UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _______________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _______________
`
`Page 1
`
` WESTERNGECO L.L.C.
` Petitioner
` v.
` PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS
` Patent Owner
` _______________
` Case No. IPR2015-00309
` Case No. IPR2015-00310
` Case No. IPR2015-00311
` Patent 6,906,981
` _______________
`
` DEPOSITION OF WALTER S. LYNN, Ph.D.
` Washington, D.C.
` Wednesday, November 4, 2015
`
`Reported by: John L. Harmonson, RPR
`Job No. 99582
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`7
`8
`
`9
`10
`
`11
`12
`
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1022, pg. 1
`WesternGeco v. PGS
`IPR2015-00311
`
`

`
`Page 2
`
`Page 3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`On Behalf of the Petitioner:
` OBLON, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT
` 1940 Duke Street
` Alexandria, VA 22314
` BY: MICHAEL KIKLIS, ESQ.
` KATHERINE CAPPAERT, ESQ.
` - and -
` KIRKLAND & ELLIS
` 601 Lexington Avenue
` New York, NY 10022
` BY: TIMOTHY GILMAN, ESQ.
` SAUNAK DESAI, ESQ.
`
`On Behalf of the Patent Owner:
` WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY
` 725 Twelfth Street
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` BY: DAVID KRINSKY, ESQ.
` SANJIV LAUD, ESQ.
` JESSAMYN BERNIKER, ESQ.
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` WHITNEY HERMANDORFER, Law Clerk
`
`Page 5
`
` W. LYNN
`process for a deposition?
` A. I do have some familiarity.
` Q. You understand I'm going to ask you a
`series of questions today?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I will try to be clear in all my
`questions, but if for some reason there is
`something I say that you don't understand, will
`you ask me for some clarification?
` A. Absolutely.
` Q. And conversely, if you answer one of
`my questions, is it fair for me to assume that
`you have understood what I asked?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is there any reason sitting here today
`that you would be unable to give full, fair and
`accurate testimony?
` A. No reason.
` Q. What was the matter that you were
`deposed for in 1998 or '99?
` A. It had to do with an employee from IBM
`who worked on site at PGS Data Processing. I was
`president of that company at the time. And she
`had left IBM to either start her own business or
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` November 4, 2015
` 8:58 a.m.
`
` Deposition of WALTER S. LYNN, Ph.D., held at
`the offices of Williams & Connolly LLP, 725
`Twelfth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., pursuant to
`Notice, before John L. Harmonson, a Registered
`Professional Reporter and Notary Public of the
`District of Columbia, who officiated in
`administering the oath to the witness.
`
`12345
`
`6
`
`789
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 4
`
` W. LYNN
`--------------------------------------------------
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` 8:58 a.m.
`--------------------------------------------------
` Whereupon,
` WALTER S. LYNN, Ph.D.,
` after having been first duly sworn or affirmed,
` was examined and did testify under oath as
` follows:
` EXAMINATION
` BY MR. GILMAN:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Lynn.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. My name is Timothy Gilman and I'm here
` representing WesternGeco in these Patent Office
` proceedings.
` Have you ever been deposed before?
` A. I've been deposed once, and I think
` it's called as a fact witness, not as an expert
` witness as what I'm doing here.
` Q. When was it you were deposed?
` A. Roughly 1999 -- or excuse me, '98,
` '99.
` Q. So you have some familiarity with the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`2
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1022, pg. 2
`WesternGeco v. PGS
`IPR2015-00311
`
`

`
`Page 6
`
`Page 7
`
` W. LYNN
`something; I don't recall the circumstances. And
`there was a concern from IBM that she had taken
`or was using proprietary information, and then I
`was deposed to find out what I knew about that,
`which was really nothing.
` Q. Did that case go to trial?
` A. I don't recall.
` Q. Have you been involved in any other
`litigation?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What other litigations have you been
`involved with?
` A. A few things. The earliest was in
`1991. I had left Western Geophysical, which was
`what it was called at the time, to go out on my
`own as a consultant. And I was asked to review
`computer code from Company A and Company B.
`Company A was claiming that the person who left
`that company and went to work for Company B had
`reinvented -- or not reinvented but had recreated
`some proprietary computer code. And I was asked
`to review that. That case was settled before I
`even finished the review.
` A second case was in the early 2000s;
`
`Page 8
`
` W. LYNN
`aligned perfectly or within specification. And
`so Company B had said, we've taken X-rays of all
`these phones because you don't want to crack them
`open. So I looked at the X-rays which indicated
`the orientation of the phones and came to the
`conclusion that that misalignment, which was plus
`or minus 2 or 3 degrees, was insignificant.
` That case did go to trial. I was not
`deposed in that case. I don't know why. At the
`time, I didn't even think. But it was a jury
`trial in the state of Texas in I think it was in
`Sugarland.
` THE WITNESS: You're from New York.
` Mr. Kiklis, where do you live?
` MR. KRINSKY: Dr. Lynn, I'm afraid
` you're answering questions here today. That
` explains Mr. Kiklis' silence.
`BY MR. GILMAN:
` Q. So going back to make sure that I
`understand, the first matter in 1991 you were
`hired as a consultant for litigation?
` A. Correct.
` Q. And in that retention you were
`reviewing some computer code for accusations that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` W. LYNN
`I'm going to say about 2003 or so. I was asked
`by a company who was being charged by another
`company, and pardon me it I don't have the right
`legal terms, but you know what I'm -- if I don't
`say it correctly, you can correct me.
` Company A was manufacturing and
`selling down-hole equipment for the measuring of
`seismic energy, and Company B had purchased a lot
`of this equipment and found that it was not up to
`full specifications for all these phones, we call
`them geophones, going down the well work.
` And there were four different
`complaints from Company B against Company A, and
`I was asked to look at one of those complaints
`that had to do with the orientation of the
`geophones within these sonds, s-o-n-d-s. So
`imagine this is -- I'm holding a water bottle
`so -- I know this is not on video. But imagine
`this is an encasement, and within this encasement
`there are geophones that are measuring the
`vertical motion of the ground or of the waves
`going through and horizontally in two directions.
` And the complaint was that these
`phones which are embedded in epoxy were not
`
`Page 9
`
` W. LYNN
`Company B might have misappropriated something
`from Company A?
` A. Right. From Company A an employee
`that left and joined Company B, so that was the
`issue.
` Q. What was the language of that computer
`code?
` A. I believe it was Fortran.
` Q. Are you familiar with Fortran?
` A. I was very familiar with Fortran. I
`think I could still follow Fortran.
` Q. When is the last time you've used any
`Fortran?
` A. Gosh, in terms of coding, it goes back
`to my days at Western Geophysical.
` Q. Back In the '90s?
` A. Well, I left there in '91, so early
`'91.
` Q. And you left before it merged with
`Geco?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you ever work with Craig Beasley
`while you were at Western?
` A. I did.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`3
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1022, pg. 3
`WesternGeco v. PGS
`IPR2015-00311
`
`

`
`Page 10
`
`Page 11
`
` W. LYNN
` Q. What was your relationship with Craig
`Beasley like at Western?
` A. I was in the research and development
`department and Craig was in the computer science
`department.
` The two departments in general
`interacted a lot together. And Craig and I
`worked on a number of projects together. So it
`was -- so we did. We worked on a number of
`things together. It was a very enjoyable time.
` Q. So you said that you were a consultant
`for litigation in 1991. Your role in this 2003
`matter, was that also as a retained consultant?
` A. Yes. I don't know if that was the
`terminology that they used, but it was expert
`consultant, and then I was asked to testify.
` Q. Who were the companies in the 1991
`matter, the two companies that were involved?
` MR. KRINSKY: Dr. Lynn, I would just
` caution you to the extent that this
` implicates confidential information that
` wasn't revealed at the time, there's no need
` to breach that confidentiality undertaking.
` THE WITNESS: I don't think it's an
`
`Page 12
`
` W. LYNN
`trying to think of it.
` Q. Which side had retained you in that
`matter?
` A. IO.
` Q. And IO became Ion today; is that
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. ION Geophysical?
` A. Yeah. There was a lot of steps along
`the way.
` Q. Other than these two consulting
`matters in 1991 and 2003, have you consulted in
`any other litigation or other legal disputes?
` A. No.
` Q. Other than today?
` A. Correct.
` Q. I would like to show you what has been
`marked as PGS Exhibit 2001, which I believe is
`your declaration regarding the '981 patent.
` A. That's correct.
` (PGS Exhibit 2001, previously marked
` for identification, is attached hereto.)
`BY MR. GILMAN:
` Q. If you turn to the last page of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` W. LYNN
` issue. And honestly, I'm not sure about
` both companies. I believe one was Landmark
` Graphics, and I don't recall the other.
`BY MR. GILMAN:
` Q. The 2003 matter with the down-hole
`seismic equipment, who were the two companies
`involved in that?
` A. The company that was being sued, the
`manufacturer of the equipment, was at the time
`called IO. For input/output, I presume. And the
`company that was claiming damages with what they
`thought was faulty equipment was a fellow -- the
`name of the company is the person's last name,
`and his first name is B-j-o-r-n. It will come to
`mind. I haven't thought of that in a long time.
`But the company that was suing was a company that
`made a business out of acquiring down-hole
`seismic information.
` Q. That company was IO?
` A. The company manufacturing the
`equipment was IO. The company that was claiming
`damages was --
` Q. This person's name you can't remember?
` A. It will come back to me when I'm not
`
`Page 13
`
` W. LYNN
`Exhibit 2001, you see there is a signature page?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And is that your signature on page 110
`of Exhibit 2001?
` A. It is.
` Q. And did you sign Exhibit 2001 on or
`about October 2, 2015?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you review Exhibit 2001 before you
`signed it?
` A. Absolutely.
` Q. To make sure it was accurate?
` A. Well, a lot of it is my work. If I
`sign my name to something, I stand by it. So
`absolutely.
` Q. Did you check if anything was
`inaccurate, if there were any mistakes in it
`before you signed it?
` A. Of course.
` Q. Have you had a chance to review
`Exhibit 2001 since you've signed it?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are you aware of anything that's
`incorrect or any mistakes that are in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`4
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1022, pg. 4
`WesternGeco v. PGS
`IPR2015-00311
`
`

`
`Page 14
`
` W. LYNN
`Exhibit 2001?
` A. I came across at least one typo, I
`can't recall. And there was one other spot where
`the timing of the patents was incorrect. And I
`can find that for you, but I'm sure it will
`probably come up in the course today. It's a
`small but --
` Q. Something is wrong with the date of a
`patent?
` A. It was my interpretation of the date
`of a patent.
` Q. Other than those two examples, the
`typo and the date of the patent, is there
`anything that is incorrect or inaccurate in
`Exhibit 2001, your declaration?
` A. Not that I know of.
` Q. Do you know where the typo is that you
`were referring to?
` A. I don't recall that, but I can tell
`you that the one sentence that I would like to
`have changed is on page 62, and it's the very
`last sentence of Paragraph 124 that's dealing
`with the Beasley patent.
` The last sentence says: "In the
`
`Page 16
`
` W. LYNN
`environments; is that correct?
` A. That's the statement, yes.
` Q. And your modification of that is that
`you believe the De Kok patent, Exhibit 1003, was
`an example of being able to do signature encoding
`in the marine environment?
` A. Yes. Now if I could pause for a
`moment. I'm sure you have it as an exhibit, the
`Beasley patent. Could I see that patent, please?
` Q. Of course.
` (WesternGeco Exhibit 1004, previously
` marked for identification, is attached
` hereto.)
`BY MR. GILMAN:
` Q. I'm handing you what's been marked as
`WesternGeco Exhibit 1004, the Beasley '049
`patent.
` A. When I reread this sentence, the one
`we're talking about here, I was thinking that as
`of the filing date of the Beasley patent, which
`is January 30, 1998, was after the De Kok filing
`date. And that's not correct. Because the
`De Kok filing date is May 30, 2001.
` And so --
`
`Page 15
`
` W. LYNN
`marine context, these technologies were not
`available as of the priority date." And there
`was a technology available at that time.
` Q. What technology are you referring to?
` A. It would be the technology described
`in the De Kok patent.
` Q. And that would be the De Kok patent
`that's Exhibit 1003 that I'm handing you a copy
`of?
` A. That is correct.
` (WesternGeco Exhibit 1003, previously
` marked for identification, is attached
` hereto.)
`BY MR. GILMAN:
` Q. In Paragraph 124 of your declaration,
`Exhibit 2001, you're discussing signature
`encoding of sources in the marine seismic
`industry?
` A. Yeah, as it related to the Beasley
`patent.
` Q. And as originally written in
`Paragraph 124, you stated that there were no
`available technologies as of the priority date
`for source signature encoding in the marine
`
`Page 17
`
` W. LYNN
` Q. So as the filing date of the Beasley
`'049 patent, Exhibit 1004, there were not source
`signature encoding technologies for the marine
`environment?
` A. Yes.
` Q. That is correct?
` A. That is correct, yes.
` Q. The first such technology you are
`aware of was the De Kok patent which was filed in
`2001, Exhibit 1003?
` MR. KRINSKY: Object to the form of
` the question.
` THE WITNESS: Yes, as with regards to
` the marine environment.
`BY MR. GILMAN:
` Q. Are you aware of any commercially
`available source signature encoding technologies
`for the marine environment as of today even?
` A. Oh, yes.
` Q. When was the first actual commercially
`available source signature encoding for the
`marine industry that you're aware of?
` A. Certainly the Vaage patent talks about
`time delay. But there were papers about 2008,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`5
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1022, pg. 5
`WesternGeco v. PGS
`IPR2015-00311
`
`

`
`Page 18
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` W. LYNN
`2009, where WesternGeco published a paper, the
`first commercial simultaneous -- marine
`simultaneous source survey. And that's
`referenced in my -- toward the end of my
`declaration.
` Q. The Vaage patent, which we're going to
`talk about today, uses time delay encoding of its
`sources?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And in your opinion, is that a type of
`source signature encoding for the marine
`environment?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And WesternGeco's commercial
`embodiments in 2008 and 2009 that you referred to
`are also examples of source signature encoding
`for marine?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Before I forget, let me give you a
`copy of the Vaage patent, if I'm pronouncing it
`correctly, which is Exhibit 1001.
` (WesternGeco Exhibit 1001, previously
` marked for identification, is attached
` hereto.)
`
`Page 20
`
` W. LYNN
`simultaneous source technology?
` A. No.
` Q. You don't teach any classes on
`simultaneous sources?
` A. I do. I teach a professional class to
`industry for a company called Nautilus. That's
`their business, hiring people like myself that
`have an expertise in certain things to teach to
`folks in industry. And a subset of my class,
`which is titled wide azimuth seismic processing
`or wide azimuth seismic -- Let me give you a
`correct title. Wide azimuth seismic for
`unconventional resource plays, for conventional
`and unconventional resource plays, I think. And
`simultaneous sources is a subset of that class.
`It's about, you know, a two- or three-hour module
`that I teach.
` Q. Nautilus is a company that offers
`lectures or classes to other companies?
` A. Yes. Their business model is that
`they have companies pay a certain amount of money
`for so many -- I'll call them credit hours per
`year, and then they can select which courses they
`wish to take. This course was offered in Houston
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` W. LYNN
` THE WITNESS: And you are pronouncing
` it correctly.
`BY MR. GILMAN:
` Q. The Vaage patent, Exhibit 1001,
`relates to simultaneous source surveys; is that
`correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. In the marine environment?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. In terms of your personal experience,
`what was the first time you had involvement with
`simultaneous source surveys?
` A. My involvement with simultaneous
`source surveys was never as a researcher, so I
`have no involvement with planning a simultaneous
`source survey or processing one. I have a great
`interest in it, and so I follow the literature, I
`listen to the talks. And so probably about 2008
`was the first time it landed on my radar screen
`as something to watch.
` Q. You yourself don't have any papers on
`simultaneous source technology?
` A. No.
` Q. You don't have any patents on
`
`Page 21
`
` W. LYNN
`last August. There were like seven participants.
`These are not overflow crowds, that sort of
`stuff.
` Q. So the first time you taught this
`course for Nautilus was last August?
` A. With that module in it, correct.
` Q. Of 2015 or 2014?
` A. 2015.
` Q. So the first time you taught a class
`that touched on simultaneous sources was in
`August of 2015?
` A. Correct.
` Q. No prior courses that you've taught
`have discussed simultaneous sources?
` A. Not in any detail. I teach, as you
`know from my business card, at the Colorado
`School of Mines. This is my seventh year in
`teaching there. My class is called seismic data
`processing. It's a grad level class with seniors
`that have the, you know, appropriate
`prerequisites, which is mainly enough math to
`parse differential equations, the physics of wave
`phenomena, structural geology.
` And I mention simultaneous sources as
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`6
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1022, pg. 6
`WesternGeco v. PGS
`IPR2015-00311
`
`

`
`Page 22
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` W. LYNN
`one of the things that we can do in acquisition
`and processing. But I don't have time to get
`that far down the road and teach them about that.
`So it's mentioned.
` Q. Who were your students when you taught
`this class for Nautilus?
` A. I don't recall the names but there
`were two from ION. One was a multicomponent
`geophysicist. The other was an on-board data
`processor, onboard a seismic vessel processing
`data. There was a fellow from Devon Energy. I
`can't recall the other three or four.
` Q. Was there anybody from PGS in your
`class?
` A. (Shaking head.)
` Q. Was there anybody from WesternGeco in
`your class?
` A. No. If so, I would have asked them to
`help me teach it.
` Q. In your declaration you refer to a
`paper that you worked on back in the 1980s.
` A. That's correct.
` MR. GILMAN: I would like to mark as
` WesternGeco Exhibit 1021 a 1987 article
`
`Page 24
`
` W. LYNN
`in our R&D group, it's possible it could have
`begun late '86. But my guess is the first drafts
`were early 1987.
` Q. You are listed as the first author of
`Exhibit 1021?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. Is there any significance to being
`listed first on this?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What is that significance?
` A. I was the lead investigator.
` Q. What does that mean?
` A. In fact, that's the description. I
`don't think within Western we called me the lead
`investigator. But I was the one who designed the
`experiment, went out to sea to do the experiment.
`Mark Doyle, who was the second author, he was
`also at sea. He was on another boat, which will
`become clear when we talk about the paper.
` The third author Ken Larner was the
`head of research and development.
` And Richard Marschall, I can't recall
`what his role is, but if he's listed as an author
`he had a role. It might have been in the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` W. LYNN
` entitled "Experimental investigation of
` interference from other seismic crews."
` (WesternGeco Exhibit 1021 marked for
` identification and attached hereto.)
` MR. KRINSKY: Counsel, this was
` Exhibit 1021?
` MR. GILMAN: Correct. Which hopefully
` is the next number in sequence and I won't
` get in trouble.
` MR. KRINSKY: If not, we'll sort it
` out.
`BY MR. GILMAN:
` Q. Dr. Lynn, is Exhibit 1021 the article
`you refer to in your declaration?
` A. It is.
` Q. This was an article you wrote while at
`Western; is that correct?
` A. Yes, at Western Geophysical.
` Q. In 1987?
` A. It was published in 1987,
`November 1987 in the Journal of Geophysics.
` Q. Did you write it in 1987?
` A. I don't recall when we started writing
`it. But given the internal reviews that we had
`
`Page 25
`
` W. LYNN
`processing of the data, but I don't really recall
`Richard's involvement.
` We wouldn't put a name on the paper
`unless somebody had a significant contribution.
`But I was the lead, I'll call it investigator.
` Q. You designed the experiment that was
`then reflected in 1021?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. What was that work designed to show or
`to accomplish?
` A. In this period of time, let's say from
`1984 plus or minus, and certainly into the late
`1980s, there were many seismic crews shooting in
`certain areas like the Gulf of Mexico or the
`North Sea. Those were the two in particular.
`And if crews are close enough to one another --
`it can be miles away -- the energy from the other
`crew, I'll call it the interfering crew, that
`signal will be picked up by our signatures, and
`it will be strong.
` And in the paper, an example of that
`is in Figure 2 that shows five successive shot
`records recorded by the vessel that I'm on, the
`main vessel. And then you can see as you go from
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`7
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1022, pg. 7
`WesternGeco v. PGS
`IPR2015-00311
`
`

`
`Page 26
`
` W. LYNN
`left to right over those five shot records,
`there's some noises that you can see are very
`strong coming in.
` And at the time, the way that
`companies dealt with this is that they would
`timeshare. They would get on the radio and say
`this is the Western whatever boat it is talking
`to -- at that time it might be an oil company. A
`lot of oil companies had their own crews, in
`particular Shell, and say we're interfering with
`one another, let's timeshare, we'll shoot 12
`hours, you shoot 12 hours. If there are three
`boats, you'd shoot eight, eight and eight. You
`get the idea. Very, very expensive to do.
`Clauses were built into contracts so that the
`clients would at least shoulder some of the cost
`of the timesharing.
` And there was -- this was not special
`to Western Geophysical. In fact, there was even
`a subcommittee created under the auspices of the
`SEG, the Society of Exploration Geophysicists, to
`look into this. So what I was charged with was
`how do we tell how much interference noise is too
`much. And went out to sea, conducted this
`
`Page 28
`
` W. LYNN
`bow, many kilometers in front, no danger. So as
`we're traveling from west to east, this crew is
`shooting as if it's recording seismic data. But
`we didn't need to record it because that was not
`our intent.
` Then as we got to about location 15,
`15 kilometers, the interference boat then changed
`direction from going perpendicular to our
`direction to now going broadside to our
`direction.
` Q. So from kilometer 15 on the two boats
`are traveling parallel to each other?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Let's see if I can back up just to
`make sure I'm understanding it so far.
` A. Sure.
` Q. The general issue that you were
`approaching in Exhibit 1021 is that you are doing
`a marine seismic survey?
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. You are towing a source and a bunch of
`receivers?
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. And you are activating your source and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 27
`
` W. LYNN
`experiment.
` And the experiment is shown in
`Figure 1. So you see a horizontal line going
`across the figure, and then you see another line
`that starts in the middle of the figure and goes
`vertical, and then it turns to the right here.
`So the horizontal line is our boat. You know,
`that's the boat we have the cable behind. It's
`just one cable.
` Today we have many more, of course.
`So we shot this one line about 25, almost --
`25 kilometers long. So we shot that line, then
`we came back around, came back and shot in the
`same direction with that boat again, recording
`the data.
` But on the second pass there was
`another boat that just had a seismic source on
`it. And you see numbers in this figure that are
`basically kilometers. But when we're at point
`zero, you see on the base of that vertical line
`there is a point zero. So that's where we start.
` When we're at 5 kilometers, you're
`going from let's say west to east here, the
`interference crew has now passed in front of our
`
`Page 29
`
` W. LYNN
`recording signal on your receivers; is that
`correct?
` A. That's correct. As if we're shooting
`seismic data, but this was an experiment.
` Q. And the experiment was if you had a
`second source, that you would also be recording
`in the same recording as your first source and
`your receivers?
` A. Repeat that again. I'm not sure
`that's quite correct.
` Q. The issue that you were dealing with
`is if you had a second source of seismic energy,
`that was contaminating your recordings of the
`first source.
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And you wanted to see what the
`tolerance was for having a second source that
`would feed energy into your recordings of the
`first source?
` MR. KRINSKY: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: What we're trying to
` address is can we relax the specifications
` for how much interference noise that we can
` tolerate. Not we, but tolerate in the data.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`8
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1022, pg. 8
`WesternGeco v. PGS
`IPR2015-00311
`
`

`
`Page 30
`
`Page 31
`
` W. LYNN
`BY MR. GILMAN:
` Q. And the interference noise is from a
`second source in the area?
` A. That's correct, uh-huh.
` Q. And one of the things that you found
`in 1987, if you turn back to the abstract, was
`that you could sometimes attenuate the second
`source in the CMP domain?
` A. The energy is not attenuated just by
`going to the CMP domain, which is just a
`different collection of how we drew traces. It
`was in the process of summing the data,
`stacking the data. In the industry we call it
`adding traces together, stacking. That's the
`vernacular we use.
` Q. So in Exhibit 1021, you found that
`doing a CMP stack could attenuate the second
`source in the scenario?
` MR. KRINSKY: Counsel, I'm not sure he
` was done with his answer. I would ask you
` not to interrupt him, please.
` Were you done, Dr. Lynn?
` THE WITNESS: I think so.
` So repeat your question, please.
`
`Page 32
`
` W. LYNN
` A. Correct.
` Q. Can you describe what a CMP stack is?
` A. Yes. I think it would be helpful to
`refer to a figure in my declaration. I'll
`verbalize what I'm talking about. Let me preface
`it for just one minute of primer so when we talk
`about the CMP stack it will be more intelligent,
`hopefully more understanding.
` On page 19, just above Paragraph 47,
`there is a cartoon on the left that shows a
`marine survey. It's a vertical cross-section
`through the earth, and I've labeled where the
`source is and labeled the receivers that are
`being towed behind the boat. You see some lines
`that go down that represent energy going from the
`source and reflecting back to the receivers. So
`that's our fundamental seismic experiment. We're
`listening for echos and we're trying to take
`those echos and turn it into an image of the
`earth. That's what we do in very simple terms.
` Q. I'm with you so far.
` A. The reason I wanted to do this
`somewhat pedantically right now is that the
`terminology can get confusing as we go forward, I
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` W. LYNN
`BY MR. GILMAN:
` Q. In Exhibit 1021, you found a CMP stack
`could attenuate the second source in some
`circumstances?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Starting with the abstract, the second
`full paragraph of the abstract, you write,
`"Despite recorded crew noise that was three to
`eight times higher than levels typically
`considered acceptable" -- Do you see that?
` A. I do. I'm following.
` Q. And what you're calling crew noise
`there is the second source?
` A. The contaminating source, yes.
` Q. "The conventionally processed common
`midpoint stack of the contaminated Gulf of Mexico
`data shows only slight evidence of the