Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. Westerngeco LLC

Decision Date17 March 2016
Docket NumberIPR2014-00688[1]
PartiesPETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC. and ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION AND ION INTERNATIONAL S.A.R.L., Petitioner, WESTERNGECO LLC, Patent Owner. Patent 7, 080, 607 B2
CourtPatent Trial and Appeal Board

Before BRYAN F. MOORE, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and BEVERLY M. BUNTING Administrative Patent Judges.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and37 C.F.R. § 42.73

DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background

Petroleum Geo-Services ("Petitioner, " or "PGS") filed a Petition to institute an inter partes review of claims 1 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 7, 080, 607 B2 ("the '607 patent").[2] Paper 1 ("PGS Pet."). WesternGeco LLC ("Patent Owner") timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 26 ("First Prelim. Resp."). We instituted trial in Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc., v. WesternGeco L.L.C., Case IPR2014-00688, (the "PGS IPR"), for claims 1 and 15 of the '607 patent on certain grounds of unpatentability alleged in the Petition. Paper 33 ("Decision to Institute" or "Inst. Dec."). Patent Owner, in due course, filed a Response. Paper 44 ("Response"). Petitioner subsequently filed a Reply. Paper 78 (Reply).

In a separate proceeding, ION Geophysical Corporation and ION International S.A.R.L., v. WesternGeco L.L.C., Case IPR2015-00567 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2015) (the "ION IPR"), ION Geophysical Corporation and ION International S.A.R.L. ("ION") also filed a Petition to institute an inter partes review of claims 1 and 15 of the '607 patent. Paper 3 ("ION Pet."). With their Petition, ION also filed a Motion for Joinder, Paper 4 ("Mot."), seeking to join the ION IPR with the PGS IPR. Mot. 2. Patent Owner filed an Opposition to ION's Motion for Joinder. Paper 10 ("Opp."). We instituted trial in the ION IPR and granted ION's Motion for Joinder. Paper 14 ("ION Decision to Institute" or "ION Inst. Dec."). We ordered ION not to file papers, engage in discovery, or participate in any deposition or oral hearing in IPR2014-00688 without obtaining authorization. ION was, however, permitted to appear in IPR2014-00688 so that it could receive notification offilings and attend depositions and the oral hearing. Patent Owner subsequently filed a Preliminary Response to ION's Petition. Paper 70 ("ION Prelim. Resp.").

In addition, Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude. Paper 85. Patent Owner filed an Opposition to Petitioner's Motion to Exclude (Paper 90), and Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 94. Also, Petitioner filed three Motions to Seal (Papers 81, 87, and 97), and Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal. Paper 91.

An oral hearing was held on July 30, 2015. A transcript of the hearing is included in the record. Paper 100 ("Tr.").

The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1 and 15 of the '607 patent are unpatentable.

B. Additional Proceedings

Lawsuits involving the '607 patent presently asserted against Petitioner include WesternGeco LLC v. Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc., 4:13-cv-02725 (the "PGS lawsuit") in the Southern District of Texas and WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 4:09-cv- 01827 (the "ION lawsuit") also in the Southern District of Texas. ION Pet. 8.

The '607 patent is related to the patents involved in IPR2014-00687 and IPR2014-00689.

C. The '607 Patent

The '607 patent (Ex. 1001), titled "Seismic Data Acquisition Equipment Control System, " generally relates to a method and apparatus for improving marine seismic survey techniques to more effectively control the movement and positioning of marine seismic streamers towed in an array behind a boat. Ex. 1001, 1:16-24. As illustrated in Figure 1 of the '607 patent reproduced below, labeled "Prior Art, " a seismic source, for example air gun 14, is towed by boat 10 producing acoustic signals, which are reflected off the earth below. Id. The reflected signals are received by hydrophones (no reference number) attached to streamers 12, and the signals "digitized and processed to build up a representation of the subsurface geology." Id. at 1:31-33.

Image Omitted

Figure 1, above, depicts an array of seismic streamers 12 towed behind vessel 10.

In order to obtain accurate survey data, it is necessary to control the positioning of the streamers, both vertically in the water column, as well as horizontally against ocean currents and forces which can cause the normally linear streamers to bend and undulate and, in some cases, become entangled with one another. Id. at 1:42-2:16. As illustrated in Figure 1, above, each streamer is maintained in a generally linear arrangement behind the boat by deflector 16 which horizontally positions the end of each streamer nearest the boat. Id. at 3:37-46. Drag buoy 20 at the end of each streamer farthest from the vessel creates tension along the streamer to maintain the linear arrangement.

To control the position and linear shapes of the streamers, a plurality of streamer positioning devices, called "birds" 18 or "SPD's" (streamer positioning devices), are attached along the length of each streamer. Id. at 3:47-49. The birds are horizontally and vertically steerable and control the shape and position of the streamer in both vertical (depth) and horizontal directions. Id at 3:49-55. Thebirds's job is usually to maintain the streamers in their linear and parallel arrangement, because when the streamers are horizontally out of position, the efficiency of the seismic data collection is compromised. Id. at 2:5-7. The most important task of the birds, however, is to keep the streamers from tangling. Id. at 3:65-66.

To control the birds and the array of streamers, the '607 patent describes a distributed control system using global control system 22 located on the vessel and a local control system at each bird to maintain the streamers in their particular linear and parallel arrangement. Id. at 3:56-60. In an embodiment of the described control system, global control system 22 "maintains a dynamic model of each of the seismic streamers" that takes into account the behavior of the entire array and uses desired and actual positions of the birds to "regularly calculate updated desired vertical and horizontal forces the birds should impart on the seismic streamers 12 to move them from their actual positions to their desired positions." Id. at 4:28-34, 48-50.

The '607 patent further explains that there is a time delay between when the positions of the birds are measured and the "actual positions" of the birds used to determine the vertical and horizontal forces. Id. at 4:51-55.

To account for the time delay "the global control system 22 runs position predictor software to estimate the actual locations of each of the birds 18." Id. at 4:53-55. Once these forces are determined, "[t]he global control system will preferably send the following values to the local bird controller: vertical force, demanded horizontal force, towing velocity, and crosscurrent velocity." Id. at 4:67-5:3.

The specification explains that these forces are capable of being implemented by a bird as shown in Figure 2 of the '607 patent, reproduced below.

Image Omitted

Figure 2 of the '607 patent, above, illustrates bird 18 and local controller 36 positioned on streamer 12 where bird 18 is controlled in both horizontal and vertical directions by wings 28 actuated by wing motors 34. Id. at 5:27-51. The specification of the '607 patent describes that the position of streamer 12 is effected when "local control system 36 controls the movement of the wings 28 by calculating a desired change in the angle of the wings and then selectively driving the motors 34 to effectuate this change." Id. at 5:55-58.

D. Illustrative Claim

Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is a method claim and claim 15, reproduced below, an apparatus claim, illustrates the claimed subject matter:

15. An array of seismic streamers towed by a towing vessel comprising:
(a) a plurality of streamer positioning devices on or inline with each streamer;
(b) a prediction unit adapted to predict positions of at least some of the streamer positioning devices; and
(c) a control unit adapted to use the predicted positions to calculate desired changes in positions of one or more of the streamer positioning devices.

Ex. 1001, 12:27-34 (emphasis added).

E. The Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability

Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the following specific grounds.[3]

References

Basis

Claims Challenged

Workman[4]

§ 102

1 and 15

Workman

§ 103

1 and 15

Workman and Elholrn[5]

§ 103

1 and 15

II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
A. Legal Standard

In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1278-82 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the AIA, " and "the standard was properly adopted by PTO regulation."). Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). If the specification "reveal [s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[, ] ... the inventor's lexicography governs." Phillips v AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT