throbber
Tria1s@‘-,uspt0.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper N0. 14
`Entered: June 4, 2015
`
`UNITED S'I"AT}iS PATENT AND TRADEWIVARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`PGS GEOPHYEHCAL AS,
`Patem Owner.
`
`Case IPR20I5—003I3
`
`Patent 6,026,059
`
`Befcsre JUSTIN BUSCH, :\/i'ITCTHELL G. VWLEATHVERLY, and
`
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING, /1dm1'm'.5'I1’afive Patent Judges.
`
`BUNTING, Adxvzinistrarive Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`
`institution of Inter Parres; Review
`
`37 C.F.R. § 4-'2.10‘8
`
`WesternGeco V. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`
`IPRZG1 5-0031 3
`
`
`
`PGS EXHEBFF
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`lPR20l5—003l3
`
`Patent 6,026,059
`
`l.
`
`lN’l‘iR(}DUCTl()N
`
`WesternGeco L.L.C. (“Petitioner”) tiled a Petition (“Pet”) requesting
`
`an inter parres review ofclaims l/“l 2 (“the challenged claims”) ofU.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,026,059 (“the ’059 patent,” Ex. l00l). Paper l. PGS
`
`Geophysical AS (“Patent Owner”) timely ‘filed a Preliminary Response
`
`(“Prelim Resp”). Paper 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314,
`
`which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`
`Taking into account the arguments presented in the Petition and
`
`Preliminary Response, we conclude that Petitioner establishes that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in challenging claims l-«S, 10, and
`
`ll of the ’059 patent as unpatentable. We do not, however, conclude that
`
`Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail regarding its
`
`ehailenges to Claims 629 and 12.
`
`ll.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. Related fl/[otters
`
`The parties indicate that the ’0S9 patent was asserted in Wesremfleco
`
`LLC v. Petroleum {}’e()-Services, Inc, Case No. 4:l3-—ev~02725 (SD. Te'x.).
`
`Pet. ll; Paper 5, l.
`
`B. The ’{)59 Pczzemf (Ex. 010001,)
`
`The ’059 patent relates generally to a “process for generating a bin of
`
`common mid-point traces from a three dimensional seismic survey data set.”
`
`Ex. I001, 2:7»—»8. Associated with each trace is a shot location and receiver
`
`WesternGeco V. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`IPR20 i 5—003 13
`
`Patent 6,026,059
`
`location.
`
`id. at 3:49~~50. From the data, a common midpoint bin (“CMP
`
`bin”) is defined for a pluraiity of traces having a common mid-point and an
`
`offset associated with each trace.
`
`Ia’. at 3:50—54. For each trace, the offset is
`
`represented by the length of the line for the particular trace, and the azimuth
`
`is represented by the angle of the line.
`
`Ia’. at 3:55—~59. As shown in Figure
`
`6, a coordinate set is assigned to the traces in each CMP bin, and from the
`
`assigned coordinates, “the offset and direction of a line between the shot and
`
`receiver is determinable, and a coordir1ate—designated set of traces is
`
`defined.” Id. at 3:59-65. The plurality of coordinate-designated set of
`
`traces have the same coordinates.
`
`id. at 3:66~4:i 1. Further, the CM? bin of
`
`Figure 6 can be divided into quadrants, as shown in Figure 7, reproduced
`
`below.
`
`Qsedrantit
`~+
`
`Quadrant {ti
`~
`
`are %
`43% _
`
`3253
`
`iéflfl
`
`G
`
`«$639 M
`
`’
`
`32:39 i
`4389
`
`E
`
`»
`
`Quadrant!
`++
`
`7
`
`.
`
`Quadrant}
`+~
`
`
`
`-ét¥9€3
`
`rid»-’-a¢::z~—»i~.:
`
`Figure 7 is a spider diagram plot oi’ traces in a Ci\/{P bin from
`a seismic data acquisition survey.
`
`A data set for performing, further anaiysis of reflection attribute variation
`
`(cg. amplitude, frequency, and phase) among traces can be determined. Id.
`
`L1)
`
`WesternGeco V. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`IPRZO l 5003 l 3
`
`Patent 6,026,059
`
`at 4:29-31. For example, offset Values assigned to a plurality of traces and
`
`“the retlection attribute variation between traces in the window are
`
`compared as a function of offset and azimuth." Id. at 5:l5~~l:9.
`
`C. I!Zusz‘r*ative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims l and l2 are independent. Claims 2»~
`
`I ll depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 1. Independent
`
`claim l
`
`is illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced below:
`
`A process for generating a bin of
`I.
`common rnid—point traces from a three dimensional
`seismic survey data set, each of the traces having a
`shot
`location and a receiver location associated
`
`therewith, the process comprising:
`gathering from the data a plurality of traces
`having a common reference point, whereby a
`common recl’erence point bin is defined and
`whereby each of the plurality of traces has an
`offset associated therewith;
`
`assigning a coordinate set to a plurality of
`traces in the common reference point bin, wherein
`the coordinates
`are associated with the
`shot
`
`position and the receiver position associated with
`the traces and wherein, from the coordinates, the
`offset and direction of a line betweeri the shot and
`
`receiver is determinable, whereby a coordinate-
`designated set of traces is defined; and
`organizing the coordinate—designated set of
`traces into a set of bins having a regularized
`number o 1’ traces.
`
`Bx. 100i, 5:48»r~64.
`
`WesternGeco V. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`lPR20l 5-003 13
`
`Patent 6,026,059
`
`D. Evidence Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art refererices (Pet. 13) and
`
`the Declaration of Dr. L30 T. lkclle (Ex. 1002):
`
`Raleigh?“““““it ”i>“;;;“;;zierggzialririemgr Mmmwfiflwenaie Emu
`
`
`r
`morritie
`
`
`
`
`.W,.M_..i. ,W._.c..W.,m,m_,_..,.,_;il..e..i_,A
`_._,i_%_,4
`
`
`
`US. Patent No. 5",Z§7,o52
`C. Peter Ashton et al., 3D
`Seismic Survey Design,
`SCl~lLUMBERGEZR OILFIELD
`
`REVIEW, vol. 6, No. 2, (April
`1994).
`
`US. Patent No. 4,933,9l2
`
`US. Patent N0. 4,596,005
`
`E January 23,
`J 1996
`April 1994
`
`7503
`MM
`l l0O4
`
`E
`
`E3
`
`June 12, 1990
`
`1005
`
`[June 17, 1986 M 1006
`
`
`
`""E":2?{~Ii§$mmmm"
`Ashton
`
`Gallagher
`
`LI
`
`l Frasier
`l
`
`E. Amerzed Gr'0z4m2’.<; of Unpalentability
`
`Petitioner challenges claims lwl 2 ofthe ‘O59 patent based on the
`
`asserted grounds cfunpatentability set forth in the table below. Pet. 1344.
`
`“" "““'’“”“”*"”‘”“
`c;;a‘ggat‘;;:i17;;:r““r““““r
`
`Cordsen, Ashton, Fi*asiei‘
` r W”
`G3ii£§H¢?£F:}éEEé?W”"”WwMW’”’
`
`
`
`1
`
`“ l
`
`i6§(é)"WW “rim ana“r:‘r*rir
`
`103(3)
`102(8)
`ifiéra)
`
`l ll
`“ H0 and‘?99999999999999999WWW"
`in
`
`
`
`
`
`Ill. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Corzszruction
`
`In an inter partex review, we construe claims by applying the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 4—2.l00(b);
`
`WesternGeco V. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`li’.Rj.Z0l 5-003 13
`
`Patent 6,026,059
`
`see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 F ed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug.
`
`14, 2012); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs, LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, l28l-~
`
`82 (Fed. Cir. 2(}l 5) (“Congress implicitly adopted the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly
`
`adopted by PTO regulation”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`standard, and absent any special definitions, claim terms are given 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 Transfogic Tech.
`
`Inc, 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for
`
`claim terms or phrases must be set forth with reasonable clarity,
`
`deiiberateness, and precision. In re Pczulsen, 30 F.3d M75, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`i994).
`
`in the absence of such a definition. limitations are not to be read
`
`from the specification into the claims. See In re I/an Germs, 988 F.2d l 181,
`
`M84 (Fed. Cir. i993).
`
`Petitioner proposes a claim construction for each of the following
`
`clairn phrases: (1) “Coordinate set"; (2) “a set of bins”; and (3) “at least two
`
`of the coordinate—designated set oftraces have different coordinates and are
`
`from a common shot-receiver location.” Pet. l5~~l 8. Patent Owner disputes
`
`Petitionefis proposed construction of"‘set of bins” and in turn proposes a
`
`claim construction for “regularized number of traces.” Prelim. Resp. 34-37.
`
`Having considered the evidence of record, for purposes of this decision, we
`
`see no need to construe expressly the claim phrase “at least two of the
`
`coordinatodesignated set of traces have different coordinates and are from a
`
`common shot—receiver location.” We address below the claim phrases
`
`“coordinate set,”
`
`set of bins,” and “regularized number of traces.”
`
`WesternGeco V. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`l}?R2(} I 5~003 13
`
`Patent 6,026,059
`
`I .
`
`“c00rdina2‘e set ”
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that the Specification does not define the
`
`term “coordinate set,” and directs us to the description in the Specification
`
`regarding the assignment ofa coordinate set to the traces in the CM? bin and
`
`the constant fold of two traces per bin. Based on this passage, Petitioner
`
`takes the position that the broadest reasonable construction of the term
`
`“coordinate set” is “a group of coordinates of a spatial domain that can be
`
`used to discern a [trace’s] offset and azimuth.” Pet. 15 (citing BX. 1001,
`
`3:59-65). Upon reviewing the Specification, we agree that the term
`
`“coordinate set” is not defined explicitly. For example, the Specification
`
`describes the “coordinate set” as being “assigned to the surface” and “related
`
`to a survey geometry of the data.” Ex. 1001, Abstract, 2:55-57.
`
`in other
`
`examples, the “coordinate set” is described as being “associated with the
`
`shot position and the receiver position associated with the traces and
`
`wherein, from the coordinates, the offset and direction of a line between the
`
`shot and receiver is determinabie” (Ex. I001, 2:i5~~20) and also as
`
`Cartesian coordinate set, having a first axis parailel to a receiver line and a
`
`second axis parallel to a shot line” Uri, at 2:3 3).
`
`in other contexts, we find
`
`that the Specification uses “coordinate set” to describe “fitting a surface to
`
`the data of the traces within the window and assigning a coordinate set to the
`
`surfacie, wherein the coordinate set is reiated to a survey geometry of the
`
`data.” Ia’. at 4:46~49. As such, Petitioners construction is not necessarily
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim phrase in the context of
`
`the entire disclosure.
`
`Based on the current record and for purposes of this decision, we
`
`determine that the broadest reasonable construction of “coordinate set” in
`
`WesternGeco V. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`lPRi20l5—003l3
`
`Patent 6,026,059
`
`light of the Specification of the ’O59 patent is “a group of coordinates used
`
`to determine a trace’s offset and azimuth.”
`
`2.
`
`“ct set of him;
`
`Petitioner contends that the claim phrase “a set of bins” should be
`
`construed as “a set of sub-bins within a common reference point bin.”
`
`Pet. 16. Citing examples from the Specification, Petitioner notes that the
`
`Specification does not define this phrase expressly, and contends that one of
`
`skill in the art would understand a bin to be synonymous with a conirnon
`
`reference point bin, and a set Q/‘bins to be distinct from a “common
`
`reference point bin.” Id.
`
`Patent Owner counters that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`this claim phrase is “a set of common offset bins within a common reference
`
`point bin.” Prelim. Resp. 34. Patent Owner notes that Petitioner seemingly
`
`acknowledges “that the ‘set ofbins’ in the claims is distinct from the
`
`previously recited ‘common reference point bin.”’ Id. at 35 (citing Pet. l6).
`
`Patient Owner then directs our attention to the disciosure in the Specification
`
`regarding the use of “offset bins” to anaiyze “the Variation of trace
`
`attributes as a function ofot“fset or angle of refiection .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`AVO
`
`[amplitude variation with offset analysis], AVA [amplitude variation with
`
`angle analysis], and other oftset—dependent~retlectivity anaiysis’«-analysis
`
`based on Variations among the traces ‘within the survey bins,’ :1 within the
`
`CM? bins." Ia’. 21:36 (citingiix. 100}, l:4l~~«4:’>} 1:67). Patent Owner also
`
`argues that the ’059 patent is directed to “a method of assigning a
`
`‘coordinate set‘ to the traces in a CM? bin based on their ‘offset and
`
`azimuth’ and grouping the traces into ‘bins’ based on common offset and
`
`azimuth coordinates.” Id. (citing Ex. I001, 13:46-42} l). As such, Patent
`
`WesternGeco V. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`1PR20l5~003l3
`
`Patent 6,026,059
`
`Owner concludes that the “only set of bins that the specification discusses
`
`creating is a set of bins that group together traces having common offset and
`
`azimuth coordinates.” Id. at 37 (citing Ex. E001, 3:464:27).
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments are persuasive. Our review of the
`
`Specification reveals that the term “bin” itself is used to describe various
`
`types of “bins,” such as a common rnid~point bih “made of the data, which
`
`include traces having a common midpoint, and various offsets from ray
`
`traces having traveled CYOSS-lif1€.”1 Ex. 1001, l:22»~25, 1:31~32, 1:50~53,
`
`Fig. 3. More informative as to the type of bin this claim element refers to
`
`are Figures 3, 4, and 6 and the description associated with each figure. For
`
`example, Figure 3, reproduced below, illustrates how in the prior art a
`
`plurality of traces were organized into common mid-point bins, “(e.g. any of
`
`bins BIN} ~BEN 9 ot‘FI.G. 3)” and describes how “each of the plurality of
`
`traces has an offset associated therewith.” Id. at 3:50-54.
`
`z V
`
`isit
`
`:
`
`Figure 3 is a plot of traces in CM? bins from a seismic survey.
`
`H6. 3
`
`1 We note that the vertical and horizontal axes represent offset (Ex. 100i
`1:35), which is the distance between the source and receiver (id. at 1:14).
`
`9
`
`WesternGeco V. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`lPR20l5~003l3
`
`Patent? 6,026,059
`
`Next, Figure 4 iliustrates how, in the prior art, one of the midpoint
`
`bins of Figure 3 is further “divided into multiple offset bins OBl~OB8.”
`
`1001, 1:44~45.
`
`in Figure 6, one Ch/IP bin from Figure 3 is redrawn
`
`using a coordinate set assigned to the traces in the CM? bin, such that “the
`
`sub—bins~———the ‘set of bins’ recited in the claims, into which the traces must
`
`be organized with a regularized number oftraces»-»»are the squares on the
`
`graph (for example, at upper left, the bin of traces with an iniine offset
`
`between -1280 and —2560, and a crossline offset between 4800 and 6400).”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 29 (citing BX. 100}, 3:55~6l , Fig. 6). Fuitheif support can be
`
`found in the passage from the Specification expressing the need for
`
`providing “common-—offset bins, within a common mid—point bin, which are
`
`uniform in distribution” (Ex. I001, l:54~S6) because offset distribution
`
`(number of traces per bin) “is not uniform” (id. at 1:36, l:35~47), and the
`
`’059 patent solves this need.
`
`Theretbre, based on the current record, and for purposes of this
`
`decision, we agree with Patent Owner that the broadest reasonable
`
`construction. of “a set of bins” in light ofthe Specification of the ’059 patent
`
`is “a set of common offset bins within a common reference point bin.”
`
`3.
`
`€.:>-
`—v
`“i‘eqz4[czr'izecf nzmztber oftmces
`
`Patent Owner proposes that the claim phrase “regularized number of
`
`traces” be construed to mean a “number of traces that does not have a large
`
`variation from common offset bin to common offset bin.” Prelim. Resp. 38.
`
`Patent Owner directs us to the description in the Specification of how prior
`
`art methods oforganizing traces for pre-stack analysis “resulted in ‘non-
`
`uniform’ numbers of traces (or Told’) per offset bin, and this ‘large Variation
`
`detrimentaliy affects the analysis?” Id. (citing Ex. i00l, l:43-49:). The
`
`i0
`
`WesternGeco V. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`EPR2()i 5—O03 E 3
`
`Patent 6,026,059
`
`method described in the ’O59 patent, according to Patent Owner, “requires
`
`organizing the traces into a ‘set of bins’ having a ‘regularized number of
`
`traces” (id. (citing EX. 1001, 13:64)) so that “the coordinate bins be of
`
`‘constant fold” (id. (citing Bx. 100}, 3:59-62)).
`
`Turning to the Specification, although the exact claim phrase
`
`“regularized number of traces” is found only in claim 1, we agree with
`
`Patent Owner that the Specification describes how non—uniforrn offset
`
`distribution detrimentally affects the analysis when the offset bins are
`
`stacked. Elx- lO0I, 1:40-52. The opinion ofPetitioner’s Declarant,
`
`Dr. Ikelle, that the ‘D59 patent is directed to a “method of manipulating the
`
`data post—acquisition to achieve a uniform offset distribution," lends support
`
`to Patent OWner’s position. Ex. 1002 ‘Ii 33.
`
`In addition, Dr. Il<ell.e’s opinion
`
`that the sub-binning procedure described in the ’059 patent Specification
`
`“resuits in a constant fold of two traces per coordinate bin” or alternatively
`
`“a singie trace per coordinate bin” further supports Patent (}wner”s position.
`
`/at ft 37 (citing Ex.
`
`l{}{)l, 1:27-34, 3:59~62, 4:3-5, 4:5-J7). Moreover,
`
`Dr. Ikel.le’s conclusion, that by re—organizing “the sub—bins and; thus, the
`
`traces within a standard CMP bin such that the set of sub-bins within the
`
`standard CM? bin will have a uniform offset distribution,” is likewise
`
`consistent with Patent Ox-Vner’s position.
`
`151’.
`
`fli 73.
`
`Patent Owner contrasts grouping traces by absolute offset as shown in
`
`Figure 4, with the grouping of traces in Figure 6 of the ‘U59 patent, which
`
`“displays traces ot‘varying offsets and azimuths within a single CM? bin”
`
`based on the orthogonal geometry of the survey. Prelim Resp. 28-~29 (citing
`
`lO0I, 1:25»-~30, 4i~--3, 6:9»~l0). Figure 6 ofthe ’O:39 patent is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`11
`
`WesternGeco V. PGS (IPR20l5-00313)
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`lPR20l 5~O03 l 3
`
`Patent 6,026,059
`
`was
`
`4399
`ma
`use
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`is
`—
`G
`me —I
`//V‘
`-3269
`-
`
`
`
`-4393
`
`‘
`
`FIG.6
`
`«sin ‘
`
`Figure 6 is a spider diagram plot of traces in bins.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the common offset bins shown in Figure 6
`
`“have uniform fold (22 regularized number of traces) .
`
`.
`
`. there is a constant
`
`fold of two traces per coordinate bin” (two traces in each of the 32 squares).
`
`Id. at 29 (citing Bx.
`
`l{)€}l,
`
`3:6l——~62).
`
`Therefore, based on the current record and for purposes of this
`
`decision, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction of
`
`“regularized number oftraces” in light of the Specification ofthe ’O59
`
`patent is “uniform number oftracesf’
`
`B. Obvi()z45i1e.ss Based on C0rd.s'en
`
`1. C’laims [0 am! 12
`
`We now turn to I’etiiioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability and
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments in its Preliminary Response. Petitioner contends
`
`that claims l-10 and 12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a) based on
`
`l2
`
`WesternGeco V. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`IPRZOIS-00313
`
`Patent 6,026,059
`
`Cordsen and Ashton. Pet. l8»~~36. Petitioner also provides claim charts to
`
`illustrate the correspondence between the claim limitations and cited
`
`references and relies upon the Declaration of Dr. lkelle (BX. 100?.
`
`52M
`
`l08) to support the analysis advocated in the Petition. Pet.
`
`l8~—--36. Patent
`
`Owner counters that neither Cordsen nor Ashton teaches the claim limitation
`
`of “organizing the coordinate-designated set of traces into a set ofbins
`
`having a regularized number of traces.” Prelim. Resp. 39-44.
`
`Having considered the explanations and supporting evidence
`
`presented, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has presented sufficient
`
`evidence demonstrating that the cited references disclose the claim limitation
`
`of “organizing the coordinate-designated set of traces into a set of bins
`
`having a regularized number of traces” as recited in the challenged clairnsz
`
`A detailed analysis of our determination follows after a brief overview of
`
`Cordsen and Ashton.
`
`cfz. Overview 0fCorr/Zseiz (Ex. 1003;‘
`
`Corclsen relates generally to a method for arranging lines of seismic
`
`energy sources and receivers as a rectangular grid “for producing rrzulziple
`
`common mid-poims per standard bin in the process of acquiring three-
`
`dimensional seismic information.”
`
`1003, l:l4~l7, l:24--~25 (emphasis
`
`added). Using a technique known as “stacl<ing,” the sources and receivers
`
`are arranged to provide multiple points ot‘retlection at as common mid»-point
`
`(CMP), to improve the data by increasing signal-to—~noise ratio. Id, at l:45-
`
`49. The discrete area surrounding each CM? l0 defines sub-bin 14 Within
`
`2 We note that independent claim l2 is slightly different in scope than
`independent claim l. Nonetheless, Petitionefs arguments address claims 1
`and I2, and claims 2-«--£0 that depend directly or indirectly from claim l,
`together as a group.
`
`WesternGeco V. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`IPRQO 1 5-003 1 3
`
`Patent 6,026,059
`
`standard bin 13 (Ex. 1003, 7:64-67) as shown in Figure 4 of Cordsen,
`
`reproduced below.
`
`Figure 4 is a View of a standard bin and sub—bins
`
`Cordsen also discloses a post—acquisition technique for adjusting the
`
`bin size to affect fold and signal—to—noise ratio.
`
`In’. at 10:32-35. In
`
`particular, Cordsen describes how the signal to noise ratio (S/N ratio) is
`
`linearly related to bin size, and fold is related to a constant times the square
`
`ofthe bin size. Id. at l0:34«—-37. If the S/N ratio is acceptable, Cordsen notes
`
`that “the information c.onveyed by each sub-bin l4 separately” is evaluated.
`
`la’. at 9:42--45. To reduce noise, “portions (sub-ebins M») of adjacent standard
`
`bins 13 can be combined to produce larger bins of increased fold.” Id. at
`
`9:46-48. That is, the size of standard bins is increased incrementaily, by
`
`adding siib—bins to achieve a desired S/N ratio. Id. at 9:48-50. Similarly, to
`
`obtain higher resolution.) “snb-bin.s l4 can be optionally combined into
`
`rectangles oriented in the direction of interest.” Id. at 9:52-56.
`
`17. OV(5'i”Vi£¥W'Q/fiS}2fQi1[E.7C. 1004}
`
`Ashton is a nronopatent publication describing 3D seismic survey
`
`design strategies. Ex. 1004, l. Ashton discloses that noise can be
`
`suppressed by stacking (i.e. summing traces from a set of source receiver
`
`pairs associated with reflections at a common midpoint (CMPD. Id. at 4.
`
`14
`
`WesternGeco V. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`IPRBG 1 5-003 l 3
`
`Patent 6,026,059
`
`The distance between the source and receiver is the offset, and every CVMP
`
`requires a range of offsets to define the reflection travel-time curve, which is
`
`flattened and then the reflections are summed to produce a stack trace.
`
`Id.
`
`Ashton notes that in 31) surveys, “reflections at a CM? come from a range of
`
`azimuths as weli as a range of offsets” in a bin. Id. at 5.
`
`C‘. A H611}/’5‘i.S’
`
`A claim is unpatentable under § l03(a) if the differences between the
`
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a
`
`whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`
`KSR Int‘ '1 CO. V. Teleflex M0,, 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`
`including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in
`
`the art; and (4) where in evidence, so~—called secondary considerations.
`
`Grafzam V. John Deere (.70., 383 US. 1,, l7~l 8 H966). Against this
`
`backdrop, we analyze this asserted ground based on obviousness, with the
`
`principles identified above in mind.
`
`in its Petition, Petitioner summarizes Cordscrfis rebinning process,
`
`referred to as flex-shinning, whereby seismic data is manipulated post»
`
`acquisition by adjusting the CM? bin size. Pet. l8~20. Petitioner argues
`
`that sub-bins 14 correspond to the “set of bins,,’'’ and that the “creation,
`
`rebinning, and manipulation ot‘sub~bins l4 as disclosed in Cordsen discloses
`
`all elements of claim 1 of the ’059 patent, including the organization of
`
`traces into a set of bins having a regularized number of traces.” Id. at 2()—«2l.
`
`To further demonstrate which teachings in Cordsen satisfy the limitations of
`
`15
`
`WesternGeco V. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`IPRQO 1 5-003 13
`
`Patent 6,026,059
`
`the claims, the Petitioner includes a claim chart identifying quotations in the
`
`reference that correspond with claim elements.
`
`In’. at 28-29.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner advances a number of
`
`arguments challenging l’etitioner’s contention that Cordsen discloses the
`
`claim I limitation of “organizing the coordinate-designated set of traces into
`
`a set of bins having a regularized number of traces.” Prelim. Resp. 39.
`
`According to Patent Owner, the parties seemingly agree that the claim
`
`phrase “‘a set of bins’ refers to a set oi‘.‘sub—bins ‘within a common reference
`
`point bin?” Id. at 40. Where the parties differ, however, is in whether sub-
`
`bin 14 taught by Cordsen is a comrnon offset bin. Id. at 43. Specifically,
`
`Patent Owner argues that the technique taught by Cordsen does not create
`
`“sub—bins of the original CMP bins; on the contrary, its flex—binning
`
`technique generally involves making new bins that overlap with several of
`
`the original, or ‘standard,’ (IMP bins." Id. at 40. Instead, Patent Owner
`
`contends that Cordsen discloses the creation of new bins “by combining
`
`traces frorn rnultiple CMPS,” and that the new bins “frequently cross the
`
`boundaries of “adjacent standard bins 13”’ and as a result “span several of
`
`the original CM? bins.” Id. at 42.
`
`To support its position that the resized bins of Cordsen are not sub-—
`
`bins of the CM? bin, Patent Owner draws our attention to Figures Stall of
`
`Cordsen. Id. at4l. Explaining that individual sub-bins l4 correspond to
`
`each of the individual midpoint dots in Figures 9+1 it Patent Owner contends
`
`that Cordsen specificaily “encourages the person of ordinary skill to
`
`combine those sub—bins” into new, larger bins. Id. at 4142 (citing Pet. l9——
`
`20; Ex. 1002 at 7243).
`
`16
`
`WesternGeco V. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`lPR20l5—00313
`
`Patent 6,026,059
`
`We are not persuaded Petitioner’s arguments and evidence
`
`demonstrate sufficiently that the cited portions of Cordsen disclose
`
`“organizing the ct7ordinate~designated set of traces into a set of bins having a
`
`regularized number oftraces” as recited in claim I. As noted above, we
`
`interpret “set of bins” to mean “a set of offset bins within a common
`
`reference point bin” and “regularized number of traces” to mean “uniform
`
`number ot"traees.” See supra Section lII(A).
`
`Patent Owner argues persuasively that Cordsen discloses “re—binning”
`
`traces into entirely new CMP bins with different boundaries” and does not
`
`teach “creating the ‘set of bins’ withizi the common reference point bin.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 40 (emphasis added). According to Parent Owner, Cordsen
`
`discloses that the individual sub-bins 14,, which Petitioner “describes as
`
`‘theoretical CMPSX” are combined. into larger bins, and not sub—bins of the
`
`original CM? bin. Prelim. Resp. 4 l. Indeed, in the embodiment shown in
`
`Figure 12 offiiordsen, reproduced below, the standard bin l3 is resized to be
`
`smaller, or equal in size to one sub«bin 14 having one cornmon rnitdpoint.
`
`BX. 1003, ll:l5~—l6.
`
`17
`
`WesternGeco V. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`IPRZOIS-00313
`
`Patent 6,026,059
`
`\.
`'
`.
`. -
`sgngnnggra -- .
`nan
`‘
`
`
`
`
`Figure 12 illustrates a 9-CMP standard bin
`resized into l—CMP m bins.
`
`Petitioner does not direct us to a disclosure in Cordsen regarding resizing
`
`sub—bin I4 (ie. theoretical CM? bin (Pet. 17)) further into “a set of common
`
`offset bins within a common reference point bin” as we have construed this
`
`term.
`
`Neither Petitioner, not its Deelarant Dr. lkelle, explains sufficiently
`
`how sub~bin 14 is “a set of offset bins within a common reference point
`
`bin.” it is Petitionefs obligation to explain clearly the arguments and
`
`evidence upon which it relies for each limitation of a claim challenged in a
`
`petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) (the “petition .
`
`.
`
`. must include .
`
`.
`
`. [a]
`
`full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a ciercziled
`
`explcmaiiorz oft/‘re .S‘Z.gi7f/f(?LII'ZCe ofiiqe evidence” (emphasis added)). Here,
`
`the Petition did not do so.
`
`Nor are we persuaded, on this recorch that Petitioner’°s arguments and
`
`evidence demonstrate sufficiently that the flexi-«binning process of Cordsen
`
`results in a uniform number of traces, as we have construed the claim phrase
`
`“regularized number of traces.” Pet. l8—~20.
`
`In its claim chart Petitioner
`
`directs us to various quotations from Cerdsen that describe the post-
`
`18
`
`WesternGeco V. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`'Il’R20l 5-003 E3
`
`Patent 6,026,059
`
`acquisition technique of rebinning that involves “adjusting bin size to affect
`
`the fold and the signal-to-noise ratio.” Id. at 28»-29 (citing Ex. 1003, 9:42»
`
`51, l0:32—~l l:28;
`
`i002 tilt 72-72). Having reviewed the evidence
`
`presented,, we note that Cordsen describes a linear relationship between
`
`signal to noise ratio and bin size, and a corresponding relationsliip between
`
`bin size and fold, i.e. number oftraces. Ex. i003, 10:32-89, Figs. 8a, 8b.
`
`Neither Petitioner nor its Declarant, Dr. lkelle, articulates sufficiently
`
`the relevance of the quotations and citations from Cordsen regarding
`
`adjusting bin size to achieve a desired signal to noise ratio and resultant
`
`Variation in tbld (e. g. number of traces), to the claim phrase “regularized
`
`number oftraces,."’ let alone the claim limitation of “organizing the
`
`coordinate—designated set of traces into a set of bins having a regularized
`
`number oftraces.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2); see also 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.l04(b)(5) (the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised,
`
`including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the
`
`challenge}. By not articulating stzffzcierttly the relevance of the quoted
`
`passages to the claim limitations, Petitioner is inviting us to assume the role
`
`of archeologist of the record, which we decline.
`
`Acknowledging that Cordsen does not disclose specifically the claim
`
`element otwassigning a coordinate set to a plurality of traces in the common
`
`reference point bin,” and relying on the testimony of its declarant Dr. lkelle,
`
`Petitioner asserts that Ashton discloses this limitation. Pet. 2l—-24.
`
`Petitioner, however, does not rely on any disclosure Within Ashton to cure
`
`the deficiencies noted above in Cordsen.
`
`Because we are not persuaded that Cordsen and Ashton disclose the
`
`limitation of “organizing the coordinate—designated set of traces into a set of
`
`l9
`
`WesternGeco V. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`
`PGS Exhibit 2018
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`IPRZOI 5-003 1 3
`
`Patent 6,026,059
`
`bins having a regularized number of traces” as recited in claim 1, we need
`
`not address arguments advanced by Petitioner concerning motivations to
`
`combine these references.
`
`Ia’.
`
`As to claims 240, Petitioner provides a claim chart identifying
`
`quotations in the reference that correspond with claim elements.
`
`Id. at 29—~-
`
`32. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Petitioner does not
`
`articulate sufficiently the relevance of the identified quotations and citations
`
`to the claim limitations of claims 2-~10. For the same reasons discussed with
`
`respect to claim 1, our determination concerning the insufficiency of
`
`Petitioner’s evidence with respect to the “organizing the coordinate-
`
`designated set of traces into a set of bins having a regularized number of
`
`traces” limitation of claim l, applies equally to the claims that depend from
`
`claim l.
`
`With respect to claim 12, Petitioner provides a claim chart identifying
`
`quotations in the references that correspond with the claim elements. Pet.
`
`32--36. Additionally, Petitioners Declarant describes the differences and
`
`similarities between claims l and 12. Ex. i002 {iii 38-40,, 95408. Despite
`
`the differences between claims I and 12, neither Petitioner nor its Declarant,
`
`Dr. lkelle, articulates sufficiently the relevance of the iden

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket