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
`______________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`CLAIMS 31-38 OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,906,981
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE PETITION ................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ......................................... 8
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................... 9
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW .................................... 9
`A. Grounds for Standing- 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ......................................... 9
`B.
`Identification of Claims for Which Review Is Requested and Relief
`Requested– 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(1) and 42.22(a)(1) ......................... 10
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ................................ 10
`1.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ....... 11
`2.
`THE ’981 PATENT ....................................................................................... 11
`A. Overview of the ’981 Patent ................................................................ 11
`Prosecution History of the ’981 Patent ................................................ 13
`B.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 13
`“wavelet time” ..................................................................................... 14
`A.
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 15
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE - 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4)-(5) and 42.22(a)(2) ............... 15
`Claims 31, 32, and 36-38 are anticipated by De Kok ............................ 16
`A.
`B.
`Claims 31-38 are obvious in view of the combined teachings of Beasley
`and Timoshin ...................................................................................... 24
`1.
`The proposed grounds based on Beasley and Timoshin are not
`redundant to the grounds based on De Kok. ............................ 24
`Claim 31 ................................................................................... 25
`Claim 38 .................................................................................... 30
`Claims 32-35. ............................................................................ 31
`Claim 32. ......................................................................... 31
`a.
`Claim 33. ......................................................................... 32
`b.
`Claims 34. ....................................................................... 32
`c.
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`C.
`
`Claim 35. ......................................................................... 32
`d.
`Claims 36 and 37. ...................................................................... 33
`5.
`Claims 31-38 are obvious in view of the combined teachings of Beasley
`and Edington ....................................................................................... 35
`1.
`The proposed grounds based on Beasley and Edington are not
`redundant to the grounds based on De Kok or the ground based
`on Beasley and Timoshin........................................................... 35
`Claim 31 .................................................................................... 37
`Claim 38 .................................................................................... 41
`Claims 32-35. ............................................................................ 42
`Claim 32. ......................................................................... 43
`a.
`Claim 33. ......................................................................... 43
`b.
`Claims 34. ....................................................................... 43
`c.
`Claim 35. ......................................................................... 44
`d.
`Claims 36 and 37. ...................................................................... 44
`5.
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 45
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`I. OVERVIEW OF THE PETITION
`WesternGeco L.L.C. (“Western” or “Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter
`
`partes review (“IPR”) for claims 31-38 of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981 (“the ‘981 patent,”
`
`Ex. 1001) in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`The prior art cited in this Petition demonstrates that the seismic surveying method
`
`recited in claims 31-38 of the ‘981 patent was widely known and used well before the
`
`’981 patent’s purported priority date and, accordingly, claims 31-38 of the ‘981 patent
`
`should not have issued.
`
`The ‘981 patent is directed to seismic surveying, a well-known method of
`
`mapping geological formations with sound wave reflections. A basic overview of the
`
`principles and elements of seismic surveying are provided in an article titled “How
`
`Modern Techniques Improve Seismic Interpretation” that appeared in the April, 1994
`
`issue of World Oil magazine. (“World Oil Article,” Ex. 1008.) The Federal Circuit has
`
`emphasized the importance of considering such background information as part of
`
`the obviousness determination, stating:
`
`In recognizing the role of common knowledge and common sense, we
`have emphasized the importance of a factual foundation to support a
`party’s claim about what one of ordinary skill in the relevant art would
`have known. See, e.g., Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1377
`(Fed. Cir. 2012); Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324,
`1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009). One form of evidence to provide such a
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`foundation, perhaps the most reliable because not litigation-generated, is
`documentary evidence consisting of prior art in the area.
`Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 108 USPQ2d 1727, 1732-1733 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`As explained in the World Oil Article, reflection seismology was first applied in
`
`the 1920s. (Ex. 1008, at 85.) Reflection seismology uses induced acoustic reflections
`
`of rock layers. (Id.) Vibrations are generated in the earth with acoustic sources, and
`
`reflections are recorded with receivers. (Id.) Most marine acquisition sound sources
`
`are air guns that repeatedly displace water volumes, and marine receivers are pressure
`
`sensitive devices called ‘hydrophones.’ (Ex. 1008, at 86.) On land, sources include
`
`explosives or truck mounted vibrators, and receivers are ‘geophones’ that detect slight
`
`ground movements. (Id.) Regardless of whether it is a land-based geophone or a
`
`marine-based hydrophone, the basic principle of operation is the same – each receiver
`
`converts pressure or ground disturbances to electrical impulses, and the digitally
`
`recorded electrical pulses of an array or group of receivers are transmitted for each
`
`station and transmitted, via cable or telemetry, to recording computers. (Id.)
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`Figure 1 of the World Oil Article, reproduced below, is a simplified diagram of
`
`the seismic principle used in both land and marine surveys.
`
`
`
`In the example shown in Figure 1 of the World Oil Article, the Horizon 1 reflection
`
`results from an impedance contrast between Layers 1 and 2; likewise for Reflection 2
`
`emanating from Horizon 2. (Ex. 1008, at 86.) Ray paths are described by Snell’s Law
`
`and bend at each layer interface (horizon). (Id.) Subsurface horizons are imaged
`
`repeatedly by source-receiver pairs as shooting progresses to each consecutive line
`
`location. (Id.)
`
`Given the similarities in their principles of operation, it is not surprising that
`
`both land-based and marine-based seismic surveys were known to share some
`
`common methodologies to improve signal to noise ratios. The World Oil Article
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`explains one such well-known methodology that was shared by both land-based and
`
`marine-based seismic surveys: the common midpoint (CMP) gather. A CMP gather is
`
`a collection of all combinations of source-receiver pairs which records energy from
`
`the same midpoint location, therefore containing travel paths from near to far offset
`
`traces. (Ex. 1008, at 86.) The World Oil Article explains that “[t]his redundancy
`
`increases the signal to noise ratio when traces are processed and summed.” (Id.)
`
`In towed marine surveying, a vessel tows one or more of the seismic energy
`
`sources, and the same, or a different vessel tows one or more “streamers,” which are
`
`series of seismic sensors affixed to a cable. Returning now to the ‘981 patent, Figure
`
`1 of the ‘981 patent, reproduced below, shows two or more sources (SA1, SA2), such
`
`as air guns, that are fired to generate seismic energy that travels through the earth. A
`
`group of sensors (2a-2d), such as hydrophones, record the returning echoes as a
`
`function of time. (Ex. 1001, 1:22-2:37.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`As noted in the World Oil Article, “[i]t was common to use synchronized
`
`source arrays to increase, or focus, energy at each shot.” (Ex. 1008, at 86.) For
`
`example, as explained in the background portion of U.S. Patent No. 6,545,944 to de
`
`Kok (“De Kok,” Ex. 1003), which was filed more than a year prior to the earliest
`
`filing date claimed by the ‘981 patent, the use of multiple sources firing simultaneously
`
`into the same recording system was known to be an attractive option to increase the
`
`field survey efforts at relatively low incremental cost. (Ex. 1003, 2:27-30.) De Kok
`
`explains that simultaneous firing is particularly economical when additional sources
`
`can easily and cheaply be deployed, such as airgun arrays in a marine situation. (Ex.
`
`1003, 2:30-33.)
`
`As explained in the declaration of Luc T. Ikelle, Ph.D. (“the Ikelle declaration,”
`
`Ex. 1002), the simultaneous activation of multiple sources can raise complications
`
`relating to noise generation and distinguishing sources from each other. (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶ 32-33.) It was long-known in the land seismic context that if two sources were
`
`asynchronous, the interfering signal could be treated as “noise” and distinguished
`
`through simple CMP binning. Soviet Union Patent No. 1,543,357 to Timoshin et al.
`
`(“Timoshin,” Ex. 1005), published more than a decade prior to the earliest filing date
`
`claimed by the ‘981 patent, discloses using random numbers as firing delays for
`
`sources to distinguish between separate sources during CMP processing. U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 4,953,657 to Edington (“Edington,” Ex. 1006), which was also filed more than a
`
`decade prior to the earliest filing date claimed by the ‘981 patent, discloses shooting at
`5
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`least two seismic energy sources substantially simultaneously with a determinable time
`
`delay between the activation of each source, and then shooting the sources at least a
`
`second time substantially simultaneously with a different determinable time delay
`
`between the activation of each source from the determinable time delay used in at
`
`least one previous shooting. (Ex. 1006, 2:1-13.) Edington explains that “the
`
`determinable time delays is preselected, and is selected so that the difference in time
`
`delay between any two shootings enables the signal received from the first activated
`
`source to be distinguished from the signal received from the second activated source.”
`
`(Ex. 1006, 2:15-20.)
`
`Further, U.S. Patent No. 5,924,049 to Beasley et al. (“Beasley,” Ex. 1004)
`
`discloses a broad toolbox of techniques for separating simultaneous sources. As
`
`explained in the Ikelle declaration, it was well known in the seismic surveying art prior
`
`to the earliest filing date claimed by the ‘981 patent to encode signals for later
`
`separation by modifying the source signatures. This included varying the amplitude,
`
`frequency, and/or firing time of the source signature. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 34-35.) More
`
`sophisticated techniques, such as those disclosed in De Kok, went beyond
`
`distinguishing the two sources and disclosed timing techniques that would reinforce
`
`the two signals to improve their informational content. Specifically, unlike the ‘981
`
`patent, De Kok discloses time delay encoding techniques which rely on programmed
`
`time delays in the field and polarity decoding in the processing center.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`Nevertheless, the ‘981 patent purports to have invented the concept of time
`
`varying seismic source signals. Claim 1 of the ‘981 patent recites:
`
`31. A method for determining signal components attributable to a
`first seismic energy source and to a second seismic energy source in
`signals recorded from seismic sensors, the first and second sources and
`the sensors towed along a survey line, the first source and the second
`source fired in a plurality of sequences, a time delay between firing the
`first source and the second source in each firing sequence being different
`than the time delay in other ones of the firing sequences, the method
`comprising:
`determining a first component of the recorded signals that is
`coherent from shot to shot and from trace to trace;
`time aligning [the]1 recorded signals with respect to a firing time of
`the second source in each firing sequence; and
`determining a second component of the signals that is coherent from
`shot to shot and from trace to trace in the time aligned signals.
`This time-variation was long-used in the prior art to separate simultaneous
`
`sources. For example, De Kok discloses more sophisticated time delay encoding
`
`techniques than those disclosed in the ‘981 patent, that nevertheless fully anticipate
`
`claim 31 of the ‘981 patent and several of the claims that depend therefrom.
`
`In addition, the combined teachings of Beasley and either of Timoshin or
`
`Edington render all of the claims of the ‘981 patent obvious. Beasley is directed to
`
`1 It is clear from the prosecution history that the Applicant intended claim 31 to recite
`
`“the” instead of “die.” (See Ex. 1007, claim 31, p. 12.)
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`marine seismic surveys that include firing seismic sources simultaneously or near
`
`simultaneously in which the “sources may be arranged to emit encoded wavefields
`
`using any desired type of coding” and discloses time separation of the sources, but
`
`does not explicitly disclose the type of asynchronous time separation claimed in the
`
`‘981 patent. (Ex. 1004, 7:54-56.) It would have been obvious to employ the known
`
`time encoding techniques disclosed in either of Timoshin or Edington in the system
`
`of Beasley to achieve the predictable result of distinguishing sources that are fired
`
`either simultaneously or near simultaneously.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`Petitioner provides the following mandatory disclosures.
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`WesternGeco, L.L.C., Schlumberger Technology Corporation, Schlumberger
`
`Holdings Corporation; Schlumberger B.V., Schlumberger, Limited, and Schlumberger
`
`Services, Inc. are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters- 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`The ‘981 patent is asserted in co-pending litigation captioned as WesternGeco
`
`LLC v. Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. et al., Southern District of Texas, Case No. 4:13-cv-
`
`02725.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel- 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel:
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`Lead Counsel:
`
`Scott McKeown (Registration No. 42,866)
`
`Backup Counsel: Christopher A. Bullard (Reg. No. 57,644)
`
`D.
`
`Service Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Papers concerning this matter should be served as follows:
`
`Email:
`
`CPdocketMckeown@oblon.com
`
`CPdocketBullard@oblon.com
`
`Post: Oblon Spivak, 1940 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`Telephone: 703-412-6297
`Facsimile: 703-413-2220
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fees set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.15(a) as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 for this Petition for Inter Partes Review to
`
`Deposit Account No. 15-0030; any additional fees that might be due are also
`
`authorized.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. Grounds for Standing- 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner hereby certifies that the ’981
`
`patent is available for inter partes review and that the Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting inter partes review challenging the claims of the ’981 patent
`
`on the grounds identified herein. This is because the ’981 patent has not been subject
`
`to a completed estoppel based proceeding of the AIA, and the counterclaim served on
`
`Western referenced above in Section II(B) was served within the last 12 months.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Claims for Which Review Is Requested and Relief
`Requested– 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(1) and 42.22(a)(1)
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b) and (b)(1), Petitioner requests inter partes
`
`review of claims 31-38 of the ’981 patent, and that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB”) determine the same to be unpatentable.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`1.
`Petitioner relies upon the following patents and printed publications:
`
`Exhibit 1003 – U.S. Patent No. 6,545,944 to de Kok (“De Kok”), filed May
`
`30, 2001 and issued April 8, 2003. De Kok is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e).
`
`Exhibit 1004 – U.S. Patent No. 5,924,049 to Beasley et al. (“Beasley”), filed
`
`January 30, 1998 and issued July 13, 1999. Beasley is available as prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Exhibit 1005 – Soviet Union Patent No. 1,543,357 to Timoshin et al.
`
`(“Timoshin”), filed January 7, 1988 and published February 15, 1990. Timoshin is
`
`available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Exhibit 1006 – U.S. Patent No. 4,953,657 to Edington (“Edington”), filed
`
`February 14, 1989 and issued September 4, 1990. Edington is available as prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)
`
`2.
`Petitioner requests cancellation of the challenged claims under the following
`
`statutory grounds:
`
`Ground 1 – Claims 31, 32, and 36-38 are anticipated by De Kok (Ex. 1003)
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Ground 2 – Claims 31-38 are obvious over Beasley (Ex. 1004) in view of
`
`Timoshin (Ex. 1005) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Ground 3 – Claims 31-38 are obvious over Beasley (Ex. 1004) in view of
`
`Edington (Ex. 1006) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(4), an explanation of how claims 31-38 of the
`
`‘981 patent are unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified above, that the
`
`Petitioner has at least a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on these grounds, including
`
`the identification of where each element of the claim is found in the prior art, is
`
`provided in Section VIII, below, in the form of claims charts. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.204(b)(5), the exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied upon to support
`
`the challenges and the relevance of the evidence to the challenges raised, including
`
`identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenges, are provided
`
`in Section VIII, below, in the form of claim charts.
`
`V. THE ‘981 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ‘981 Patent
`
`As noted above, the ‘981 patent employs the commonly used technique known
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`as “simultaneous shooting,” in which multiple seismic energy sources are fired
`
`simultaneously or near-simultaneously. The recorded data contains interference
`
`because the shots overlap with one another, resulting in mixed data that includes
`
`reflections from each fired source. In order to obtain useful information from the
`
`recorded data, one must separate out the data received from each individual source.
`
`With proper separation, simultaneous shooting allows for greater shot density, i.e.,
`
`more shots during a given survey duration, which results in more robust seismic data.
`
`The ‘981 patent proposes to separate recorded signals by time encoding the
`
`signals as they are generated. In particular, the ‘981 patent discloses firing a first
`
`source, making a recording of the signal detected by the sensors that is indexed to a
`
`known time reference with respect to time of firing the first source, firing a second
`
`source at a known, selected time delay after the firing of the first source, while signal
`
`recording continues. (Ex. 1001, 5:61-64.) The ‘981 patent defines a “firing sequence”
`
`as firing the first source, waiting the predetermined delay and firing the second source
`
`thereafter. (Ex. 1001, 5:65-6:2.) The ‘981 patent discloses that the firing sequence,
`
`and contemporaneous signal recording, are repeated in a second firing sequence. (Ex.
`
`1001, 6:2-4.) The second firing sequence includes firing the first source, waiting a
`
`different selected time delay and then firing the second source, while recording
`
`seismic signals. (Ex. 1001, 6:4-7.) The known, selected time delay between firing the
`
`first source and firing the second source is different for each successive firing
`
`sequence. (Ex. 1001, 6:7-9.)
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘981 Patent
`
`During prosecution, in an attempt to distinguish the pending claims from the
`
`prior art, the Applicant emphasized the importance of varying time delays by stating
`
`that “[a]n important element of the Applicant’s invention is that a time interval
`
`between firing the first source and firing the second source is varied between
`
`successive ones of the firing sequences.” (Ex. 1007, at 31.) Applicant explained that
`
`varying the time delays was an advantage because “the detected seismic signals can be
`
`identified with respect which caused the particular events in the detected seismic
`
`signals.” (Ex. 1007, at 31.)
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted
`
`according to their broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in view of the
`
`specification in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). In determining the BRI, claim
`
`terms receive their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
`
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`The USPTO requires BRI, as the patentee is given opportunity to amend their
`
`claims in this proceeding. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012). As required by these rules, this Petition applies the BRI of
`
`claim terms, although BRI may be, and often is, different from a claim construction in
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`district court. See, e.g., In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1297 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). Thus, the claim interpretations presented in this Petition, including where
`
`Petitioner does not propose an express construction, do not necessarily reflect the
`
`claim constructions that Petitioner believes should be adopted by a district court
`
`under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`A.
`
` “wavelet time”
`
`This phrase appears in claim 35. Claim 35 recites “the delay is at least as long
`
`as a wavelet time of the first source.”
`
`Although the specification of the ‘981 patent uses the phrase “wavelet time,” a
`
`“wavelet” is not clearly defined in the ‘981 specification. For example, the ‘981 patent
`
`states “[a]lthough the time delay varies from sequence to sequence, the time delay
`
`between firing the first source and the second source in each firing sequence is
`
`preferably selected to be at least as long as the ‘wavelet’ time of the seismic energy
`
`generated by the first source to avoid interference between the first and second
`
`sources.”
`
`As discussed in the Ikelle declaration, one having ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the earliest filing date claimed by the ‘981 patent would understand the phrase
`
`“wavelet time” to mean “the duration of the source signature.” (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 61-62.)
`
`The specification of the ‘981 patent indicates that time delays at least as long as the
`
`wavelet time should be used to avoid interference between the sources. By waiting
`
`“the duration of the source signature,” this interference between the source signatures
`14
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`would be avoided. Only the interference between the reflected wavefields would
`
`remain to be decoded. As noted by Dr. Ikelle, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that it is incredibly difficult to decode simultaneous shooting data
`
`when the source signatures interfere. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 63.)
`
`Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “wavelet
`
`time” is “the duration of the source signature.”
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the prior art. See In re
`
`GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (determining that the Board did not
`
`err in adopting the approach that the level of skill in the art was best determined by
`
`references of record). The prior art discussed herein, and in the declaration of Dr.
`
`Ikelle, demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the ‘981
`
`patent was filed, was an engineer, seismologist, or technical equivalent, experienced in
`
`seismic data acquisition systems, aware of various aspects of seismic acquisition and
`
`seismic data processing pertaining to land or marine seismic surveys. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶
`
`57-59.)
`
`VIII.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE - 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(4)-(5) AND 42.22(A)(2)
`
`Petitioner provides in the following discussion and claim charts a detailed
`
`comparison of the claimed subject matter and the prior art specifying where each
`
`element of the challenged claims are found in the prior art references.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`A.
`
`Claims 31, 32, and 36-38 are anticipated by De Kok
`
`De Kok discloses time delay encoding techniques which rely both on
`
`programmed time delays in the field and polarity decoding in the processing center.
`
`In this respect, the technique disclosed in De Kok is more sophisticated than the
`
`basic time delay encoding disclosed in the ‘981 patent. However, even though the
`
`‘981 patent does not disclose polarity decoding in the processing center, claims 1, 2, 7,
`
`and 10- 21 of the ‘981 patent do not exclude an additional step of polarity decoding in
`
`the processing center. As such, at least under the “broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation” standard that must be applied in this proceeding before the Board,
`
`claims 1, 2, 7, and 10- 21 of the ‘981 patent encompasses the technique disclosed in
`
`De Kok.
`
`Referring to a standard airgun, the far field source signature is composed of a
`
`positive pressure pulse followed by a negative pulse from the sea surface reflection.
`
`(Ex. 1003, 3:54-57.) The negative pulse, called the ghost, is time separated from the
`
`positive pulse by a time shift that may be referred to as the ghost time delay. (Ex.
`
`1003, 3:57-59.) Figure 2 of De Kok, reproduced below, shows the sequences of two
`
`sources firing simultaneously with polarity coding. (Ex. 1003, 4:28-29.) Figure 2
`
`shows a source vessel 201 towing sources 203 and 205. (Ex. 1003, 4:32-33.) A source
`
`vessel 201 may also tow a streamer containing sensors for receiving source signals, for
`
`example streamer 207. (Ex. 1003, 4:33-35.) In Figure 2, Source 203 emits S1, in
`
`which positive (P) and negative (N) polarity source signals alternate as depicted by the
`16
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`positive and negative polarity representation through time. (Ex. 1003, 4:35-38.)
`
`Source 205 emits positive signals S2 only. (Ex. 1003, 4:42.)
`
`
`
`Figures 5-7 of De Kok depict embodiments that include time delay encoding.
`
`As noted above, De Kok discloses that the time delay encoding technique relies on
`
`programmed time delays in the field and polarity decoding in the processing center.
`
`(Ex. 1003, 5:66-6:2.) According to De Kok, the enhancement of data pertaining to a
`
`particular desired source is accomplished through equalizing the polarity of
`
`corresponding signal components and to align and average (mix or stack) the
`
`responses. (Ex. 1003, 6:2-4.) This principle is illustrated with the impulse response
`
`representations of FIG. 5A for a marine application, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`
`
`Most notably, in FIG. 5A, Source TD1 and Source TD2, which are sequential
`
`series of simultaneous shots, have different delay codes for successive shots
`
`(numbered 1 to 4 for each simultaneously activated source). (Ex. 1003, 6:17-21.) The
`
`time delays in these figures are relative to an arbitrary reference, here labeled tr =0,
`
`represented by the vertical dashed lines. (Ex. 1003, 6:21-23.) For example,
`
`simultaneously fired shot 1 from TD1 (501) and shot 1 of TD2 (511) are initiated with
`
`no relative time delays between them, but shot 2 from TD2 (513) is initiated before
`
`shot 2 of TD1 (503), the time separation between the initiation of shot 2 of TD2
`
`(513) relative to shot 2 of TD1 (503) being the time delay determined or chosen for
`
`the acquisition program, which may be for example, the ghost delay. (Ex. 1003, 6:23-
`
`30.)
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`Thus, De Kok fully anticipates several of the claims of the ‘981 patent, as the
`
`process disclosed in De Kok includes varying a time interval between firing a first
`
`source and a second source between successive ones of firing sequences.
`
`The following claim chart illustrates how De Kok meets all of the elements of
`
`claims 31, 32, and 36-38 of the ‘981 patent.
`
`‘981 Patent Claims
`31.a. A method for
`determining signal
`components attributable to a
`first seismic energy source
`and to a second seismic
`energy source in signals
`recorded from seismic
`sensors,
`
`De Kok (Ex. 1003)
`Ex. 1003 at 3:38-39: “The present invention is a
`method
`for
`acquiring
`seismic
`data
`using
`simultaneously activated seismic energy sources.”
`
`Ex. 1003 at 4:32-35: “FIG. 2 shows a source vessel
`201 towing sources 203 and 205. A source vessel 201
`may also tow a streamer containing sensors for
`receiving source signals, for example streamer 207.”
`
`31.b. the first and second
`sources and the sensors towed
`along a survey line,
`
`Ex. 1003 at Fig. 2.
`Ex. 1003 at 5:23-24: “FIG. 4 depicts a four source
`(203, 205, 413, 415) shooting arrangement with two
`receiver cables (407, 409).”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981
`
`‘981 Patent Claims
`
`De Kok (Ex. 1003)
`
`31.c. the first source and the
`second source fired in a
`plurality of sequences,
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003 at Fig. 4.
`Ex. 1003 at 5:23-24: “FIG. 4 depicts a four source
`(203, 205, 413, 415) shooting arrangement with two
`receiver cables (407, 409).”
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003 at Fig. 4.
`
`Ex. 1003 at 5:36-39: “In the configuration of FIG. 4
`the two sources 203 and 205 preceding