IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00313
`Patent 6,026,059
`
`
`DECLARATION OF WALTER S. LYNN, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 2
`III. COMPENSATION AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE PARTIES .................. 8
`IV. ASSIGNMENT AND SUMMARY OF OPINION ........................................ 9
`V.
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................. 10
`A. Claim Construction ................................................................................ 10
`B. Anticipation ............................................................................................ 10
`C. Obviousness ........................................................................................... 10
`D. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................ 11
`VI. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................... 13
`A. Overview of 3D Seismic Surveying ...................................................... 13
`1.
`Sources, Receivers, and Traces ...................................................... 13
`2.
`Survey Design and Common Midpoint Binning ........................... 16
`B. Overview of Traditional Seismic Data Processing and Imaging ........... 21
`VII. THE STARR PATENT ................................................................................. 25
`A. The Specification of the Starr Patent ..................................................... 26
`B. The Challenged Claims .......................................................................... 34
`1.
`Claim 1 ........................................................................................... 34
`2.
`Claim 2 ........................................................................................... 37
`3.
`Claim 3 ........................................................................................... 39
`4.
`Claim 4 ........................................................................................... 40
`5.
`Claim 5 ........................................................................................... 41
`6.
`Claims 10 and 11 ............................................................................ 43
`C. The Gallagher Patent .............................................................................. 43
`1.
`The Gallagher Method and the 16-Fold Embodiment ................... 45
`2.
`Gallagher’s 24-Fold Example Using Actual Field Data ................ 52
`D. The Frasier Patent .................................................................................. 57
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 58
`
`
`
`i
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`A. “A Set of Bins” ...................................................................................... 58
`B. “Regularized Number of Traces” .......................................................... 61
`IX. DETAILED OPINIONS REGARDING VALIDITY ................................... 61
`A. Gallagher Does Not Anticipate Any of Claims 1–5 or 10 of the Starr
`Patent ............................................................................................................. 61
`1.
`Gallagher Does Not Anticipate Any of Claims 1–5 and 10 Because
`It Does Not Teach the “A Set of Bins” Limitation of Claim 1 ................... 62
`2.
`Gallagher Does Not Anticipate Any of Claims 1–5 and 10 Because
`It Does Not Teach “Organizing” Traces “Into a Set of Bins Having a
`Regularized Number of Traces.” ................................................................ 68
`3.
`Gallagher Also Does Not Anticipate Claim 2 Because It Does Not
`Teach a Plurality of Traces ......................................................................... 69
`4.
`Gallagher Also Does Not Anticipate Claim 3 Because It Does Not
`Teach Adding the Traces in a Sub-Bin ....................................................... 76
`5.
`Gallagher Also Does Not Anticipate Claim 4 ................................ 77
`6.
`Gallagher Does Not Anticipate Claim 5 ........................................ 78
`7.
`Gallagher Does Not Anticipate Claim 10 ...................................... 82
`B. The Combination of Gallagher and Frasier Does Not Render Claim 11
`of the Starr Patent Obvious ............................................................................ 82
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 87
`
`X.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Walter Lynn, hereby state the following:
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I have been informed by counsel for PGS Geophysical AS (“PGS”)
`
`that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has granted the petition of WesternGeco
`
`LLC (“WesternGeco”) to institute this Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) regarding the
`
`patentability of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,026,059 (“the ’059 Patent,”
`
`“Starr,” or “the Starr Patent”) (Ex. 1001). I understand from counsel that
`
`WesternGeco has asserted that the specified claims of the Starr Patent are
`
`unpatentable on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Anticipation of claims 1–5 and 11 of the Starr Patent by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 4,933,912 (“the ’912 Patent,” “Gallagher,” or “the Gallagher
`
`patent”) (Ex. 1005);
`
`Ground 2: Obviousness of claim 11 of the Starr Patent over the
`
`combination of Gallagher and U.S. Patent No. 4,596,005 (“the ’005 Patent,”
`
`“Frasier,” or “the Frasier patent”) (Ex. 1006).
`
`I understand that no review was instituted as to claims 6–9 and 12 of the Starr
`
`Patent, nor was review instituted on certain additional grounds that were asserted
`
`by WesternGeco and discussed by WesternGeco’s expert witness, Dr. Luc Ikelle.
`
`
`
`1
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`Accordingly, I understand that these claims and additional grounds are not at issue
`
`in this proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by PGS as an expert witness to opine on various
`
`aspects of the methods and systems claimed in the Starr Patent, including whether
`
`those methods and systems are anticipated by the Gallagher patent or would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) over the Gallagher
`
`and Frasier references asserted by WesternGeco.
`
`3.
`
`In reaching my opinions regarding the Starr Patent, I have reviewed
`
`the documents cited herein and have relied on my decades of knowledge and
`
`experience in the fields of seismic data acquisition, processing, and interpretation
`
`(outlined in Section II), bearing in mind the information available to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of November 14, 1997.1 This Declaration sets forth the
`
`bases and reasons for my opinions, including the materials and information relied
`
`upon in forming those opinions and conclusions.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`4.
`I am a Geophysicist specializing in the field of reflection seismology,
`
`especially in relation to oil and gas exploration. I am currently the Chief Operating
`
`
`1 I have been asked by counsel to assume that the “priority date” of the Starr Patent
`
`is November 14, 1997.
`
`
`
`2
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`Officer of Lynn Inc., a privately owned company which specializes in multi-
`
`azimuth, multi-component, and 3D seismic acquisition, processing, and
`
`interpretation.
`
`5.
`
`Based on my education, background, experience, and expertise, I am
`
`qualified to provide an opinion as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood, known, or concluded as of the priority date.
`
`6.
`
`I have obtained the following degrees: a Bachelor’s of Arts in
`
`Geology and Geophysics from Princeton University in 1973; a Master’s degree in
`
`Geophysics from Oregon State University in 1975, and a Ph.D. in Geophysics,
`
`with an emphasis on reflection seismology, from Stanford University in 1979.
`
`While at Stanford, I drafted a number of Stanford Exploration Project Research
`
`Reports relating to the processing and imaging of reflection seismic data.
`
`7.
`
`I have worked continuously in the field of reflection seismology since
`
`obtaining my Ph.D. in 1979. Immediately after completing my doctorate degree, I
`
`accepted a position in Research and Development at Western Geophysical. In this
`
`position, which I held for over ten years from 1979 until 1991, I designed and
`
`managed the development of seismic velocity, imaging, and modeling software;
`
`conducted several field research projects related to marine seismic-noise
`
`suppression techniques; and consulted with company and client personnel on
`
`
`
`3
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`problems and issues related to the acquisition, processing, and interpretation of
`
`reflection seismic data.
`
`8.
`
`From January of 1991 until July of 1991, I served as President of
`
`Lynn Inc. During this period, I consulted with two companies, Western Research
`
`(my former employer) and Oklahoma Seismic. My work with the former was to
`
`finish a major software effort that I had been developing on the manipulation of
`
`velocity information. My work with Oklahoma Seismic was writing software
`
`modules for its product, MIRA—a PC-based seismic modeling and interpretation
`
`package. In August of 1991, I began work as the Executive Vice President for
`
`Technology at Grant Tensor Geophysical. In this role, I spearheaded the
`
`development of the first commercial 3D pre-stack depth migration algorithm on
`
`parallel computer architecture. Grant-Tensor was dissolved in 1993 and the data
`
`processing assets were purchased and became a part of Petroleum Geoservices
`
`(PGS).
`
`9.
`
`In July 1994, I was promoted to President of PGS Tensor, Inc., where
`
`I was responsible for overseeing PGS seismic data processing operations
`
`worldwide. During my tenure, the company grew 65-percent per year in personnel
`
`and revenue from 1994 through 1998. From 1999–2002, I worked as the Senior
`
`Vice President of Technical Marketing at PGS, the parent company of all PGS
`
`subsidiaries, where I was responsible for packaging and presenting all PGS
`
`
`
`4
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`technical products, services, and strategies to both lay-level and expert geophysical
`
`audiences as well as financial analysts.
`
`10.
`
`I have been a member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists
`
`(“SEG”) for over 40 years (since 1973), and am currently an Honorary Member of
`
`SEG. SEG is the largest professional association for exploration geophysics in the
`
`world. I was elected President-elect of SEG in 2000 and served as President from
`
`September 2001 through August 2002. During this time, SEG had over nineteen-
`
`thousand members. As President of SEG, I represented SEG worldwide and
`
`worked extensively with regional SEG affiliates and with other professional
`
`societies in geophysics around the globe, including Europe (European Association
`
`for Geoscientists and Engineers, “EAGE”), Australia (Australia Society of
`
`Exploration Geophysicists), Canada (Canadian Society of Exploration
`
`Geophysicists, “CSEG”), India (Society of Petroleum Geophysists, “SPG”), China
`
`(Chinese Geophysical Society, “CGS”) and Brazil (Brazilian Geophysical Society,
`
`“SBGf”). In addition to the SEG, I am also a member of a number of other
`
`professional and other societies in the field of geophysics, including EAGE, the
`
`Geophysical Society of Houston, the Denver Geophysical Society, and the U.S.
`
`Section of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. I am also a member of the
`
`scientific research society Sigma Xi and the honor society Phi Kappa Phi.
`
`
`
`5
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`11. After my tenure at PGS, I resumed my work at Lynn Inc. as Chief
`
`Operating Officer in 2002. I continue to hold this position today. In this role, I
`
`have assisted numerous clients with the processing and interpretation of land and
`
`marine full azimuth 3D seismic data. Although this field of study is complex, the
`
`main objective of our work is a better understanding of fractured reservoirs to
`
`optimize drilling programs.
`
`12. Throughout my career, I have been associated with numerous projects
`
`that involved the processing, analysis, and imaging of seismic data. These projects
`
`involve numerous datasets across numerous surveys. In Occidental Qatar, for
`
`example, I worked on processing and interpreting two offshore 3D multi-
`
`component datasets, and wrote programs to, among other things, compute
`
`azimuthal velocity and amplitude versus offset (AVO), in order to facilitate the
`
`mapping of subsurface fractures. I have worked on other projects involving
`
`azimuthal velocity, AVO, and other seismic attributes for numerous clients,
`
`including Apache, Devon Energy, El Paso Energy, Pioneer Resources, Jetta
`
`Operating Co., EOG, Exco, Resolve Geosciences, Lake Ronel, and Pablo Energy.
`
`Much of this work involved developing statistical relationships between seismic
`
`attributes and reservoir properties with a focus on the uncertainty and reliability
`
`measures of seismic attributes.
`
`
`
`6
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`13. From 2004–2006, I served on the National Science Foundation
`
`Advisory Board for the Geoscience Directorate.
`
`14. Since August 2009, I have served as an adjunct professor in the
`
`Geophysics Department at the Colorado School of Mines, where I have taught a
`
`graduate-level course on seismic data processing. This course is offered to both
`
`graduate students and seniors and involves hands-on computer exercises in seismic
`
`data processing. In my capacity as professor, I have served on numerous Ph.D and
`
`M.S. thesis committees and continue to do so today.
`
`15. From January 2010 to December 2012, I served as a board member
`
`and chair of SEG’s Advanced Modeling Corporation (SEAM). SEAM is a
`
`partnership between industry and the SEG to construct realistic subsurface models
`
`and model seismic data in an effort to advance the geophysical science field.
`
`Computationally, the creation of seismic data over such models comes under the
`
`category of grand challenge problems, that is, computer algorithms requiring
`
`extremely high performance computers to provide usable data in a reasonable
`
`amount of time. SEAM was awarded an SEG Special Commendation at the 2014
`
`SEG Annual Convention.
`
`16. Over the years, I have authored and co-authored over twenty-five
`
`publications, including a number in peer-reviewed journals including Geophysics,
`
`the Journal of Geophysical Research, and Geophysical Prospecting; I have also
`
`
`
`7
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`presented abstracts at numerous industry conferences, including at SEG Annual
`
`Meetings. Many of these publications and abstracts have dealt with concepts of
`
`seismic data processing and imaging.
`
`17. My papers have been awarded numerous awards over the years.
`
`Papers that I have authored or co-authored received the Best Paper Award at the
`
`1986 Pacific Coast SEG meeting, the 1989 Annual SEG Meeting, the 1990
`
`Canadian SEG meeting, and honorable mention at the 2014 Annual SEG Meeting.
`
`I have also co-chaired several geophysics conferences, including the June 1998
`
`SEG/CPS/EAGE Beijing International Geophysical Conference and Exposition.
`
`18.
`
`I am a co-inventor on one patent in the seismic data processing field,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,943,950. This patent is entitled “Method for Migrating Seismic
`
`Data.” The lead inventor of this patent was Dr. Craig Beasley.
`
`19. My complete curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 2048.
`
`III. COMPENSATION AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE PARTIES
`20.
`I am being compensated for my time at my standard hourly rate of
`
`$315 plus expenses for my time spent on this matter. My compensation is in no
`
`way dependent on the outcome of this IPR.
`
`21.
`
`It is my understanding that PGS Geophysical AS (“PGS”) is listed as
`
`the assignee of the ’059 Patent. As discussed above, I have previously been
`
`employed by PGS. I have also been previously employed by a predecessor
`
`
`
`8
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`(Western Geophysical) of the Petitioner, WesternGeco. Despite my prior
`
`employment, I own no stock in WesternGeco or PGS, and have no other financial
`
`interest with those companies.
`
`IV. ASSIGNMENT AND SUMMARY OF OPINION
`22.
`I have been informed that WesternGeco requested inter partes review
`
`of claims 1–12 of the Starr Patent, titled “Method of Creating Common-
`
`Offset/Common-Azimuth Gathers in 3-D Seismic Surveys and Method of
`
`Conducting Reflection Attribute Variation Analysis,” which was issued to Joel
`
`Starr on February 15, 2000 (Ex. 1001). I understand that the Board declined to
`
`institute trial as to claims 6–9 and 12 of the Starr Patent.
`
`23.
`
`I have been asked to respond to the Declaration submitted by
`
`WesternGeco by Dr. Luc Ikelle and to consider various issues relating to whether
`
`the claims of the Starr Patent that remain at issue in this proceeding—claims 1–5,
`
`10, and 11—were each patentable as of the November 14, 1997 priority date of the
`
`Starr Patent. In particular, I have been asked to consider whether claims 1–5 and
`
`10 are anticipated by Gallagher, and whether claim 11 would have been obvious to
`
`a POSA in light of the combination of Gallagher and Frasier.
`
`24. As I will describe in greater detail below, in my opinion, none of the
`
`claims at issue are anticipated by Gallagher, nor would claim 11 have been obvious
`
`in light of the combination of Gallagher and Frasier.
`
`
`
`9
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS
`25. Although I am not an attorney and do not expect to offer any legal
`
`opinions in this proceeding, I have been informed of certain legal principles that I
`
`relied on in reaching my opinions set forth in this report.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`26.
`I understand that for purposes of this IPR the terms in the claims of
`
`the ’059 Patent are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of
`
`the specification of the ’059 Patent. I understand that under this standard, absent
`
`any special definitions, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, as would be understood by a POSA as of the priority date, in the context
`
`of the entire disclosure. I further understand that claim terms are to be interpreted
`
`in the broadest way the claim language will reasonably support.
`
`B. Anticipation
`27.
`I have been informed by counsel for PGS that an anticipation analysis
`
`involves a review of the scope and content of the asserted prior art reference and
`
`that, to anticipate a claim under the relevant legal standard, the prior art reference
`
`itself must disclose, either expressly or inherently, each and every element of the
`
`claim, arranged or combined as in the claim.
`
`C. Obviousness
`28.
`I have also been informed by counsel that an obviousness analysis
`
`involves a review of the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between
`10
`
`
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`the prior art and the claims at issue, the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art,
`
`and “objective indicia of non-obviousness,” such as long-felt need and commercial
`
`success. In particular, I have been advised that, for an invention to be regarded as
`
`“obvious,” the POSA must have had a reason to modify the prior art or to combine
`
`one or more prior art references in a manner that would produce the claimed
`
`invention. I have also been informed that, for a claim to be obvious, the POSA
`
`must have a reasonable expectation of success with respect to the claimed
`
`invention. I have analyzed the question of obviousness, focusing most specifically
`
`on whether a POSA would have had a reason to combine the two asserted prior art
`
`references.
`
`D.
`29.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I understand that the POSA is a hypothetical person who may possess
`
`a set of skills of more than one actual person in the relevant field. I have formed
`
`an opinion regarding the qualifications of the person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`whom the invention of the ’059 Patent is directed, as is relevant to the opinions
`
`discussed below. I have been informed that factors that may be considered in
`
`determining the level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (1) the educational
`
`level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art
`
`solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made;
`
`
`
`11
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`(5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in
`
`the field.
`
`30.
`
`I have been asked to opine as to the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`to which claims 1–5 and 11–12 of the Starr Patent is directed. In my opinion, the
`
`POSA would have had expertise in the marine seismic survey field, including at
`
`least a Master’s degree (or equivalent) in geophysics or a related field. The POSA
`
`would have an understanding of seismic data acquisition methods and systems and
`
`post-acquisition seismic data processing and seismic imaging techniques, as well
`
`as with pre-stack analysis and other techniques that can improve the quality and
`
`use of a seismic data set. The POSA would also have an understanding of and/or
`
`experience with the design and implementation of land, marine, and ocean-bottom
`
`seismic surveys.
`
`31.
`
`I have reviewed the definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`offered by WesternGeco in its Petition, Petition at 18, and in the Declaration of its
`
`expert, Dr. Ikelle, Ex. 1002 (“Ikelle Decl.”) ¶¶ 42–44. The opinions I express in
`
`this Declaration would not change if I were to apply WesternGeco’s definition.
`
`32.
`
`I have undertaken to determine the knowledge the POSA would have
`
`had as of November 14, 1997, which I was asked to assume as the earliest priority
`
`date of the ’059 Patent. When I refer to the POSA in this Declaration, I am
`
`referring to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of that date.
`
`
`
`12
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`VI. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`33. The Starr Patent relates generally to methods of generating common
`
`offset “bins” of seismic data in order to facilitate pre-stack amplitude analyses. In
`
`this section, I provide background on several of the technical concepts that are
`
`pertinent to the Starr Patent.
`
`A. Overview of 3D Seismic Surveying
`1.
`Sources, Receivers, and Traces
`34. The Starr Patent is concerned with the data collected from 3D seismic
`
`surveys. These data, as I discuss in more detail below, are used to create images of
`
`the earth’s subsurface to detect, among other things, subsurface geology and the
`
`likelihood of the presence of oil and gas. 3D seismic surveys require seismic
`
`sources to transmit sound energy into the earth and receivers that record the sound
`
`echoes from the underlying geologic strata. Seismic sources project sound waves
`
`into the earth’s subsurface by various means, including by the use of explosive
`
`charges, vibrator trucks (Vibroseis), or (in the marine environment) air guns that
`
`blast compressed air. In land seismic surveys, receivers are typically geophones
`
`that measure the vibration of the surface caused by the sound echoes. In marine
`
`seismic surveys, the receivers are typically hydrophones that sense pressure
`
`changes caused by the sound echoes. In either case, the receivers record the
`
`strength (or amplitude) of the sound waves that originate from the sources and
`
`reflect or refract from the earth’s subsurface. Below, I provide a diagram of a
`13
`
`
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`sample land-based survey with a single source location (denoted by the yellow
`
`flag) along with numerous receivers (in this case, geophone stations, depicted as a
`
`grid of small orange devices). Any arrangement of sources and receivers is
`
`typically known in the art as a source-receiver array, or simply as an “array.” The
`
`arrangements of sources and receivers are also sometimes referred to as a survey
`
`design or acquisition geometry.
`
`
`
`35. The basic unit of seismic data is known in the art as a seismic “trace.”
`
`Whenever a source generates sound waves (known as a “shot”), the sound waves
`
`travel into the earth’s subsurface and some of this energy is eventually recorded by
`
`receivers back at the surface. In the figure below, for example, one source
`
`(denoted with a star) generates sound waves that are reflected and refracted by the
`
`boundaries between various layers of the subsurface; some of these sound waves
`
`
`
`14
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`eventually return to the earth’s surface and are recorded by several receivers
`
`(denoted by triangles). Each of the receivers depicted in the figure records the
`
`strength (or “amplitude”) of the reflected and refracted wave, as well as the elapsed
`
`time between when the source is fired and the echo received. The elapsed time is
`
`useful because sound travels through different geologic materials at different
`
`speeds, and the amplitude information is useful because the recorded strengths of
`
`the reflected waves vary depending on the composition of the subsurface layers.
`
`See generally Ex. 2027 (Mamdouh R. Gadallah, Reservoir Seismology: Geophysics
`
`in Nontechnical Language (1994) (“Gadallah”)) at 60.
`
`
`
`See Ex. 1008 (David L. Risch et al., How Modern Techniques Improve Seismic
`
`Interpretation, World Oil (April 1994)) at 2.
`
`36.
`
`In the art, it is understood that each “trace” corresponds to a unit of
`
`data associated with a particular source-receiver pair. That is, the seismic data
`
`associated with a single activation of a source, as recorded by one receiver,
`
`
`
`15
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`constitutes one “trace.”2 Because there are numerous source-receiver pairs
`
`associated with each “shot” of seismic data, a seismic survey will usually generate
`
`thousands, if not millions, of unique traces. The acquisition of seismic data is
`
`expensive, with the marginal daily cost of a seismic survey, including seismic
`
`equipment, trucks or vessels, fuel, labor, and other necessities, often running into
`
`the many tens of thousands of dollars per day.
`
`Survey Design and Common Midpoint Binning
`
`2.
`3D seismic surveys are typically designed by placing sources and
`
`37.
`
`receivers in a predetermined arrangement on a two dimensional (X-Y) grid. As
`
`noted above, this arrangement of sources and receivers is frequently known in the
`
`art as an “acquisition geometry” or “survey design.” For example, in the 3D land
`
`or ocean-bottom seismic (OBS) survey depicted below, lines of sources (denoted
`
`by red squares) are placed in north-south lines orthogonal to various east-west lines
`
`of receivers (denoted by blue plus signs). As the terms are typically used in the art,
`
`the “in-line” direction is the direction parallel to receiver lines, and the “crossline”
`
`direction is the direction perpendicular to receiver lines, as reflected in the figure
`
`
`2 For simplicity, I focus in this Declaration on single-source seismic acquisition, in
`
`which multiple sources are not activated simultaneously or near-simultaneously,
`
`and a single trace contains data from only one source.
`
`
`
`16
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`below. Ex. 2012 (Xinxiang Li, An Introduction To Common Offset Vector Trace
`
`Gathering, CSEG RECORDER (Nov. 2008)) at 29.
`
`
`
`
`See Ex. 2006 (Andreas Cordsen et al., Planning Land 3-D Seismic Surveys (2000))
`
`at 39.
`
`38. The figure above, besides showing the locations of sources and
`
`receivers, also depicts the specific source-receiver locations of several seismic
`
`traces. Each trace is determined by a source-receiver pair represented by a line
`
`drawn from a source (red square) to a receiver (blue plus sign). Thus, in this
`
`example, the eight lines connecting sources and receivers in the figure each depicts
`
`one trace. The length of each line depicts the distance separating the source-
`
`receiver pair. This is known as the source-receiver offset, or just offset. The angle
`
`
`
`17
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`of the line measured from true north (or some other fixed compass direction) is
`
`known as the source-receiver azimuth.
`
`39. After seismic data are acquired, for a variety of reasons and
`
`processing steps, traces are grouped according to common acquisition-related
`
`characteristics. These include traces that share a common-source location,
`
`common-receiver location, common-midpoint location, and common-source
`
`receiver offset. The figure below illustrates these common trace groupings. In the
`
`upper row of this figure, raypaths are drawn to illustrate the travel paths of
`
`reflected energy from sources (red dots) to receivers (gray dots). The bottom row
`
`depicts the seismic traces recorded.
`
`
`
`See Evan Bianco, G is for Gather, Agile Geoscience Blog (Sept. 14, 2011),
`
`http://www.agilegeoscience.com/blog/2011/9/14/g-is-for-gather.html. (Ex. 2047)
`
`Of particular importance to the Starr Patent is the common-midpoint (CMP)
`
`gather. As the name implies, this gather type contains traces that share a common
`
`
`
`18
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
`source-receiver midpoint location. If the underlying strata are horizontal (or nearly
`
`so), one can assume that the reflection points for the raypaths associated with each
`
`source-receiver pair are the same and are directly beneath the surface CMP
`
`location. If the strata are not horizontal, then the reflection points will not be the
`
`same for all traces within a CMP gather. With some knowledge of the subsurface,
`
`it may be possible to reorganize seismic traces so that they do indeed share a
`
`common-reflection point (CRP). This is relevant to the Starr Patent and will be
`
`discussed next.
`
`40.
`
`It is my understanding in the context of the Starr and Frasier patents
`
`that a common reflection point (CRP) gather consists of traces that do have
`
`reflected energy from the same point in the subsurface. For horizontal reflectors,
`
`the reflection point is directly below the surface common-midpoint. When the
`
`reflectors are not flat, then the traces must be grouped to have the reflection point
`
`be the same. This is shown in the figure below.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`PGS Exhibit 2037
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`
`
` The figure on the left depicts reflecting raypaths off of a flat reflector for traces
`
`within a CMP gather. See Ex. 2047 (Bianco). On the right, the traces are chosen so
`
`that the reflection point is common for all traces within the gather. Although the
`
`figure is labeled a “common depth point,” this figure is what a POSA would call a
`
`common-reflection point (CRP) gather of traces. In the CRP gather, note that
`
`1) the traces do not share a common midpoint location, 2) a good understanding of
`
`the subsurface structure is required in order to find the traces that share a common
`
`reflection point, a process which may be straightforward for the simple dipping
`
`reflector shown but is extremely difficult for more typical subsurface structure,
`
`3) the surface geometry of traces that share a common-reflection will change for
`
`different surface CMP locations, and 4) the traces within the CRP gather shown
`
`will not share a common reflection point for other reflecting interfaces above and
`
`below the one shown.
`
`41.
`
`It is common in the industry to refer to a collection of traces as a
`
`gather. For CMP gathers from a 3D survey, however, the traces do not have
`
`exactly the same x,y midpoint location. So, traces are gathered together that fall
`
`within a CMP bin. The cent