IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`WESTERNGECO L.L.C.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2015-00311
`Patent U.S. 6,906,981
`______________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LUC T. IKELLE IN SUPPORT OF
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,906,981
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 1
`
`
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`WESTERNGECO L.L.C.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2015-00311
`Patent U.S. 6,906,981
`______________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LUC T. IKELLE IN SUPPORT OF
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,906,981
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ....................................................... 2
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW ............................................................. 7
`
`IV. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Background of the Field Relevant to the ‘981 Patent .................................. 9
`
`Summary of the ‘981 Patent ........................................................................... 15
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History ........................................................... 20
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE PERTINENT ART ...................... 24
`
`VI. BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION ......................................... 25
`
`VII. DETAILED UNPATENTABILITY ANALYSIS ............................................... 26
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 7, 10-21, 23, 24, 30-32, and 36-38 are Anticipated by
`De Kok .............................................................................................................. 27
`
`Claims 1-38 are Rendered Obvious by Beasley in view of
`Timoshin ........................................................................................................... 45
`
`Claims 1-38 are Rendered Obvious by Beasley in view of
`Edington ............................................................................................................ 72
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 97
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 2
`
`
`
`Declaration of Luc T. Ikelle in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,906,981
`I, Luc T. Ikelle, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of WesternGeco L.L.C
`
`(“WesternGeco”) for the above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981 (“the ‘981 Patent”). I am being
`
`compensated for my time in connection with this IPR at my standard
`
`consulting rate of $400 per hour. My compensation is not affected by the
`
`outcome of this matter.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether Claims 1-38 of
`
`the ‘981 Patent are unpatentable as anticipated or would have been obvious to
`
`a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`The ‘981 Patent issued on June 14, 2005 from U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`10/197,235 (“the ‘235 Application”), filed on July 17, 2002. (Ex. 1001)
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the ‘981 Patent, the file history
`
`of the ‘981 Patent, numerous prior art references, and technical references from
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`the time of the alleged invention.
`
`5.
`
`I understand that claims in an IPR are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in view of the patent specification and the understandings of one
`
`having ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon my
`
`education and experience in the relevant field of art, and have considered the
`1
`
`6.
`
`
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Luc T. Ikelle in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,906,981
`viewpoint of a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art, as of the earliest
`
`alleged priority date, July 17, 2002. I have also read and considered the ‘981
`
`patent and its prosecution history, the exhibits listed in the Exhibit List filed
`
`with the ‘981 petition, as well as any other material referenced herein.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`7.
`I am an expert in the field of seismic data acquisition and seismic data
`
`processing, and have been an expert in the fields since prior to 1986. In
`
`formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my training, knowledge, and
`
`experience in the relevant art. A copy of my curriculum vitae is provided as
`
`Appendix A to this Declaration and provides a comprehensive description of
`
`my relevant experience,
`
`including academic and employment history,
`
`publications, participation in professional societies, and issued and pending
`
`U.S. patents.
`
`8.
`
`I received a M.Sc. (1982) in Mathematics and Theoretical Physics from Paris
`
`Diderot University, followed by a Ph.D. in Geophysics (1986), from the same
`
`university. Paris Diderot University is known as one of the preeminent schools
`
`for science and mathematics in France. Paris Diderot University is home to
`
`one of the campuses of the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris (IPGP),
`
`where I took many graduate classes. IPGP is known as one of the top schools
`
`for geophysics in the world, most famous for contributions to inverse problem
`
`theory and the development of plate tectonics theory.
`2
`
`
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 4
`
`
`
`Declaration of Luc T. Ikelle in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,906,981
`9.
`In 1986, my Ph.D. thesis “A multidimensional linearized inversion of seismic
`
`data” received the Le Prix de These du CNRS which is a yearly award given for
`
`the best Ph.D. thesis in France on the subject of earth and space sciences.
`
`10. After receiving my Ph.D., I did post-doctoral research at Cray Research, Inc.
`
`Cray Research played an important role in making supercomputers a reality.
`
`Because supercomputers are virtually necessary to enable 3D seismic surveying,
`
`the oil and gas industry was an early adopter of the technology. I focused my
`
`work on developing 3D seismic inversion algorithms for use with the Cray Y-
`
`MP supercomputer. Seismic inversion involves the characterization of
`
`geological formations using reflection data.
`
`11.
`
`In 1988, I began working as a research scientist at Schlumberger Geco-Prakla,
`
`Schlumberger Doll Research, and Schlumberger Cambridge Research.
`
`Schlumberger Ltd.
`
`is
`
`the world’s
`
`largest oilfield services company.
`
`Schlumberger owns a number of research centers which study and develop
`
`technologies related to seismic acquisition and data processing, as well as many
`
`other topics. As a research scientist, I helped develop three commercial
`
`products for Schlumberger: (i) a migration-velocity analysis tool called PFKIM
`
`(1989), (ii) anisotropic tools for migration, AVAZ analysis, and model-building
`
`(1992), and (iii) a multiple-attenuation technique called ISMA (1995). I worked
`
`as a research scientist until 1997.
`
`
`
`3
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 5
`
`
`
`Declaration of Luc T. Ikelle in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,906,981
`12. My academic career began in 1997 when I served as an Associate Professor in
`
`the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Texas A&M University. I
`
`worked as an Associate Professor until 2001, when I became the Robert R.
`
`Berg Professor in the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Texas A&M
`
`University. I continue to hold the Robert R. Berg Professorship at Texas
`
`A&M, though I have been on sabbatical since early 2013. I teach several
`
`classes on subjects such as petroleum seismology, signal processing, and
`
`numerical modeling. As a professor, I have supervised over forty Master’s and
`
`Ph.D. students in geophysics and petroleum engineering. I also supervised
`
`three post-doctorates, one that is now a professor at Beijing University and two
`
`others working in the geophysical exploration industry.
`
`13. While a professor at Texas A&M, I also served as the director of the
`
`Consortium on Automated Seismic Processing (CASP) at the university. The
`
`consortium spearheaded research to develop an automated seismic data
`
`processing system that could extend the seismic resolution window. As the
`
`director of CASP, I helped develop the idea of using multiple near-
`
`simultaneously fired sources to acquire seismic data. CASP actually coined the
`
`term “multishooting” to refer to this concept, though it is now commonly
`
`referred to as “simultaneous shooting.” The consortium has also produced
`
`important research results related to the optimization of multiple attenuation
`
`methods and use of higher order statistics for seismic imaging.
`4
`
`
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 6
`
`
`
`Declaration of Luc T. Ikelle in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,906,981
`14. During my current sabbatical, I have founded and developed a geophysical
`
`consulting company called Imode Research. The company aims to assist
`
`geophysical exploration companies with data analysis and provide intensive
`
`courses and consultancy on topics related to petroleum seismology. These
`
`courses help keep scientists and engineers in the field of petroleum seismology
`
`current on new developments and techniques in the field. The company has
`
`worked to develop advanced software to facilitate seismic data processing.
`
`15. Throughout my career, I have been involved in numerous advisory groups for
`
`oil and gas exploration organizations. Furthermore, in 2006, I was selected to
`
`be on the Ultra-Deepwater Advisory Committee which advises the Secretary of
`
`Energy on topics related to ultra-deepwater natural gas and petroleum
`
`exploration and production. I served on that committee until 2013.
`
`16.
`
`I am a member of several professional societies related to geophysics and
`
`marine seismology, including the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG),
`
`the American Geophysical Union (AGU), the American Physical Society (APS),
`
`and the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE). In
`
`addition, I serve as a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Seismic
`
`Exploration.
`
`17. Over my career, I have edited or authored several books and published over
`
`one hundred technical articles and papers in international journals on topics
`
`related to geophysics and seismology. Many of those publications focus
`5
`
`
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 7
`
`
`
`Declaration of Luc T. Ikelle in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,906,981
`directly on marine seismology. I have also presented many papers at technical
`
`conferences including at SEG Annual Meetings. For example, in 2000, I
`
`presented my paper “Multishooting method for simulating seismic surveys:
`
`Application to 3-D finite-difference modeling” during the Technical Program
`
`of the 2000 SEG Annual Meeting in Calgary. The “multishooting” concept
`
`disclosed and discussed in my paper was equivalent to the concept of using
`
`“multiple seismic sources” discussed in the ‘981 Patent. I worked on
`
`developing the concept of multishooting because I understood that there could
`
`be significant savings in time and money in seismic data acquisition if multiple
`
`sources were activated simultaneously or near-simultaneously. However, the
`
`software used to process seismic data is only able to handle “single-shot data”
`
`and not “multishot” data which contain interfering reflections from multiple
`
`sources. Thus, I became interested in developing “decoding” methods to
`
`convert multishot data to single-shot data so it could be processed with the
`
`existing software.
`
`18.
`
`Introduction to Petroleum Seismology, a book I co-authored, was published in
`
`2005. Introduction to Petroleum Seismology went on to become a best-selling
`
`SEG publication and is widely used in geophysics classes in advanced
`
`undergraduate classes and graduate classes. Another book I authored, Coding
`
`and Decoding: Multiple Access Technology in Seismology and the Concept of
`
`Multishooting, was published in 2009. To my knowledge, this is the only book
`6
`
`
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 8
`
`
`
`Declaration of Luc T. Ikelle in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,906,981
`that has been published specifically on the topic of multishooting, or
`
`“simultaneous shooting.” I also have a new book coming out in early 2015, the
`
`second edition of Introduction to Petroleum Seismology which will include two
`
`chapters on multishooting, covering over two hundred pages.
`
`19.
`
` I am also a named inventor on six U.S. patents related to seismic data
`
`acquisition, processing, and imaging. The first, entitled “Source signature
`
`determination and multiple reflection reduction” was filed in 1995. And my
`
`most recent patent, entitled “Scattering diagrams in seismic imaging” was
`
`granted in 2008.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`20.
`I understand that prior art to the ‘981 Patent include at least patents and
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate July 17, 2002, the filing date
`
`of the ‘981 Patent.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable if it is anticipated. Anticipation of a
`
`claim requires that every element of a claim be disclosed expressly or inherently
`
`in a single prior art reference, arranged in the prior reference as arranged in the
`
`claim.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable if it is obvious. Obviousness of a
`
`claim requires that the claim would have been obvious from the perspective of
`
`a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time the alleged
`
`invention was made. I understand that a claim may be obvious from a
`7
`
`
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 9
`
`
`
`Declaration of Luc T. Ikelle in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,906,981
`combination of two or more examples from a single prior art reference or two
`
`or more prior art references.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the claims of the
`
`patent in question and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating
`
`the pertinent art.
`
`24.
`
`I further understand that certain factors may support or rebut the obviousness
`
`of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include, among
`
`other things, commercial success of the patented invention, skepticism of those
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, unexpected results
`
`of the invention, any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by
`
`the invention, the failure of others to make the invention, praise of the
`
`invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the invention
`
`by others in the field. I understand that there must be a nexus—a
`
`connection—between any such secondary considerations and the claimed
`
`invention. I also understand that contemporaneous and independent invention
`
`by others is a secondary consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`25.
`
`I further understand that a claim is obvious if it unites old elements with no
`
`change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by mere substitution of
`
`one element for another known in the field and that combination yields no
`
`more than predictable results. While it may be helpful to identify a reason or
`8
`
`
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 10
`
`
`
`Declaration of Luc T. Ikelle in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,906,981
`motivation for this combination, common sense should guide and no rigid
`
`requirement of finding a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine is
`
`required. When a product is available, design incentives and other market
`
`forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If
`
`a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement a predictable
`
`variation, it is more likely to be obvious. For the same reason, if a technique
`
`has been used to improve one device and a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art recognizes that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
`
`technique is obvious. I understand that a claim may be obvious if common
`
`sense directs one of ordinary skill in the art to combine multiple prior art
`
`references or add missing features to reproduce the alleged inventions recited
`
`in the claims.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND
`A.
`Background of the Field Relevant to the ‘981 Patent
`26. The ‘981 Patent “relates generally to the field of seismic exploration.” (Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:17-18). The field of seismic exploration involves the mapping of
`
`geological formations using acoustic or elastic waves. During a seismic survey,
`
`sources of acoustic energy, including vibrators and air guns, are activated to
`
`generate waves that travel through geological formations. Those waves
`
`generated from the sources reflect off the geological formations they come into
`
`contact with, creating reflected waves which are recorded by sensors, including
`
`
`
`9
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 11
`
`
`
`Declaration of Luc T. Ikelle in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,906,981
`geophones and hydrophones. The reflection data are processed and analyzed
`
`to provide information about the geological formations.
`
`27. One of the primary reasons for conducting seismic surveys is to find and
`
`enhance production from oil reserves. So one of the reasons land surveying
`
`and marine surveying were developed was to seek out oil reserves in both
`
`environments. The high-level principles underlying seismic surveying described
`
`in ¶ 26 are the same for both the land and marine contexts.
`
`28. The land and marine contexts have a number of similarities. For example, they
`
`present some of the same challenges and some of the same solutions can be
`
`adopted to meet those challenges. This is often because the high-level goal of
`
`acquiring the highest quality data at the least possible cost is common to both
`
`contexts. As such, there has been a long history of taking solutions developed
`
`in the land context and implementing it in the marine context, or vice versa.
`
`Even if a technique is not directly adapted from context to another, it is also
`
`very common for techniques to be developed for use in both contexts.
`
`29.
`
`For example, multicomponent seismic data acquisition began in the land
`
`context and has now been adopted in the marine context. (Ex. 1009 at 161,
`
`Ex. 1010 at 477-78). Multicomponent acquisition was developed to provide
`
`access to measurements of shear waves, or S-waves,
`
`in addition to
`
`compressional waves, or P-waves. Conventional seismic surveys only record P-
`
`waves. The S-wave data helps indicates where fluids and hydrocarbons are
`10
`
`
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 12
`
`
`
`Declaration of Luc T. Ikelle in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,906,981
`because there are no shear waves in a fluid. Multicomponent acquisition was
`
`later adapted to the marine context for use in ocean-bottom acquisition for the
`
`same purposes described above. Furthermore, more recently, multicomponent
`
`acquisition has been used in towed-streamer surveys to help “deghost” data,
`
`improving data resolution. “Deghosting” data refers to removing the
`
`interference caused by the reflection of the energy from a seismic source from
`
`the sea surface.
`
`30. One example of a technique used in both the land and marine contexts is the
`
`common midpoint gather, or CMP gather. The CMP gather has become an
`
`important part of conventional seismic surveying in both the land and marine
`
`contexts since the 1960s. A CMP gather is essentially a collection of all the
`
`data with respect to a particular subsurface location. More specifically, a CMP
`
`gather constitutes all the traces for which the midpoint between a given source
`
`and receiver is the same, which correspond to the same set of reflections being
`
`detected. (Ex. 1008 at 86). When all the data sampling one subsurface location
`
`is collected, it can be “stacked” to improve the signal to noise ratio, providing
`
`better data. (Ex. 1008 at 86). The following figure shows the common
`
`midpoint between several source-receiver pairs:
`
`
`
`11
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 13
`
`
`
`Declaration of Luc T. Ikelle in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`
`31. The transferability of a technology from the land context to the marine context,
`
`or vice versa, depends on the specific nature of the technology and the
`
`problem being addressed.
`
`32. The ‘981 Patent relates more specifically to the concept of “simultaneous
`
`shooting” in which multiple sources are fired simultaneously or near-
`
`simultaneously. Simultaneous shooting can save survey time and money by
`
`improving seismic data acquisition efficiency. (Ex. 1011 at 1). A result of
`
`simultaneous shooting is that the recorded data contains interference because
`
`the shots overlap. Current data-processing techniques assume that input data
`
`comes from single shots, with no overlap. Thus, the data resulting from
`
`simultaneous shooting must be separated (decoded) in order to eliminate
`
`interferences between single shots. Without decoding, no meaningful
`
`information can be extracted from the multishot data using current data-
`
`
`
`12
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 14
`
`
`
`Declaration of Luc T. Ikelle in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,906,981
`processing techniques. The figure below shows the steps involved in
`
`“simultaneous shooting”.
`
`33. Because of the increased efficiency of seismic data acquisition and processing,
`
`
`
`efforts to develop simultaneous shooting (or “multishooting”) techniques in
`
`both the land and marine contexts have been ongoing for nearly two decades.
`
`(Ex. 1011 at 1). In fact, the central problem that simultaneous shooting
`
`introduces and attempts to solve is related to the “cocktail party problem”
`
`defined in the 1950s. The idea is that even at a loud cocktail party, one is able
`
`to focus on a particular conversation and ignore the “noise” or “interference”
`
`from other nearby conversations. Ignoring or filtering out interference has
`
`been a classic challenge in fields including seismic exploration, speech
`
`recognition, and medical imaging. The figure below, from my book (Ex. 1012
`
`at 45-47) illustrates the cocktail party problem. If numerous people speak
`
`(generate voice signals) at the same time in a room with two microphones, the
`
`output of each microphone will be a mixture of the voice signals. The goal is
`
`to decode the outputs of each microphone in order to recover the original
`
`voice signals.
`
`
`
`13
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 15
`
`
`
`Declaration of Luc T. Ikelle in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`
`34. Various methods of encoding source signatures have been used to facilitate
`
`separation of shots gathered via simultaneous shooting. “Encoding” in this
`
`context refers to a way to distinguish signals. “Source signature” refers to the
`
`pulse which describe the magnitude, the duration, and overall time dependency
`
`of a source. Encoding multiple source signatures allows us to distinguish the
`
`shots from a given source so they can be identified to that source. There are
`
`multiple types of encoding which have been used in both the land and marine
`
`contexts since before the filing date of the ‘981 Patent. (Ex. 1013 at 1389).
`
`Encoding can include varying the amplitude, frequency, and/or firing time of
`
`the source signature.
`
`
`
`14
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 16
`
`
`
`Declaration of Luc T. Ikelle in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,906,981
`35. Time delay is a typical example of source encoding used in seismic surveys. It
`
`consists of introducing a time delay between the firing times of the single shots.
`
`The time delays are predetermined and known. These values are used in the
`
`decoding process to reconstruct the data from shots of one source by shifting
`
`the time delay so that all the events corresponding to this source are “in-
`
`phase.” The events corresponding to other shots are “out-of-phase.” In some
`
`methods of time encoding, the data that is in-phase can be distinguished from
`
`the data that is out-of-phase in order to identify the data originating from each
`
`source.
`
`36. Time alignment can be used for another source to have each of its shots
`
`adjusted to a given reference time. Necessarily, the other sources will have
`
`varying firing times relative to this new reference time and the same principles
`
`involving data from shots being in-phase and out-of-phase will apply.
`
`B.
`Summary of the ‘981 Patent
`37. The ‘981 Patent claims a method and system for conducting marine seismic
`
`surveys employing simultaneous shooting. This method and system employ a
`
`simultaneous shooting approach that uses time encoding to separate the data
`
`resulting from each source. Ultimately, the invention claimed by the ‘981
`
`Patent seeks to “[i]dentify[] which seismic source caused the particular events”
`
`recorded by the sensors in order to “determine[] subsurface structures.” (Ex.
`
`1001 at 3:66-4:3).
`
`
`
`15
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 17
`
`
`
`Declaration of Luc T. Ikelle in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,906,981
`38. The invention claimed in the ‘981 Patent utilizes multiple seismic energy
`
`sources fired with time delays between them. The sources are activated in what
`
`the ‘981 Patent calls a “firing sequence.” The ‘981 Patent defines a firing
`
`sequence as “[f]iring the first source, waiting the predetermined time delay and
`
`firing the second source.” (Ex. 1001 at 5:67-6:2). The ‘981 Patent notes that
`
`“[f]or purposes of the invention, seismic signals are recorded a plurality of such
`
`firing sequences, typically three or more firing sequences.” (Ex. 1001 at 6:9-
`
`12).
`
`39. The ‘981 Patent requires that the time delays between each of the firing
`
`sequences have a different value. (Ex. 1001 at 6:9-11). That is, if the first firing
`
`sequence has a time delay of one second between the activation of the first
`
`source and the activation of the second source, no future time delay between
`
`the activations of the sources can be one second. This rule also applies to the
`
`time delays between preceding sources and any additional sources. For
`
`example, in a system with three sources, the time delay between the activation
`
`of the second and third sources cannot be equal to the time delay between the
`
`activation of the first and second sources nor can it be equal to any time delays
`
`used in other firing sequences. (Ex. 1001 at 10:31-36).
`
`40. The preceding aspects of the ‘981 Patent focus on the activation of the sources.
`
`The ‘981 Patent also discusses the separation steps used to allow identification
`
`of the data resulting from each source, prior to processing. Identifying the
`16
`
`
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 18
`
`
`
`Declaration of Luc T. Ikelle in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,906,981
`recorded signal components corresponding to the firing of the first source
`
`involves two steps: (1) “determining coherence between the traces within an
`
`individual firing sequence” and (2) “shot to shot coherence determination.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 7:56-58, 8:26).
`
`41. Determining trace to trace coherence filters random noise out of the data
`
`because “random noise has substantially no correspondence from trace to
`
`trace.” (Ex. 1001 at 8:10-12). The ‘981 Patent states that determining
`
`coherence from shot to shot respective to one source allows the data resulting
`
`from the other sources to be “substantially removed.” (Ex. 1001 at 8:18-28).
`
`This is because the differing time delays used in each firing sequence cause data
`
`from the other sources to “not have coherence from shot to shot when the
`
`recording time is indexed to [a given source].” (Ex. 1001 at 8:37-40).
`
`42. The only embodiment of the invention claimed in the ‘981 Patent uses CMP
`
`gathers with respect to one particular source to determine shot to shot
`
`coherence. (Ex. 1001 at 8:43-46). As noted in the ‘981 Patent, “[a] CMP
`
`gather with respect to [a given source] comprises a subset of all the traces
`
`(signal recordings) corresponding to each of a plurality of [firings from that
`
`source], in which of the position of [the given source], and the corresponding
`
`sensor for which the trace is presented or processed in the gather have the
`
`same ‘midpoint’ between them.” (Ex. 1001 at 8:46-51). A CMP gather with
`
`respect to one source will show high coherence for data resulting from the
`17
`
`
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 19
`
`
`
`Declaration of Luc T. Ikelle in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,906,981
`firing of that source and low coherence for data from the other sources and
`
`noise (coherent or random). (Ex. 1001 at 8:51-56).
`
`43. The preceding sections describe how to identify and separate data originating
`
`from the firing of one particular source. The ‘981 Patent also discusses the use
`
`of “time-aligning” to identify and separate the data originating from the other
`
`sources. (Ex. 1001 at 8:61-63). The time alignment process entails “applying a
`
`time delay to each trace such that the signals from [the second source] all
`
`represent a same time delay from the start of signal recording.” (Ex. 1001 at
`
`8:63-67). Thus, this time delay for the firings of the second source become a
`
`“reference time” and the firings of the first source relative to this reference
`
`time vary between firing sequences. The same principles of determining trace
`
`to trace coherence and shot to shot coherence apply after time alignment,
`
`including the use of CMP gathers. (Ex. 1001 at 9:16-24).
`
`44. The ‘981 Patent has three independent claims, Claims 1 and 31 which are
`
`methods and Claim 23 which is a system. Claim 23 simply discloses a system
`
`for carrying out the method disclosed in Claim 1, which can be seen by
`
`comparing the similar language in the claims.
`
`Claim 1 of ‘981 Patent
`
`Claim 23 of ‘981 Patent
`
`1. A method for seismic surveying,
`comprising:
`
`23. A seismic surveying system,
`comprising:
`
`[a] towing a first seismic energy source
`
`[a] a first seismic energy source;
`
`
`
`18
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 20
`
`
`
`Declaration of Luc T. Ikelle in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,906,981
`Claim 1 of ‘981 Patent
`and at least one seismic sensor system;
`
`Claim 23 of ‘981 Patent
`
`[b] a second seismic energy source; a
`vessel adapted to tow the first source, to
`tow the at least one seismic sensor
`array, and to tow the at least one second
`source at a selected distance from the
`first source; and
`
`[c] a controller adapted to actuate the
`first source and the second source in a
`plurality of firing sequences,
`
`[b] towing a second seismic energy
`source at a selected distance from the
`first seismic energy source; and
`
`[c] actuating the first seismic energy
`source and the second seismic energy
`source in a plurality of firing sequences,
`each of the first sequences including
`firing of the first source and the second
`source and recording signals generated
`by the at least one seismic sensor
`system,
`
`[d] a time interval between firing the
`first source and the second source
`varied between successive ones of the
`firing sequences,
`
`[d] the sequences having a time delay
`between firing the first source and the
`second source which varies between
`successive firing sequences,
`
`[e] the times of firing the first and
`second source indexed so as to enable
`separate identification of seismic events
`originating from the first source and
`seismic events originating from the
`second source in detected seismic
`signals.
`
`[e] the times interval of firing the first
`and second source indexed so as to
`enable separate identification of seismic
`events originating from the first source
`and seismic events originating from the
`second source in detected seismic
`signals.
`
`
`45.
`
`
`
`It is clear that elements [a] and [b] of Claim 1 directly correspond to elements
`
`[a] and [b] of Claim 23. Similarly, element [c] of Claim 1 corresponds to
`
`element [c] of Claim 23, element [d] of Claim 1 corresponds to element [d] of
`
`Claim 23, and element [e] of Claim 1 cor
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
