`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————————
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`———————————
`
`Case IPR2014-01478
`U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520
`
`———————————
`
`
`
`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. 7,293,520 (the “’520 patent”)
`
`filed by Petitioner, Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. (“PGS” or “Petitioner”).
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`THE ’520 PATENT CLAIMS PRECISION CONTROL OF
`STEERABLE SEISMIC ARRAYS ................................................................ 1
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Control Mode ........................................................................................ 6
`
`Feather Angle Mode .............................................................................. 8
`
`Streamer Separation Mode .................................................................... 9
`
`III.
`
`PRIOR ART ................................................................................................... 12
`
`A. Workman ............................................................................................. 12
`
`B.
`
`Dolengowski ........................................................................................ 17
`
`IV. THE ’520 PATENT IS NOT ANTICIPATED OR OBVIOUS .................... 18
`
`A. Workman Does Not Anticipate the Streamer Separation Mode
`Limitations of Claims 1 and 18, or Claims 13, 14, 30, and 31 ........... 18
`
`B. Workman Does Not Render Obvious the Streamer Separation
`Mode Limitations of Claims 1 and 18, or Claims 13, 14, 30, and
`31 ......................................................................................................... 22
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Claims 13 and 30 and Claims 1 and 18 .................................... 22
`
`Claims 14 and 31....................................................................... 24
`
`C.
`
`The Streamer Separation Mode Limitations of Claims 15-17
`and 32-34 are Not Rendered Obvious by Workman in view of
`Dolengowski ........................................................................................ 27
`
`D. Workman Does Not Render Obvious the Feather Angle Mode
`Limitations of Claims 1 and 18, or Claims 3, 5, 20, and 22 ............... 30
`
`V.
`
`PGS’S EXPERTS ARE NOT CREDIBLE ................................................... 38
`
`A. Dr. Evans ............................................................................................. 38
`
`i.
`
`Dr. Evans Made Fundamental Errors in His Analysis .............. 38
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`VI. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ...................................... 40
`
`VII. THE PETITION IS TIME-BARRED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(B) ............ 46
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Privity is Flexibly Applied and Broader Than Real Party-In-
`Interest ................................................................................................. 47
`
`PGS’s Relationship to the ION Litigation Establishes Privity ........... 50
`
`PGS’s Substantive Legal Relationship With ION Establishes
`Privity .................................................................................................. 53
`
`ION is a RPI Under the Guidelines ..................................................... 55
`
`Additional Discovery was Prejudicially Denied ................................. 57
`
`F. Multi Klient Invest AS is an RPI ........................................................ 58
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 59
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`THE ’520 PATENT CLAIMS PRECISION CONTROL OF
`STEERABLE SEISMIC ARRAYS
`The ’520 patent claims methods and apparatus for laterally steering a
`
`plurality of streamer positioning devices along an array of
`
`streamers using a control system configurable to operate in
`
`various control modes. Although the need for such steering
`
`was known for years, and although devices that could exert
`
`point forces on a streamer had been contemplated, no one in
`
`the industry had succeeded in coordinating the control of
`
`multiple positioning devices on every streamer to effect
`
`array-level steering. This was due in part to the scale of the
`
`challenge—steering the many square-miles of a streamer
`
`array in open-water conditions far from the towing vessel
`
`and subject to currents, winds, vessel wake, vibrations, and
`
`a host of other operational and environmental factors (including even the
`
`occasional shark attack). (Ex. 2075, ¶ 57.)
`
`Early streamer manipulations involved rudimentary devices such as
`
`deflectors and tail buoys. (Ex. 1001, 3:43-45; Fig. 1 elements (16) and (20),
`
`respectively)1 Deflectors were associated with the front end of the equipment and
`
`
`1 Although Figure 1 is captioned “prior art,” one of ordinary skill would recognize
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`used to horizontally spread the cables or other tethers at the point nearest the
`
`seismic survey vessel. (Ex. 1001, 3:45-47.) The tail buoy, as the name implies,
`
`created drag on the end of the streamer farthest from the seismic survey vessel.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 3:47-49.) The tension created on the seismic streamer because of the
`
`deflector and tail buoy resulted in a roughly linear shape of the streamer, but only
`
`in ideal conditions. (Ex. 1001, 3:49-52.) No steering was 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, 3:56-58.) For a modest streamer array
`
`consisting of 8-12 individual streamers, this means hundreds of separate streamer
`
`positioning devices are deployed on a given array. Simultaneously controlling this
`
`
`that much of that figure was in fact 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, control modes, 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.
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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 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. Moreover, as explained in the Background section
`
`of the ’520 patent, prior art systems suffered measurement delay and latency
`
`challenges that would have hindered attempts to steer the streamers. Trying to
`
`steer streamer arrays with prior art control systems would therefore have been even
`
`more difficult as, to a certain extent, they have to be steered blind. This problem
`
`was not solved—or even appreciated—by the prior art. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:47-
`
`52; Ex. 2045, 387:5 – 22 (Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Cole, admitting that the ’520
`
`patent’s inventors were the first to recognize this problem)).
`
`Further, merely putting a spot force on an single streamer is not enough to
`
`effectively control the streamer array because, unlike depth control, lateral steering
`
`is dependent on the location and dynamics of all the other array elements too—
`
`“[i]f the birds 18 are not properly controlled, horizontal steering can increase,
`
`rather than decrease, the likelihood of tangling adjacent streamers.” (Ex. 1001,
`
`4:11-13.) The art did not appreciate, let alone solve, the problem of steering
`
`devices on a global, i.e., array-wide, level. The ’520 patent solved the problems
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`
`
`associated with prior art methodologies in several ways including use of a control
`
`system configurable into array-level steering modes, rather than simply exerting
`
`point forces at discrete locations to try to stay within a given threshold parameter.
`
`In particular, the inventors created a control system capable of using at least
`
`three different inventive control modes (enabled by the proactive and behavior-
`
`predictive controls detailed in the specification): feather angle control mode, turn
`
`control mode, and streamer separation control mode. (Ex. 1001, 10:27-65.) “In
`
`the feather angle control mode, the global control system 22 attempts to keep each
`
`streamer in a straight line offset from the towing direction by a certain feather
`
`angle.” (Ex. 1001, 10:29-32.) It is key that the streamers are kept in a “straight
`
`line,” so that even when “current fluctuations … dramatically influence” the
`
`streamers as described earlier in the specification, the individual streamers of the
`
`streamer array maintain their shape.
`
`“The turn control mode is used when ending one pass and beginning another
`
`pass during a … line change.” (Ex. 1001, 10:38-53.) As the inventors recognized,
`
`“[b]y doing this, a tighter turn can be achieved and the turn time of the vessel and
`
`equipment can be substantially reduced.” (Ex. 1001, 10:44-50.) Streamer
`
`separation mode is a mode to set and maintain separation, i.e., spacing, between
`
`streamers. For example, the specification opens its “Detailed Description of the
`
`Invention” by disclosing “regular horizontal spacing” of 100 meters. (Ex. 1001,
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`
`
`3:35-40.) In some circumstances, e.g., extreme weather, streamer separation mode
`
`is meant to prevent streamer tangling and is characterized primarily by having “the
`
`outermost streamers [] positioned as far away from each other as possible. The
`
`inner streamers will then be regularly spaced between the outmost streamers, i.e.,
`
`each bird 18 will receive . . . [signals] that will direct the bird 18 to the midpoint
`
`between its adjacent streamers.” (Ex. 1001, 10:59-65.)
`
`Achieving these results involves configuring the control system into a
`
`“control mode,” i.e., a configuration to automatically achieve targeted goals
`
`despite variable environments. The Background of the Invention criticizes
`
`“manually-operated central control” as requiring “manual input and supervision”
`
`and being ill-suited to controlling “a substantial number of streamers” and a
`
`“number of birds.” (Ex. 1001, 2:28-37) A simple “remote control system” was
`
`likewise criticized for not appreciating the array dynamics and as not enabling
`
`“rapid[] and efficient[] control[],” necessitating a “more deterministic system for
`
`control[].” (Ex. 1001, 2:38-54) In contrast, the ’520 patent’s “global control
`
`system 22 is typically connected to the seismic survey vessel’s navigation system
`
`and obtains estimates of system wide parameters.” (Ex. 1001, 3:66-4:1, emphasis
`
`added). “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, 4:54-57,
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`
`
`emphasis added; see also Ex. 1001, 4:16-20, 4:34-40.) “[R]ather than using an
`
`‘incremental change/measured response/further incremental change based on
`
`measured response’ type of feedback control circuit,” i.e., a simple comparison of
`
`measurements to threshold parameters, the ’520 patent teaches “deterministic
`
`calculations” that account for multiple streamer positioning devices on every
`
`streamer across the entire array. (Ex. 1001, 9:48 – 10:26,) The control modes,
`
`recited in each independent claim, are intimately tied to this disclosed global
`
`control of multiple streamer positioning devices on each streamer across the entire
`
`streamer array. (Ex. 1001, 10:29-32; 10:50-53; 10:58-65.)
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the Leahy-Smith
`
`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) (hereinafter, “OPTP Guide”).
`
`A. Control Mode
`The ’520 patent claims a “control system configured to operate in one or
`
`more control modes.” (Ex. 1001, 11:16-17, emphasis added.) Not all control
`
`systems are covered, only those capable of configuration to operate in the claimed
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`
`
`“control modes.” Tellingly, the claimed control modes are all described in the
`
`specification relative to “the inventive control system,” which defines the scope of
`
`the claimed control modes. See e.g., Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 778
`
`F.3d 1021, 1024-1025 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding description of “the present
`
`invention” to clearly and unmistakably limit claim scope); Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v.
`
`ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (explaining the importance
`
`of reading the claims in the context of the specification, especially when the
`
`specification describes “this invention” or “the present invention”); Verizon Servs.
`
`Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[w]hen a
`
`patent thus describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this
`
`description limits the scope of the invention”); Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc., 402
`
`F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`The ’520 patent describes that “[t]he inventive control system will primarily
`
`operate in two different control modes: a feather angle control mode and a turn
`
`control mode….” (Ex. 1001, 10:27-53.) “[T]he inventive control system may also
`
`operate in a streamer separation control mode….” (Id. at 10:54-65.) Together
`
`these passages confirm the need for a control system with automation (rather than
`
`manual control or “control” based upon currents) and a determined goal (rather
`
`than incremental threshold responses). Against this backdrop, the term “control
`
`modes” is used in the specification to refer to automated configurations that
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`
`
`attempt to achieve specific goals, i.e., a “goal oriented automatic configuration,”
`
`and “control mode” should be construed as such.
`
`B.
`Feather Angle Mode
`The Board stated that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “feather angle
`
`mode” is “a control mode that attempts to keep each streamer in a straight line
`
`offset from the towing direction by a certain feather angle.” (Paper 18 at 13.) The
`
`only difference from Patent Owner’s construction is “set and maintain” versus
`
`“keep.” The Board notably recognizes that a target feather angle, i.e. a specific
`
`value, must be input into the control mode. (Id. at 12-13.) Patent owner’s
`
`proposed language merely incorporates this concept—a specific angle is set.
`
`Patent Owner is not asserting that the mode itself has to automatically choose the
`
`angle, which appears to be a concern expressed by the Board. Id.
`
`The construction stated by the Board appears to incorporate the concept of
`
`setting the feather angle because keeping each streamer of the array in a straight
`
`line offset from the towing direction by a “certain feather angle” requires lateral
`
`control along the length of the streamers—i.e., control of the entire claimed “array”
`
`and the “plurality of streamer positioning devices there along”—and a specific
`
`selection/input (whether manually or through other means) of the feather angle into
`
`the global control system. Indeed, such a construction is demanded as the feather
`
`angle control mode is part of the ’520 patent’s “inventive control system.” (Ex.
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1001, 10:27-29.) Thus, under either the Patent Owner’s or the Board’s
`
`construction, because the feather angle mode uses a specific feather angle, that
`
`specific angle must not only be set, but also be maintained.
`
`Feather angle mode should not encompass, as Petitioner appears to suggest
`
`(see, e.g., Paper 1 at 14-15), the random alignment of streamers due to weather or
`
`ocean conditions because no feather angle is set or otherwise targeted by the
`
`control system. Nor would such environmental happenstance meaningfully “keep”
`
`the streamers at a specified angle using “control.” Such an interpretation is
`
`improper as it would render meaningless the claimed requirement that the feather
`
`angle mode “control[s] the streamer positioning devices” ( claim 1), and is a part of
`
`a “control system configured to use” the feather angle mode (claim 18), which is
`
`part of the patent’s goal-oriented inventive control system. (Ex. 1001, 10:29-33.)
`
`C.
`Streamer Separation Mode
`The broadest reasonable construction of the term “streamer separation
`
`mode” is “a control mode that attempts to set and maintain the spacing between
`
`adjacent streamers.” To the extent that the Board’s preliminary construction—“a
`
`mode to control separation, or spacing, between streamers” (Paper 18 at 14)—
`
`does not incorporate the concept of maintaining a specific separation, a review of
`
`the claim language and the specification demonstrates that such an interpretation is
`
`incomplete. While Patent Owner generally agrees that a streamer separation
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`
`
`control mode is one that controls separation, or spacing, between streamers, the
`
`construction may be ambiguous as to “control separation.” Defining what it means
`
`to “control separation” is a necessary part of the Broadest Reasonable
`
`Interpretation. Without a specific delineation of what it means to “control
`
`separation,” Petitioner may bog these proceedings down by inaccurately and
`
`unfairly spinning the prior art.
`
`Most importantly, the specification describes that the streamer separation
`
`mode is part of the inventive control system of the ’520 patent and that, as part of
`
`the inventive control system, the spacing between streamers is set and maintained:
`
`“…the outermost streamers will be positioned as far away from each other as
`
`possible [and] [t]he inner streamers will then be regularly spaced between the[]
`
`outermost streamers.” (Ex. 1001, 10:53-61). In all embodiments, the claimed
`
`streamer separation mode seeks to control the separation between the streamers by
`
`setting and maintaining that separation. (Ex. 2075, ¶¶ 80, 95.) While the Board
`
`preliminarily concluded that “[t]he ’520 patent also does not discuss in the
`
`specification setting or maintaining any specific value,” (IPR2014-00689, Paper 32
`
`at 5), the specification actually does—it teaches that in the streamer separation
`
`mode, the positioning devices are directed to a specific position/value, e.g., “to the
`
`midpoint position between its adjacent streamers.” (Ex. 1001, 10:53-65.)
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`
`
`In attempting to blur the distinction between the claimed streamer separation
`
`mode and the prior art discussed below, Petitioner cites to a passage that “the
`
`global control system 22 monitors the actual positions of the birds 18 and is
`
`programmed with … the desired minimum separations between the seismic
`
`streamers 12.” (Paper 1 at 16 (emphasis added).) But this sentence is not textually
`
`tied to the claimed “streamer separation mode.” The control system is
`
`programmed with many parameters—nothing in the specification connects this
`
`“minimum separation” to the claimed “modes.”
`
`To the contrary, the claims that discuss “minimum separation” confirm that
`
`when a desired minimum separation is considered as part of a streamer separation
`
`mode, it is still in the context of “maintaining” that specific separation:
`
`[T]he global control system is further configured into a streamer
`separation mode, wherein said global control system attempts to direct
`said streamer positioning device to maintain a minimum separation
`distance between adjacent streamers.
`
`(Ex. 2077 (’967 patent) 13:22-27, (claim 23); see also Ex. 2076 (’607 patent),
`
`11:60-64 (claim 8)). In all disclosed embodiments and claims, the streamer
`
`separation mode still requires a specific distance be set and maintained. (Ex.
`
`1001, 10:54-65.) There is no indication that the specification ever contemplates
`
`the claimed streamer separation mode to be satisfied only through the use of a
`
`minimum separation distance threshold. (Ex. 2075, ¶ 80.)
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`
`
`III. PRIOR ART
`A. Workman
`Workman was considered during prosecution of the ’520 patent, and claim
`
`18 was found valid during the ION litigation in view of this reference. Both this
`
`Office and an Article III court, via a jury verdict that was upheld after post-trial
`
`briefing, have already found that Workman does not render the underlying
`
`independent claim to the challenged claims unpatentable. This Board should not
`
`reach a contrary result against ION’s privy. In re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357,
`
`1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“When a party who has lost in a court proceeding
`
`challenging a patent, from which no additional appeal is possible, provokes a
`
`reexamination in the PTO, using the same presentations and arguments, even with
`
`a more lenient standard of proof, the PTO ideally should not arrive at a different
`
`conclusion.”)
`
`Workman is not concerned with achieving specific separations of the
`
`streamers or streamer positioning devices in an array. Rather, Workman operates
`
`via a series of “alarm bell” type thresholds, focusing primarily on reducing the
`
`noise caused by devices on seismic streamers (Ex. 1004, 1:64 – 2:9) and, therefore,
`
`reluctantly moves the devices only after certain “threshold parameters” are
`
`exceeded. (Ex. 1004, 3:58 – 4:8; 4:33 – 35; Fig. 3.) If the threshold parameter is
`
`not exceeded, then the system restarts and no commands are sent to any devices in
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`
`
`the system. (Ex. 1004, 3:63-65, Fig. 3.) In other words, the system disclosed by
`
`Workman does nothing in this scenario. (Ex. 1004, 4:31-35.)
`
`If a threshold parameter is exceeded, a correction command will be sent to a
`
`device only if (a) the towed streamer cable encounters an “at risk” situation, or (b)
`
`hydrophone noise level is sufficiently low. (Ex. 1004, 4:36-58, Fig. 3.) If the
`
`streamers are not “at risk,” and the hydrophone noise level exceeds the maximum
`
`allowable noise threshold, the system disclosed by Workman does nothing,
`
`despite a threshold parameter being exceeded. (Ex. 1004, 5:14-30, Fig. 3.) And
`
`even if a threshold were violated, Workman would merely apply a force to push
`
`the streamer back within a threshold generally; there is no teaching or suggestion
`
`for maintaining any particular target distance or shape of the array. (Ex. 2075, ¶¶
`
`119 – 126, 210 – 221.)
`
`Although Workman identifies “minimum allowable separation distances” as
`
`one threshold parameter, Workman does not operate to maintain any particular
`
`separation between streamers, let alone discuss or disclose any methods for setting
`
`and maintaining the streamers at a maximized distance. Rather than setting and
`
`maintaining any separation of streamers using streamer positioning devices like the
`
`’520 patent, Workman takes the opposite approach: it waits until the streamers
`
`exceed their threshold parameters before even attempting any kind of a correction,
`
`and generally cautions against doing so if the noise level is too high. Workman’s
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`
`
`approach was explicitly distinguished in the specification of the ’520 patent, which
`
`criticized such “incremental change/measured response/further incremental change
`
`based on measured response” and distinguished “the present control system” on
`
`that basis. (Ex. 1001, 9:44 – 51; see also Ex. 2075, ¶¶ 119, 126, 210 – 221.)
`
`That Workman does not describe or disclose a lateral streamer positioning
`
`control system is entirely corroborated by the inventor’s previous testimony in the
`
`ION litigation. In the ION litigation, ION had attempted to retain Mr. Workman to
`
`serve as an expert witness. Mr. Workman had worked for many years at Western
`
`Geophysical Corp., who along with Geco-Prakla, were the predecessors to Patent
`
`Owner WesternGeco. During this time, Mr. Workman oversaw Marc Zajac, the
`
`sole inventor of a later streamer-steering patent at issue in the ION litigation that is
`
`not relevant to these proceedings. In an attempt to avoid disqualification, ION
`
`vigorously disputed that Mr. Workman’s work at Western Geophysical—including
`
`the work underlying the Workman patent—had anything to do with any of either
`
`Mr. Zajac’s or Dr. Bittleston’s claimed inventions. (Ex. 2053 at 16 – 19.) PGS’
`
`petition directly contradicts these prior representations made by its privy ION.2
`
`
`2 Workman (Ex. 1004) was developed at Western Geophysical Corp., one of the
`
`two predecessors to Patent Owner WesternGeco. The other predecessor, Geco-
`
`Prakla, was where Dr. Bittleston and Mr. Hillesund worked and where the
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inventions of the ’520 patent were developed and initially commercialized. The
`
`Zajac ’038 patent, which was the subject of Petitioner’s failed IPR2014-1476,
`
`was successfully asserted against Petitioner’s privy in the ION litigation.
`
`Because Mr. Workman worked with and oversaw Mr. Zajac at Western
`
`Geophysical—prior to the formation of WesternGeco—he was disqualified
`
`from serving as ION’s expert in that litigation. Mr. Workman never had
`
`involvement with the Bittleston patents, including the ’520 patent, and the
`
`Geco-Prakla inventions claimed therein. Petitioner’s argument in IPR2014-
`
`00689 (Paper 78 at 18-19) that Mr. Workman was disqualified because he
`
`somehow worked on Dr. Bittleston’s
`
`invention appears a deliberate
`
`misrepresentation by Petitioner in an effort to discredit the Workman
`
`declaration, and is without any factual support.
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Workman is also inapposite because it focuses on the location of streamers
`
`and sources, but not on the location of streamer positioning devices. As shown in
`
`Figure 1, label 13 represents the seismic cable, label 14 depicts Workman’s
`
`streamer positioning devices, and label 15 represents location sensing devices.
`
`(Ex. 1004, 2:66 – 3:29.) The reference gives no indication that the location sensing
`
`devices 15 are associated with Workman’s streamer positioning devices, each of
`
`which are merely a few feet long and positioned along a cable measuring three to
`
`eight kilometers. (Ex. 1004, 1:20 – 24.) Indeed, Workman’s own description of
`
`Figure 1 confirms its approximate nature: “FIG. 1 shows a generalized schematic
`
`of a marine seismic survey system.” (Ex. 1004, 2:56 – 57; Ex. 2075, ¶ 127.)
`
`Dr. Evans also admitted this drawing was not to scale. (Ex. 2054 at 147:6 –
`
`21.) The Board’s reliance on this figure as disclosing the co-location of streamer
`
`positioning devices and location sensing devices was in error, as even PGS’ expert
`
`concedes. See also Nystrom v. TREX Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`In short, Workman does not disclose or even address the ’520 patent’s
`
`claimed “control modes.” Adjusting the streamers only when threshold parameters
`
`are exceeded is insufficient to ensure proper control of the shape of the spread, i.e.,
`
`that all streamers maintain a common feather angle, or that they have a set and
`
`16
`
`
`

`

`
`
`maintained spacing between streamers (i.e., a streamer separation mode) during the
`
`survey and during turns.
`
`B. Dolengowski
`Dolengowski simply describes a steerable tail buoy designed to help avoid
`
`buoy-to-buoy hooking or tangling. (Ex. 1008, Abstract, 2:54 – 58.) In this system,
`
`each tail buoy is connected to a seismic streamer by a rope, shown below at 22C.
`
`(Id. at 2:5 – 9.) The ropes can range from 30 meters to 300 meters long, which
`
`allows the tail buoy to “float on the surface of the water without raising the trailing
`
`end of the streamer” or otherwise having a significant effect on the streamer, i.e.
`
`the tail buoy itself does not—and cannot—directly influence the lateral position of
`
`the streamer. (Id. at 2:5 – 9.)
`
`
`
`
`
`During repair operations or slow speed turns, Dolengowski notes that
`
`streamers may tangle and, to avoid this, suggests separating the streamers in depth.
`
`(Id. at 4:32 – 45.) However, even if the streamers are separated in depth, the ropes
`
`connecting the streamer to their respective tail buoys may still tangle. To help
`17
`
`
`

`

`
`
`prevent tail buoy hooking during these operations, Dolengowski suggests using a
`
`steerable tail buoy. (Id.) However, Petitioner’s expert admitted this tail buoy is
`
`not used as a streamer positioning device. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 87 (“Steerable tail buoys
`
`were not necessarily needed to set and maintain predetermined positions of
`
`streamers during a typical seismic-survey.… Dolengowski explained that the
`
`added benefit of the steerable tail buoy was to ensure that tail buoys did not
`
`become entangled when the towing vessel performed a turn.”).)
`
`
`
`In short, Dolengowski does not describe (1) the use of any lateral steering
`
`streamer control modes, let alone any of the control modes claimed by the ’520
`
`patent; (2) a goal oriented streamer steering control system as claimed by the ’520
`
`patent; or (3) using streamer positioning devices along the length of the streamer
`
`as described by the ’520 patent.
`
`IV. THE ’520 PATENT IS NOT ANTICIPATED OR OBVIOUS
`A. Workman Does Not Anticipate the Streamer Separation Mode
`Limitations of Claims 1 and 18, or Claims 13, 14, 30, and 31
`Claims 13, 14, 30, and 31, which ultimately depend from claims 1 and 18,
`
`are directed to the inventive control system’s streamer separation mode. Workman
`
`does not disclose a control system configured to operate in control modes, let alone
`
`a streamer separation mode. Workman is concerned with noise minimization
`
`rather than generating noise through actively controlling streamer positioning
`
`devices. Workman in fact does nothing unless and until a threshold is violated,
`
`18
`
`
`

`

`
`
`and even then only pushes the system back within that threshold—no position is
`
`specified nor maintained. Workman does not anticipate the streamer separation
`
`mode limitations of claims 1 and 18, or claims 13, 14, 30, and 31.
`
`Claims 1 and 18 require at least one of three recited control modes. Claims
`
`13, 14, 30, and 31 are specifically directed to the streamer separation control mode.
`
`To implement proper array-level streamer control, when operating in the streamer
`
`separation mode, the inventive control system maintains a set distance between
`
`streamers. (Ex. 1001, 10:27 – 33, 10:56 – 65.) This is not disclosed by Workman.
`
`As discussed above, Workman only repositions streamers in limited “at risk”
`
`situations when streamers get too close and violate a threshold, but otherwise
`
`allows them to float as far away as ocean currents would allow. This is not setting
`
`and maintaining (or keeping) spacing between adjacent streamers of the streamer
`
`array. Although phrased as “minimum allowable separation,” Workman makes no
`
`attempt to control the streamers in this mode or achieve a specific separation. So
`
`long as the streamers do not get close enough to exceed a “minimum allowable
`
`separation[],” the system does nothing. As shown in figure 3, which is provided
`
`below with highlighting, the system will simply initialize and restart once it is
`
`determined that the minimum allowable separation is not exceeded.
`
`19
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of Workman (with highlighting)
`
`
`Although Dr. Evans erroneously claimed that Workman constantly calculates
`
`position corrections during his deposition for the first wave of IPRs filed by
`
`Petitioner (Ex.2054, 216:7 – 217:4, 218:4 – 12), he was forced to concede under
`
`cross examination that Workman does not implement any position corrections as
`
`long as the streamer sep