.
`
`In Section 6.3, the Opponent has suggested that the Skilled Person- who routinely designs
`marine seismic survey positioning devices- would not be able to identify a way of rotating a
`marine seismic survey positioning device underwater based on a splay angle between two wings.
`This bold assertion is based on the suggestion that there is a risk of "overshooting" and that there
`will be "noise". The Patentees submit that some degree of overshooting and/or noise would not
`render the invention inoperable, and that they are issues routinely dealt with in control systems
`and would pose no problem for the Skilled Person. In any event, the Opponent has not provided
`any evidence that there is considerable risk of overshooting or any evidence that there would be
`substantial noise, and so this assertion should be dismissed.
`
`In Section 6.4, it is alleged that the equations given in paragraphs [0044] and [0045] are
`incorrect. However, the Opponent has not provided any evidence to show that strictly following
`the instructions of these paragraphs would lead to a device that does not operate in the manner
`claimed. The equations provided in the highlighted passages link force with angle and so can be
`used exactly as required by the claims. It is unimportant for the consideration of sufficiency
`whether any other equations for mapping between these parameters are possible. Furthermore,
`it is noted that this objection is not directed to a particular invention. The Opponent must show
`that the European patent does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and
`complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. Although, of course, the full
`specification must be considered, it is the invention that must be enabled. It is the view of the
`Patentees that the enablement of the inventions defined by the claims does not depend on the
`equations of paragraphs [0044] and [0045].
`
`Moreover, the Patentees dispute that there is any error in the equations as argued by Opponent.
`The equation in paragraph [0044] shows the resolution of the towing and crosscurrent velocities
`along the surface of the wing.
`
`The Opponent's argument is premised on the assumption "that any velocity vector component
`acting in a direction parallel to the wing is not applicable and does not have any effect on the
`hydrodynamic lifting force on the wings" e.g., as stated in Section 6.4.1 (emphases added). That
`is false. Hydrodynamic lift is related to the velocity over the surface of the wing and the wing's
`angle of attack and generates a force perpendicular to that flow. That is how wings work. The
`Opponent's contrary arguments that the flow parallel to the wing is irrelevant reflect a
`fundamental misunderstanding of physics. The Opponent's statements that "the towing velocity
`v1awcos(a) 2 extends in the direction that is parallel to the surface of the wing" and that "the term
`Vcurren1sin(a) 2 is a vector component of the crosscurrent velocity that is parallel to the surface of
`
`PGS Exhibit 1125, pg. 8
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-01477)
`
`

`
`the wing" means that those velocities are related to lift. Thus, the Opponent's sufficiency
`argument fails.
`
`The equation in paragraph [0045] is the same equation as that of paragraph [0044], but with the
`crosscurrent term disregarded. This is a less accurate equation, but will still work in practice
`because the towing velocity provides by far the bigger contribution to the force applied by the
`wing- the crosscurrent is much less significant. Furthermore, it is noted that the practical range
`of common wing angle in use is between+ 15° and -15°. Over this range, the influence of
`crosscurrent velocity is small and so can be disregarded by the Skilled Person if desirable for a
`given implementation.
`
`The Opponent's objection describes the two scenarios for different roll angles - in the first the
`wing is vertically oriented, and in the second the wing is horizontally oriented. This misses the
`point entirely. As clearly set out in paragraph [0021], towing velocity and crosscurrent velocity are
`relative velocities of the bird 18 with respect to the water in both the "in-line" and the "cross-line"
`directions. That is, the reference frame for the equations is the bird itself. In this context, the roll
`angle of the bird is not required in the equations since it is inherently accounted for in v current·
`Indeed, the specification even suggests in paragraph [0022] that flowmeters could be placed on
`the birds. In such an embodiment the reference frame has to be the bird, since the flowmeter
`would move with the bird.
`
`To the extent that any more accurate equations could be considered, these would be available to
`the Skilled Person once he has the benefit of the concept, disclosed only in the Patent, of
`calculating force- with the knowledge of the inventive concept, the Skilled Person is able to
`apply the necessary mathematical analysis. The Opponent nowhere disputes that the textual
`description of the relevant forces, e.g., in paragraphs [0044] to [0046], are accurate and sufficient
`to enable the Skilled Person to calculate the relevant values with precision.
`
`In view of the comments above, the Patentees submit that the Patent is sufficient under Article
`83 EPC.
`
`Article 84 EPC
`
`The Opponent has objected that the independent claims lack clarity owing to an omission of
`certain features. These features were omitted from the claims as granted. Thus, the Opponent's
`objection is that the claims as granted were unclear. Such an objection is not permitted, since
`clarity is not a ground of opposition- as the Board will be aware, since the Opposition Division's
`Decision in the present case, the Enlarged Board has issued decision G3/14 confirming that
`clarity may not be raised in this situation. Objections can only be raised in respect of a lack of
`clarity imported by an amendment post-grant. The Opponent has not alleged this. In fact, the
`Opponent's suggestion that features (i) to (vi) are essential is an implicit acknowledgement that
`the claim has been improved with respect to clarity.
`
`In any event, it is disputed that the features presented as essential are needed for the following
`reasons. With respect to feature (ii), this structural feature is not needed since the claim explicitly
`requires the wing to be able to control lateral position (that is, this is expressed functionally). With
`respect to feature (v), the claim explicitly requires the adjustment of the angle to comprise the
`
`PGS Exhibit 1125, pg. 9
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-01477)
`
`

`
`use of the localised conversion program. Velocity is not essential because this could be carried
`out using a simple look-up table (see paragraph [0030] of the Patent). With respect to feature
`(vi), splay angle and common wing angle are not essential because different wing configurations
`are considered (see paragraph [0024] of the Patent).
`
`Article 76(1) EPC
`
`In Section 5.1, the Opponent submits that omission of the features of the "distributed processing
`control architecture and behaviour-predictive model-based control logic" adds subject-matter.
`
`The Patentees note that the distribution feature is introduced, not in the final paragraph on page
`6 (to which the Opponent refers) of the parent application, but in the preceding paragraph. This
`paragraph provides basis for distributing the control system between the global and local control
`systems. It is this passage which gives basis for claim 1 maintained by the Opposition Division.
`
`The question is therefore whether the Skilled Reader would find anything in the final paragraph
`on page 6 to suggest that such a feature is essential. In this regard, it is noted that the Skilled
`Reader would look to the inherent technical and functional interrelationship between the claimed
`feature of distributed global and local control systems and the control architecture and model.
`
`In this regard, there are two distinct and separate aspects to the omitted feature: (1) "a
`distributed processing control architecture"; and (2) "a behaviour-predictive model based control
`logic". The Patentees submit that the first of these are already included in the independent
`claims; the hardware that provides the recited control systems is considered to be implicitly
`"processing control architecture".
`
`The second feature, a behaviour-predictive model-based control logic, is not only presented
`separately in a linguistic sense, but has no technical or functional relationship with the distribution
`of processing between global and local control systems. It is therefore not an intermediate
`generalisation to omit this feature from the claims.
`
`Irrespective of whether control logic is used or whether it is implemented with such a model, the
`separation of global and local control systems provides an entirely separate single general
`inventive concept. Indeed, the first sentence of the second paragraph on page 7 explicitly states
`that a dynamic model is merely preferable. This is a positive disclosure that a dynamic model,
`whether behaviour-predictive or otherwise, is not essential.
`
`In Section 5.2, the Opponent suggests that the feature of a "seismic survey vessel" has been
`omitted from claim 1 and thus adds subject-matter. This is incorrect, since it is implicit in the
`recited act of towing the array of streamers that the streamers are towed by a vessel which must
`therefore be a "seismic survey vessel". In this context, the words "seismic" and "survey" import
`nothing more than the fact that the vessel tows streamers of the type claimed. No amendment is
`therefore necessary.
`
`The Opponent's objection of 5.3, that there is no basis for a device that "is able to control only its
`lateral position using only a single wing" misrepresents the independent claims. In fact, no such
`feature is recited. The parent application makes clear in the first full paragraph on page 9 that a
`
`PGS Exhibit 1125, pg. 10
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-01477)
`
`

`
`variety of types of "bird" are possible. Thus, there is no need to limit the claim to a single one of
`these. Moreover, it is merely preferable that both lateral and vertical position be controlled - see
`page 6, lines 2 to 3 of the parent application.
`
`The Opponent has made reference to the complete paragraph on page 11 as relating only to a
`particular arrangement of the bird. However, this is simply false. There is no reason to consider
`that the invention disclosed in that paragraph is structurally or functionally dependent upon any
`particular arrangement. The Skilled Person would understand (from both pages 9 and 11) that
`the invention claimed is independent of the structural design of the bird.
`
`In Section 5.4, the Opponent again argues that the disclosure of the paragraph on page 11 is
`inherently linked with more specific features of the preferred embodiment. In this section, the
`Opponent has suggested that the localised conversion program is inherently linked with the
`lateral extension of the wings from the device, the wing rotating around the direction of extension,
`the single motor used to drive the wings, and the selectively actuatable transmission mechanism.
`However, the Opponent has provided no indication of why any of these particular mechanical
`features would be linked with the use of the inventive control system with a localised conversion
`program to calculate force to be applied. There is no structural or functional interaction between
`these features.
`
`In Section 5.7, the Opponent objects that dependent claims 6 and 9 add subject-matter.
`However, the Opponent has overlooked the fact that the basis for these claims can be found in
`original dependent claim 6 of the parent, which does not require any particular form of bird.
`
`In view of the comments above, the Patentees submit that there is no added subject-matter in
`the claims of the Patent as maintained by the Opposition Division, which are therefore allowable
`under Article 76 EPC.
`
`Auxiliary Requests
`
`T