IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`WESTERNGECO L.L.C.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`PGS AMERICAS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2015-00313
`Patent U.S. 6,026,059
`______________________
`DECLARATION OF LUC T. IKELLE IN SUPPORT OF
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,026,059
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 1
`
`

`
`
`
`CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 3
`I.
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ........................................... 4
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW ............................................... 8
`IV. BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Background of the Field Relevant to the ’059 Patent ................................ 10
`
`Summary of the ’059 Patent ........................................................................... 14
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History ........................................................... 19
`C.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE PERTINENT ART ........... 20
`V.
`VI. BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION ............................. 21
`VII. DETAILED UNPATENTABILITY ANALYSIS .................................. 23
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Claims 1–10, and 12 are Rendered Obvious by Cordsen In View
`of Ashton .......................................................................................................... 24
`
`Claim 11 is Rendered Obvious by Cordsen and Ashton, and
`Further in View of Frasier .............................................................................. 40
`
`Claims 1–10, and 12 are Anticipated by Gallagher ..................................... 43
`
`Claim 11 is Rendered Obvious by Gallagher in View of Frasier ............. 58
`
`E.
`
`Claim 11 is Rendered Obvious by Cordsen and Ashton, and
`Further in View of Frasier ........................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
`VIII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ....... 60
`IX. CONCLUSION....................................................................................... 60
`
`
`
`
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 2
`
`

`
`
`
`I, Luc T. Ikelle, do hereby declare as follows:
`I. INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of WesternGeco L.L.C
`
`(“WesternGeco”) for the above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,026,059 (“the ’059 Patent”). I am being
`
`compensated for my time in connection with this IPR at my standard
`
`consulting rate of $400 per hour. My compensation is not affected by the
`
`outcome of this matter.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether Claims 1–12 of
`
`the ’059 Patent are unpatentable as anticipated or would have been obvious to
`
`a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The ’059 Patent issued on February 15, 2000 from U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`08/970,674 (“the ’674 Application”), filed on November 14, 1997. (Ex. 1014)
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the ’059 Patent, the file history
`
`of the ’059 Patent, numerous prior art references, and technical references from
`
`the time of the alleged invention.
`
`5.
`
`I understand that claims in an IPR are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in view of the patent specification and the understandings of one
`
`having ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`6.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this declaration, I relied upon my
`
`education and experience in the relevant field of art, and have considered the
`
`
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 3
`
`

`
`
`
`viewpoint of a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art, as of the earliest
`
`alleged priority date, November 14, 1997. I have also read and considered the
`
`’059 patent and its prosecution history, the exhibits listed in the Exhibit List
`
`filed with the ’059 petition, as well as any other material referenced herein.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`7.
`I am an expert in the field of seismic data acquisition and seismic data
`
`processing, and have been an expert in the fields since prior to 1986. In
`
`formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my training, knowledge, and
`
`experience in the relevant art. A copy of my curriculum vitae is provided as
`
`Appendix A to this Declaration (Ex. 1002) and provides a comprehensive
`
`description of my relevant experience, including academic and employment
`
`history, publications, participation in professional societies, and issued and
`
`pending U.S. patents.
`
`8.
`
`I received a M.Sc. (1982) in Mathematics and Theoretical Physics from Paris
`
`Diderot University, followed by a Ph.D. in Geophysics (1986), from the same
`
`university. Paris Diderot University is known as one of the preeminent schools
`
`for science and mathematics in France. Paris Diderot University is home to
`
`one of the campuses of the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris (IPGP),
`
`where I took many graduate classes. IPGP is known as one of the top schools
`
`for geophysics in the world, most famous for contributions to inverse problem
`
`theory and the development of plate tectonics theory.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 4
`
`

`
`
`
`9.
`
`In 1986, my Ph.D. thesis “A multidimensional linearized inversion of seismic
`
`data” received the Le Prix de These du CNRS which is a yearly award given for
`
`the best Ph.D. thesis in France on the subject of earth and space sciences.
`
`10. After receiving my Ph.D., I did post-doctoral research at Cray Research, Inc.
`
`Cray Research played an important role in making supercomputers a reality.
`
`Because supercomputers are virtually necessary to enable 3D seismic surveying,
`
`the oil and gas industry was an early adopter of the technology. I focused my
`
`work on developing 3D seismic inversion algorithms for use with the Cray Y-
`
`MP supercomputer. Seismic inversion involves the characterization of
`
`geological formations using reflection data.
`
`11.
`
`In 1988, I began working as a research scientist at Schlumberger Geco-Prakla,
`
`Schlumberger Doll Research, and Schlumberger Cambridge Research.
`
`Schlumberger Ltd.
`
`is
`
`the world’s
`
`largest oilfield services company.
`
`Schlumberger owns a number of research centers which study and develop
`
`technologies related to seismic acquisition and data processing, as well as many
`
`other topics. I worked as a research scientist until 1997.
`
`12. My academic career began in 1997 when I served as an Associate Professor in
`
`the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Texas A&M University. I
`
`worked as an Associate Professor until 2001, when I became the Robert R.
`
`Berg Professor in the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Texas A&M
`
`University. I continue to hold the Robert R. Berg Professorship at Texas
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 5
`
`

`
`
`
`A&M, though I have been on sabbatical since early 2013. I teach several
`
`classes on subjects such as petroleum seismology, signal processing, and
`
`numerical modeling. As a professor, I have supervised over forty Master’s and
`
`Ph.D. students in geophysics and petroleum engineering. I also supervised
`
`three post-doctorates, one that is now a professor at Beijing University and two
`
`others working in the geophysical exploration industry.
`
`13. While a professor at Texas A&M, I also served as the director of the
`
`Consortium on Automated Seismic Processing (CASP) at the university. The
`
`consortium spearheaded research to develop an automated seismic data
`
`processing system that could extend the seismic resolution window. The
`
`consortium has produced important research results related to the optimization
`
`of multiple attenuation methods and use of higher order statistics for seismic
`
`imaging.
`
`14. During my current sabbatical, I have founded and developed a geophysical
`
`consulting company called Imode Research. The company aims to assist
`
`geophysical exploration companies with data analysis and provide intensive
`
`courses and consultancy on topics related to petroleum seismology. These
`
`courses help keep scientists and engineers in the field of petroleum seismology
`
`current on new developments and techniques in the field. The company has
`
`worked to develop advanced software to facilitate seismic data processing.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 6
`
`

`
`
`
`15. Throughout my career, I have been involved in numerous advisory groups for
`
`oil and gas exploration organizations. Furthermore, in 2006, I was selected to
`
`be on the Ultra-Deepwater Advisory Committee which advises the Secretary of
`
`Energy on topics related to ultra-deepwater natural gas and petroleum
`
`exploration and production. I served on that committee until 2013.
`
`16.
`
`I am a member of several professional societies related to geophysics and
`
`marine seismology, including the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG),
`
`the American Geophysical Union (AGU), the American Physical Society (APS),
`
`and the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE). In
`
`addition, I serve as a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Seismic
`
`Exploration.
`
`17. Over my career, I have edited or authored several books and published over
`
`one hundred technical articles and papers in international journals on topics
`
`related to geophysics and seismology. Many of those publications focus
`
`directly on marine seismology. I have also presented many papers at technical
`
`conferences including at SEG Annual Meetings.
`
`18.
`
`Introduction to Petroleum Seismology, a book I co-authored, was published in
`
`2005. Introduction to Petroleum Seismology went on to become a best-selling
`
`SEG publication and is widely used in geophysics classes in advanced
`
`undergraduate classes and graduate classes. Another book I authored, Coding
`
`and Decoding: Multiple Access Technology in Seismology and the Concept of
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 7
`
`

`
`
`
`Multishooting, was published in 2009. I also have a new book coming out in
`
`early 2015.
`
`19.
`
` I am also a named inventor on six U.S. patents related to seismic data
`
`acquisition, processing, and imaging. The first, entitled “Source signature
`
`determination and multiple reflection reduction” was filed in 1995. And my
`
`most recent patent, entitled “Scattering diagrams in seismic imaging” was
`
`granted in 2008.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`20.
`I understand that prior art to the ’059 Patent includes at least patents and
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate November 14, 1997, the
`
`filing date of the ’059 Patent.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable if it is anticipated. Anticipation of a
`
`claim requires that every element of a claim be disclosed expressly or inherently
`
`in a single prior art reference, arranged in the prior reference as arranged in the
`
`claim.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable if it is obvious. Obviousness of a
`
`claim requires that the claim would have been obvious from the perspective of
`
`a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time the alleged
`
`invention was made. I understand that a claim may be obvious from a
`
`combination of two or more examples from a single prior art reference or two
`
`or more prior art references.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 8
`
`

`
`
`
`23.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the claims of the
`
`patent in question and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating
`
`the pertinent art.
`
`24.
`
`I further understand that certain factors may support or rebut the obviousness
`
`of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include, among
`
`other things, commercial success of the patented invention, skepticism of those
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, unexpected results
`
`of the invention, any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by
`
`the invention, the failure of others to make the invention, praise of the
`
`invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the invention
`
`by others in the field. I understand that there must be a nexus—a
`
`connection—between any such secondary considerations and the claimed
`
`invention. I also understand that contemporaneous and independent invention
`
`by others is a secondary consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`25.
`
`I further understand that a claim is obvious if it unites old elements with no
`
`change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by mere substitution of
`
`one element for another known in the field and that combination yields
`
`predictable results. While it may be helpful to identify a reason for this
`
`combination, common sense should guide and no rigid requirement of finding
`
`a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine is required. When a product
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 9
`
`

`
`
`
`is available, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of
`
`it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the relevant art can implement a predictable variation, obviousness likely bars
`
`its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve
`
`one device and a person having ordinary skill in the art recognizes that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious. I
`
`understand that a claim may be obvious if common sense directs one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to combine multiple prior art references or add missing
`
`features to reproduce the alleged inventions recited in the claims.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND
`A. Background of the Field Relevant to the ’059 Patent
`26. The ’059 Patent “relates to the field of seismic signal processing, and
`
`specifically to the area of three dimensional seismic signal processing.” (Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:8–10) The field of seismic signal processing relates to the processing
`
`of data acquired during land or marine seismic surveys. During a seismic
`
`survey, sources of vibration energy, including vibrators and air guns, are
`
`activated to generate waves toward or through a subsurface geological
`
`formation. Those waves reflect off the geological formations they come into
`
`contact with, creating reflected waves which are recorded by sensors, including
`
`geophones and hydrophones. The reflection data recorded by the sensors can
`
`be processed and analyzed to provide information about the subsurface
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 10
`
`

`
`
`
`formations. The information is used to find, monitor, and efficiently manage
`
`oil reserves.
`
`27. The reflection data is recorded in receiver records often called “traces”, and the
`
`group of traces that correspond to a given source activation are often referred
`
`to as a “shot gather.” (Other types of “gathers”, such as common mid-point
`
`gathers, are discussed more below.) “Events” are then formed by coherent
`
`seismic energy corresponding to waves that have traveled from sources to
`
`receivers via specific paths through the subsurface. Industry standard
`
`recordings often associate survey information with each trace, such as the
`
`respective positions of the source and the receiver for that trace. (E.g., Ex.
`
`1012 at 9) For example, the SEG-Y data format standard first issued in 1975
`
`specifies specific header information that is associated with each trace. (Ex.
`
`1012 at 9) The header may contain information such as the job identification
`
`number, line number, and sampling rate. (Ex. 1012 at 8–9) The header may
`
`also include coordinates (e.g., x, y, and z positional information) of the source-
`
`receiver pair associated with that trace. (Ex. 1012 at 9) Alternatively, the header
`
`may include the offset (linear distance between the source and receiver) or
`
`azimuth (angular orientation of the source-receiver pair) associated with that
`
`particular trace which can then be used to calculate the locations of the
`
`corresponding source-receiver pair.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 11
`
`

`
`
`
`28. One factor that can impact seismic surveys is the signal to noise (S/N) ratio.
`
`(Ex. 1004 at 20) A high S/N ratio means that the seismic signal is very high
`
`compared to noise. (Ex. 1004 at 20) My understanding is that common mid-
`
`point (CMP) binning and stacking can improve S/N because random noise
`
`does not stack as well as the actual signal. Each seismic trace has an associated
`
`source-receiver pair and/or CMP-offset pair. CMP binning groups traces
`
`having the same midpoint into a series of common midpoint bins.
`
`29. The size and location of CMP bins are often defined during the planning stages
`
`of the survey. (Ex. 1004 at 21) Each bin represents a specific area of the
`
`survey geometry. The size of the bin defines the spatial resolution of the
`
`imaging result. (Ex. 1009 at 2:32–39) A CMP bin may be represented visually
`
`as a spider plot, as shown below.
`
`(Ex. 1004 at 21) The length of the line represents the offset distance between
`
`the source and receiver. The angle of each line represents the azimuth.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 12
`
`

`
`
`
`30. Using the midpoint between the source and receiver is an approximation of the
`
`reflection point, assuming a horizontally flat reflecting surface. In other words,
`
`if a reflecting surface is flat, then all traces corresponding to a given common
`
`midpoint will also correspond to a common reflection point. When reflectors
`
`are not flat, imaging [migration] algorithms, including dip-moveout algorithms,
`
`may be used to account for real world conditions such as dips. In the context
`
`of the ’059 Patent, “common reflection point (CRP)” appears to refer to a
`
`reference point where “dip-moveout or migration algorithms are applied.” (Ex.
`
`1001 at 5:13–15)
`
`31. Once the traces are organized into bins, signals can be summed or otherwise
`
`combined to increase the S/N ratio. In the prior art, these groups of traces are
`
`sometimes referred to as “gathers”, and their summing and/or normalization is
`
`referred to as a “stack[ed] trace.” (Ex. 1004 at 21) The prior art often teaches
`
`that “[t]he number of traces stacked is called fold.” (Ex. 1004 at 21) The
`
`Gallagher reference discussed below states that uniform fold across the set of
`
`bins can improve the ability to image seismic data. (Ex. 1005 at 1:56–62)
`
`Gallagher teaches that within each stack, “maximizing the distribution of offset
`
`serves to enhance the accuracy of the derived stacking velocity and thus also
`
`the accuracy of the resulting normal movement correction.” (Ex. 1005 at 2:2–
`
`5)
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 13
`
`

`
`
`
`32. One way to achieve the desired offset distribution across a set of bins is a
`
`through a binning technique known as “flexibinning” whereby the size of the
`
`bins is adjusted to achieve a desired attribute. (Ex. 1003 at 4:22–25) For
`
`example, the bins may be increased to allow for more traces per bin to achieve
`
`a more uniform offset distribution. (Ex. 1003 at 10:32–39) Conversely, the
`
`bins may be made smaller to create a higher resolution image. (Ex. 1003 at
`
`11:5–21) A similar method known in the field is called “macrobinning.” (Ex.
`
`1009) Macrobinning as discussed in the Flentge patent involves “combining
`
`bins… at intervals which are not otherwise available when a survey is
`
`performed using standard cell geometry.” (Ex. 1009 at 8:3–6) Overlapping
`
`cells may be used to macrobin. (Ex. 1009 at 8:6–8) “[M]acrobinning smaller
`
`cells… allows filling in of the offset deficiencies.” (Ex. 1009 at 8:13–20)
`
`B. Summary of the ’059 Patent
`33. The ’059 Patent allegedly claims a method of reorganizing seismic acquisition
`
`data to increase uniformity of the offset distribution across CMP bins. The
`
`patent notes that in 3D acquisition data, offset distribution is dependent upon
`
`the acquisition geometry, and non-uniform offset distribution has not been
`
`found to be avoidable. (Ex. 1001 at 1:25–38) The ’059 Patent proposes a
`
`method of manipulating the data post-acquisition to achieve a uniform offset
`
`distribution.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 14
`
`

`
`
`
`34. This method claimed in the ’059 Patent involves gathering traces into bins
`
`having a common point of reference, such as a common midpoint. (Ex. 1001
`
`at 2:7–14). Each of the traces in the bins has an associated offset distance and
`
`azimuth angle. The ’059 Patent then states that a coordinate set is associated
`
`with the common reference point bin and sub-bins within the reference point
`
`bin are created. (Ex. 1001 at 3:59–65 and claim 1)
`
`35. As an example, the ’059 patent discloses that seismic acquisition data may be
`
`gathered into CMP bins, with each trace in the bin containing offset
`
`information:
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Fig. 3, 3:50–54)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 15
`
`

`
`
`
`36.
`
` The ’059 Patent utilizes spider plots to graphically display the offset and
`
`azimuth information for each trace in the bin:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Fig. 5, 3:55–57).
`
`The ’059 Patent example then describes taking one of the CMP bins and
`
`assigning a coordinate set to the bin, which allegedly, and without explanation,
`
`yields a set of sub-bins that have uniform distribution (Ex. 1001 at 3:59–62)
`
`Figure 6 shows the CMP bin divided up into sub-bins. These sub-bins
`
`constitute the coordinate set that has been assigned to the traces in the CMP
`
`bin, and the patent refers to each sub-bin as a “coordinate bin.” (Ex. 1001 at
`
`3:59–62) As with any pre-existing spider plot known to those of ordinary skill,
`
`based on the sub-bin to which a particular trace is assigned, “the offset and
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 16
`
`

`
`
`
`direction of a line between the shot and receiver is determinable.” (Ex. 1001 at
`
`3:63–65)
`
`37.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Fig. 6) According to the patent, the unexplained sub-binning
`
`
`
`procedure results in “a constant fold of two traces per coordinate bin” for the
`
`exemplary acquisition geometry shown in Fig. 1. (Ex. 1001 at 1:27–34, 3:59–
`
`62) The traces may be added (i.e., stacked) to increase the S/N ratio. (Ex. 1001
`
`at 4:3–5) Alternatively, each trace may have “a unique set of coordinates per
`
`trace (i.e. a single trace per coordinate bin),” in which case, “no adding would
`
`occur.” (Ex. 1001 at 4:5–7)
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 17
`
`

`
`
`
`38.
`
`Independent Claims 1 and 12 of the ’059 patent, which are at issue in this
`
`petition, are shown below to illustrate the differences and similarities between
`
`the claims:
`
`Claim 1 of ’059 Patent
`
`Claim 12 of ’059 Patent
`
`1. A process for generating a bin of
`common mid-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 the data from a plurality of
`traces having a common reference
`point, whereby a common reference
`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
`between the shot and receiver are
`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 of traces
`
`12. A process for generating a bin of
`common mid-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 mid-
`point bin is defined and whereby
`each of the plurality of traces has an
`offset associated therewith;
`
`assigning a Cartesian coordinate set,
`having a first axis parallel to
`receiver line and a second axis
`parallel to a shot line, to a plurality
`of traces in the common mid-point
`bin, wherein the coordinates are
`associated with the shot position
`and the receiver positions associated
`with the traces and
`wherein, from the coordinates, the
`offset and direction of a line
`between the shot and receiver are
`determinable, whereby a coordinate-
`designated set of traces is defined,
`
`wherein a plurality of the
`coordinate-designated set of traces
`having the same coordinates; and
`adding a plurality of traces having
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 18
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`the same coordinates.
`
`39. Claim 12 has many of the same elements as Claim 1. Both claims require
`
`“gathering from the the data a plurality of traces” into bins having a common
`
`point of reference. Claim 12 specifically requires that the reference point be a
`
`common midpoint. Both claims require that “each of the plurality of traces has
`
`an offset associated therewith.”
`
`40. Claim 1 requires “assigning a coordinate set to a plurality of traces in the
`
`common reference point bin.” Claim 12 requires the coordinate set to be “a
`
`Cartesian coordinate set having a first axis parallel to receiver line and a second
`
`axis parallel to a shot line.” Both Claims 1 and 12 require the assigned
`
`coordinates to be “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 are determinable.”
`
`Claim 1 further requires “organizing the coordinate-designated set of traces
`
`into a set of bins having a regularized number of traces.” Claim 12 does not
`
`require a regularized number of traces. Rather, it requires “a plurality of the
`
`coordinate-designated set of traces having the same coordinates,” and then
`
`“adding a plurality of traces having the same coordinates.”
`
`C. Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 19
`
`

`
`
`
`41. All of the claims in the ’674 Application were originally filed just as they appear
`
`in the issued ’059 Patent. There were no amendments to any of claims during
`
`the prosecution of the ’674 Application. Also, no claims were added or
`
`cancelled during the prosecution of the ’674 Application. In the Statement of
`
`Reasons for Allowance, the Examiner stated that Claims 1–12 were allowed
`
`over the prior art because those claims disclosed “gathering from the data a
`
`plurality of traces having a common reference point, whereby a common
`
`reference point bin is defined and whereby each of the plurality of traces has an
`
`offset associated therewith.” As the concept of creating a common reference
`
`point bin existed for decades before the filing of the ’059 patent, and each trace
`
`within a common reference point bin will necessarily have an offset associated
`
`therewith, it seems apparent that the Examiner was not aware of the breadth of
`
`the claims of the ’059 patent.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE PERTINENT ART
`42.
`I have been advised that there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including the educational level of
`
`active workers in the field at the time of the invention, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, the type of problems encountered in the art, and the prior art
`
`solutions to those problems.
`
`43. The ’059 Patent describes the field of technology as “seismic signal processing”
`
`or, more specifically, “three dimensional seismic signal processing.” (Ex. 1001
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 20
`
`

`
`
`
`at 1:8–10) The ’059 Patent involves many basic seismic surveying concepts
`
`including the use of seismic energy sources and sensors, and CMP gathers.
`
`44. There are a wide range of educational backgrounds in the technology field
`
`pertinent to the ’059 Patent. It is my opinion that a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art at the time of invention is an engineer, seismologist, or
`
`technical equivalent, experienced in seismic data acquisition systems, who was
`
`aware of various aspects of post-acquisition data processing pertaining to land
`
`or marine seismic surveys. Given the simplicity of the concepts involved in the
`
`’059 Patent, it would not be necessary for a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art to have work experience in the field of seismic exploration.
`
`VI. BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
`45.
`I have been informed that, in an inter partes review, the terms in patent claims
`
`are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of
`
`the patent, as understood by a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`
`as of the priority date of the patent at issue. I have reviewed the specification
`
`and relevant portions of the prosecution history from the perspective of a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art in order to determine the proper scope
`
`of the claims in the ’059 Patent.
`
`46.
`
`It is my opinion that the broadest reasonable interpretation of 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.
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 21
`
`

`
`
`
`47.
`
`Furthermore, the last element of Claim 1 recites “organizing the coordinate-
`
`designated set of traces into a set of bins having a regularized number of
`
`traces.” As discussed above, in seismic data processing, a “bin” is defined
`
`during the planning stages of survey for grouping data, e.g., a bin can represent
`
`an area of the survey geometry. Supra at ¶ 29. During the post-acquisition data
`
`processing, the seismic traces that share a common point of reference—such as
`
`a common midpoint—are grouped into the appropriate bin based on the
`
`location of that reference point in the survey geometry. The size of the bin
`
`defines the spatial resolution of the survey geometry. However, the “set of
`
`bins” recited in claim 1 of the ’059 patent is claimed as being distinct from the
`
`standard bin (claim 1 uses the phrase “a common reference point bin”) into
`
`which common midpoints, for example, are grouped. Thus, in my opinion and
`
`in view of the specification of the ’059 patent (Ex. 1001 at 1:54–56; 3:59–62), it
`
`appears that the “set of bins” recited in claim 1 refers to a set of sub-bins
`
`within a common reference point bin.
`
`48. Claim 5 uses the phrase “at least two of the coordinate-designated set of traces
`
`have different coordinates and are from a common shot-receiver location.” To
`
`increase the fold of a bin, it is common for one or more traces to be borrowed
`
`and utilized in multiple sub-bins. When this occurs, at least two traces will fall
`
`into different sub-bins and have different binning “coordinates”, but are from
`
`the same physical shot-receiver location as the original borrowed trace. In
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 1002, pg. 22
`
`

`
`
`
`other words, for traces to fall within different locations or sub-bins and also
`
`have a common shot-receiver location, the claim is referring to borrowed
`
`traces. Otherwise, the shot-receiver location will not be common. Thus, it is
`
`my opinion that the broadest reasonable interpretation of this phrase is “at least
`
`two sub-bins include share a trace with a common shot-receiver location.”
`
`VII. DETAILED UNPATENTABILITY ANALYSIS
`49.
`I have been asked to provide an opinion as to whether Claims 1–12 of the ’059
`
`Patent are unpatentable in view of the prior art. It is my opinion that Claims
`
`1–12 are unpatentable in view of the prior art references identified in Section I.
`
`The discussion below provides a detailed analysis of how the prior art
`
`references identified in Section I disclose each element of Claims 1–12 of the
`
`’059 Patent and render these claims unpatentable.
`
`50. As part of my obviousness analysis, I have considered the scope and content of
`
`the prior art, and whether any differences between the claimed invention and
`
`the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been
`
`obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date for
`
`the ’059 Patent. I understand that November 14, 1997, the filing date of the
`
`’059 Patent, is the earliest priority date which has been claimed for the ’059
`
`Patent. I have also considered the lev