iIn its Decision, the Board denied institution of inter partes review, finding that the Petition failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of claims 1-18 under either 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103. The ‘847 patent “relates to seismic data acquisition, and more particularly to a method and system for transmitting data between multiple remote stations in an array and a data collection station utilizing a linked relay system to communicate therebetween, permitting transmission paths to be altered.”
Petitioner relied upon two references and a Declaration of James Geier, alleging that claims 1-6 and 18 are anticipated by Gelvin, claims 13-18 are obvious over Gelvin, and claim 7 is obvious over Gelvin and 802.11 Standard.
The Board first addressed claim construction, stating that claims in an unexpired patent are given “their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” The Board first construed the term “array,” finding that Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “one or more lines of seismic acquisition units, where multiple lines are set out side-by-side forming a grid” was essentially correct. However, the Board found “insufficient reason to add the specific nature of individual units to the meaning of an array.” Therefore, the Board construed the term to mean “one or more lines of individual units, where multiple lines are set out side-by-side forming a grid.”
Next, the Board construed the term “seismic data” to mean “data containing information about lithologic subsurface formations, obtained by applying an acoustic signal to the ground and receiving the reflected signal,” finding Patent Owner’s proposal to be too narrow.
Turning to the prior art, the Board first analyzed the disclosure of Gelvin, finding that Petitioner “simply assumes that data sensed or detected by the ‘seismic sensor’ of Gelvin necessarily is ‘seismic data.’” However, the Board found such an approach to be unpersuasive because “the field of invention of Gelvin does not coincide with that of the ‘847 patent and because anticipation is not a literal, word-for-word analysis.” In this regard, even though Gelvin may use the same terminology, the Board was not persuaded that Gelvin disclosed “seismic data” as the term was construed by the Board.
The Board was also not persuaded by Petitioner that Gelvin discloses seismic data acquisition units arranged in an “array,” as the Board construed the term. Instead, the Board found that the arrangement of units in Gelvin was “not any specific physical configuration on a geographical terrain.” Thus, the Board found that Petitioner had not shown a likelihood of prevailing on the anticipation ground of claims 1-6 and 8-18 based on Gelvin.
With respect to the alleged obviousness of claim 7 over Gelvin and 802.11 Standard, the Board denied institution for the same reasons discussed above with respect to anticipation. Finally, Petitioner asserted obviousness of claims 13-18 over Gelvin, arguing that “to the extent that the Board disagrees with its anticipation analysis for claims 13–18 based on Gelvin, then, in the alternative, each claim would have been obvious over the single reference Gelvin, alone.” The Board was not persuaded, finding such a position “conclusory and misdirected.” In this regard, the Board found that Petitioner was inviting the Board to arrive at the conclusion of obviousness “in whichever way the Board sees fit,” when it is Petitioner “who must establish a reasonable likelihood” that the claims would have been obvious. Accordingly, the Board denied institution of this ground.
Wireless Seismic, Inc. v. Fairfield Industries, Inc., IPR2014-01205
Paper 8: Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
Dated: January 14, 2015
Patent: 7,983,847 B2
Before: Jameson Lee, Jo-Anne M. Kokoski, and Kristina M. Kalan
Written by: Lee
Related Proceedings: Fairfield Industries Inc. d/b/a FairfieldNodal v. Wireless Seismic, Inc., No. 13-00903 (E.D. Tex.); Fairfield Industries Inc. d/b/a FairfieldNodal v. Wireless Seismic, Inc., No. 4:14-cv-02972-KPE (S.D. Tex.)
