IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE IPR: Unassig,I_1ed
`Patent 7,162,520 B2
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BRIAN EVANS, PhD.
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, P9. 1
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014-01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 1
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE IPR: Unassig,I_1ed
`Patent 7,162,520 B2
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BRIAN EVANS, PhD.
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, P9. 1
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014-01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 1
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ......................................................................................... ..2
`
`III, COMPENSATION AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE PARTIES
`
`IV. LEGAL
`
`A. Claim
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D. Person ofOrdinary Skill in the
`
`V. SUMMARY OF OPINION
`
`uoxocoi:o:oo'-4
`
`VI. TECHNICAL
`
`Brief Description ofthc Relevant File
`
`Relevant Time Frame for Analysis of the ’52() Patent ................................ ..54
`
`The Specification of the ‘S20 Patent ........................................................... ..S4
`
`Relevant Time Frame for Analysis of the ‘S20 Patent..................................76
`
`The Specification of the ’520 Patent
`
`Claims 18 and I of the ’52{} Patent are Anticipated by Workman................77
`
`P1.U.O.0?~"?’
`
`1.
`
`F. Claims 1, 2, I8 and 19 of the ’520 Patent are Obvious over Workman ...... ..86
`
`1. Streamer Separation
`
`2. Fcathe1'Angle
`
`3. One orMore
`
`G. Claims I, 2, 18 and 19 are Anticipated by Hedberg............-.........................96
`
`1. Claim
`
`H. Claims 1, 2, 18 and 19 are Obvious Over Hedberg ................................... ..I I3
`
`1. Streamer Separation
`
`13
`
`2. FeatherAngleMode.................................................................................115
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2045, pg. 2
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 2
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`I. Claims I. o. 18. and 23 are Obvious Ox--er the ’636 PCT in \-*in:\\' ofthe "I53
`
`"An arra}-‘ ofstrnraittcrs cuclt having a plttrality ofstrea1ne|' positioning
`.
`1
`d-3~.'icc:s then: alon_t_1"
`
`19
`
`2. A Control S_\'stcm Coniigurcd to Use .11 Tum Control Modt‘:...................l2!
`
`.1. Claims 1. 6, 18. and 33 are Obvious Over Dolettgox-\-=ski in view ofthu: ‘(.136
`
`VIII.
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, P9. 3
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014-01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 3
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Brian Evans, hereby state the following:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Petroleum Geo-Services,
`
`Inc. ("‘PGS") to
`
`provide technical assistance related to the filing of a Petition for Inter Panes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520 B2 (“the ’S20 Patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`I am
`
`working as a private consultant on this matter and the opinions presented here are
`
`my own.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to prepare a written report,
`
`including comments
`
`related to whether certain claims of the ‘S20 Patent are unpatentable because they
`
`are anticipated or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in view of the
`
`prior art.
`
`I have reviewed the documents set forth in the attached Appendix of
`
`Exhibits and relied on my decades of knowledge and experience in the ‘Field of
`
`seismic marine surveys (detailed in Section II) in reaching my opinions regarding
`
`validity. This report sets forth the bases and reasons for 1ny opinions, including the
`
`additional materials and information relied upon in forming those opinions and
`
`conclusions.
`
`3.
`
`This report is based on information currently available to me. I reserve
`
`the right to continue my investigation and analysis, which may include a review of
`
`documents and information not yet produced. I fi.1rther reserve the right to expand
`
`or othe1'wise modify my opinions and conclusions as my investigation and study
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2045, pg. 4
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 4
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`continues. and to supplement my opinions and conclusions in response to any
`
`additional information that becomes available to me.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`l am a Professor of Geopltysies in the Department of Petroletun
`
`Engineering at Cumin University located in Bentley. Western Australia.
`
`I have
`
`worked continuously in the lield of marine seismic suiyeying for over 44 years,
`
`since the 1970s.
`
`I have been involved in the design of dozens ofmarine seismic
`
`surveys. and have been onboard seismic vessels as they were conducting a marine
`
`seismic survey‘ over one-hundred times.
`
`5.
`
`I authored a textbook devoted to marine seismic surveying and data
`
`acquisition. entitled “A Handbook for Seismic Data Acquisition in E.\'ploration."
`
`I
`
`began writing the textbook in 1985 for use in my "Seismic Acquisition" class. and
`
`continued to update it over the years. It was first published in 1997 by the Society
`
`of Iixploration Geophysicists (SEGL the premier international organization for
`
`seismic professionals and researchers. including marine seismic professionals. At
`
`the time of its publication. it was considered the authoritative textbook in the field
`
`of seismic data acquisition. Over the past 15 years. it has been used throughout the
`
`world in seismic surveying courses and on seismic survey vessels.
`
`6.
`
`I obtained my Diploma of Iileetrical Engineering. the equivalent of-a
`
`bachelor's degree. at the J.M. University of Liverpool in the United Kingdom in
`
`la.)
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2045, pg. 5
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 5
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`1969.
`
`I took my first job in the marine seismic industry in 1971, working as an
`
`instrument engineer for Geophysical Service, Inc.
`
`In that role, I monitored and
`
`repaired the seismic recording and navigation instruments, including the equipment
`
`that positioned marine seismic streamers and source arrays. As a qualified
`
`electrical engineer,
`
`I also repaired electronic equipment on seismic vessels,
`
`including on-board computers, and navigationfpositioning systems. While with
`
`Geophysical Services, Inc.,
`
`I traveled the world working offshore West Africa,
`
`South America, India, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Indonesia, the Philippines, the
`
`South China Sea, and the Gulf of Thailand——all offshore oil exploration areas.
`
`7.
`
`Alter leaving Geophysical Service, Inc. in 1974, I joined Aquatronics,
`
`a London-based seismic company, where I managed seismic survey ships used in
`
`seismic surveys. In 1975, I joined Southem Geophysical Consultants of London as
`
`a Seismic Acquisition and Surveying Consultant.
`
`In that capacity, I represented
`
`many oil companies while onboard seismic survey ships to ensure the quality of
`
`the acquired seismic data and that the seismic data was within the oil company’s
`
`specifications.
`
`I was also involved in deep water operations and rig relocations for
`
`different oil companies during my time at Aquatronics.
`
`8.
`
`In 1976,
`
`I established my own seismic-acquisition consulting
`
`company in Perth, Australia, called “Offshore-Onshore Exploration Consultants
`
`PTY LTD.” As an independent consultant, I participated in seismic surveys on
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2045. pg. 6
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 6
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`behall'"ol‘rn_\, oil company clients to ensure the quality ofthe seismic data acquired
`
`and that
`
`the seismic data was within the oil compan_v‘s specifications. My
`
`consulting compan}'._ which emplo_vcd four other employees. was
`
`the only
`
`company that did this type ol‘ work in Southeast Asia at the time. From 1980 to
`
`I983, while at the peak of my eonsultane_v operations,
`
`1 also worked at Shell
`
`Development Australia in Perth, Australia. as a Senior Operations Gcophysicist.
`
`My responsibilities at Shell Development
`
`included managing three marine-
`
`seisrnic-survey ships and two land-seismic-survey crews.
`
`9.
`
`In 1983,
`
`I enrolled at Curtin University (known then as West
`
`Australian Institute of Technology).
`
`From 1983 to 1935. as part of a Masters
`
`program in Applied Physics.
`
`I wrote a thesis entitled '"'l"he ljstablishment of a
`
`Digital Seismic Acquisition System and its Subsequent Application in the Field." I
`
`also designed and built a seismic recording system.
`
`It}. After receiving my Masters in Applied Physics in 1985, I enrolled in a
`
`Geophysics Ph.D. program at Curtin University,
`
`focusing on 3D Seismic
`
`Surveying Data Processing. As part of the Ph.D program.
`
`I
`
`taught seismic
`
`acquisition, processing. and interpretation and lectured short-courses for industry
`
`[including marine seismic companies] on conventional and 3D seismic acquisition
`
`methods. While working on my Ph.D,
`
`I continued to consult on marine seismic
`
`data acquisition.
`
`I also established the Depatiment ot'Exploration Geophysics at
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2045, pg. 7
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 7
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Curtin University. In 1997, I completed my Ph.D. program, and produced a Ph.D
`
`thesis titled, “Advancements in the Techniques of Low-fold Three Dimensional
`
`Seismic Reflection Surveying.”
`
`11. After completing my Ph.D. in Geophysics in 1997,
`
`I continued to
`
`teach seismic data acquisition, processing, and interpretation as an Associate
`
`Professor at Curtin University.
`
`I also continued to teach short-courses to the
`
`industry on marine seismic data acquisition. Over the years,
`
`I have supervised
`
`twenty Master’s and Ph.D. students, many of whom have written theses pertinent
`
`to the marine seismic industry. I continue to supervise four Ph.D. students today.
`
`12.
`
`I became a tenured Professor of Geophysics in 2002.
`
`I served as
`
`Chair of the Department of Petroleum Engineering from 2007 to 2012.
`
`I then
`
`became the Director of Curtin University’s Faculty of Science and Engineering’s
`
`Oil and Gas Training and Research Project Initiatives in 2013.
`
`In that role, 1
`
`establish research projects with industry, establish teams to run projects, and
`
`consult with industry and the research staff to ensure the projects stay on track.
`
`13. Much of my research over the years has involved numerical and
`
`physical modeling of the seismic data acquisition process, including in the context
`
`of 3D and 4D seismic marine surveys. This has entailed both field and laboratory
`
`research, in which I would frequently work onboard seismic survey ships during
`
`marine seismic surveys and later attempt to improve on marine seismic data
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2045, pg. 8
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 8
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`acquisition techniques by testing in the laborator_v. Building on my research to
`
`optimize 3D and 4D data acquisition.
`
`I have built
`
`three seismic pltysical
`
`acquisition simulation labs in I--Iouston, Dhahran. and Rio de .lanei1'o. These labs
`
`involved the use of physical models to simulate 3D marine seismic surveys. The
`
`I--louston lab was built
`
`in 1991 and later moved and reconstructed at Curtin
`
`Universit_v; the other labs were built in 2005 and are presently operated in Dhahran
`
`and Rio de Janeiro. All ofthcse labs are still in use today.
`
`I have also developed a
`
`seismic numerical modeling lab at Curtin Universit_v. and a landmark seismic
`
`interpretation lab. which oil companies use to train their employees and to interpret
`
`3D marine seismic data.
`
`]4.
`
`Throughout the 19905 and 2000s, I have continued to consult in the
`
`marine seismic survey tieltl while working at Curtin University.
`
`I have consulted
`
`with various marine seismic survey companies as part of my job representing oil
`
`companies and in my independent consulting eompan_\_-'.
`
`In this role, I am typically
`
`asked to evaluate seismic survey plans and to advise companies on their plans’
`
`suitability for an optimal survey. This often requires me to determine whether the
`
`seismic data acquisition and processing plans are adequate to produce quality
`
`seismic data considering the survey area's 3D geology. To fulfill
`
`this role.
`
`l
`
`closely lollow the literature and other available inforination regarding the latest
`
`marine seismic acquisition technologies.
`
`1 continue to do this consulting work to
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2045, pg. 9
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 9
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`this day.
`
`I have also consulted on a wide range of other issues relating to marine
`
`seismic data acquisition, processing, and interpretation. For instance, I have had
`
`an Independent Advisory Group since 2004 to review and evaluate oil companies’
`
`seismic data, drilling plans and proposed operations.
`
`15.
`
`I am currently a member of several professional organizations related
`
`to the marine seismic industry, and the oil and gas industry in general. I have been
`
`a member of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysics since 1983 and the
`
`Society of Exploration Geophysieists (“SEG”)——widely recognized as the principal
`
`international society in the field—since 1993. I was President of the Australian
`
`state chapter of the SEG twice, in 1986 and 1993.
`
`In addition to SEG, I have also
`
`been a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) since 1994 and the
`
`Petroleum Club of Western Australia since 2009, of which I am currently a Board
`
`Member. From 2006 to 2012, I was a Board Member and Education Scholarship
`
`Committee Chair of the West Australian State Government Minerals and Energy
`
`Research Institute (MERJWA).
`
`HI.
`
`COMPENSATION AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE PARTIES
`
`I6.
`
`I am being compensated at an hourly rate of three hundred and fifty
`
`dollars ($350), plus expenses, for the time I spend in Australia studying materials
`
`and issues associated with this matter and providing testimony, and six hundred
`
`twenty five euros (€625)
`
`for the time I spend on this matter outside Australia. This
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 10
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 10
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`is 1113-’ standard consulting. rate.
`
`1 am an independent part}-' and my cornpens:.1lion is
`
`not contingent upon the outcome of this matter.
`
`17.
`
`It is rny understanding that WesIernGeco l...I_,.(.‘.. {"‘WcstcrnGeco")._ is
`
`the assignee of the "520 Patent. Prior to this matter. I have not been employed or
`
`retained by ‘WesternGeco or PGS.
`
`I own no stock in Westernfieeo or PGS, and am
`
`aware ofno other financial interest I have with those companies.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`I8. Although I am not an attorney and do not expect
`
`to offer any
`
`opinions regarding the law,
`
`1 have been informed of certain legal principles
`
`relating to standards of patentability that
`
`l relied on in forrning the opinions set
`
`forth in this report.
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`19.
`
`I understand that for purposes of this matter the terms in patent
`
`claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification of the ‘S20 Patent, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as
`
`of the priority date of the ‘S20 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Anticipation
`
`20.
`
`I understand that for a claim to be anticipated, a single prior art
`
`reference must disclose to a person of ordinary skill in the art, either expressly or
`
`inherently, each and every limitation set forth in the claim.
`
`I understand that
`
`claims are unpatentable if they are anticipated b_\-' the prior art.
`8
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, P9. 11
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014-01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 11
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Obviousness
`
`21.
`
`I understand that even if a claim is not anticipated, an invention that
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention
`
`is not patentable.
`
`I understand that obviousness is determined by considering
`
`several factors, including: the state of the art at the time the invention was made;
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art; differences between what is described in the
`
`art and the claims at issue; and objective evidence of nonobviousness (such as
`
`commercial
`
`success,
`
`long-felt but unsolved needs,
`
`failure of others,
`
`and
`
`unexpected results).
`
`I understand that claims are unpatentable if they would have
`
`been obvious in view of the prior art.
`
`D.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a
`
`hypothetical person who is presumed to have known all of the relevant art at the
`
`time of the invention.
`
`1 have been informed that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art may possess the education, skills, and experience of multiple actual people who
`
`would work together as a team to solve a problem in the field.
`
`I have been
`
`informed that factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art may include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of
`
`problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4)
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, P9. 12
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014-01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 12
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`rapidit_v with vs-ltich innovations are made; ('5) sophistication of" the technology: and
`
`('6) edtteatioital level of active xvorkers in the Held.
`
`23. On the basis of ray consideration ol‘
`
`these factors and my
`
`experience in solving problems in the area of marine seismic surveys for decades,
`
`including my familiarity with the education- expertise. and experience of the teams
`
`that devise solutions to those problems. I have been asked to opine as to the person
`
`oJ‘ordinar_v skill in the art to which Claims 1. 2, 6. 18, 19. and 23 ofthe "520 Patent
`
`are directed.
`
`In my opinion. such a person ol’ordirtar_v skill in the art should have a
`
`Master's degree or PhD.
`
`in
`
`ocean engineering, mechanical
`
`engineering,
`
`geophysics. applied physics. or
`
`a
`
`related area. who has pret'erabl_v talcen
`
`coursework in hydrotlynarnies. advanced control systems- and other related fields.
`
`/\tlditionally. the person should have at least three years of experience designing
`
`andfor operating seismic surve_vs._ as well as significant e.\'perienc.e aboard marine
`
`seismic survey vessels during the course ofseveral marine seismic surveys.
`
`V. SUM MARY OF OPINION
`
`24.
`
`It
`
`is my understanding that PGS (or "Petitioner"_) requests Inter
`
`Panes review ofClaims 1, 2. 6. 18. 19, and 23 of the "S20 Patent. titled "Control
`
`System for Positioning of a Marine Seismic Streamers [sic]," which was issued to
`
`Oyvinti I--Iillesund and Simon Hastings Bittleston on November I3, 2007, and has
`
`been assigned to WesternGeco.
`
`It is my opinion that all of Claims I. 2. 6. 18. 19.
`
`ll]
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, P9. 13
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014-01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 13
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`and 23 would have been well-known and obvious to a person of ordinary skill at
`
`the time ofthe October 1, 1998 priority date.
`
`VI.
`
`TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. Overview of Marine Seismic Surveying
`
`25.
`
`The ‘S20 Patent is directed to marine seismic surveying technology.
`
`Marine seismic surveys use reflected sound waves to determine geological
`
`properties of the earth’s subsurface. Seismic surveying ships (also known as
`
`vessels) tow equipment referred to in the industry as “seismic sources” or “guns”
`
`to create small, controlled explosions underwater.
`
`The explosions generate
`
`acoustic sound waves that travel down through the water, penetrate the ocean floor,
`
`reflect off geological formations in the earth’s subsurface, and travel back towards
`
`the seismic vessel. The reflected acoustic signals are recorded by seismic receivers
`
`known as “hydrophones,” which are towed behind the vessel in long cables called
`
`marine seismic “streamers.” Because recorded sound waves have different
`
`properties depending on the geology of the ocean’s subsurface, the acoustic signals
`
`recorded by the hydrophones provide information regarding characteristics of the
`
`ocean‘s subsurface, including evidence about the existence of oil and gas.
`
`26.
`
`ln modern marine seismic surveys, a towing vessel will typically tow
`
`a plurality of streamers in a large area} spread known as an “array.” Each streamer
`
`in the array contains groups of hydrophones located at pre-determined intervals
`
`11
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 14
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 14
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`along the streamer. The acoustic data acquired by each hydrophone group is
`
`recorded as a function of time and provides information about a two-dimensional
`
`vertical slice of the earth"s surface below the area traversed by the streamer. By
`
`towing a plurality ofstreamers, the seismic surveyor covers a large area and is able
`
`to record reflected seismic signals at several
`
`locations simultaneously.
`
`This
`
`technique results in seismic data li'om various locations that can be combined and
`
`processed by computers to construct a three-dimensional
`
`image of the earth's
`
`subsurface.
`
`2?.
`
`Below is a graphical depiction of a modern marine seismic survey
`
`system:
`
` I
`
`Hydro-phones
`
`5iF93|'I19I
`
`28.
`
`This figure depicts a survey vessel
`
`towing four streamers, each of
`
`which contains hydrophones to record seismic data that reflects off the ocean's
`
`subsurface, and one air gun array (the acoustic source). This multiple-streamer
`
`12
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 15
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 15
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`seismic surveying system became commonplace beginning in the late 19805. See
`
`Ex. 1038 (Brian J. Evans, A Handbook for Seismic Data Acquisition in
`
`Exploration (David V. Fitterman & William H. Dragoset,
`
`Jr. eds., 1997))
`
`(“Evans”) at 250.
`
`29.
`
`Seismic data are recorded on a shot-by-shot basis.
`
`In a typical marine
`
`seismic survey, the vessel will travel at approximately five nautical miles per hour
`
`(5 knots) and fire a shot from one or more seismic sources approximately every ten
`
`seconds. This is recognized as an ideal speed for a marine seismic survey. The data
`
`recorded by each hydrophone group for each seismic shot is known as a “trace."
`
`With each “shot,” the seismic source emits acoustic signals (r'.e., sound waves) that
`
`are reflected at different points on the ocean’s subsurface. These signals are
`
`received by the various hydrophones on the towed streamers, as depicted below:
`
`Semnicship
`
`
`
`See Ex. 1038 (Evans) at 9.
`
`13
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 16
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 16
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`30.
`
`As depicted above. when a shot is tired in a marine seismic st1rve_v.
`
`the emanating acoustic signals travel in all directions, including dowtwvard.
`
`ifs.
`
`i038 (1-Ivans) at 28. When each acoustic signal retlects oft‘ the ocean's subsurface
`
`to a hydrophone. the point on the subsurface where it
`
`is retlected is halfxvay {the
`
`midpoint) between the air gun and the hydrophone.
`
`Id. The graphic depicts each
`
`hydrophone recording a seismic trace from a different midpoint. because for each
`
`acoustic shot. the midpoint between the air gun and the hydrophone is generally
`
`different for each hydrophone.
`
`3| _
`
`For each shot or “t1‘ace." the hydrophones record the relleeted acoustic
`
`signals as a function oftiine. Each hydrophone group occupies a different location
`
`and thus, for each shot, will record different acoustic signals at diflerent positions.
`
`The recorded data from each hydrophone group for each shot are then sent from
`
`the streamers back to the towing vessel via a communications line that may be
`
`comprised of twisted pair cables or.
`
`in more modern implementations. fiber-optic
`
`lines. This shot-by-shot process is repeated continuously during seismic surveys.
`
`resulting in a vast amount of seismic data being transmitted to the vessel. The
`
`seismic data acquired during a surve_v are maintained on the towing vessel by an
`
`on-board computer or other storage device, along with data reflecting the position
`
`and time the signals were received. This data can later be processed to create a
`
`three dimensional image olthc earth's subsurface in the surveyed region.
`
`[4
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 17
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 17
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`32. Marine seismic surveys are carefully planned in advance. Marine
`
`seismic survey data are acquired and organized using a process known as
`
`“binning?” When designing and conducting a three-dimensional marine seismic
`
`survey, the area of the ocean subsurface being surveyed is represented as a grid.
`
`Each cell in the seismic survey grid is called a “bin.” In a conventional 3D marine
`
`seismic survey, the survey plan calls for the streamers to traverse the survey area
`
`grid in straight
`
`lines back and forth, creating parallel
`
`lines of seismic data
`
`coverage. As practitioners in the marine seismic data acquisition field have long
`
`recognized, one of the primary goals of 3D marine seismic data acquisition is to
`
`conform the actual
`
`survey to the survey p1an’s
`
`specifications,
`
`including
`
`maintaining the streamers’ positions along the pre-planned designated course,
`
`thereby producing the desired quality and efiiciency of the survey as planned. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1032 (U.S. Patent No. 4,033,278) (“Waters") at 2:15-36; Ex. 1033 (U.S.
`
`Patent No. 4,404,664) (“Zachariadis”) at 1:16-40; Ex. 1004 (U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,790,472) (“Workman”) at 1:10-ll (“During a typical marine seismic survey a
`
`seismic vessel traverses programmed tracks .
`
`.
`
`. .").
`
`33.
`
`The graphic below depicts (without
`
`the streamers,
`
`for ease of
`
`understanding) a survey area divided into bins. Although their size can vary, bin
`
`sides typically measure about 10-25 meters in length. Ex. 1039 (E. J. W. Jones,
`
`Marine Geophysics (1999)) (“Jones”) at 89. Also depicted (but not to scale) is the
`
`15
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, P9. 18
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014-01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 18
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`vessel conducting the survey. A typical vessel would be about 100 meters long
`
`and 25-40 meters wide.
`
`
`
` "T
`
`
`.-.t_.-1'.'''""'".-_
`
`
`
`
`...l..I__I._!.-_...._____.H‘?9;._.l._.
`
`
`
` .
`
`
`
`34. When recording seismic data,
`
`the location of each seismic trace,
`
`which is determined by the midpoint method discussed above is mapped on to the
`
`survey grid. Each seismic trace is,
`
`therefore,
`
`located in a bin, and each bin
`
`typically has multiple traces located within it. Survey vessels tow streamers with
`
`hydrophones back and forth through the survey area in order to acquire numerous
`
`traces in every bin.
`
`B. Streamer Steering Overview
`
`1. Problems Encountered in Marine Seismic Data Acquisition
`
`a. In-filling
`
`16
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 19
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 19
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`35.
`
`As part of the survey design process, seismic surveyors pre-determine
`
`a minimum number of trace data points that they must sum together in each bin to
`
`obtain the desired seismic data quality,
`
`If the surveyor does not obtain the
`
`minimum data points required for a particular bin, there will be data of inadequate
`
`quality or simply gaps in the survey data. The presence of inadequate data quality
`
`or gaps often requires the survey ship to repeat the survey over those areas to fill
`
`the bins. The process of re-acquiring seismic data, known as “in-fil1[ing],” is very
`
`time-consuming and expensive. See Ex. 1038 (Evans) at 254. Gap or inadequate
`
`data problems were frequently known to occur when currents cause the streamers
`
`and the embodied hydrophones to veer off course from their pre-planned paths, so
`
`that in certain bins, the hydrophones do not record as many data points as planned,
`
`desired, or required. Ex. 1040 (WR. Cotton & J.l. Sanders, The Reality of Trace
`
`Binrdng in 3-D Marine Surveying, (1983)) (“Cotton & Sanders") at 565; 1H] 36-38,
`
`47-48, infra.
`
`b. Irregular Spatial Sampling
`
`36.
`
`In addition to ensuring that sufficient traces are recorded in each bin,
`
`seismic surveyors also desire to have the data points as evenly distributed in the
`
`bin as possible. Having the data points unevenly or irregularly spaced within a
`
`bin—oi’ten the result of streamers (in which the hydrophones are contained)
`
`veering off the planned course——-creates “uneven illumination or incomplete
`
`17
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 20
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 20
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`illurnination of the subsu1'l'ace.' See Ex. 1041 (Biondo L. Biondi. 3D Seismic
`
`Imaging {_2(Jt)6_)') ("'Biondi"} at 133; see (rim lix. 1042 ("Christopher 1..
`
`l.iner.
`
`Elements o1‘3-D Seismology (1999)) (‘“I-iner""] at !04—05: Ex. 1038 (Evans) at 238.
`
`37.
`
`It was well recognized before October 1. 1998 that this inegular
`
`spatial sampling and resultant uneven or incomplete illumination of the subsurface
`
`reduces the quality of the survey data and makes it more diflicult and expensive to
`
`process the data. See. e.g.. Ex. 1043 (Gerald I-l.F. Gardner & Anat Canning. Effect
`
`of ii‘:-egzdar ._\'a.=ripIfng on 3-D pi'e.s‘.='acfr migrarfoi-:_. SIZG Abstracts ( l994}:} at 1553-
`
`56:
`
`1038 (_l;'vans) at 338. For example, where there is regular spatial sampling
`
`in a survey. the individual seismic data points in adjacent bins are generally one
`
`bin length apan. But, it” there is irregular spatial sampling, such as where the data
`
`points collect on one side of a bin and on the far opposite side of an adjacent hin.
`
`this results in a substantial amount of space between seismic data points. creating
`
`large gap areas with no data. On the 3D image. that area could show up having
`
`less detail than the rest of the survey. thereby reducing the quality of the overall
`
`survey data. See Ex. 104] (Biondi) at I23. This problem is referred to as “spatial
`
`aliasing":
`
`Spatial aliasing is an effect of |da1a point]
`
`spacing
`
`relative to frequency, velocity, and slope of a seismic
`
`event. With adequate [data point] spacing.
`
`the points
`
`along a seismic event are seen and processed as part ol"
`
`18
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 21
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 21
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`the continuous event. When [data point] spacing is too
`
`coarse,
`
`individual points do not seem to coalesce to a
`
`continuous event, which confuses not only the eye but
`
`processing programs as well. This can seriously degrade
`
`data quality and the ability to create a usable image.
`
`Ex. 1042 (Liner) at 104.‘
`
`38.
`
`Irregular spatial sampling caused by irregular streamer positioning
`
`also has “a detrimental effect” on data processing, thereby making it more difficult
`
`and expensive to process the data.
`
`Id. at 104-05; Ex. 1041 (Biondi) at 123~24.
`
`Accordingly", though obtaining the prerequisite number of seismic traces within
`
`each bin is important, that alone does not ensure adequate data quality. To avoid
`
`these degradations and distortions in the data, seismic surveyors seek to position
`
`streamers (and their attached hydrophones) to achieve regular spatial sampling in
`
`' Although Liner’s book was published in 1999, he was summarizing what was
`
`previously known in the field about spatial aliasing.
`
`Indeed, Liner cited prior art
`
`that describes the spatial aliasing problem. See, e.g., Ex. 1044 (Christopher L.
`
`Liner 8:. Ralph Gobeli, Bin Size and Linear 12(2), Society of Exploration
`
`Geophysics Technical Program Expanded Abstracts) (1996) (“Liner & Gobeli") at
`
`47.
`
`I also wrote about this problem in my book, see Ex. 1038 (Evans) at 238, and
`
`noted the problem in my class notes in the late 1980s.
`
`19
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 22
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`
`|PR2014—01478
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2048, pg. 22
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`bins. 1J1ercb_\' avoiding holes or uneven distributions of seismic traces that can
`
`cause poor data t]ualit_\-' within the bins.
`
`e. Streamer Tangling
`
`39.
`
`ll' streamers veer subst-.-intially off their
`
`intended course,
`
`for
`
`example due to local currents- they can become entangled. Streamer tangling can
`
`damage the streamers and the devices thereon. Tangling can also take a significant
`
`time to remedy and, thus, forces the survey operators to cease data collection for an
`
`extended period of time. The costs of this can be stihstantial, as the streamer
`
`equipment is enormousl_v expensive, and the efficient conduct of the survey. with
`
`minimal downtime._ is essential to the profitable conduct of the E-iLll"v'C}-'. See 1;"-..\*.
`
`I006 {W0 98f28636) (‘"636 PC'I'"'} at 2.
`
`(1. Turning
`
`40.
`
`It was well known, since at least the 19705. that turning operations
`
`during a survey were encumbered by currents and the centripetal forces of turns
`
`that resulted in certain problems during marine seismic surveys. including streamer
`
`tangling and wasted time that costs marine seismic survey-'s substantial amou
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
