L. Ikelle
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 320
`
` _____________________________
` WESTERNGECO L.L.C.,
` Petitioner
` v.
` PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS,
` Patent Owner
` _____________________________
` Case IPR2015-00313
` Patent 6,026,059
` _____________________________
`
` DEPOSITION OF LUC T. IKELLE
` Alexandria, Virginia
` September 4, 2015
`
`Reported by: Mary Ann Payonk
`Job No. 96928
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PGS Exhibit 2038
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`Page 321
`
`Page 322
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` L. Ikelle
` APPEARANCES:
` ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
` DAVID KRINSKY, ESQUIRE
` CHRISTOPHER SUAREZ, ESQUIRE
` WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY
` 725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20005
`
` ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
` MICHAEL KIKLIS, ESQUIRE
` CHRISTOPHER RICCIUTI, ESQUIRE
` KATHERINE CAPPAERT, ESQUIRE
` OBLON, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT
` 1940 Duke Street
` Alexandria, VA 22314
` - and -
` SAUNAK DESAI, ESQUIRE
` KIRKLAND & ELLIS
` 601 Lexington Avenue
` New York, NY 10022
`
` ALSO PRESENT:
` Kevin Hart, Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc.
` (By phone)
`
`Page 324
`
` L. Ikelle
`exhibits that I think we'll spend a good chunk
`of today discussing, which are Exhibit 1001,
`which is the Starr patent; Exhibit 1002, which
`is your declaration; and Exhibit 1005, which is
`the Gallagher reference.
` (Exhibit No. 1001, previously marked, was
` referenced and indexed.)
` (Exhibit No. 1002, previously marked, was
` referenced and indexed.)
` (Exhibit No. 1005, previously marked, was
` referenced and indexed.)
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
` Q. I'd like to first turn your attention
`to your own declaration. I want to discuss
`some terminology issues, so if you could please
`turn to paragraph 47 to begin.
` What in your opinion, Doctor, is a
`set of bins as that term is used in the Starr
`patent?
` A. Sorry, can you repeat the question
`again?
` Q. Yes.
` A. Is the question basically -- here's
`what I want you to clarify. Are you saying
`
` L. Ikelle
`
` September 4, 2015
` 8:37 a.m.
`
` Deposition of LUC T. IKELLE, held at the
`offices of Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt,
`L.L.P., 1940 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia,
`pursuant to Notice before Mary Ann Payonk,
`Nationally Certified Realtime Reporter and
`Notary Public of the District of Columbia,
`Commonwealth of Virginia, States of Maryland
`and New York.
`
`1
`
`2345
`
`6
`
`78
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 323
`
` L. Ikelle
` MR. KRINSKY: Dr. Ikelle, welcome
` back. I know we did introductions
` yesterday, but since this is a new
` deposition, I'll do them again.
` I'm, for the record, David Krinsky
` of Williams & Connolly LLP on behalf of
` the patent owner. With me today is
` Christopher Suarez.
` MR. KIKLIS: Mike Kiklis from Oblon
` for petitioner.
` MR. RICCIUTI: Chris Ricciuti from
` Oblon for petitioner.
` MS. CAPPAERT: Kate Cappaert from
` Oblon for petitioner.
` MR. DESAI: Saunak Desai, Kirkland
` & Ellis, for petitioner.
`LUC T. IKELLE,
` recalled as a witness, having been duly
` sworn, was examined and testified
` further as follows:
` EXAMINATION (Cont'd.)
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
` Q. Doctor, just to make things easy, I'm
`going to start by handing you the three
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`2
`
`PGS Exhibit 2038
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`Page 325
`
` L. Ikelle
`that Starr defined the words "set of bins"?
` Q. I want to know in your opinion what
`the term "set of bins" means in the claims of
`the Starr patent.
` A. Let me go back to the claim, please.
`So if you look at Claim 1 of Starr, the last --
`I'll not call that a sentence, I'll call that a
`piece, were "organizing the coordinate-design
`set of traces into a set of bin having a
`regularized number of traces."
` Q. I don't think that answered my
`question. That is -- you're right. That is
`where that term appears in Claim 1 of the Starr
`patent.
` A. Yes.
` Q. My question to you, Doctor, is, in
`your opinion, what does the term "set of bins"
`mean in that context?
` A. As defined here, the way I understand
`it, the set of bins are bins that have the same
`number of traces or regular -- if I use the
`word regularized number of traces.
` Q. The set of bins here are required to
`have a regularized number of traces.
`
`Page 327
`
` L. Ikelle
`traces of the bin. So to summarize, a bin
`require defining that window around the point,
`or rectangular or ring or whatever form, and
`allocate -- finding all the traces based on the
`specific coordinate that belong to that point,
`or that belong to that window.
` Q. Now, in paragraph 47, at the end of
`paragraph 47, you state that, "In my opinion
`and in view of the specification of the '059
`patent" -- you provide some citations -- "it
`appears that the set of bins recited in Claim 1
`refers to a set of sub-bins within a common
`reference point bin."
` Now, is that the definition of "set
`of bins" that you applied in coming to your
`anticipation and obviousness opinions in this
`case?
` A. The one I just defined?
` Q. The one I just read. Is that the
`definition you used in coming to your opinions
`in this case?
` A. What you just read to me, if I
`understand it properly, that's the definition
`that you have in your patent '059. I give you
`
`Page 326
`
` L. Ikelle
` A. Yes.
` Q. That's not part of the definition of
`"set of bins," though, is it? Because if it
`were, the claim wouldn't have needed to say
`that it's a set of bins having a regularized
`number of traces.
` A. Basically, there are two words into
`this, "set" and "bins." Okay. Which one --
`what do you want me to do? Do you want me to
`define the word "set," which is a group? A
`bin? Which is connected to particular
`coordinate.
` Q. Why don't you tell me what in your
`view a bin is in the context of seismic data
`processing.
` A. A bins come from the concept that --
`number one, back up. In 2D acquisitions, we
`have points. When we move to 3D, we realize
`because some irregularity in acquisitions we
`don't have these point anymore. We make a ring
`or a square -- or a rectangular around a point.
`That's how we define a bin. And then all the
`specific coordinate that fall into that
`rectangular, or that ring, are going to be the
`
`Page 328
`
` L. Ikelle
`a definition, my definition that -- the
`definition used for sub-bins is basically a
`subgroup based on a specific coordinate within
`the CMPs, or if I want to make large, within
`your common reference point as you mention in
`your claim.
` Q. So a bin in your opinion is a
`collection of traces?
` A. That's incomplete. A bin is a
`collection of traces belonging to particular
`coordinate.
` Q. And a sub-bin is a subset of those
`traces.
` A. A subset of the group -- of a bin,
`that's correct, if you want to put that.
` Q. Okay. And that sub-bin, in your
`opinion, is what "set of bins" is referring to
`in Claim 1 of the Starr patent.
` A. Sorry. We're mixing up now. So now
`we're going back to Starr patent.
` Q. Well, I -- you can look at the Starr
`patent if it's helpful to you, but I'm
`specifically discussing your opinion in
`paragraph 47.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`3
`
`PGS Exhibit 2038
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`Page 329
`
` L. Ikelle
` A. Okay.
` Q. In paragraph 47, you say that in your
`opinion, it appears that the set of bins
`recited in Claim 1 refers to a set of sub-bins
`within a common reference point bin.
` A. Yes, that -- well, I don't -- as I
`told you, sir, I don't like you rephrasing my
`answer because I don't know all the holes that
`you put into it. I cannot capture all the
`holes you put into it. I don't have the same
`expertise. But basically, it's a set -- you
`have a bin at beginning which is the CMP bin or
`reference bin or common reflection point.
`That's your major bins. And then you use
`any -- you see any set of coordinate can be
`used to specify another set of bins. That we
`define as sub-bins. And I think this
`declaration, without going to everything, is
`probably exactly what is inside.
` Basically, you can see last sentence,
`a set of sub-bin refer to a set of sub-bin
`within the common reference bin, if I want to
`use the point -- common reference point bin, if
`I want to use the term.
`
`Page 331
`
` L. Ikelle
` A. Exact. I'm happy with that.
` Q. Okay. Did you analyze the question
`of anticipation under any other definition of
`"set of bins" besides the one you set forth
`here?
` A. No, I don't think so.
` Q. I want to turn you one paragraph back
`to paragraph --
` A. Although, for clarification, my
`definition here include any coordinate system.
`That can be -- that if you define your
`reference point to be common receiver point, it
`can be imaging point, it can be source, it can
`be receivers, it can be anything.
` So you first define your reference
`point, common, and then based on that, the set
`of coordinate that are available in that domain
`allow you to define any sub-bin.
` Q. Thank you for that clarification,
`Doctor.
` A. It's not a clarification, it's just
`making sure that you see the definition.
`That's what I put in the -- in there.
` Q. Okay. Thank you, Doctor. I'd like
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 330
`
` L. Ikelle
` Q. Okay. That was all very helpful, and
`I appreciate the clarifications. I was simply
`reading from this same sentence, and I think
`you said this in the last line although I'm not
`sure you said it quite the way you said it in
`the declaration.
` The set of bins -- let me back up.
`When you came to your opinions in this case and
`analyzed Claim 1 of the Starr patent and
`whether Gallagher anticipated Claim 1 of the
`Starr patent.
` A. Yes.
` Q. You applied a particular definition
`of "set of bins." You had to understand what
`"set of bins" meant in the claim in order to
`come to your anticipation opinion.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Correct?
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. And the definition of "set of bins"
`that you used is the definition in the last
`sentence of paragraph 47. I don't mean to
`limit you. It's the definition that you set
`forth in paragraph 47 as a whole.
`
`Page 332
`
` L. Ikelle
`to turn your attention one paragraph back to
`paragraph 46.
` A. Yes.
` Q. I have a similar set of questions.
` A. Yes.
` Q. In paragraph 46, you set forth a
`definition of the term "coordinate set" as used
`in Claim 1.
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you define "coordinate set" as
`used in Claim 1 as a group of coordinates of a
`spatial domain that can be used to discern a
`trace's offset and azimuth; correct?
` A. Correct, but you have to look the
`other way. This definition is based on CMPs.
`In other words, you define first the reference
`point. As you can see there, if you define
`your reference point to be CMP, you have offset
`and azimuth.
` Q. And I just want to draw your
`attention -- do you have Claim 1 open in front
`of you still as well?
` A. Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`4
`
`PGS Exhibit 2038
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`Page 333
`
` L. Ikelle
` Q. Not Claim 1 of Gallagher, Claim 1 of
`Starr.
` A. Okay. Go ahead, sir.
` Q. And in Claim 1 of Starr, there's a
`reference to assigning a coordinate set to a
`plurality of traces in the common reference
`point bin.
` A. Yes.
` Q. So at least in the context of
`Claim 1, the -- what you I think called the
`major bin, the overarching bin is a common
`reference point bin.
` A. Yes, in your definition.
` Q. Okay. And so with that in mind, the
`term "coordinate set" as used in Claim 1 is a
`group of coordinates of a spatial domain that
`can be used to discern a trace's offset and
`azimuth. I just was reading your declaration
`again.
` A. Yes, that's why I said to you that
`that definition is correct if you put your
`reference point to be CMPs. In other words,
`you have -- in this process, there is nothing
`in geophysics called common reference point, so
`
`Page 335
`
` L. Ikelle
`have a different set of coordinate if you say
`CMPs. So I look at both angle and I focus
`on -- and the work of Gallagher is more
`explicit on CMPs.
` Q. So once you came to an understanding
`of what "common reference point" was referring
`to in Claim 1 of the Starr patent, you arrived
`at this definition of "coordinate set" in
`Claim 1?
` A. For CMPs as reference point, a common
`reference point.
` Q. For some other definition of common
`reference point -- strike that.
` You don't say anything in this
`paragraph 46 about this only sometimes being
`the definition of "coordinate set." This is
`what you say is the -- the interpretation --
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`term "coordinate set" as used in Claim 1. Is
`there some other thing that wouldn't be
`encompassed in this definition that would apply
`if one used a different common reference point
`than a common mid-point in Claim 1?
` MR. KIKLIS: Objection, form,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 334
`
` L. Ikelle
`you start by defining "common reference point."
`If I define a common reference point to be
`common reflection point, the set of coordinate
`change.
` Q. I see. And is this definition in
`paragraph 46 the definition that you used in
`forming your opinions in this case regarding
`anticipation and obviousness of Starr Claim 1?
`I guess there wasn't an opinion of obviousness
`of Starr claim 1. So I apologize. Is this the
`definition that you used in forming your
`opinions in this case regarding the
`anticipation of Starr Claim 1?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you consider any other
`possible definitions for the term "coordinate
`set"?
` A. I consider -- there is a -- there is
`a process going on here that you have to bear
`in mind, and I keep repeating it, is that you
`first define "common reference point" because
`that's not defined. As soon you define that,
`the coordinate set is defined based on that.
`And so if you say common reflection point, you
`
`Page 336
`
` L. Ikelle
` scope.
` A. Oh, yes.
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
` Q. And what would that other definition
`be?
` A. A definition of what?
` Q. Common -- "coordinate set."
` A. You cannot go to coordinate set
`without common reference point. You have to
`start with common reference point, and then
`coordinate set follows.
` Q. But as we just discussed a few
`minutes ago, Claim 1 of the Starr patent uses
`the phrase "common reference point."
` A. Yes.
` Q. And it says "common reference point
`bin."
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. And in order to opine about
`anticipation of Claim 1, you needed to have an
`understanding both of the definition of "common
`reference point bin" and an understanding of
`the definition of "coordinate set" as used in
`Claim 1; right?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`5
`
`PGS Exhibit 2038
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`Page 337
`
` L. Ikelle
` A. Exactly.
` Q. And my question to you, Doctor, is is
`there something besides what you wrote here in
`paragraph 46 that is an aspect of your
`definition of "coordinate set" as used in
`Claim 1?
` A. I'm consistent with my declaration.
`Basically what I'm saying is that if you don't
`define the common reference point, you cannot
`define the common set link. That is why the
`word "common reference point" not defined,
`common -- "set of coordinate" not defined. So
`end up with two critical word that you not
`going to find in any geophysical type of
`document because you have to start by defining
`your common reference point, and then among
`that you have a set of coordinate.
` Q. Do you have an understanding of what
`"common reference point" means in Claim 1 of
`the Starr patent?
` A. Yes. We at least try to understand
`it -- as I told you, it's not a geophysics
`term. But what I did here is what you call
`BRI. And basically, my conclusion was that
`
`Page 339
`
` L. Ikelle
`figure out CRP is not a viable option because
`the processing required to get to the CRP.
` Q. Can you explain what you mean by CRP
`is not a viable option because of the
`processing required to get to the CRP? I don't
`understand.
` A. Basically in this material have -- we
`read it -- is about arranging the data. And
`CRP require imaging because you're not talking
`about the point in the subsurface. They're
`only talking about this end point. They're
`talking about imaging. So therefore you have
`to do some imaging, and then when you did the
`imaging, we don't need any more to solve the
`data, so forth.
` Q. I see. So in your opinion these
`techniques that are disclosed in Starr wouldn't
`have any purpose if you were actually using
`CRPs because you would already have imaged --
` A. You already put the data in the
`imaging domain, and there are a lot of thing
`that goes on beyond this text to get the
`imaging domain, how we describe in declaration,
`I mean, you can probably see there somewhere
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 338
`
` L. Ikelle
`reading the whole material in Starr, that at
`least it consider two common reference point.
`One was CR reflection point, which is, my
`opinion, is obviously not relevant or is an
`obvious, and CMPs. And those are the two
`definition I use in this document.
` Q. When you said -- when you say CMPs,
`did you say CMP or --
` A. CMP and CRP, common reflection point.
` Q. And CMP in this context is common
`mid-point?
` A. Mid-point, yes.
` Q. I thought you had said and the court
`reporter had transcribed CNP, and I was
`concerned that I didn't know what you were
`referring to. So thank you.
` So this definition in paragraph 46 is
`an appropriate definition of "coordinate set"
`if the common reference point bin is a common
`mid-point bin?
` A. Yes. And some other thing, for
`example, 443, somewhere there is a -- we made
`that point clear, that CMP is one of the
`option. CRP is another options. And you
`
`Page 340
`
` L. Ikelle
`you have to do DMO, you have to do NMO, you
`have to do migration to get -- in other words,
`you have first to get to the C. Just like CMP,
`if you have it, there's no discussions, you
`have to get to there first.
` Q. But your understanding of Claim 1,
`whether or not it is a logical or sensible
`thing to do, your understanding of Claim 1 is
`that "common reference point" encompasses, the
`term, both CMP and CRP?
` A. That's my --
` MR. KIKLIS: Objection, form.
` Dr. Ikelle, you've got to wait for me to
` object.
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
` Q. Was your answer that that's correct,
`Doctor?
` MR. KIKLIS: Objection, form.
` A. That is my BRI that I give based on
`the document, and if I'm right you're going to
`see these two words in the Starr claim, "CMP"
`and "CRP."
`BY MR. KIKLIS:
` Q. I think you have a good memory,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`6
`
`PGS Exhibit 2038
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`Page 341
`
` L. Ikelle
`Doctor. Thank you.
` In paragraph 46, the definition of
`"coordinate set" that you set forth here, would
`that be -- was that the definition of
`"coordinate set" that you applied when
`considering the possibility that a common
`reference point was a common reflection point?
` A. No.
` MR. KIKLIS: Objection, form.
`BY MR. KIKLIS:
` Q. So in the -- let's take a look at
`Starr Claim 11. Starr Claim 11 says -- I'm
`just going to read it: "The process as in
`Claim 1 wherein the common reference point
`comprises a common reflection point."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes. Just a minute, let me look at
`that. Yes.
` Q. So Claim 1 -- if I use the term
`"independent claim" and "dependent claim," do
`you know what those terms mean?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Claim 11 is a dependent claim
`on Claim 1?
`
`Page 343
`
` L. Ikelle
` Q. Just for the record, Doctor, what
`document are you consulting?
` A. I'm consulting the petition, just a
`chart of claims.
` Q. I don't believe the petition itself
`has been marked as an exhibit here. Can I --
` A. Sure.
` Q. Do you mind just marking your copy
`with Exhibit 2017?
` MR. KRINSKY: Mike, could you show
` him where to put it?
` MR. KIKLIS: He can put it anywhere
` he wants. Could I get a copy?
` MR. KRINSKY: Sure.
` (Exhibit No. 2017 was marked for
` identification.)
` MR. KRINSKY: And just for the
` record, this is a document the witness
` brought to the deposition, not one that
` I had intended to mark at this point.
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
` Q. But look at what you need to. That's
`fine.
` A. Good. Okay. Can I answer your
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 342
`
` L. Ikelle
` A. Yes.
` MR. KIKLIS: Could you say that
` question again?
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
` Q. Claim 11 is a dependent claim on
`Claim 1?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And so Claim 11 you understand
`incorporates the elements of Claim 1 and adds
`the further element that the common reference
`point comprises a common reflection point?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So in forming your opinions about
`Claim 11, what definition of "coordinate set"
`did you consider?
` A. Claim 11 is basically -- number one,
`I think that is obvious.
` Q. I understand you think it's obvious.
`And I don't mean to interrupt you, Doctor. I
`apologize. So in forming your obviousness
`opinions regarding Claim 11, what definition of
`"coordinate set" did you apply?
` A. Let me just go to the -- the claim,
`please.
`
`Page 344
`
` L. Ikelle
`question now, sir?
` Q. Please do.
` A. So, a coordinate set here for CRP,
`basically you can have offset and angle, you
`can have image points. These are set of
`coordinate. However, there is an assumption
`here that we clarified in 5 -- 57. That's why
`it's obvious. If you are really talking in
`this context of horizontally flat medium, CMP
`and CRP will coincide.
` Q. So to answer the question I
`originally asked, is the -- strike that. I
`don't know if it was exactly what -- the
`question I asked.
` Did you apply the definition of
`"coordinate set" that you articulated in
`paragraph 46 of your opinion when you analyzed
`the obviousness of Claim 11?
` A. Not exactly, because as I mentioned
`to you, this is related to the CRP. But I look
`at CRP in this context as obviousness,
`therefore, the analysis was different. And as
`you can see through the text, we analyze CRP
`totally different way than CMP.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`7
`
`PGS Exhibit 2038
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`Page 345
`
` L. Ikelle
` Q. So your understanding is that in the
`obviousness analysis of Claim 11, it's
`appropriate to apply a different definition of
`"coordinate set" than when doing the
`anticipation analysis of Claim 1?
` MR. KIKLIS: Objection, form,
` misstates.
` A. You can -- basically if you assume
`that your medium is horizontally flat, CRP and
`CMP become the same thing. So therefore, it's
`obvious that you can replace CRP by CMP -- not
`only obvious, it is replacement CRP and --
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
` Q. Okay. And --
` A. -- by CMP.
` Q. -- would that assumption be
`appropriate in, for example, the Gulf of
`Mexico?
` A. That is where -- sorry.
` MR. KIKLIS: Objection, form,
` scope.
` A. I don't know which part of Gulf of
`Mexico you have in mind.
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
`
`Page 347
`
` L. Ikelle
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
` Q. Okay.
` A. Yes, if you did not -- if you did not
`stack the data or -- if you did not stack the
`data or finish the imaging process.
` Q. So did you apply that definition from
`Claim -- excuse me. Did you apply that
`definition from paragraph 46 in your
`obviousness opinions for Claim 11, or did you
`not do so?
` A. Which definition?
` Q. The definition you articulated in
`paragraph 46 of "coordinate set."
` A. Of what?
` Q. You articulated in paragraph 46 of
`your declaration a definition of "coordinate
`set."
` A. Yes, as I said early, this definition
`is based on CMPs.
` Q. Yes. And what I therefore don't
`think I've gotten a clear answer to is whether
`you used that definition in considering the
`obviousness of Claim 11, or whether you used
`some other definition.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 346
`
` L. Ikelle
` Q. Okay. Is every part of the Gulf of
`Mexico horizontally flat?
` A. No.
` Q. Would the assumption that CRP and CMP
`are the same thing be appropriate in a
`situation where the medium is not horizontally
`flat?
` MR. KIKLIS: Objection, form.
` A. No. That is why we elaborate onto
`that. It's that after the migration, the whole
`thing become obvious, that basically what you
`are doing in this process is that you have to
`try to remove the dip so that it become -- you
`make it look like it is flat so that you can
`again use the same coordinate system you want
`to.
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
` Q. So once you have done the
`transformation to remove the dip, to make it
`look like it is flat, is the definition of
`"coordinate set" you articulated in Claim 46 a
`reasonable one to use in Claim 1?
` A. Yes, it --
` MR. KIKLIS: Object to form.
`
`Page 348
`
` L. Ikelle
` A. I just answered the question early.
`I said if you are horizontal flat, CMP and CRP
`become obvious. That's what you have in 40 --
`57. And through the document, or through my
`declaration, I explained that if you do DMO or
`partial migration, you turn your problem -- you
`remove -- you try to remove, you try to remove
`the dip, and then the whole thing become
`obvious.
` Q. And I'm not asking you about whether
`anything is obvious. I know your opinion is
`that Claim 11 is obvious. That is not my
`current question. My current question is in
`coming to the opinion that Claim 11 is obvious,
`did you use the definition in paragraph 46, or
`did you instead use a different definition that
`is not in paragraph 46?
` MR. KIKLIS: Objection, form.
` A. So you're mischaracterizing my
`definition -- my interpretation. I said that
`when you define your CMPs, automatically
`"coordinate set" is defined. So if I make the
`CMP and CRP to be the same, therefore have the
`same definition of "common reference point,"
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`8
`
`PGS Exhibit 2038
`WesternGeco v. PGS (IPR2015-00313)
`
`

`
`Page 349
`
` L. Ikelle
`therefore, the common reference point being
`connected to the set of coordinate that I
`assume. If you remove the connection to the
`set -- the set of coordinate and reference,
`there is something missing there. You have
`always to connect them. So if I manage to get
`from CRP to CMP, the rest follow.
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
` Q. Okay. But I want you to consider a
`case where the CRP and CMP are not the same.
`There are such cases in a real-world survey;
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In a case like that, suppose one is
`in a situation like that and one is practicing
`the method of Claim 1 of Starr using a CRP. In
`that circumstance, would the definition you
`articulated in paragraph 46 of your declaration
`of "coordinate set" be reasonable?
` MR. KIKLIS: Objection, form,
` scope.
` A. So you're posing a hypothetical that
`is completely out of range. We are talking
`about a point in the subsurface. Obviously,
`
`Page 351
`
` L. Ikelle
`doing there is generating new data, and from
`that data, yes, become obvious that if I can
`make that artificial data, which have nothing
`to do with the data collected, yes, it become
`obvious that to do the analysis, I can just
`replace CMP by CRP.
` Q. If one were to generate that new
`data --
` A. How?
` Q. Well, you just said that when you do
`more DMO what you're doing there is generating
`new data.
` A. Yes.
` Q. And if you do that process and you
`create common reference points from data that
`had originally been collected -- okay?
` A. I don't know what that means.
` Q. Okay.
` A. Sorry.
` Q. If I'm understanding you right,
`you're saying that it is obvious to do the
`necessary transformations to create data that
`is in a common reflection point domain. No?
` A. Is necessary -- I mean, common
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 350
`
` L. Ikelle
`that point by definition is different than CMP.
`That's why we made all these corrections, so
`that we can close the CMPs. Now, if you tell
`me that you going to not do the processing so
`that you can remove the effect of dip, you
`can't even talk about -- you don't have access
`to that information. How can you even do your
`data sorting? Sorting of the data.
` In other words, you're asking a
`question that is beyond practice, beyond --
`nobody consider what you are -- maybe the claim
`consider that, but, you know, is -- is --
`that's why we try to make it obvious that this
`is what you have to do to get there. And when
`you get there, you have -- you have the
`obviousness.
`BY MR. KRINSKY:
` Q. So I think maybe now I understand the
`confusion. Your obviousness definition --
`excuse me, your obviousness opinion as to
`Claim 11 is based on the assumption that in
`Claim 11, common reflection point must mean
`common mid-point. Is that what you're saying?
` A. When you do NMO, DMO, what you're
`
`Page 352
`
` L. Ikelle
`reflection point have nothing to do with data.
` Q. Okay.
` A. It is above the subsurface.
` Q. Yes.
` A. The data are collected at surface.
` Q. Okay. So if you -- you referred a
`few answers ago to generating new data. Under
`what circumstances would you generate new data
`relating to a common reflection point?
` A. Our -- our BRY [sic] interpretation.
`And we will put that assuming the paragraph
`ahead will explain the answer, that in order to
`achieve what you assume in Claim 11 of your --
`you have to do -- set