IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. WESTERNGECO L.L.C., Petitioner,

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. WESTERNGECO L.L.C., Petitioner,"

Transcription

1 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD WESTERNGECO L.L.C., Petitioner, v. PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS, Patent Owner. Case IPR Patent U.S. 6,906,981 PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 1-22 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,906,981 UNDER 35 U.S.C. 312 AND 37 C.F.R

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. OVERVIEW OF THE PETITION... 1 II. MANDATORY NOTICES - 37 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(1)... 8 III. PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW... 9 A. Grounds for Standing- 37 C.F.R (a)... 9 B. Identification of Claims for Which Review Is Requested and Relief Requested 37 C.F.R (b)(1) and 42.22(a)(1) Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications Statutory Grounds of Challenge 37 C.F.R (b)(2) V. THE 981 PATENT A. Overview of the 981 Patent B. Prosecution History of the 981 Patent VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION C. wavelet time VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE - 37 C.F.R (b)(4)-(5) and 42.22(a)(2) A. Claims 1, 2, 7, and are anticipated by De Kok B. Claims 1-22 are obvious in view of the combined teachings of Beasley and Timoshin The proposed grounds based on Beasley and Timoshin are not redundant to the grounds based on De Kok Claim Claim Claims 2-6 and a. Claims 2 and b. Claims 3 and c. Claims 4 and i

3 d. Claim e. Claim Claims Claims 21 and C. Claims 1-22 are obvious in view of the combined teachings of Beasley and Edington The proposed grounds based on Beasley and Edington are not redundant to the grounds based on De Kok or the grounds based on Beasley and Timoshin Claim Claim Claims 2-6 and a. Claims 2 and b. Claims 3 and c. Claims 4 and d. Claim e. Claim Claims Claims 21 and IX. CONCLUSION ii

4 I. OVERVIEW OF THE PETITION WesternGeco L.L.C. ( Western or Petitioner ) respectfully requests inter partes review ( IPR ) for claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,981 ( the 981 patent, Ex. 1001) in accordance with 35 U.S.C and 37 C.F.R et seq. The prior art cited in this Petition demonstrates that the seismic surveying method recited in claims 1-22 of the 981 patent was widely known and used well before the 981 patent s purported priority date and, accordingly, claims 1-22 of the 981 patent should not have issued. The 981 patent is directed to seismic surveying, a well-known method of mapping geological formations with sound wave reflections. A basic overview of the principles and elements of seismic surveying are provided in an article titled How Modern Techniques Improve Seismic Interpretation that appeared in the April, 1994 issue of World Oil magazine. ( World Oil Article, Ex ) The Federal Circuit has emphasized the importance of considering such background information as part of the obviousness determination, stating: In recognizing the role of common knowledge and common sense, we have emphasized the importance of a factual foundation to support a party s claim about what one of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have known. See, e.g., Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009). One form of evidence to provide such a 1

5 foundation, perhaps the most reliable because not litigation-generated, is documentary evidence consisting of prior art in the area. Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 108 USPQ2d 1727, (Fed. Cir. 2013). As explained in the World Oil Article, reflection seismology was first applied in the 1920s. (Ex. 1008, at 85.) Reflection seismology uses induced acoustic reflections of rock layers. (Id.) Vibrations are generated in the earth with acoustic sources, and reflections are recorded with receivers. (Id.) Most marine acquisition sound sources are air guns that repeatedly displace water volumes, and marine receivers are pressure sensitive devices called hydrophones. (Ex. 1008, at 86.) On land, sources include explosives or truck mounted vibrators, and receivers are geophones that detect slight ground movements. (Id.) Regardless of whether it is a land-based geophone or a marine-based hydrophone, the basic principle of operation is the same each receiver converts pressure or ground disturbances to electrical impulses, and the digitally recorded electrical pulses of an array or group of receivers are transmitted, via cable or telemetry, to recording computers. (Id.) 2

6 Figure 1 of the World Oil Article, reproduced below, is a simplified diagram of the seismic principle used in both land and marine surveys. In the example shown in Figure 1 of the World Oil Article, the Horizon 1 reflection results from an impedance contrast between Layers 1 and 2; likewise for Reflection 2 emanating from Horizon 2. (Ex. 1008, at 86.) Ray paths are described by Snell s Law and bend at each layer interface (horizon). (Id.) Subsurface horizons are imaged repeatedly by source-receiver pairs as shooting progresses to each consecutive line location. (Id.) Given the similarities in their principles of operation, it is not surprising that both land-based and marine-based seismic surveys were known to share some common methodologies to improve signal to noise ratios. The World Oil Article 3

7 explains one such well-known methodology that was shared by both land-based and marine-based seismic surveys: the common midpoint (CMP) gather. A CMP gather is a collection of all combinations of source-receiver pairs which records energy from the same midpoint location, therefore containing travel paths from near to far offset traces. (Ex. 1008, at 86.) The World Oil Article explains that [t]his redundancy increases the signal to noise ratio when traces are processed and summed. (Id.) In towed marine surveying, a vessel tows one or more of the seismic energy sources, and the same, or a different vessel tows one or more streamers, which are series of seismic sensors affixed to a cable. Returning now to the 981 patent, Figure 1 of the 981 patent, reproduced below, shows two or more sources (SA1, SA2), such as air guns, that are fired to generate seismic energy that travels through the earth. A group of sensors (2a-2d), such as hydrophones, record the returning echoes as a function of time. (Ex. 1001, 1:22-2:37.) 4

8 As noted in the World Oil Article, [i]t was common to use synchronized source arrays to increase, or focus, energy at each shot. (Ex. 1008, at 86.) For example, as explained in the background portion of U.S. Patent No. 6,545,944 to de Kok ( De Kok, Ex. 1003), which was filed more than a year prior to the earliest filing date claimed by the 981 patent, the use of multiple sources firing simultaneously into the same recording system was known to be an attractive option to increase the field survey efforts at relatively low incremental cost. (Ex. 1003, 2:27-30.) De Kok explains that simultaneous firing is particularly economical when additional sources can easily and cheaply be deployed, such as airgun arrays in a marine situation. (Ex. 1003, 2:30-33.) As explained in the declaration of Luc T. Ikelle, Ph.D. ( the Ikelle declaration, Ex. 1002), the simultaneous activation of multiple sources can raise complications relating to noise generation and distinguishing sources from each other. (Ex. 1002, ) It was long-known in the land seismic context that if two sources were asynchronous, the interfering signal could be treated as noise and distinguished through simple CMP binning. Soviet Union Patent No. 1,543,357 to Timoshin et al. ( Timoshin, Ex. 1005), published more than a decade prior to the earliest filing date claimed by the 981 patent, discloses using random numbers as firing delays for sources to distinguish between separate sources during CMP processing. U.S. Pat. No. 4,953,657 to Edington ( Edington, Ex. 1006), which was also filed more than a decade prior to the earliest filing date claimed by the 981 patent, discloses shooting at 5

9 least two seismic energy sources substantially simultaneously with a determinable time delay between the activation of each source, and then shooting the sources at least a second time substantially simultaneously with a different determinable time delay between the activation of each source from the determinable time delay used in at least one previous shooting. (Ex. 1006, 2:1-13.) Edington explains that the determinable time delays is preselected, and is selected so that the difference in time delay between any two shootings enables the signal received from the first activated source to be distinguished from the signal received from the second activated source. (Ex. 1006, 2:15-20.) Further, U.S. Patent No. 5,924,049 to Beasley et al. ( Beasley, Ex. 1004) discloses a broad toolbox of techniques for separating simultaneous sources. As explained in the Ikelle declaration, it was well known in the seismic surveying art prior to the earliest filing date claimed by the 981 patent to encode signals for later separation by modifying the source signatures. This included varying the amplitude, frequency, and/or firing time of the source signature. (Ex. 1002, ) More sophisticated techniques, such as those disclosed in De Kok, went beyond distinguishing the two sources and disclosed timing techniques that would reinforce the two signals to improve their informational content. Specifically, unlike the 981 patent, De Kok discloses time delay encoding techniques which rely on programmed time delays in the field and polarity decoding in the processing center. Nevertheless, the 981 patent purports to have invented the concept of time 6

10 varying seismic source signals. Claim 1 of the 981 patent recites: 1. A method for seismic surveying, comprising: towing a first seismic energy source and at least one seismic sensor system; towing a second seismic energy source at a selected distance from the first seismic energy source; and actuating the first seismic energy source and the second seismic energy source in a plurality of firing sequences, each of the firing sequences including firing of the first source and the second source and recording signals generated by the at least one seismic sensor system, a time interval between firing the first source and the second source varied between successive ones of the firing sequences, the times of firing the first and second source indexed so as to enable separate identification of seismic events originating from the first source and seismic events originating from the second source in detected seismic signals. This time-variation was long-used in the prior art to separate simultaneous sources. For example, De Kok discloses more sophisticated time delay encoding techniques than those disclosed in the 981 patent, that nevertheless fully anticipate claims 1, 2, 7, and of the 981 patent. In addition, the combined teachings of Beasley and either of Timoshin or Edington render all of the claims of the 981 patent obvious. Beasley is directed to marine seismic surveys that include firing seismic sources simultaneously or near simultaneously in which the sources may be arranged to emit encoded wavefields using any desired type of coding and discloses time separation of the sources, but 7

11 does not explicitly disclose the type of asynchronous time separation claimed in the 981 patent. (Ex. 1004, 7:54-56.) It would have been obvious to employ the known time encoding techniques disclosed in either of Timoshin or Edington in the system of Beasley to achieve the predictable result of distinguishing sources that are fired either simultaneously or near simultaneously. II. MANDATORY NOTICES - 37 C.F.R. 42.8(A)(1) Petitioner provides the following mandatory disclosures. A. Real Parties-In-Interest - 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(1) WesternGeco, L.L.C., Schlumberger Technology Corporation, Schlumberger Holdings Corporation; Schlumberger B.V., Schlumberger, Limited, and Schlumberger Services, Inc. are the real parties-in-interest. B. Related Matters- 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(2) The 981 patent is asserted in co-pending litigation captioned as WesternGeco LLC v. Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. et al., Southern District of Texas, Case No. 4:13-cv C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel- 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3) Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel: Lead Counsel: Scott McKeown (Registration No. 42,866) Backup Counsel: Christopher A. Bullard (Reg. No. 57,644) D. Service Information - 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(4) Papers concerning this matter should be served as follows: 8

12 Post: Oblon Spivak, 1940 Duke St., Alexandria, VA Telephone: Facsimile: III. PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fees set forth in 37 C.F.R (a) as required by 37 C.F.R for this Petition for Inter Partes Review to Deposit Account No ; any additional fees that might be due are also authorized. IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW A. Grounds for Standing- 37 C.F.R (a) Pursuant to 37 C.F.R (a), Petitioner hereby certifies that the 981 patent is available for inter partes review and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review challenging the claims of the 981 patent on the grounds identified herein. This is because the 981 patent has not been subject to a completed estoppel based proceeding of the AIA, and the counterclaim served on Western referenced above in Section II(B) was served within the last 12 months. B. Identification of Claims for Which Review Is Requested and Relief Requested 37 C.F.R (b)(1) and 42.22(a)(1) Pursuant to 37 C.F.R (b) and (b)(1), Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1-22 of the 981 patent, and that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ( PTAB ) determine the same to be unpatentable. 9

13 1. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications Petitioner relies upon the following patents and printed publications: Exhibit 1003 U.S. Patent No. 6,545,944 to de Kok ( De Kok ), filed May 30, 2001 and issued April 8, De Kok is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). Exhibit 1004 U.S. Patent No. 5,924,049 to Beasley et al. ( Beasley ), filed January 30, 1998 and issued July 13, Beasley is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Exhibit 1005 Soviet Union Patent No. 1,543,357 to Timoshin et al. ( Timoshin ), filed January 7, 1988 and published February 15, Timoshin is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent No. 4,953,657 to Edington ( Edington ), filed February 14, 1989 and issued September 4, Edington is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). 2. Statutory Grounds of Challenge 37 C.F.R (b)(2) Petitioner requests cancellation of the challenged claims under the following statutory grounds: Ground 1 Claims 1, 2, 7, are anticipated by De Kok (Ex. 1003) under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). Ground 2 Claims 1-22 are obvious over Beasley (Ex. 1004) in view of Timoshin (Ex. 1005) under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). 10

14 Ground 3 Claims 1-22 are obvious over Beasley (Ex. 1004) in view of Edington (Ex. 1006) under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R (b)(4), an explanation of how claims 1-22 of the 981 patent are unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified above, that the Petitioner has at least a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on these grounds, including the identification of where each element of the claim is found in the prior art, is provided in Section VIII, below, in the form of claims charts. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R (b)(5), the exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenges and the relevance of the evidence to the challenges raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenges, are provided in Section VIII, below, in the form of claim charts. V. THE 981 PATENT A. Overview of the 981 Patent As noted above, the 981 patent employs the commonly used technique known as simultaneous shooting, in which multiple seismic energy sources are fired simultaneously or near-simultaneously. The recorded data contains interference because the shots overlap with one another, resulting in mixed data that includes reflections from each fired source. In order to obtain useful information from the recorded data, one must separate out the data received from each individual source. With proper separation, simultaneous shooting allows for greater shot density, i.e., more shots during a given survey duration, which results in more robust seismic data. 11

15 The 981 patent proposes to separate recorded signals by time encoding the signals as they are generated. In particular, the 981 patent discloses firing a first source, making a recording of the signal detected by the sensors that is indexed to a known time reference with respect to time of firing the first source, firing a second source at a known, selected time delay after the firing of the first source, while signal recording continues. (Ex. 1001, 5:61-64.) The 981 patent defines a firing sequence as firing the first source, waiting the predetermined delay and firing the second source thereafter. (Ex. 1001, 5:65-6:2.) The 981 patent discloses that the firing sequence, and contemporaneous signal recording, are repeated in a second firing sequence. (Ex. 1001, 6:2-4.) The second firing sequence includes firing the first source, waiting a different selected time delay and then firing the second source, while recording seismic signals. (Ex. 1001, 6:4-7.) The known, selected time delay between firing the first source and firing the second source is different for each successive firing sequence. (Ex. 1001, 6:7-9.) B. Prosecution History of the 981 Patent During prosecution, in an attempt to distinguish the pending claims from the prior art, the Applicant emphasized the importance of varying time delays by stating that [a]n important element of the Applicant s invention is that a time interval between firing the first source and firing the second source is varied between successive ones of the firing sequences. (Ex. 1007, at 31.) Applicant explained that varying the time delays was an advantage because the detected seismic signals can be 12

16 identified with respect which caused the particular events in the detected seismic signals. (Ex. 1007, at 31.) VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable interpretation ( BRI ) in view of the specification in which they appear. 37 C.F.R (b); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). In determining the BRI, claim terms receive their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The USPTO requires BRI, as the patentee is given opportunity to amend their claims in this proceeding. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012). As required by these rules, this Petition applies the BRI of claim terms, although BRI may be, and often is, different from a claim construction in district court. See, e.g., In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, the claim interpretations presented in this Petition, including where Petitioner does not propose an express construction, do not necessarily reflect the claim constructions that Petitioner believes should be adopted by a district court under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 13

17 A. wavelet time This phrase appears in claim 6. Claim 6 recites the time interval is at least as long as a wavelet time of the first source. Although the specification of the 981 patent uses the phrase wavelet time, a wavelet is not clearly defined in the 981 specification. For example, the 981 patent states [a]lthough the time delay varies from sequence to sequence, the time delay between firing the first source and the second source in each firing sequence is preferably selected to be at least as long as the wavelet time of the seismic energy generated by the first source to avoid interference between the first and second sources. As discussed in the Ikelle declaration, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest filing date claimed by the 981 patent would understand the phrase wavelet time to mean the duration of the source signature. (Ex. 1002, ) The specification of the 981 patent indicates that time delays at least as long as the wavelet time should be used to avoid interference between the sources. By waiting the duration of the source signature, this interference between the source signatures would be avoided. Only the interference between the reflected wavefields would remain to be decoded. As noted by Dr. Ikelle, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it is incredibly difficult to decode simultaneous shooting data when the source signatures interfere. (Ex. 1002, 63.) 14

18 Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase wavelet time is the duration of the source signature. VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART The level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the prior art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (determining that the Board did not err in adopting the approach that the level of skill in the art was best determined by references of record). The prior art discussed herein, and in the declaration of Dr. Ikelle, demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the 981 patent was filed, was an engineer, seismologist, or technical equivalent, experienced in seismic data acquisition systems, aware of various aspects of seismic acquisition and seismic data processing pertaining to land or marine seismic surveys. (Ex. 1002, ) VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE - 37 C.F.R (B)(4)-(5) AND 42.22(A)(2) Petitioner provides in the following discussion and claim charts a detailed comparison of the claimed subject matter and the prior art specifying where each element of the challenged claims are found in the prior art references. A. Claims 1, 2, 7, and are anticipated by De Kok De Kok discloses time delay encoding techniques which rely both on programmed time delays in the field and polarity decoding in the processing center. In this respect, the technique disclosed in De Kok is more sophisticated than the 15

19 basic time delay encoding disclosed in the 981 patent. However, even though the 981 patent does not disclose polarity decoding in the processing center, claims 1, 2, 7, and of the 981 patent do not exclude an additional step of polarity decoding in the processing center. As such, at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard that must be applied in this proceeding before the Board, claims 1, 2, 7, and of the 981 patent encompasses the technique disclosed in De Kok. Referring to a standard airgun, the far field source signature is composed of a positive pressure pulse followed by a negative pulse from the sea surface reflection. (Ex. 1003, 3:54-57.) The negative pulse, called the ghost, is time separated from the positive pulse by a time shift that may be referred to as the ghost time delay. (Ex. 1003, 3:57-59.) Figure 2 of De Kok, reproduced below, shows the sequences of two sources firing simultaneously with polarity coding. (Ex. 1003, 4:28-29.) Figure 2 shows a source vessel 201 towing sources 203 and 205. (Ex. 1003, 4:32-33.) A source vessel 201 may also tow a streamer containing sensors for receiving source signals, for example streamer 207. (Ex. 1003, 4:33-35.) In Figure 2, Source 203 emits S1, in which positive (P) and negative (N) polarity source signals alternate as depicted by the positive and negative polarity representation through time. (Ex. 1003, 4:35-38.) Source 205 emits positive signals S2 only. (Ex. 1003, 4:42.) 16

20 Figures 5-7 of De Kok depict embodiments that include time delay encoding. As noted above, De Kok discloses that the time delay encoding technique relies on programmed time delays in the field and polarity decoding in the processing center. (Ex. 1003, 5:66-6:2.) According to De Kok, the enhancement of data pertaining to a particular desired source is accomplished through equalizing the polarity of corresponding signal components and to align and average (mix or stack) the responses. (Ex. 1003, 6:2-4.) This principle is illustrated with the impulse response representations of FIG. 5A for a marine application, reproduced below. 17

21 Most notably, in FIG. 5A, Source TD1 and Source TD2, which are sequential series of simultaneous shots, have different delay codes for successive shots (numbered 1 to 4 for each simultaneously activated source). (Ex. 1003, 6:17-21.) The time delays in these figures are relative to an arbitrary reference, here labeled t r =0, represented by the vertical dashed lines. (Ex. 1003, 6:21-23.) For example, simultaneously fired shot 1 from TD1 (501) and shot 1 of TD2 (511) are initiated with no relative time delays between them, but shot 2 from TD2 (513) is initiated before shot 2 of TD1 (503), the time separation between the initiation of shot 2 of TD2 (513) relative to shot 2 of TD1 (503) being the time delay determined or chosen for the acquisition program, which may be for example, the ghost delay. (Ex. 1003, 6:23-30.) 18

22 Thus, De Kok fully anticipates several of the claims of the 981 patent, as the process disclosed in De Kok includes varying a time interval between firing a first source and a second source between successive ones of firing sequences. The following claim chart illustrates how De Kok meets all of the elements of claims 1, 2, 7, and 21 of the 981 patent. 981 Patent Claims De Kok (Ex. 1003) 1. A method for seismic surveying, comprising: 1.a. towing a first seismic energy source and at least one seismic sensor system; Ex at 3:38-39: The present invention is a method for acquiring seismic data using simultaneously activated seismic energy sources. Ex at 4:32-35: FIG. 2 shows a source vessel 201 towing sources 203 and 205. A source vessel 201 may also tow a streamer containing sensors for receiving source signals, for example streamer b. towing a second seismic energy source at a selected distance from the first seismic energy source; and Ex. 1003at Fig. 2. Ex at 5:23-24: FIG. 4 depicts a four source (203, 205, 413, 415) shooting arrangement with two receiver cables (407, 409). 19

23 981 Patent Claims De Kok (Ex. 1003) Ex at Fig c. actuating the first seismic energy source and the second seismic energy source in a plurality of firing sequences, each of the firing sequences including firing of the first source and the second source and recording signals generated by the at least one seismic sensor system, 1.d. a time interval between firing the first source and the second source varied between successive ones of the firing sequences, Ex at 5:36-39: In the configuration of FIG. 4 the two sources 203 and 205 preceding streamers 407 and 409 are relatively close to each other, and also sources 413 and 415 at the back of the streamers 407 and 409 are in relatively close proximity. Ex at 2:42-47: An activation sequence for each of said plurality of seismic energy sources may be determined such that energy from separate seismic source positions may be recorded simultaneously and seismic energy responsive to individual seismic sources separated into separate source records. Example firing sequences are shown in Figures sequences are 5A-5C, 6A-6B, and 7A-7B of De Kok. Ex at 6:18-23: In FIG. 5A, Source TD1 and Source TD2, being sequential series of simultaneous shots, have different delay codes for successive shots (numbered 1 to 4 for each simultaneously activated source). The time delays in these figures are relative to an arbitrary reference, here labeled tr=0, represented by the vertical dashed lines. 20

24 981 Patent Claims De Kok (Ex. 1003) 1.e. the times of firing the first and second source indexed so as to enable separate identification of seismic events originating from the first source and seismic events originating from the second source in detected seismic signals. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the time interval is varied systematically. 7.a. The method as defined in claim 1 further comprising actuating at least one Ex at Fig. 5A. Ex at 2:47-50: The seismic sources are activated using an activation sequence, the recorded seismic energy in the shot recordings may be separated into source recordings responsive to individual seismic sources. Ex at 5:67 6:1: The time delay encoding technique relies on programmed time delays in the field.... Ex at 6:2-4: The time shifts for encoding may be arbitrarily chosen per source, but they should preferably be equal to the ghost time delay in the marine case. Ex at 5:6:53-58: When using a sequence of four shots as in FIG. 5A and FIG. 5B, the method can accommodate three different sources. The 21

25 981 Patent Claims De Kok (Ex. 1003) additional seismic energy source in each [f]iring 1 sequence, coding of a third source, Source TD3, is shown in FIG. 6A and FIG. 6B and consists of positive delay times for shot 1 (601) and shot 4 (607) with negative relative delay times for shot 2 (603) and shot 3 (605). 7.b. the at least one additional seismic energy source actuated after an additional selected time interval after firing the second source, the additional time interval varied between successive ones of the firing sequences. 10. The method as defined in claim 7 wherein the additional time interval is varied systematically between firing sequences. Ex at Fig. 6A, 6B. Ex at 7:11-13: In FIG. 7A and FIG. 7B three sources without ghosts are shown. All three sources have different amplitude and have been coded using different time delays. Ex at 5:67 6:1: The time delay encoding technique relies on programmed time delays in the field.... Ex at 6:2-4: The time shifts for encoding may be arbitrarily chosen per source, but they should preferably be equal to the ghost time delay in the 1 It is clear from the prosecution history that the Applicant intended claim 7 to recite firing instead of tiring. (See Ex. 1007, claim 7, p. 8.) 22

26 981 Patent Claims De Kok (Ex. 1003) 11. The method as defined in claim 7 further comprising extracting from the recorded sensor signals coherent seismic signals identified to each of the first, second and at least one additional seismic energy sources. marine case. Ex at 4:47-55: The seismic energy returned from shot records containing multiple source position energy must be separated into source records containing energy responsive to the individual seismic sources. The separation of individual source contributions into source records (as opposed to shot records) is achieved during processing, preferably in the common mid-point (CMP) domain but any other domain where the contributions from successive shot records are present may be used. Ex at 6:41-48: Here the result of polarity decoding to enhance and separate energy for the Source TD1 shot series from the shot series of Source TD2 consists of reversing the contributions from shot 3 (505, 515) and shot 4 (507, 517), which causes energy from Source TD1 to reinforce and that of Source TD2 to cancel after mixing, K-filtering or stacking (also here the CMP gather may be the preferred domain to execute the source discrimination). 12. The method as defined in claim 11 wherein the extracting the signals identified to the first source comprises determining trace to trace and shot to shot coherent components in the recorded sensor signals. Ex at 6:58-61: In this case, the decoding for Source TD3, the third source, is achieved by inverting shot 2 (503, 513 and 603) and 3 (505, 515 and 605). Ex at 4:47-55: The seismic energy returned from shot records containing multiple source position energy must be separated into source records containing energy responsive to the individual seismic sources. The separation of individual source contributions into source records (as opposed to shot records) is achieved during processing, preferably in the common mid-point (CMP) domain but any other domain where the contributions from successive shot records are 23

27 981 Patent Claims De Kok (Ex. 1003) 13. The method as defined in claim 12 wherein determining the shot to shot coherent component comprises generating a common mid point trace gather with respect to the first source. 14.a. The method as defined in claim 12 wherein the extracting the signals identified to each of the second and at least one additional seismic source comprises, for each of the second and at least one additional source, time aligning the signals with respect to a firing time of each of the second and at least one additional source, 14.b. and determining trace to trace and shot to shot coherent components in the recorded sensor signals. present may be used. Ex at 4:47-55: The seismic energy returned from shot records containing multiple source position energy must be separated into source records containing energy responsive to the individual seismic sources. The separation of individual source contributions into source records (as opposed to shot records) is achieved during processing, preferably in the common mid-point (CMP) domain but any other domain where the contributions from successive shot records are present may be used. Ex at 6:41-48: Here the result of polarity decoding to enhance and separate energy for the Source TD1 shot series from the shot series of Source TD2 consists of reversing the contributions from shot 3 (505, 515) and shot 4 (507, 517), which causes energy from Source TD1 to reinforce and that of Source TD2 to cancel after mixing, K-filtering or stacking (also here the CMP gather may be the preferred domain to execute the source discrimination). The polarity decoding technique is a form of timealignment because the polarities are a direct function of the time delays. Decoding the polarities such that the polarities for one source stack while the polarities for the other sources cancel necessarily requires timealignment. (Ex. 1002, ) Ex at 4:47-55: The seismic energy returned from shot records containing multiple source position energy must be separated into source records containing energy responsive to the individual seismic sources. The separation of individual source contributions into source records (as opposed to shot records) is achieved during processing, preferably in the common mid-point (CMP) domain but any other domain where the 24

28 981 Patent Claims De Kok (Ex. 1003) 15. The method as defined in claim 14 wherein the determining the shot to shot coherent components comprises generating a common mid point trace gather with respect to each of the second and at least one additional sources. 16. The method as defined in claim 1 further comprising, extracting from the recorded sensor signals coherent seismic signals identified to each of the first seismic energy source and the second seismic energy source. contributions from successive shot records are present may be used. Ex at 4:47-55: The seismic energy returned from shot records containing multiple source position energy must be separated into source records containing energy responsive to the individual seismic sources. The separation of individual source contributions into source records (as opposed to shot records) is achieved during processing, preferably in the common mid-point (CMP) domain but any other domain where the contributions from successive shot records are present may be used. Ex at 4:47-55: The seismic energy returned from shot records containing multiple source position energy must be separated into source records containing energy responsive to the individual seismic sources. The separation of individual source contributions into source records (as opposed to shot records) is achieved during processing, preferably in the common mid-point (CMP) domain but any other domain where the contributions from successive shot records are present may be used. 17. The method as defined in claim 16 wherein the extracting the signals Ex at 6:41-48: Here the result of polarity decoding to enhance and separate energy for the Source TD1 shot series from the shot series of Source TD2 consists of reversing the contributions from shot 3 (505, 515) and shot 4 (507, 517), which causes energy from Source TD1 to reinforce and that of Source TD2 to cancel after mixing, K-filtering or stacking (also here the CMP gather may be the preferred domain to execute the source discrimination). Ex at 4:47-55: The seismic energy returned from shot records containing multiple source position energy must be separated into source 25

29 981 Patent Claims De Kok (Ex. 1003) identified to the first source comprises determining trace to trace and shot to shot coherent components in the recorded sensor signals. 18. The method as defined in claim 16 wherein the determining the shot to shot coherent components comprises generating a common mid point gather with respect to the first source. 19.a. The method as defined in claim 6 wherein the extracting the signals identified to the second source comprises time aligning the recorded signals with respect to firing the second source records containing energy responsive to the individual seismic sources. The separation of individual source contributions into source records (as opposed to shot records) is achieved during processing, preferably in the common mid-point (CMP) domain but any other domain where the contributions from successive shot records are present may be used. Ex at 4:47-55: The seismic energy returned from shot records containing multiple source position energy must be separated into source records containing energy responsive to the individual seismic sources. The separation of individual source contributions into source records (as opposed to shot records) is achieved during processing, preferably in the common mid-point (CMP) domain but any other domain where the contributions from successive shot records are present may be used. Ex at 6:41-48: Here the result of polarity decoding to enhance and separate energy for the Source TD1 shot series from the shot series of Source TD2 consists of reversing the contributions from shot 3 (505, 515) and shot 4 (507, 517), which causes energy from Source TD1 to reinforce and that of Source TD2 to cancel after mixing, K-filtering or stacking (also here the CMP gather may be the preferred domain to execute the source discrimination). 19.b. and determining trace to trace and shot to shot The polarity decoding technique is a form of timealignment because the polarities are a direct function of the time delays. Decoding the polarities such that the polarities for one source stack while the polarities for the other sources cancel necessarily requires timealignment. (Ex. 1002, ) Ex at 4:47-55: The seismic energy returned from shot records containing multiple source 26

30 981 Patent Claims De Kok (Ex. 1003) coherent components in the time-aligned recorded seismic signals. 20. The method as defined in claim 19 wherein the determining the shot to shot coherent components comprises generating a common mid point gather with respect to the second source. 21. The method as defined in claim 1 wherein the second source is towed behind the first source. position energy must be separated into source records containing energy responsive to the individual seismic sources. The separation of individual source contributions into source records (as opposed to shot records) is achieved during processing, preferably in the common mid-point (CMP) domain but any other domain where the contributions from successive shot records are present may be used. Ex at 4:47-55: The seismic energy returned from shot records containing multiple source position energy must be separated into source records containing energy responsive to the individual seismic sources. The separation of individual source contributions into source records (as opposed to shot records) is achieved during processing, preferably in the common mid-point (CMP) domain but any other domain where the contributions from successive shot records are present may be used. Ex at 5:23-24: FIG. 4 depicts a four source (203, 205, 413, 415) shooting arrangement with two receiver cables (407, 409). Ex at Fig

31 B. Claims 1-22 are obvious in view of the combined teachings of Beasley and Timoshin 1. The proposed grounds based on Beasley and Timoshin are not redundant to the grounds based on De Kok. The grounds raised in the following sections based on the combined teachings of Beasley and Timoshin are meaningfully distinct from the grounds raised above based on De Kok. Beasley, unlike De Kok, does not explicitly disclose polarity encoding for simultaneous source activation, but more generally discloses that any desired type of encoding could be used for simultaneous or near simultaneous source activation across both the marine and land survey contexts. Timoshin discloses one such type of encoding that was known more than a decade prior to the earliest filing date claimed by the 981 patent a time delay encoding that more closely matches the type of time delay encoding disclosed in the 981 patent than the time delay/polarity encoding/decoding disclosed in De Kok. Specifically, Timoshin discloses using random numbers as launch delays during overlapping source activations. (Ex. 1005, p. 5.) During processing, the results of the effect from a single shot source are summed in phase, while those from different sources are summed out of phase, as the firing delays of the sources are random and independent. (Ex. 1005, p. 5.) Timoshin further discloses that, because of the incoherence of the summation of the wave fields, it is possible to separate the wave fields from different sources during data processing by the common-depth-point method and by constructing seismic images by the diffraction method. (Ex. 1005, p. 7.) 28

32 As such, the grounds raised in the following sections based on the combined teachings of Beasley and Timoshin are meaningfully distinct from and are not redundant to the grounds raised above based on De Kok. 2. Claim 1 Beasley is directed to marine seismic surveys that include firing seismic sources simultaneously or near simultaneously in which the sources may be arranged to emit encoded wavefields using any desired type of coding but does not explicitly disclose the type of time encoding claimed in the 981 patent. (Ex. 1004, 7:54-56.) While Beasley discusses the use of source encoding in the marine context, it discloses that the same encoding techniques could be used in land seismic surveys. (Ex. 1004, 9:39-44.) Additionally, as Professor Ikelle explains, prior to the 981 patent it was already commonplace to adapt land solutions to marine problems due to the clear relationship between land and marine seismic surveying. (Ex. 1002, ) For example, the World Oil article makes no distinction between land and marine seismic surveying when discussing using a CMP gather to increase the signal to noise ratio when processing and summing traces. (Ex. 1008, at 86.) Therefore, when assessing what types of encoding techniques could be employed in marine surveying, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to look to what was being used in land seismic surveying. (Ex. 1002, ) 29

33 Timoshin, which issued more than a decade before the 981 patent was filed, discloses the use of time encoding and time alignment to separate sources. (Ex. 1005, p. 7, 2.) Timoshin discloses that by varying the launch delays of overlapping sources based on random numbers, it becomes possible to separate the wave fields from different sources during data processing by the common-depth-point method and by constructing seismic images by the diffraction method. (Ex. 1005, p. 7.) Accordingly, Beasley discloses it is desirable to employ signal encoding techniques, and Timoshin discloses one such known technique. The combination of the known time-encoding technique of Timoshin with the known marine survey technique disclosed in Beasley would do no more than yield the predictable result of making it possible to separate the wave fields from different sources of Beasley during data processing by the common-depth-point method and by constructing seismic images by the diffraction method, as disclosed in Timoshin. (Ex. 1002, 151.) As such, it would have been obvious to employ the known time encoding techniques disclosed in Timoshin in the marine survey of Beasley. (See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) ( The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. ).) Furthermore, both Beasley and Timoshin deal with simultaneous shooting, encoding, and decoding. As Dr. Ikelle notes, these similarities would have been enough to motivate a person of ordinary skill to combine Beasley 30

34 and Timoshin, especially given the natural fit between teachings in Beasley and Timoshin. (Ex. 1002, ) The following claim chart specifies where each element of claim 1 is found in the combined teachings of Beasley and Timoshin: 981 Patent Claims Beasley (Ex. 1004) and Timoshin (Ex. 1005) 1. A method for seismic surveying, comprising: Ex at 1:19-25: The present invention, in certain aspects, is directed to seismic survey systems and methods in which two or more seismic sources are fired simultaneously, or significantly close together temporally, but which is, in one aspect, significantly spatially separated, and resulting seismic data is processed meaningfully utilizing data generated by both (or more) seismic sources. 1.a. towing a first seismic energy source and at least one seismic sensor system; Ex at 3:47-57: The present invention, in certain aspects, discloses a seismic survey system for use at sea or on land with two, three, four, or more seismic sources (or one source moved form one location to another and fired at multiple locations) for generating an acoustic wavefield (e.g., but not limited to, acoustic sources, e.g. air guns); a plurality of spaced-apart seismic detectors for discrete sampling of the acoustic wavefield reflected and/or refracted from earth layers (e.g., but not limited to geophones or hydrophones); and, at sea, a vessel or vessels for carrying or towing the seismic sources and, in one aspect, the detectors. 1.b. towing a second seismic energy source at a selected distance from the first seismic Ex at Fig. 4 (SL, SL ). Ex at 3:47-57: The present invention, in certain aspects, discloses a seismic survey system for use at sea or on land with two, three, four, or more 31

35 981 Patent Claims Beasley (Ex. 1004) and Timoshin (Ex. 1005) energy source; and seismic sources (or one source moved form one location to another and fired at multiple locations) for generating an acoustic wavefield (e.g., but not limited to, acoustic sources, e.g. air guns); a plurality of spaced-apart seismic detectors for discrete sampling of the acoustic wavefield reflected and/or refracted from earth layers (e.g., but not limited to geophones or hydrophones); and, at sea, a vessel or vessels for carrying or towing the seismic sources and, in one aspect, the detectors. Ex at Fig. 4 (ST, ST ). Beasley discloses that the second seismic energy source is at a selected distance from the first: 1.c. actuating the first seismic energy source and the second seismic energy source in a plurality of firing sequences, each of the firing sequences including firing of the first source and the second source and recording signals generated by the at least one seismic sensor system, 1.d. a time interval between firing the first source and the second source varied between successive ones of the firing Ex at 3:57-59: In one aspect, the seismic sources are activated simultaneously at a known location with the seismic sensors at a known location. (emphasis added). Ex at 8:47-49: It is within the scope of this invention for there to be any number of source firings from one to several hundred or more. Ex at 7:31-34: The first and second sources are activated at timed intervals in alternate cycles to provide first and second reflected wavefields. The reflected wavefields are detected and converted to first and second data sets of reflected signals. Ex at 7:31-34: The first and second sources are activated at timed intervals in alternate cycles to provide first and second reflected wavefields. The reflected wavefields are detected and converted to 32

36 981 Patent Claims Beasley (Ex. 1004) and Timoshin (Ex. 1005) sequences, first and second data sets of reflected signals. 1.e. the times of firing the first and second source indexed so as to enable separate identification of seismic events originating from the first source and seismic events originating from the second source in detected seismic signals. Ex at page 5: A sequence of P random numbers is generated for each position of the receiving device and a series of P excitation points. They are bounded on one side by the correlation radius of seismograms obtained from the different excitation points, and the other by on-half of the seismogram s duration. These random numbers are used as launch delays for sources positioned at P excitation points while the seismic waves from all these sources are recorded continuously. Launch times of the sources are stored in the memory and are used for the separation of the wave fields in processing the results. In performing summation by using the multifold reflection technique, the signals from one excitation source are summed in-phase, while those from different sources out-of-phase, since the launch delays of the sources are random and independent. Ex at 4:16-36: To separate the sources data, the record is updated with one source's geometry information (e.g. x, y location coordinates and time of day identifiers, e.g. SEG standard format information, are attached to the seismic data traces by known methods, e.g. a header with the desired information is applied to a trace tape)... The process is then re-done with the attachment of the other source's geometry producing the seismic data related to the other seismic source. Ex at page 6: The triggering moments of all sources (usually collected by the receivers installed near or directly on the sources or by the explosion marking circuits) are transmitted to station 7 and are stored there on the simultaneously recorded seismograms. 33

37 3. Claim 7 Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites actuating at least one additional seismic energy source in each firing 2 sequence, the at least one additional seismic energy source actuated after an additional selected time interval after firing the second source. Claim 7 further recites the additional selected time interval is different than the time interval between firing the first and second sources, and that the additional time interval is varied between successive ones of the firing sequences. Beasley discloses using three or more sources in a shot sequence, stating [i]t is within the scope of this invention for there to be any number of source firings from one to several hundred or more Alternatively, one vessel may tow multiple seismic sources or each of two or more vessels may each tow two or more sources. (Ex. 1004, 8: 47-56, emphasis added.) Further, for at least the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious prior to the earliest filing date claimed by the 981 patent to: (a) make the additional selected time interval different than the time interval between firing the first and second sources, and (b) vary the additional time interval between successive ones of the firing sequences. In particular, such a technique is one known method of encoding signal sources and it would have been obvious to apply this known technique to any number of sources 2 The prosecution history makes clear claim 7 was intended to recite in each firing sequence instead of in each tiring sequence. (See Ex. 1007, claim 7, p. 8.) 34

38 used in the method of Beasley to achieve the predictable result of signal that are encoded based on firing timing. Accordingly, claim 7 is obvious in view of the combined teachings of Beasley and Timoshin. 4. Claims 2-6 and Claims 2-6 each directly depend from claim 1 and recite aspects of how the time interval between firing the first source and the second source are varied. Likewise, claims 8-10 each directly depend from claim 7 and recite aspects of how the additional time interval is varied. As discussed above, the art cited herein establishes that varying such time intervals was old and well known long before the earliest filing date claimed by the 981 patent. a. Claims 2 and 10. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites the time interval is varied systematically. Claim 10 depends directly from claim 7 and recites the additional time interval is varied systematically between firing sequences. Once one of ordinary skill selects the known source signal encoding option of time interval variation, selecting the time intervals at random, pseudo-randomly, or based on a predetermined correlation were all obvious variants, the selection of which was well within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest filing date claimed by the 981 patent. (Ex. 1002, 164.) Accordingly, claims 2 and 10 are obvious in view of the combined teachings of Beasley and Timoshin. 35

39 b. Claims 3 and 9. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites the time interval is varied quasirandomly. Claim 9 depends directly from claim 7 and recites the additional time interval is varied quasi-randomly between firing sequences. Once one of ordinary skill selects the known source signal encoding option of time interval variation, selecting the time intervals at random, pseudo-randomly, or based on a predetermined correlation were all obvious variants, the selection of which was well within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest filing date claimed by the 981 patent. (Ex. 1002, 166.) Accordingly, claims 3 and 9 are obvious in view of the combined teachings of Beasley and Timoshin. c. Claims 4 and 8. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites the time interval varied is randomly. Claim 8 depends directly from claim 7 and recites the additional time interval is varied randomly between firing sequences. Timoshin explicitly discloses using random numbers for the firing delays. (Ex. 1005, Abstract.) Accordingly, claims 4 and 8 are obvious in view of the combined teachings of Beasley and Timoshin. d. Claim 5. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites the time interval is varied in steps of about 100 milliseconds. Given the use of time delay encoding, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use time intervals that vary in steps of about 100 milliseconds. Dr. Ikelle states that a person of ordinary skill in the art 36

40 would understand the advantages of using such time variations. Specifically, 100 milliseconds is slightly longer than the duration of the source signature for most marine seismic sources. Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to use time delays that vary in this manner in order to avoid interference between the source signatures which would make separation of the sources very difficult. (Ex. 1002, ) e. Claim 6. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites the time interval is at least as long as a wavelet time of the first source. Just as with the 100 millisecond time interval variations, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to use time intervals at least as long as the wavelet time of the first source. Dr. Ikelle states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the advantage of waiting at least the wavelet time is that it prevents the source signatures from interfering. The interference of source signatures greatly hinders attempts to separate the data and thus it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to avoid this interference by waiting at least the wavelet time of the first source. (Ex. 1002, 61-63, 173.) 5. Claims Claims 11-13, 15-18, and 20 recite various aspects data processing that are fully encompassed by prior art signal sorting techniques, such as mid-point trace gathers, that were basic tools of those of ordinary skill in the art in the technical field of seismic surveys well before the earliest filing date claimed by the 981 patent. Claims 37

41 14 and 19 additionally recite time aligning the signals a step that necessarily occurs when signals are encoded based on their timing, as fully evidenced by the citations to Timoshin in the claim charts below. Thus, the modification of Beasley in view of Timoshin, discussed above, would also result in the time aligning of claims 14 and 19 of the 981 patent. A CMP gather is a collection of all the data with respect to a particular subsurface location. More specifically, a CMP gather constitutes all the traces for which the midpoint between a given source and receiver is the same, which correspond to the same set of reflections being detected. The figure above shows the common midpoints between a number of sources and receivers. With multiple sources and receivers at different locations, there is a common midpoint between different source-receiver pairs. A CMP gather involves collecting the traces that result from reflections off this common location which improves the signal to noise ratio of the data. (Ex. 1002, 30.) 38

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. WESTERNGECO L.L.C., Petitioner,

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. WESTERNGECO L.L.C., Petitioner, IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD WESTERNGECO L.L.C., Petitioner, v. PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS, Patent Owner. Case IPR2015-00311 Patent U.S. 6,906,981 PETITION

More information

Paper Date: June 8, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Date: June 8, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 42 571-272-7822 Date: June 8, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD WESTERNGECO, L.L.C., Petitioner, v. PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS, Patent

More information

Paper Entered: December 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: December 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571.272.7822 Entered: December 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNIFIED PATENTS INC., Petitioner, v. JOHN L. BERMAN,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; Petitioner Paper No. Filed: Sepetember 23, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; Petitioner v. SCRIPT SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC Patent

More information

Paper 7 Tel: Entered: August 8, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper 7 Tel: Entered: August 8, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: August 8, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TOSHIBA CORPORATION, TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC., TOSHIBA

More information

Paper Entered: August 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: August 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9 571-272-7822 Entered: August 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD STRYKER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. KARL STORZ ENDOSCOPY-AMERICA,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ITRON, INC., Petitioner. CERTIFIED MEASUREMENT, LLC, Patent Owner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ITRON, INC., Petitioner. CERTIFIED MEASUREMENT, LLC, Patent Owner UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ITRON, INC., Petitioner v. CERTIFIED MEASUREMENT, LLC, Patent Owner Case: IPR2015- U.S. Patent No. 6,289,453 PETITION

More information

Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,452 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,452 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,452 Paper No. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. Petitioner v. DIGITAL

More information

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner v. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner Patent No. 8,046,801 Filing Date:

More information

Paper Entered: July 29, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: July 29, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8 571-272-7822 Entered: July 29, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION Petitioner, v. WI-LAN USA

More information

Paper Entered: April 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: April 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32 571-272-7822 Entered: April 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC, Petitioner, v.

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MASIMO CORPORATION, Petitioner. MINDRAY DS USA, INC.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MASIMO CORPORATION, Petitioner. MINDRAY DS USA, INC. Filed: May 20, 2015 Filed on behalf of: MASIMO CORPORATION By: Irfan A. Lateef Brenton R. Babcock Jarom D. Kesler KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP 2040 Main Street, 14th Floor Irvine, CA 92614 Ph.: (949)

More information

Paper 21 Tel: Entered: July 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper 21 Tel: Entered: July 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 21 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: July 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD EIZO CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. BARCO N.V., Patent

More information

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner v. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner Patent No. 6,418,556 Filing Date:

More information

Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,452 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,452 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,452 Paper No. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. Petitioner v. DIGITAL

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. LG ELECTRONICS, INC. Petitioner. ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC Patent Owner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. LG ELECTRONICS, INC. Petitioner. ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC Patent Owner UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LG ELECTRONICS, INC. Petitioner v. ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC Patent Owner Case: IPR2015-00322 Patent 6,784,879 PETITION FOR

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD HARMONIX MUSIC SYSTEMS, INC. and KONAMI DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT INC., Petitioners v. PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION,

More information

Paper 91 Tel: Entered: January 24, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper 91 Tel: Entered: January 24, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 91 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: January 24, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SHURE INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. CLEARONE, INC.,

More information

Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,781,292 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,781,292 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,781,292 Paper No. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. Petitioner v. DIGITAL

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LUXSHARE PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LUXSHARE PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LUXSHARE PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD., Petitioner v. BING XU PRECISION CO., LTD., Patent Owner CASE: Unassigned Patent

More information

Full deghosting of OBC data with over/under source acquisition Mark Egan*, Khadir George El-Kasseh and Nick Moldoveanu, Schlumberger WesternGeco

Full deghosting of OBC data with over/under source acquisition Mark Egan*, Khadir George El-Kasseh and Nick Moldoveanu, Schlumberger WesternGeco with over/under source acquisition Mark Egan*, Khadir George El-Kasseh and Nick Moldoveanu, Schlumberger WesternGeco Summary The resolution of marine seismic data is affected by ghost and reverberations

More information

Paper No Entered: April 9, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper No Entered: April 9, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 30 571.272.7822 Entered: April 9, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED and LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS,

More information

Paper Entered: June 12, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: June 12, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 35 571-272-7822 Entered: June 12, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD HULU, LLC, Petitioner, v. INTERTAINER, INC., Patent Owner.

More information

Paper Entered: September 10, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: September 10, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 23 571-272-7822 Entered: September 10, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner, v. ROVI

More information

Paper Entered: July 28, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: July 28, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32 571-272-7822 Entered: July 28, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD HOPKINS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and THE COAST DISTRIBUTION

More information

Paper No Entered: January 17, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper No Entered: January 17, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 26 571-272-7822 Entered: January 17, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, Petitioner, v. ELBRUS

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. VSR INDUSTRIES, INC. Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. VSR INDUSTRIES, INC. Petitioner UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD VSR INDUSTRIES, INC. Petitioner v. COLE KEPRO INTERNATIONAL, LLC Patent Owner U.S. Patent No. 6,860,814 Filing Date: September

More information

Paper No. 60 Tel: Entered: March 20, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper No. 60 Tel: Entered: March 20, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 60 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: March 20, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM IVHS INC., Petitioner, v. NEOLOGY,

More information

Paper No Entered: October 12, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper No Entered: October 12, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 57 571-272-7822 Entered: October 12, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS RF, LLC, Petitioner,

More information

Paper Entered: April 29, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: April 29, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 41 571-272-7822 Entered: April 29, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD QSC AUDIO PRODUCTS, LLC, Petitioner, v. CREST AUDIO, INC.,

More information

Paper Entered: October 11, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: October 11, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 34 571-272-7822 Entered: October 11, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner, v. ROVI

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MasterImage 3D, Inc. and MasterImage 3D Asia, LLC Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MasterImage 3D, Inc. and MasterImage 3D Asia, LLC Petitioner, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MasterImage 3D, Inc. and MasterImage 3D Asia, LLC Petitioner, v. RealD, Inc. Patent Owner. Issue Date: December 28, 2010

More information

Paper No Filed: March 24, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper No Filed: March 24, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 55 571.272.7822 Filed: March 24, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON WEB SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner,

More information

Paper Entered: August 28, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: August 28, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 45 571-272-7822 Entered: August 28, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD XACTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte JENNIFER MARKET and GARY D.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte JENNIFER MARKET and GARY D. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte JENNIFER MARKET and GARY D. ALTHOFF Appeal 2009-001843 Technology Center 2800 Decided: October 23,

More information

Signal to noise the key to increased marine seismic bandwidth

Signal to noise the key to increased marine seismic bandwidth Signal to noise the key to increased marine seismic bandwidth R. Gareth Williams 1* and Jon Pollatos 1 question the conventional wisdom on seismic acquisition suggesting that wider bandwidth can be achieved

More information

Patent Reissue. Devan Padmanabhan. Partner Dorsey & Whitney, LLP

Patent Reissue. Devan Padmanabhan. Partner Dorsey & Whitney, LLP Patent Reissue Devan Padmanabhan Partner Dorsey & Whitney, LLP Patent Correction A patent may be corrected in four ways Reissue Certificate of correction Disclaimer Reexamination Roadmap Reissue Rules

More information

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner v. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner Patent No. 8,046,801 Filing Date:

More information

Paper Entered: July 7, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: July 7, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 13 571-272-7822 Entered: July 7, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD DEXCOWIN GLOBAL, INC., Petitioner, v. ARIBEX, INC., Patent

More information

Paper Entered: May 1, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: May 1, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 41 571-272-7822 Entered: May 1, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD QSC AUDIO PRODUCTS, LLC, Petitioner, v. CREST AUDIO, INC.,

More information

Paper No Entered: March 1, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper No Entered: March 1, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 51 571-272-7822 Entered: March 1, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD DOUGLAS DYNAMICS, L.L.C. and DOUGLAS DYNAMICS, INC.,

More information

Paper Entered: March 10, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: March 10, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 49 571-272-7822 Entered: March 10, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD XILINX, INC. Petitioner v. INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC

More information

Charles T. Armstrong, McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, McLean, VA, for Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION

Charles T. Armstrong, McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, McLean, VA, for Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. NEC CORPORATION, Plaintiff. v. HYUNDAI ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES CO., LTD. and Hyundai Electronics America, Inc. Defendants. Hyundai Electronics

More information

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner v. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner Patent No. 8,006,263 Filing Date:

More information

Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182 Paper No. 1. MICROSOFT CORPORATION Petitioner, BISCOTTI INC.

Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182 Paper No. 1. MICROSOFT CORPORATION Petitioner, BISCOTTI INC. Paper No. 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MICROSOFT CORPORATION Petitioner, v. BISCOTTI INC. Patent Owner Title: Patent No. 8,144,182 Issued: March

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re Patent of: Inoue, Hajime, et al. U.S. Patent No.: 6,467,093 Attorney Docket No.: 39328-0009IP2 Issue Date: October 15, 2002 Appl. Serial No.: 09/244,282

More information

Source/Receiver (SR) Setup

Source/Receiver (SR) Setup PS User Guide Series 2015 Source/Receiver (SR) Setup For 1-D and 2-D Vs Profiling Prepared By Choon B. Park, Ph.D. January 2015 Table of Contents Page 1. Overview 2 2. Source/Receiver (SR) Setup Main Menu

More information

Paper 31 Tel: Entered: March 9, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper 31 Tel: Entered: March 9, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 31 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: March 9, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TOSHIBA CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. OPTICAL DEVICES,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Valeo North America, Inc., Valeo S.A., Valeo GmbH, Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH, and Connaught Electronics

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Inventor: Hair Attorney Docket No.: United States Patent No.: 5,966,440 104677-5005-804 Formerly Application No.: 08/471,964 Customer No. 28120 Issue Date:

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AT&T MOBILITY LLC AND CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS Petitioners v. SOLOCRON MEDIA, LLC Patent Owner Case IPR2015-

More information

PS User Guide Series Seismic-Data Display

PS User Guide Series Seismic-Data Display PS User Guide Series 2015 Seismic-Data Display Prepared By Choon B. Park, Ph.D. January 2015 Table of Contents Page 1. File 2 2. Data 2 2.1 Resample 3 3. Edit 4 3.1 Export Data 4 3.2 Cut/Append Records

More information

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A 7001Ö

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A 7001Ö Serial Number 09/678.881 Filing Date 4 October 2000 Inventor Robert C. Higgins NOTICE The above identified patent application is available for licensing. Requests for information should be addressed to:

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Petitioner Declaration of Edward Delp Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,650,591 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Samsung Electronics America,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. HTC AMERICA, INC., Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. HTC AMERICA, INC., Petitioner, Trials@uspto.gov 571-272-7822 Paper 11 Date Entered: September 13, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD HTC AMERICA, INC., Petitioner, v. VIRGINIA INNOVATION

More information

Paper: Entered: May 22, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper: Entered: May 22, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper: 7 571-272-7822 Entered: May 22, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MICROSOFT CORPORATION and MICROSOFT MOBILE INC., Petitioner,

More information

SPECIAL REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON POLARITY STANDARDS 1

SPECIAL REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON POLARITY STANDARDS 1 This document has been converted from the original publication: Thigpen, Ben B., Dalby, A. E. and Landrum, Ralph, 1975, Report on Subcommittee on Polarity Standards *: Geophysics, 40, no. 04, 694-699.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,543,330 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Valeo North America, Inc., Valeo S.A., Valeo GmbH,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case: 15-1072 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 04/27/2015 Appeal No. 2015-1072 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit HARMONIC INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. AVID TECHNOLOGY, INC., Patent Owner-Appellee,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, AND FUNAI ELECTRIC CO., LTD, Petitioners, v. GOLD CHARM LIMITED

More information

Paper Entered: November 30, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: November 30, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 51 571-272-7822 Entered: November 30, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner. VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED, Patent Owner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner. VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED, Patent Owner UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GOOGLE INC., Petitioner v. VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED, Patent Owner Case IPR2016-00212 Patent 7,974,339 B2 PETITIONER S OPPOSITION

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED, 1 Patent Owner.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED, 1 Patent Owner. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, v. VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED, 1 Patent Owner. Case IPR2016-00212 2 U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339 B2

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit UNITED VIDEO PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, AND TV GUIDE ONLINE, LLC, AND TV GUIDE ONLINE, INC.,

More information

Paper Entered: March 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: March 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 60 571-272-7822 Entered: March 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD BROADCOM CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. WI-FI ONE, LLC, Patent

More information

AMENDMENT TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

AMENDMENT TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. ABSOLUTE SOFTWARE, INC., and Absolute Software Corp, Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants. v. STEALTH SIGNAL, INC., and Computer Security Products,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, KONAMI DIGIT AL ENTERTAINMENT ) INC., HARMONIX MUSIC SYSTEMS, ) INC. and ELECTRONIC

More information

NOTICE. The above identified patent application is available for licensing. Requests for information should be addressed to:

NOTICE. The above identified patent application is available for licensing. Requests for information should be addressed to: > - Serial Number 09/565.234 Filine Date 28 April 2000 Inventor John R. Raposa Daniel P. Thivierge NOTICE The above identified patent application is available for licensing. Requests for information should

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit VIRGINIA INNOVATION SCIENCES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS

More information

Paper No. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper No. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov 571-272-7822 Paper No. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TRW AUTOMOTIVE U.S. LLC Petitioner v. MAGNA ELECTRONICS INCORPORATED Patent Owner

More information

Paper: Entered: Jan. 5, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper: Entered: Jan. 5, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper: 11 571-272-7822 Entered: Jan. 5, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ARDAGH GLASS INC., Petitioner, v. CULCHROME, LLC, Patent

More information

Case 2:16-cv MRH Document 18 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:16-cv MRH Document 18 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:16-cv-01594-MRH Document 18 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MINELAB ELECTRONICS PTY LTD, v. Plaintiff, XP METAL DETECTORS

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Cook Group Incorporated and Cook Medical LLC, Petitioners

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Cook Group Incorporated and Cook Medical LLC, Petitioners UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Cook Group Incorporated and Cook Medical LLC, Petitioners v. Boston Scientific Scimed, Incorporated, Patent Owner Patent

More information

U.S. PATENT NO. 7,066,733 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

U.S. PATENT NO. 7,066,733 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ULTRADENT PRODUCTS, INC. Petitioner v. KERR CORPORATION Patent Owner Case (Unassigned) Patent 7,066,733 PETITION

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION MICROSOFT CORP., ET AL., v. COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,676,491 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Valeo North America, Inc., Valeo S.A., Valeo GmbH,

More information

Case 3:16-cv K Document 36 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 29 PageID 233

Case 3:16-cv K Document 36 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 29 PageID 233 Case 3:16-cv-00382-K Document 36 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 29 PageID 233 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JOHN BERMAN, v. Plaintiff, DIRECTV, LLC and

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 3:14-cv-07891-MLC-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 1 Patrick J. Cerillo, Esq. Patrick J. Cerillo, LLC 4 Walter Foran Blvd., Suite 402 Flemington, NJ 08822 Attorney ID No: 01481-1980

More information

Covered Business Method Patent Review United States Patent No. 5,191,573 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Covered Business Method Patent Review United States Patent No. 5,191,573 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Inventor: Hair Attorney Docket No.: United States Patent No.: 5,191,573 104677-5005-801 Formerly Application No.: 586,391 Customer No. 28120 Issue Date:

More information

Paper Entered: September 30, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: September 30, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Case: 16-1419 Document: 1-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/05/2016 (6 of 104) Trials@uspto.gov Paper 58 571-272-7822 Entered: September 30, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND

More information

(12) Publication of Unexamined Patent Application (A)

(12) Publication of Unexamined Patent Application (A) Case #: JP H9-102827A (19) JAPANESE PATENT OFFICE (51) Int. Cl. 6 H04 M 11/00 G11B 15/02 H04Q 9/00 9/02 (12) Publication of Unexamined Patent Application (A) Identification Symbol 301 346 301 311 JPO File

More information

SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Telephone: (206) Fax: (206)

SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Telephone: (206) Fax: (206) Case 2:10-cv-01823-JLR Document 154 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 153 1 The Honorable James L. Robart 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 11 12

More information

Appeal decision. Appeal No France. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan

Appeal decision. Appeal No France. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo, Japan Appeal decision Appeal No. 2015-21648 France Appellant THOMSON LICENSING Tokyo, Japan Patent Attorney INABA, Yoshiyuki Tokyo, Japan Patent Attorney ONUKI, Toshifumi Tokyo, Japan Patent Attorney EGUCHI,

More information

Ocean bottom seismic acquisition via jittered sampling

Ocean bottom seismic acquisition via jittered sampling Ocean bottom seismic acquisition via jittered sampling Haneet Wason, and Felix J. Herrmann* SLIM University of British Columbia Challenges Need for full sampling - wave-equation based inversion (RTM &

More information

Paper Date Entered: January 29, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper Date Entered: January 29, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 45 571-272-7822 Date Entered: January 29, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MINDGEEK, S.A.R.L., MINDGEEK USA, INC., and PLAYBOY

More information

Application of blended sources offshore Abu Dhabi

Application of blended sources offshore Abu Dhabi Application of blended sources offshore Abu Dhabi C.D.T. Walker 1*, G. Ajlani 1, M. Hall 2, S. Al Masaabi 3, A. Al Kobaisi 3, G. Casson 3 and H. Hagiwara 3 present applications of the pseudo-random shot-point

More information

Acquisition and processing of the Pikes Peak 3C-2D seismic survey

Acquisition and processing of the Pikes Peak 3C-2D seismic survey Pikes Peak 3C-2D survey Acquisition and processing of the Pikes Peak 3C-2D seismic survey Brian H. Hoffe, Malcolm B. Bertram, Henry C. Bland, Eric V. Gallant, Laurence R. Lines and Lawrence E. Mewhort

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD In re Post-Grant Review of: ) ) U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464 ) ) Issued: December 2, 2014 ) ) Inventor: Ingemar J. Cox ) ) Application No. 13/800,573 ) )

More information

Source-receiver offset ranges for P-SV seismic data. C. Lawton ABSTRACT

Source-receiver offset ranges for P-SV seismic data. C. Lawton ABSTRACT 33 Source-receiver offset ranges for P-SV seismic data Don C. Lawton ABSTRACT Modelling studies have shown that the ratio of incident angles for P-SV and P-P reflections is about 1.3 for a common receiver

More information

Chapter 4. Logic Design

Chapter 4. Logic Design Chapter 4 Logic Design 4.1 Introduction. In previous Chapter we studied gates and combinational circuits, which made by gates (AND, OR, NOT etc.). That can be represented by circuit diagram, truth table

More information

ONE SENSOR MICROPHONE ARRAY APPLICATION IN SOURCE LOCALIZATION. Hsin-Chu, Taiwan

ONE SENSOR MICROPHONE ARRAY APPLICATION IN SOURCE LOCALIZATION. Hsin-Chu, Taiwan ICSV14 Cairns Australia 9-12 July, 2007 ONE SENSOR MICROPHONE ARRAY APPLICATION IN SOURCE LOCALIZATION Percy F. Wang 1 and Mingsian R. Bai 2 1 Southern Research Institute/University of Alabama at Birmingham

More information

Paper Entered: 13 Oct UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: 13 Oct UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 33 571-272-7822 Entered: 13 Oct. 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD WEBASTO ROOF SYSTEMS, INC., Petitioner, v. UUSI, LLC, Patent

More information

Trial decision. Conclusion The trial of the case was groundless. The costs in connection with the trial shall be borne by the demandant.

Trial decision. Conclusion The trial of the case was groundless. The costs in connection with the trial shall be borne by the demandant. Trial decision Invalidation No. 2007-800070 Ishikawa, Japan Demandant Nanao Corporation Osaka, Japan Patent Attorney SUGITANI, Tsutomu Osaka, Japan Patent Attorney TODAKA, Hiroyuki Osaka, Japan Patent

More information

X820S Seismic / accelerometric digitizer channels - 24 bit

X820S Seismic / accelerometric digitizer channels - 24 bit Seismic / accelerometric digitizer 24-96 channels - 24 bit DESCRIPTION Seismic/accelerometric digitizer equipped with 24-48-72-96 embedded channels for active and passive seismic surveys, dynamic investigations

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. In Re: U.S. Patent 7,116,710 : Attorney Docket No

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. In Re: U.S. Patent 7,116,710 : Attorney Docket No UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD In Re: U.S. Patent 7,116,710 : Attorney Docket No. 082944.0102 Inventor: Hui Jin, et. al. : Filed: May 18, 2001 : Claimed

More information

PETITIONER S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER S RESPONSE

PETITIONER S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER S RESPONSE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL. Petitioner v. Patent of CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES LLC Patent Owner Case IPR2012-00001

More information

Federal Communications Commission

Federal Communications Commission Case 3:16-cv-00124-TBR Document 68-1 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 925 Federal Communications Commission Office Of General Counsel 445 12th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Tel: (202) 418-1740 Fax:

More information

Case 1:18-cv RMB-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 44 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 1:18-cv RMB-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 44 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 1:18-cv-10238-RMB-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 44 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY TVnGO Ltd. (BVI), Plaintiff, Civil Case No.: 18-cv-10238 v.

More information

(12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2005/ A1

(12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2005/ A1 (19) United States US 2005O105810A1 (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2005/0105810 A1 Kim (43) Pub. Date: May 19, 2005 (54) METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CONDENSED IMAGE RECORDING AND REPRODUCTION

More information

GG450 4/12/2010. Today s material comes from p in the text book. Please read and understand all of this material!

GG450 4/12/2010. Today s material comes from p in the text book. Please read and understand all of this material! GG450 April 13, 2010 Seismic Reflection III Data Processing Today s material comes from p. 163-198 in the text book. Please read and understand all of this material! Reflection Processing We've been talking

More information