Petition — Cole v. Continental Oil Co.

Supreme Court brief1981

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Ovlice-Supreme Court, US.

FiLE @

MAY 12 1981

a ee

Nog G- 203% -

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1980

JIMMY R. COLE, d/b/a JIM R. COLE &

ASSOCIATES and COLE DEVELOPMENT

COMPANY, INC.,

Petitioners,

versus

CONTINENTAL OJL COMPANY,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

B. R. PRAVEL

ALBERT B. KIMBALL, JR.

PRAVEL, GAMBRELL, HEwITT,

Kirk, KIMBALL & DODGE

1177 West Loop South

Suite 1010

Houston, Texas 77027

(713) 850-0909

Attorneys for Petitioners

EN EE TT NE SRY SRR

Alpha Law Brief Co., One Main Plaza, No, 1 Main St., Houston, Texas 77002

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the complained of judgment of the Court

of Appeals holding valid a patent and finding a sole

distinguishing feature based on a rotatable connection

of 2 depth controller to a cable, when such a rotatable

connection was known in the prior art, is in conflict with

recent decisions of this Court involving patent validity

under the “obviousness” test of 35 U.S.C. § 103.

(a) A prior patent discloses each feature of the

claims of the patent in suit except a rotatable connection

of the depth controller to the cable. However, this feature

was old and known in the art. The combination of these

known features resulted in no effect greater than the sum

of prior art effects taken separately. Despite such absence

of a synergistic result, the Court of Appeals held the

patent in suit non-obvious over the prior art.

(b) The test of obviousness used by the Court of

Appeals focused on the “subject matter as a whole” under

which virtually all combinations of elements would be

subject to patent monopoly, and not the test of “obvi-

ousness” of bringing the elements together used by this

Court.

2. Whether the complained of judgment of the Court

of Appeals is in conflict with decisions of this Court,

in holding that proof of satisfactory testing by others

under normal service conditions, prior to the work

leading to the patent in suit, is not a sufficient showing

of priority of invention to constitute either “prior art”

under either 35 U.S.C. 102(g) or 35 U.S.C. 103, or an

indicia of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103.

(a) Prior to the alleged invention of the patent

in suit, others in the art built depth controllers rotatably

attached to a cable. When tested, the controllers had

some problems under abnormal operating conditions, but

performed satisfactorily under normal operating condi-

tions. Such prior work of others was disregarded by

the Court of Appeals as prior art and even as indicia of

obviousness of the patent in suit.

(b) The Court of Appeals ruling requires a far

greater level of completion of earlier work of others in

order for such work to be considered in testing the

validity and the scope of patent monopolies than prior

decisions of this Court have done.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Questions Presented .........seceeceeececeececcseces

Table of Authorities ..........ccccccccccccccccccccens

Citations to the Record and Opinions Below ...........

Grounds for Jurisdiction ...........eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees

The Law Involved ....ccccccovveccceccccccccccccccece

Statement of the Case ........cccccccceccccecceenines

Reasons Why the Writ Should Be Granted .............

CE a. cn ce dbdclecetabe dsc aans eset enebuveek ses

eee 68 GRE ovine vctcseccccaseccedncvesscceses

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Adams v. United States, 330 F.2d 622 (Ct. Cl. 1964) ...

Anderson’s-Black Rock Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396

TE Oe MRNEED “nonce ccdkswansabarstbaceretevseses

Continental Oil Co. v. Cole, H-75-1288 (S.D. Tex. 3/8/78)

Continental Oil Co. v. Cole, 634 F.2d 188 (Sth Cir. 1981),

rehearing denied, 638 F.2d 1234 (Sth Cir. 1981) .......

Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chemical Corp., 276 U.S.

BSB (1988) ncccccccccccccscccccccsccccceescsccces

Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) .........5.

Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip-

ment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950) ......ceeeeeeeseees

Hildreth v. Mastoras, 257 U.S. 27 (1921) .......seee0e-

Plastic Container Corp. v. Continental Plastics, 607 F.2d

BOS ERGe Sats DOFED. cocccccctsvcsecasevesveceseces

Reinke Manufacturing Co. v. Sidney Manufacturing Corp.,

Se Fe Bee Gee Ca. FEED hive tc ce vice ciscrssces

Republic Industries, Inc. v. Schlage Lock Co., 592 F.2d 963

CFU GA, BUGED cckcvcsdvcdcsdccacencesessevedocres

Sakraida v. Ag-Pro, Inc., 425 US. 273 (1976) ........

CASES Page

Smith v. Acme General Corp., 614 F.2d 1086 (6th Cir.

SE. vecass nd aeske les sedbreeskennscesesneedseess 8

Tveter v. AB Turn-O-Matic, 633 F.2d 831 (9th Cir. 1980) 8

United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966) .......... 6,7,9

STATUTES

Oe EES Sica cacccnededsacsdesandoavecees 2

SR EE Savewebeddsbacdbvcecaaseetessuseces 3

ee EE ocd nee enceesencsesesaduseecestvanes 10

BP Cs BUD ve ceccpcncascstevertevescovecocns 2,4

EE (Uunkcdudendevaveendscesensnseeeade 2, 4, 7,8, 9, 10

RULES

Rule 19 Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of the United

BS ace dus cucdadeceewarckacsceecttersiesecetses 2

No.

IN THE

Supreme Court of the Mnited States

OCTOBER TERM, 1980

JIMMY R. COLE, d/b/a JIM R. COLE &

ASSOCIATES and COLE DEVELOPMENT

COMPANY, INC.,

Petitioners,

versus

CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Petitioners, Jimmy R. Cole and Cole Development

Company, Inc. pray that a writ of certiorari issue to

review a judgment and opinion of the United States Court

of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entered January 12, 1981.

Timely Motion for Rehearing was denied February 12,

1981.

CITATIONS TO THE RECORD AND

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the Court of Appeals is reported at 634

F.2d 188 and is reproduced at Appendix A hereto. The

District Court opinion is unreported but is reproduced at

Appendix B hereto. Denial of Defendants’ Motions for

Rehearing is reported at 638 F.2d 1234 and is reproduced

at Appendix C hereto.

GROUNDS FOR JURISDICTION

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth

Circuit was made final by the decision rendered January

12, 1981, and Petitioners’ Petition for Rehearing was

finally denied by that Court on February 12, 1981. The

jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1254(1), and Rule 19, Revised Rules of The Supreme

Court of the United States.

THE LAW INVOLVED

The law involved includes 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) and

103 which provide, as applicable here, as follows:

35 U.S.C. 102:

“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—

(g) before the applicant’s invention thereof the

invention was made in this country by another who

had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it.”

35 U.S.C. 103:

“A patent may not be obtained though the inven-

tion is not identically disclosed or described as set

forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences

between the subject matter as a whole would have

been obvious at the time the invention was made

to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which

said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not

be negatived by the manner in which the invention

was made.”

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff sued Defendants for infringement of its United

States Patent No. 3,375,800, “Seismic Cable Depth Con-

trol Apparatus” (Appendix D) (hereafter ’800 patent).

Jurisdiction in the Trial Court was based on 28 U.S.C.

§ 1338. The Trial Court in an unreported decision (App.

B) construed Plaintiff's patent claims in such a manner

that they were not infringed by Defendants’ cable depth

controllers. Both Plaintiff and Defendants appealed. The

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (App. A) reversed the

Trial Court’s finding of non-infringement and held the

’800 patent valid and infringed.

The ’800 patent, the validity of which is in question

in this action, relates to a depth controller or paravane

for a seismic cable used in exploration for submerged

petroleum formations. Claims 1, 2, 4, 22 and 25 are

alleged to have been infringed by Defendants. Claim 1

is exemplary and reads as follows:

1. A paravane for a seismic cable adapted to be

towed substantially horizontally through water, com-

prising:

a housing having a bore means along its length

thereof, said bore means of a size to receive said

seismic cable and allow rotation of said seismic cable

without rotation of said housing while transmitting

upward and downward forces between the housing

and the adjacent portions of said cable;

bearing means for securing the housing onto

said seismic cable against movement of said housing

along said cable; and

means carried by the housing including at

least one vane for maintaining the paravane at a

predetermined depth in the water as the paravane

is moved through the water by the cable and for

counteracting upward, downward and turning forces

imposed on the housing, whereby the paravane main-

tains the adjacent portions of the said seismic cable

at said predetermined depth.

At trial, Petitioners relied on U.S. Patent No. 3,372,-

666, “Depth Controller”, (hereafter the Baker patent)

(Appendix E) and a prior working device built in 1965

by the inventor of the Baker patent as prior art which

invalidated Respondent’s patent claims under 35 U.S.C.

§ 102(g) and 103.

The Trial Court gave a restricted interpretation to

Respondent’s patent claims in view of the Baker patent

and working device and thus did not reach the issue of

patent validity of Respondent’s patent.

On appeal, Respondent’s ’800 patent was held valid

under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the Baker 666 patent because

the Baker patent did not teach utilization of a simple

rotatable connection to connect the depth controller to

the seismic cable. Further, the Court of Appeals disre-

garded the Trial Court findings that Baker’s prior docu-

mented research in 1965 (Appendix F) had developed an

operational cable depth controller and thus a “working

device” in which such a simple rotatable connection was

in fact used to rotatably attach a depth controller to a

seismic cable.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals did not mention,

and therefore apparently did not consider, another prior

art patent also relied upon by Petitioners at trial and on

appeal (Reid—U.S. Patent No. 2,607,842), (Appendix

G) which shows in Fig. 9 a rotatable connection of a

cable depth controller to a seismic cable. As described

in the Reid patent, the structure shown in Fig. 9 of its

drawings provides:

“A simple and effective device for connecting the

[seismic] cable 23 and the float 33 while permitting

free rotation of the cable . . .” [Emphasis Added.]

The Reid patent was cited and discussed with respect

to this exact Fig. 9 in the Conoco ’800 patent file history.

Thus, the Patent Office Examiner could not have based

allowance of the Conoco ’800 patent on the lack in the

prior art of a rotatable connection of a depth controller

to a cable.

The Court of Appeals decision, however, is premised

on the basis that it would not be obvious to one of ordin-

ary skill in the art to incorporate a rotatable connection

of a depth controller to a seismic cable, as was known

from the prior art Reid patent as well as the prior working

device of Baker, which was built and tested in the Gulf

of Mexico by Texas Instruments Incorporated.

REASONS WHY THE WRIT

SHOULD BE GRANTED

The writ should be granted because (1) interpretation

of an important Federal Statute involving the validity of

patents is at issue and (2) the judgment of the Court of

Appeals in this case is in conflict with and is contrary

to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the following

cases: Sakraida v. Ag-Pro Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976);

Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.,

396 U.S. 57 (1969); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383

U.S. 1 (1966); United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39

(1966) and Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Super-

market Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950).

Each of the above decisions of this Court, with the

exception of the Adams case involving battery chemistry,

has dealt with the standard of validity under the patent

laws for patents involving combinations of known, old

mechanical elements, of the type of Respondent’s ’800

patent in suit here.

The Court of Appeals in dealing with obviousness did

not, however, utilize the standard of patentability enunci-

ated by this Court in these cases. Rather, the Court of

Appeals in its opinion quoted with apparent approval

the following language from Adams v. United States, 330

F.2d 622, 625, 165 Ct. Cl. 576 (1964), a Court of

Claims case:

“While the use of any of the individual components

. . may have been obvious at the time of the in-

vention, the invention as a whole was not obvious.

. . -” Continental Oil Co. v. Cole, supra, at 634

F.2d 197.

The Adams opinion of the Court of Claims cited by

the Court of Appeals was reviewed by this Court. U.S. v.

Adams, 383 U.S. 39. This Court, on review of Adams,

used a different standard of patent validity than that

adopted by the Fifth Circuit in the opinion sought to be

" reviewed here. In Adams, this Court enunciated the test

as follows:

“If such a combination is novel, the issue is whether

bringing them together as taught by Adams was

obvious in the light of the prior art.” Adams, supra,

383 U.S. at 50. [Emphasis added.]

The opinion sought to be reviewed here simply did

not recognize the existence of, or use, this standard

enunciated by this Court.

Further, the Adams decision was handed down the

same day as Graham v. John Deere Co., supra. In

Graham, this Court in dealing with the patentability of

an invention under 35 U.S.C. § 103 indicated that the

test to be applied was “the obviousness of the differences,”

383 U.S. at 23, between a patent and the prior art. In

Graham, this Court held that the alleged “crucial differ-

ence” of the patent in question over the prior art, im-

proved plow shank flexing, was obvious to a person of

ordinary skill in the art, even though no prior art was

referred to which showed this specific feature contended

to be the non-obvious difference of the patent in question

over the prior art. In the present case, an e.en clearer

case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is present,

since the allegedly unobvious difference in the Conoco

’800 patent of rotation was disclosed in the prior Reid

patent (App. G) and was known to others in the art

(App. F).

More recent decisions of this Court since the Graham

and Adams cases, Anderson’s-Black Rock v. Pavement

Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 and Sakraida v. Ag-Pro, Inc.,

425 U.S. 273 have adhered to the Graham analysis and

held invalid patents on combinations of known mechanical

elements, as is the case here.

“Rather, this patent simply arranges old elements

with each performing the same function it had been

known to perform, although perhaps producing a

more striking result than in previous combinations.

Such combinations are not patentable under stand-

ards appropriate for a combination patent.” Sakraida,

supra, 425 US. at 282.

“We conclude that while the combination of old

elements performed a useful function, it added noth-

ing to the nature and quality of the radiant-heat

burner already patented. We conclude further that

to those skilled in the art the use of the old elements

in combination was not an invention by the obvious-

non-obvious standard.” Anderson’s-Black Rock, supra,

396 US. at 62-3.

Thus, the Court of Appeals in this case has departed

from firmly established standards of patentability under

35 U.S.C. 103 enunciated over the years by this Court.’

The Court of Appeals in the judgment complained of

was apparently swayed by Respondent’s commercial suc-

cess in its finding of non-obviousness of the present in-

vention:

“Within a short time after the paravanes became

available a majority of the marine crews throughout

the world were using them, including the crews of

some of the largest companies.” 634 F.2d at 192.

1. Indeed, one of these cases from this Court on the issue of

obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is a reversal of the Court of

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Sakraida v. Ag-Pro, supra. Not only is

the Fifth Circuit contrary to the Supreme Court in Sakraida, but it

failed to even consider the lack of synergistic effect. On that issue,

the circuit courts are in conflict and need guidance from the Supreme

Court. For example, Smith v. Acme General Corp., 614 F.2d 1086

(6th Cir. 1980), Reinke Mfg. Co. v. Sidney Mfg. Corp., 594 F.2d

644 (8th Cir. 1979) and Tveter v. AB Turn-O-Matic, 633 F.2d 831

(9th Cir. 1980) require a synergistic effect. Republic Industries, Inc.

v. Schlage Lock Co., 592 F.2d 963 (7th Cir. 1979) and Plastic Con-

pe Corp. v. Continental Plastics, 607 F.2d 885 (10th Cir. 1979)

0 not.

This Court in Sakraida, supra, specifically pointed out

the danger of letting commercial success become the

touchstone for patent validity in determining non-obvious-

ness under 35 U.S.C. § 103:

“Though doubtless a matter of great convenience,

producing a desired result in a cheaper and faster

way, and enjoying commercial success, [the patented

device] ‘did not produce a “new or different function”

... Within the test of validity of combination patents.’

[citing cases] These desirable benefits ‘without in-

9 la not make patentability.’” 425 U.S. at

Thus, it is respectfully submitted that the Court of

Appeals’ opinion subordinates Supreme Court law, by

treating the commercial success of Respondent's device

as a basis for non-obviousness over the prior art under

35 U.S.C, § 103. Further, the opinion of the Court of

Appeals is reached without applying, or even recognizing,

the tests enunciated by this Court in Graham v. John

Deere and Adams. The test of Graham is whether a

difference over the prior art Baker '666 patent of a

“rotatable seismic cable” would have been obvious to

a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of that

feature having been shown in the prior art Reid patent

(App. G) and tested and documented (App. E & F) by

prior workers in the art.

The Court of Appeals’ opinion also did not regard

the Baker patent disclosure instruction and cover sheet

or the research work of Mr. Baker either as prior art

or in terms of its evidentiary effect on the issue of

“obviousness”,

The Court of Appeals’ opinion appears to be premised

on the erroneous view of the law that a commercially

marketable device must be developed before a prior in-

vention by another constitutes prior art. Such a view

of the law is contrary to Supreme Court law, Corona

Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chemical Corp., 276 U.S, 358

(1928):

“This work was finally recorded in a carefully pre-

pared contemporaneous report which Kratz left in

the files of the Norwalk Company . . .” Jd. at 379.

“But, even if we ignore this evidence of Kratz’s

actual use .. . what he did . . . leaves no doubt

in our minds that he did discover in 1916 the strength

of D.P.G. as an accelerator as compared with the

then known accelerators, and that he then demon-

strated it by a reduction of it to practice in produc-

tion of cured or vulcanized rubber,

“This constitutes priority in this case.” Jd. at 382.

As another decision of this Court applied the test:

“It is not necessary, in order to sustain a generic

patent, to show that the device is a commercial

success, The machine patented may be imperfect in

its operation; but if it embodies the generic principle

and works, that is, if it actually and mechanically

performs, though only in a crude way, the important

function by which it makes the substantial change

claimed for it in the art, it is enough.” Hildreth v.

Mastoras, 257 U.S. 27, 34 (1921).

The Court of Appeals’ opinion, if allowed to stand,

would create a situation in the patent law where earlier

research results of others, in order to be considered as

“prior art” under 35 U.S.C, 102 and 103, would have

to be put into a commercially marketable form, Under

the Court of Appeals’ opinion, such research results could

not be relied upon as prior art by an accused infringer

in an action for patent infringement unless they culmi-

nated in a commercial product. The Court of Appeals’

opinion thus greatly circumscribes the ambit of activities

available as prior art in a defense to a patent infringe-

ment action and considerably expands the scope of a

patentee’s monopoly by claim interpretation.

The Fifth Circuit opinion can be argued to be deliber-

ately and intentionally in direct conflict with prior opin-

ions of this Court. The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

therefore should be granted so that this Honorable Court

can correct these errors on the part of the Court below.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully sub-

mitted that this Petition for a Writ of Certiorari should

be granted,

B. R. PRAVEL

ALBERT B. KIMBALL, JR.

PRAVEL, GAMBRELL, HEwITT,

Kirk, KIMBALL & DopGe

1177 West Loop South

Suite 1010

Houston, Texas 77027

(713) 850-0909

Attorneys for Petitioners

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing

Petition has this date been served upon opposing counsel

of record by placing same in the United States Mail,

postage prepaid and properly addressed.

May ____, 1981.

ALBERT B. KIMBALL, JR.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

Plaintiff appealed from a determina-

tion of the United States District Court for

the Southern District of Texas, at Houston,

Robert O’Conor, Jr., J., that its patent for a

seismic cable depth-controlling paravane

was not infringed by a device patented by

defendant. Defendant cross appealed, chal-

lenging the validity of plaintiff's patent.

The Court of Appeals, Politz, Circuit Judge,

held that: (1) plaintiff's patent No. 3,375,-

800 for a seismic cable depth-controlling

paravane was valid; the paravane was nei-

ther anticipated by the prior art nor vere

the claims obvious to one ordinarily skilled

in the art; (2) the creative process existing

prior to issuance of plaintiff's patent was in

an embryonic stage, and it would be mani-

festly unjust to characterize said patent as

anything other than innovatively different

and not readily obvious to a person of ordi-

nary skill in the field of marine seismology;

(8) defendant's accused device infringed the

range of equivalents of plaintiff's patent;

and (4) the doctrine of file wrapper estoppel

was inapplicable.

Reversed, rendered and remanded.

1. Patents @324.55(1, 3)

The sine qua non of appellate review of

patent litigation is the notion that validity

ed only if the findings are clearly

A-2

CONTINENTAL OIL CO. v. COLE

189

Ciao as 634 F.26 168 (1961)

4 Patents 226.5

One form of patent infringement oc-

curs when an accused device incorporates a

teaching literally read.

6. Patents o=237

An occurs when a device

substantially the same way to achieve sub-

stantially the same result; the “doctrine of

equivalents” shields the inventor from such

{

[

11. Patents ¢=226.5

In patent validity and infringement lit-

igation, the task of discerning reticent dis-

similarities is as imperative as noting the

more visible similarities.

12. Patents ¢=328(2)

Plaintiff's patent No. 8,375,800 for a

seismic cable depth-controlling paravane

was valid; the paravane was neither antici-

pated by the prior art nor were the claims

obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art.

85 U.S.C.A. §§ 102(a, e), 108.

13. Patents ¢=51(1)

Not only is the defense of anticipation

strictly a technical one, but also there is no

anticipation unless all of the same elements

or their equivalents are found in substan-

tially the same situation where they do

pabstantially the same work in the same

way.

14. Patents @=66(1.20)

Plaintiff's patented device, a seismic

cable depth-controlling paravane, was a

breakthrough in the seismic industry and

was not precursored by the working model

of another's cited invention and its progeny.

85 U.S.C.A. § 102(a).

15. Patents 112.1

A presumption of validity arises from

the issuance of a patent, and this is espe-

cially so in a case where the same patent

examiners simultaneously review the al-

legedly contending applications.

16. Patents 112.1

If there is no evidence that the Patent

Office considered a particular prior art, the

presur ‘ion of validity is mitigated.

17. Parouts @51(1)

The label “prior art” cannot be ascribed

to a private intracorporate communication.

18. Patents @=66(1.2)

Imputing similarity of features to a

prior art patent when the patent disclosure

teaches otherwise would be inappropriate.

judicial pen.

* District

etasippi.

of the Northern District of Mis-

by designation.

26. Patents ¢=237

Doctrine of equivalents plays an impor-

tant role in protecting patent claims from

the enterprising minor deviations of inven-

tion “pirates.”

27. Patents =314(5)

A finding of equivalence is a determi-

nation of fact.

28. Patents 237

Defendant's accused device infringed

the range of equivalents of plaintiff's pat-

ent for a seismic cable depth-controlling

paravane.

tiff’s patent for a seismic cable depth-con-

trolling paravane; the range of equivalents

had not been so limited as to preclude a

A-4

(Cine as 634 7.24 198 (1981)

CONTINENTAL OIL CO. v. COLE

lschaft Kohle v.

in Weidman Metal

Co., 616 F.2d 1815 (Sth Cir.

invention

the i

patent

merely

These principles were essentially noted by

us in our recent decision

Masters v. Glass Master Corp., 623 F.2d

1024 (Sth Cir. 1980), and cases cited therein,

particularly

to us can be Eastman Kodak

of the trial

in favor of Conoco

is valid. We

21]

iats3

udge

Oil Company

lor &

is not

by Jimmy

that

equivalent in f

‘5 paravane.

‘s patent

the

pT eae

lor further

ittlite PHBL AE le aH

they re-

U. 8.

and

Sporting

Inc., 555 F.2d 426, 488 (6th Cir.

1977). Instead,

cumin led by te tle are

Aang

52a).

to assure us that

In this situa-

by which ultimate

findings were reached and

in ascertaining the

the trial court’s findings

would remand for more

However, “{tJhis failure

and not a fatal error.”

Corp., 624 F.2d 698, 700

“Where the evidence is

weighing the credibility

decide falls into of the witnesses there can be but one rea-

before the court con-

Conoco’s patent,

us « clear understanding of

City, Ine. v. Wilson

423 F.2d 91, 98 n.8 (Sth Cir. 1970).

In the case sub judice we are not

Ine. v.

The record is replete with evidence fully

(9)

vored

conclusion as to the result, the case

Golf

in the main conclusory.

[103 The questions

cern the validity of

tion we routinely

Patent 8,375,800 (the ‘800 patent),

specific findings.

is merely a hindrance

Whitley v. Road

(6th Cir. 1980).

such that without

sonable

can

Waldon,

Company,

based the analytical process

confronted

validity tailed to give

In contrast, Goods, Co.,

be capsulated.

appellate review of fa

notion that

legal questions

When

we are free to the trial court took care

's answers and facts.”

oversight.

are clearly erroneous.

Although

0 intertwined

"omens standart ofr

fact finding must

resolved by the trial court

cases on

we now

of inf

fact question, legal questions

can become

ee as eee 0

ing arly red An infringement

its innova-

Hiya TTL F]

A-5

192

whether it is infringed by Cole's patent, U.

S. Patent 3,931,608 (the 608 patent).'

A. Factual Background

The invention which has bred this litiga-

ations leads to educated adumbrations as to

whether the area contains a structure which

may accommodate commercial quantities of

could survey in a routine day. In sum, not

only was the pre-paravane process slow,

arduous and uncertain, but costly delays

were frequently encountered.

The "800 patent claims a device co~in-

vented by Cole while he worked for Conoco

EFS

set

s §aF

ifi

i ks

CONTINENTAL OIL CO. v, COLE

193

(Chae an 634 7.26 108 (1081)

FERTSEE

frites

i ee

eli

beret

evfigi

Fate

U.S. Patent 3,375,800

Conoco's commercially preferred

——_ with paravane

placed concen-

trically around cable.

U.S. Patent 3,375,800

Conoco's alternative design with

paravane offset from but

ment from spinning or flipping the para-

vanes, each paravane is affixed by a pair of

bearings, fore and aft, which permits the

cable to rotate freely. By connecting the

inner race of one or both of the bearings to

the cable, the paravane is prevented from

moving lengthwise along the cable and thus

maintains its proper spacing.

In the commercially preferred manifesta-

tion of Conoco's invention, the cable-receiv-

ing bore penetrates through the center of

the paravane housing. The patent, how-

ever, also discloses alternative designs in

which the bearings which form the bore for

receiving the seismic cable are offset from,

but parallel to, the length of the main para-

vane housing. The depth-sensing and reg-

ulating mechanism, several variations of

which are embraced by the patent, can be

interchanged in the various paravane de-

signs.

===

parallel to cable.

2 Cole Patent

1972 Cole departed his employment

Lastly, both limit the

accomplishing depth contro! and constancy.

{11} In patent validity and infringement

litigation the task of discerning reticent

dissimilarities is as imperative as noting the

more visible similarities. In this vein we

note that Cole's mode! differs from Cono-

co's commercial version in the following

Cole comes equipped with an upper flota-

A-7

634 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES .

paravane is offset from the cable, the rota- ment of the cable. Third, approximately

upper flotation housing.

flotation housing.

Cole's paravane with optional

Cole's paravane without upper

U.S. Patent 3,931,608

194

tional capability is achieved by mounting one out of every four paravanes sold by

the paravane on the cable through bearings

located in collars which permit free move- tion device.

Lee Pa (ATSE

i sails li ely il

HBTL

idea a ‘ill ube

al fut gl A

Hl Lit Ha i i

Conoco’s paravane was anticipated by the

ies a} ce Z a4 F "§

RBH TI ial anh

C. Patent Validity

{12} Relying on the Baker Patent® is- prior art, and (2) the ‘800 patent claims

sued in 1968, and on a 1965 working model were obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the

of Baker's device, Cole maintains that: (1) art.’

A-8

CONTINENTAL OIL CO. v. COLE

}

‘li

aie

peu

gees

z£

ile

ait

It has been held repeatedly that not only is

the defense of anticipation strictly a techni-

cal one, but that unless all of the same

oF ye

Ee:

=3e-:

Faz

Chemtronics, Inc., 428 F.2d 555 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 400 U.S. 956, 91 S.Ct. 358, 27

L.Ed.2d 264 (1970). This is especially so in

@ case such as that before us

. 1967).

U.SC. § 102(e), codifying the rule enunciat-

ed in Milburn Co. v. Davis ete. Co., 270 U.S.

900, 46 S.Ct. 824, 70 L.Ed. 651 (1926) (date

patent application is filed is used for the

purpose of anticipating a subsequent inven-

tion). Although McCutchen, 886 F.2d at 85,

F.2d 518 (Sth Cir, 1975), cert.

U.S. 976, 96 S.Ct. 2175, 48

(1976); Gaddis v. Calgon Corporation,

F.2d 880 (5th Cir, 1975). Despite the simul-

in that light.

(17) Of particular importance from

Cole's viewpoint is the reference to rotata-

bility in the Baker working model. This

critical revelation soon vanishes, however,

in light of evidence indicating the intended

or inadvertent suppression of the invention.

Baker's description of the experimental

model tested during the summer of 1965

appeared in a “Patent Disclosure Instruc-

A-9

oe etl bball REST eH

123 i 23 Heats rai

BE Hie i iin pee, idee

ii; i 334: ij I Hla | } i IEE .

Lit aaa Hi ili el Hi

- i: i Rte ALLE is wr estat ree Buu ries

ee ea saat nig

7 dealt OEE Hila iit He

. ef-y Etess 3 a7. 2ts 28s 3

aE ee

é AEE ‘ HEATH iil seit] ERHE HAE

A-10

ay ye a MepoT

ey fel ff ailltil ae iin ii ith

Hine [P lg ual iia i ai Hi HH

Arte Hints} ite cig ti rere

ah gear i a t

ih aia litel HTH x2 Hf jth Hdl Be ASE

ik een ne ff

23 ysizh Hr ih Ht

ee ate

A-ll

ree eee

eH Hk ‘if rae sr i

ae i | Ini ij aa ti i

BRIE aot HH

rela satel if itis HIRE anti HH ih

aii! Hitt FE ttt iti frites

" te ee is nil Hk i

pal( tet fli i Gla He ‘ill th

die

tee eli [itt Eilts Hi H hii

€4 FEDERAL REPORTER, 24 SERIES

' aa

Hi If HUE ii ua i.

lt RATER Hi ih i

Hulse TH adhe

age eit a

i ae ay Hl ; tT Fay

Hinde rH i : 1 |

Ey tH isle

diay ff HE

Ar12

a «i981

‘ti

ed ¥.

yaaa ee -

Ot 0U8. , O8~

78, e L.Ed, 1196 (1808),

it Att Py

HH Paar

APPENDIX B

wtthK, U.S. DISTRICT COUK,

SOUTHEI:N DISTRI }

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Fit ED. sag

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS eRe $973

HOUSTON DIVISION

V. BAILEY THOMAS, CLERK

CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY i "Y DEPUTY: anw

vs I CIVIL ACTION NO. H-75-12588

JIMMY R. COLE, D/B/A JIM X

R. COLE & ASSOCIATES AND X

COLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, X

INC. I

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff, Continental Oil Company ("Conoco") sues for infringe-

ment under the Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35 U.S.C.

against Jimmy R. Cole, d/b/a/ Jim R. Cole & Associates ("Cole") and

Cole Development Company, Inc. ("Cole Development"). This Court has

jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter of this action

by virtue of U.S.C. §133" and §2201. Venue is properly laid in this

district under Title 28 U.S.C. §1496(b). Defendant Cole alleges that

plaintiff's patent is invalid and alternatively that defendant's

patent does nct infringe.

Defendant, while an employee of plaintiff, obtained Patent No.

3,375,800 (hereinafter the "800" patent). The "800" patent is a

device for maintaining an underwater seismic cable at a constant

Gepth while being towed by a ship. After leaving, Conoco, defendant

Obtained Patent No. 3,931,608 (hereinafter the "608" patent) on an

improved underwate: cable depth controller, which device is the

alleged infringing apparatus. Defendants’ manufacture and sell two

models of their cable depth controllers, one of which is shown in

Fig. 1 of defendants’ United States Patent 3,931,608, and the other

of which is shown in Fig. 3 of the same patent. The difference

betweeh the two models is that the Fig. 3 model includes an additional

flotation tube assembly T. The evidence shows that a vast majority

of the defendants’ cable depth controllers which have been manufactured

and sold are of the type shown in Fig. 1 of U. S. Patent 3,931,608,

in which the housing H is located to one side of the streamer or

cable K.

B-2

Plaintiff claims that defendants wilfully in@sineed five claims

of the "800" patent by the manufacture and sale of a seismic depth

control apparatus and, further, that defendants induced the purchasers

of the accused apparatus to use it in an infringing manner. The claims

of the "800" patent on which Conoco asserts infringement read as follows:

1. A paravane for a seismic cable adapted to be towed

substantially horizontally through water, comprising: a

housing having a bore means along its length thereof, said

bore means of a size to receive said seismic cable and

allow rotation of said seismic cable without rotation of

said housing while transmitting upward and downward forces

between the housing and the adjacent portions of said

cable; bearing means for securing the housing onto said

seismic cable against movement of said housing along said

cable; and means carried by the housing including at least

one vane for maintaining the paravane at a predetermined

depth in the water as the varavane is moved through the

water by the cable and for counteracting upward, downward

and turning forces imposed on the housing, whereby the

paravane maintains the adjacent portions of the said

seismic cable at said predetermined depth.

2. A paravane as defined in Claim i wherein said last

mentioned means includes: ballast carried by the housing

below the cable to counteract turning forces imposed on

the housing; depth sensing means carried by the housing;

and adjustable diving means carried by the housing, engaging

the water and connected to the depth sensing means for

varying the depth of the paravane in response to the depth

sensing means.

4. A paravane as defined in claim 2 wherein said .

adjustable diving means comprises: diving plans rotatably

secured to the opposite sides of the housing; and means

interconnecting the diving planes for uniform adjustment

of the diving planes in response to the depth sensing

B-3

22. Apparatus for maintaining a seismic cable at a

predetermined depth as the cable is being towed substan-

tially horizontally through water, comprising: a plurality

of paravanes secured in spaced relation along the cable,

each of said paravanes comprising: a housing having a bore

means along its length thereof, said bore means of a size

to receive said seismic cable and allow rotation of said

cable without rotation of said housing while transmitting

upward and downward forces between said housing and ad-

jacent portions of said cable; bearing means for securing

said housing onto said cable against movement of said

housing along said cable; and means carried by the housing

including at least a vane for maintaining the paravane at

a predetermined depth in the water as the paravane is moved

through the water by the cable and for counteracting upward,

downward and turning forces imposed on the housing, whereby

the paravane maintains the adjacent portion of the cable

at said predetermined depth.

25. A paravane for an elongated member adapted to be

towed substantially horizontally through water, comprising:

a housing having a bore means along its length thereof,

said bore means of a size to receive said elongated member

and allow rotation of said elongated member without rotation

of said housing while transmitting upward and downward

forces between the housing and the adjacent portions of

said elongated member; bearing means for securing the

housing onto said elongated member against movement of

the housing along said elongated member; and, means carried

by the housing including at least a vane for maintaining the

paravane is moved through the water by said member and for

counteracting upward, downward and turning forces imposed

on the housing, whereby the paravane ‘maintains the adjacent

portion of said predetermined depth.

Defendants maintain first that the "800" patent is invalid for

obviousness. Secondly, as the five claims of the "400" patent in

suit cannot be construed to describe either model of cable depth

controller that defendants sell, defendants have not infringed the

-3-

B-4

"800" patent. Thirdly, the file history of the "800" patent and

the amendments made to secure the patent create a “file wrapper

estoppel” which prevents plaintiff from now contending that these

Claims cover defendants’ device.

_—— - “--* +" —,

—~ * Collateral to the issue of non-infringement are several purely ™~

legal issues raised by defendant Cole: (1) there exists an implied

¥ royalty-free license to manufacture and sell defendants' devices since

plaintiff has granted licensed users of cable depth controllers the

| unrestricted right to have such depth controllers made by others, (2)

with respect to acts performed outside the territorial limits of

\ coverage of the United States Patent Laws, there can be no infringe-

\ ment ind (3) plaintiff's alleged knowledge of material and relevant

prior art and its failure to disclose such art to the Patent Examiner

@uring the prosecution of the patent in suit renders this an excep-

tional case under 35 U.S.C. 285 entitling defendants to an award of

their attorneys fees.

The "800" patent is a combination patent, i.e. i: is a patent in

which all of the individual elements are old and the asserted novelty

resides in the combination of those elements. The patent must be

strictly confined to the particular combination claimed. Patents on

a simple combination of known mechanical elements, such as the patent

in suit, are difficult to obtain and they are not easily infringed.

Foster v. Hasha, 382 F.2d 761, 766 (Sth Cir. 1967). For plaintiff

to sustain a charge of infringement by defendant, defendant's tools

must include all elements explicitly recited in the claim. Omission

of a single element in such a claim clearly avoidg infringement.

Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518 (1972); Marvin

Glass v. Sears, 448 F.2d 60, 61 (Sth Cir. 1971).

In addition to direct infringement, there can be infringement

under the doctrine of equivalents. This doctrine must be applied

narrowly to the particular simple combination patent claimed because

they are difficult to obtain and should be sustained. Hughes v.

Magnolia Petroleum Co., 88 F.2d 817, 33 (Sth Cir. 1937); Stewart-

Warner Corp. v. Lone Star Gas Co., 195 F.2d 645 (Sth Cir. 1952);

S.sko v. Southern Resin and Fiberglass Corporation, 248 F.Supp. 797,

(S.D. Fla. 1965), aff'd 373 F.2d 866, (Sth Cir. 1967).

B-5

To establish equivalency for the purpose of showing infringement

of the five claims of plaintiff's patent by defendant, plaintiff must “

prove that defendant's tools are substantially identical with the L

arrangement defined in the claim as to structure, mode of operation

and results attained. Ziegler v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 483 F.2d 658,

868 (Sth Cir. 1973); Harrington Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. White, 475

F.2d 768, 796 (Sth Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 38 L.£d.24 331 (1973);

Marvin Glass & Associates v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, 448 F.2d 60,

61 (Sth Cir. 1971).

However, before plaintiff may reach the question of equivalency,

he must deal with limitations imposed upon his own patent under the

doctrine of file wrapper estoppel. An invention is construed not only

in the light of its claims, but also with reference to its file wrapper

or prosecution history in the Patent Office. Ziegler v. Phillips

Petroleum Company, 483 F.24 858, 879 (Sth Cir. 1973). After prose-

cution of his patent, an applicant is precluded by the doctrine of

file wrapper estoppel from thereafter ignoring restrictive terminology

added to the patent and attempting by the doctrine of equivalents to

interpret the claim as though the limitations were not present. Graham

v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 33 (1966); ve C a

Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211, 220-1, (1940); Weber Electric Co. v. Freeman

Electric Co., 256 U.S. 668, 677 (1920); Smith v. Magic City Kennel

Club, 262 U.S. 784, 789 (1930); Ziegler v. Phillips Petroleum Co. 483

F.24 858, 670 (Sth Cir. 1973). The doctrine of file wrapper estoppel

applies whether the restriction added subsequent to application to

the Patent Office were proposed by the Patent Examiner or the applicant.

Dry Hand Mop Co. v. Squeez-eqgy Mop Co., 17 F.2d 465, 466 (Sth Cir. 1927).

The file wrapper of plaintiff's patent in suit reveals that the

only claims broad enough to cover defendants’ structure were cancelled

and replaced by more limited claims. Each of the structural’ differences

between defendants’. structure and plaintiff's claims in suit were a

result of amendatory language submitted during prosecution of plain-

tiff's patent in suit in the Patent Office. Accordingly, as a matter

of law under the doctrine of file wrapper estoppel, plaintiff cannot

now assert that the amendec claims cover what has been eliminated

B-6

from coverage during prosecution before the Patent Office.

The broadest claim of the "800" patent which is asserted in this

litigation is claim 1. The following elements of Claim 1 have not

been included in the defendants’ model Fig. 1 or defendants’ model

Fig. 3:

(a) Defendants’ device does not have “a housing having

a bore means along its length.” This is because the

dictionary definition of “housing” is “in mechanics, a

frame, box, etc. for containing some part.” The only

“housing” in the defendants’ cable depth controllers is

the housing H shown in Pigs. 1 and 3 of U. S. Patent

3,931,608, but it does not have "a bore means along its

length” as required by Claim 1. Therefore, the structure,

"a housing having a bore means along its length",

cannot be found in defendants’ cable depth controllers.

(b) The collars 20 of the defendant's device

cannot be considered a “housing” in accordance with

the dictionary definition because they are not for

"containing some part”.

housing onto said seismic cable” in the defendants’

cable depth controller because the housing dees not

have any bearing means in defendants’ cable depth

controllers.

(4) The vanes P of the defendants’ cable depth

controller are not carried by the housing H, but

instead are mounted on a separate body S which is

attached to the housing H and therefore defendants’

cable depth controllers do not have the “means

carried by the housing including at least one “vane °

as recited in Claim 1.

Since the other claims have more elements than Claim 1 and since

each of the other claims, 2, 4, 22, and 25 have the foregoing elements

which are not found in defendants’ cable depth controllers, none of

the claims, 1, 2, 4, 22 and .25 of the "800" patent in suit are in-

fringed by defendants’ cable depth controllers.

B-7

Although the model shown in Fig. 3 of defendants’ patent 3,931,608

may look more like the plaintiff's cable depth controller of the "800"

patent in suit than the Pig. 1 model of U. S&S. Patent 3,931,608, the

evidence is that the flotation device T is only added in a very limited

number of cases and could be omitted entirely, but it does not add

any additional element which would cause the Fig. 3 model of defendants’

cable depth controller to come within the claims 1, 2, 4, 22 and 25

of the "800" patent in suit.

If plaintiff's patent claims 1, 2, 4, 22 and 25 were construed

as plaintiff contends so that the collars 20 of defendants’ cable

depth controllers were considered as the “bore means" of the housing

H, such conclusion would necessarily lead to a reading of the claims

1, 2, 4, 22 and 25 of the "800" patent in suit squarely on the Baker

patent disclosure and also the prior Baker working model in evidence.

In view of the above factual determination, this Court. finds

that neither of defendants’ devices infringe the "800" patent. Such

finding precludes the necessity of passing upon the issue of invalidity

of Conoco's patent. The Court further finds that this is not an

exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §285 by virture of misrepresentation

to the Patent Office. Therefore, defendant Cole is not entitled to

attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C. §285.

Defendants’ attorney will draft a judgment in accordance with the

memorandum opinion for submission to this Court.

Signed at Houston, Texas, this 6th day of March, 1978.

APPENDIX C

C-1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

_. * | Fifth Cireuit | .

| \ DENIALS OF REHBARING EN BANC

"(Rule 85 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Cireuit Rule 12)

Grouip 1—Denials where no member of the panel nor Judge in regular active

service on the Court requested that the Court be polled on rehearing

iy en banc.

Group'2—Denials after a poll requested by « member of the panel or a Circuit

Judge in regular active service.

Group 3—Denials on the Court's own motion after a poll requested by a

Al oe ee ee eee bene Cenge Wo euger eatiye caren

! Sie, * Deckst Detect ~ Citation of

Baker v. Matcalfe 0... Se. O18 2/17/81 N.D.Tex., 633

See PANS - Fadiiee ~

-Comcerned Desnpcrats of Florida v. Reno . 80-6482 2 9/81 SDE. 6

-," . . b. ’ ad

* Citinaitad OB Co. 9. Cale 6.050.098 Ie SDT. on

vic be one, We ‘ *" a at, hs mt ¥ - ° ~- B 188

Palecs Del-Casal v. Eastern Air Lines, , ; at aa

ST Rcaaensuvakd eunbnege nove debts 79-2963 2/18/81 S.D-Fia., 64

“pl PT tee R _ F.2d296

US v. Cilagre ... 2... Feces ae aay 90-1508 2/2/81 «= \ W.D. Tex, 636

LE RC re -. ,. Faas

2. oe eee rr 1.77? - 2/6/8r-~ SDFia, 633

eS ok TR Ae he Rags yg F.2d 581

APPENDIX D

D-1

April 2, 1968 JR. COLE ETAL 3,375,800

SEISMIC CABLE DEPTH CONTROL APPARATUS

Filed April 7, 1967 3 Sheeats-Sheet 1

ee LN

: aa

66 Daniel La 5

Ck ye oe i>

Cs . ae _awvewroas.

— i ee | Vimar Rar Coce £

4 - ve Le GXLeR

D-2

April 2, 1968 J.R. COLE ETAL 3,375,800

SEISMIC CABLE DEPTH CONTROL APPARATUS

Filed April 7, 1967 3 Sheets-Sheet 2

. =="

: NS SS

INVENTORS ,

Vana y. har Cone €

we Le DULoe

D-3

April 2, 1968 J.R. COLE ETAL 3,375,800

SEISMIC CABLE DEPTH CONTROL APPARATUS

Filed April 7, 1967 3S Sheats-Sheet 5

304 " aNY URS ¥

wo, ei cS—!0

| ee" i oi! : INVENTORS,

Vianar Rar Cae €

Pave Le Bree

Wllanese Mille

3,375,800

Patented Apr. 2, 1968

United States Patent Office

pu itl cnt AHH i ate it Ht 32 HS

Bie Hatt fit ut Hie i i th lk HL

THe aid | te tee fie jd es

“He juli a He a ag dh He

bil HE fede tf} HE Hae Es ta ult]

it lee at ie ie ee Hatten

ie ie aunt se ii PT a hue tl ft

ig ee ee ee

See EG Hees ER SE shai ylhaasy isi

HEE Hi pete Te alia ae

mF “J + TBE hile 44 at eae 3s ee if

ipl Hane nl 4 eH i uals iF RHO

D-5

3,375,800

ion view of the preferred paravane struc-

cable being shown in crous- 5

FIG. 4 is a sectional view taken along lines 4—4

seciional view taken along the

detector cable.

the preferred paravane structure,

said

the

lines S—S of

lines 6—~6 of '

FIG. 5 is a sectional view taken along

FIG. 6 is @ sectional view taken along

FIG. 3.

HU Tale [att ‘uel

i aD at taal

. e Sy 2" =Esezestis = Es & ee <3 sei S25:*

i EE AUE eter eeer TE ET

PH Te HP

ABLE BP een i eH EH TH ath

Hee ABR Blthadll HHL Pye

if ih E ntact Hea iiPnine in

a eT EET TTT

te (EAE at Fe eae

14 4 Sutil aut BHAE BH jag itt

EET THI Forni RE

! i rPisiabeasfistety HU Hora

Ve jab piig| eee le teeny

seed alates cert eter tates

eel lle HH RH

D-6

8,375,800

3343

as 4953233 4 f.

Hh H shit

‘ans HAS Paar fuels

: TT tie thet al ae tei

a282392%¢ BH AEa Hit seagi2da: dite a43n iy! Esditeeestt

393343 iieyes rT Beenie 33253 nite g2i2% sittitaeas: sit

eeieeai 2 soe ‘Hiee pitied a tt hts se geeeee : inlgsti2y i223

Lali Hee Et en ory

5 2303 Saekiget ee igi kaze? & 2. 52% 35 25 aS* 53 32 =

rE Pad Seen A ae

Da sibeait; sis02) Tatage sigidses Seitiss seth ists EPZn BS bES*

a a Ua BLL 33531

3 eel ane ea ae #8948 ou Pe

ATT sree ieH [Eber * svaenise AE ainsi: fal

FRA EeH pee sky HEPE ETE i 3533 staal aan

Hata stele stastiea{llegiiadis afpqiiie Parte

aaaies auld sltinnt ee ea pull eee r

jatilis van Hfgteiil aa ye Se i

£2 28% $2 5222357: 23 3338 2332 #s* e$uSs3 53 4 “ s 342233 $e

aerrreiain eet Sus |s iid: see Gate tail tyatiis

HVE tr Pe 33 g32se7s5 i gaz ee Ht é # MBE EE

srtaitiee (usual ile (tna faut dubia atte

RRHHE betaialetliaate fhiitaail PH eH Te eee Hite

#23222 %343 Tote sei2attess <$629323

dene Se ta ee ee idle

spelt: HE Bie ae e

sities einested

BIE <Sirsthsiits-

S584

eee —

D-7

SAUZELEIEEY 29G03%2¢ 2E2qFERE dssrpyeeyy ig02has2ete 2H GTEES GPEUTE ES

Hie TRE aH Hane ui HEN i wt att sult

es eeiigcthy baits Ty pisiesth Fo avysited 23,82 dip Uist 2 CThge33

spedeggedy 2ebeliia s2tgteza HUARD GE eueetlazs gtegestydy 1 equste;s

Hibs nds peleie bibs tapes: Gig 2 adele

o[leaipial afi Hote ebay abit deta elit

bovaistsasS Sgiesqes ageing? S2aysteate Saeszidecte Seissaotots Pas p ie ces

ailizert’y statghiy fiesaids * patent sau wun rte

sat Hed HERES Pega tes Sage ieee a

Item: Hubli ttetatarad lll bitte

g arisiis<isle*sisigiie"disisiti Liat eli p*8 sal SO e irr 232 al =

o ° . p 2 5 3

3 28% 34333 g22 121 éf% 3394745 $33. genet: Shes Pi ie i} 7 er

fy atiiliial 2 eit fey 2G(uie enna ? i Bue

EGTA duibeli fhe GEUGG iiee (arp

da Matti tai lige aie {elie

gee oyEcecacatggeece sigesgciez=s3 vategn dagdeaede 3 gcyseiiisdlaesibteges

“eesti se Bhhiha iain [enue ieee

FH ue rh : ai ii iy Ha HE i: Hopdaasiesihee

bay duaguanedidicecd gavtiaditenge (elt iintateay “Ta aieetnen if

2 ai s¥sdeeraisiy et isle te He FP : aH it ti

stshjissgintsziics 1 3 AI HEL

ite Ue aa pseititit tli = mt ill ain

D-8

3,375,800

9 10

ing 202 and is engaged by 2 wo of equally cirsum- be at least partially closed off, and when the vane 318 is

ferentially pinions 210. Each pinion 210 is turned clockwise, the pussageway 316 will at least be

vided with 214 on the — ends thereof of Partially closed from the inlet passageway 310. The shaft

a size to overlap the respective of the ring gear 208 320 is suitably connected to a pressure sensing device as

and prevent the housing 202 from moving lengthwise g§ of the type shown in either FIG. 3 or FIG. 8, such that

along the cable 20. Each pinion 210 is rigidly mounted the vane 318 will be turned by variations in the hydro-

peed agh me Awe be ah e pay ip he a static pressure of the water in which the paravane 300 is

ings 218. Each bearing 218 is in turn held in the desired operating.

position in the housing 202 by a plate 220 extending in- In operation of the paravane 300, the pressure sensing

wardly from the outer walls of the housing in any de- ,9 device will turn the shaft 320 to turn the vane 318 into

sired manner. The shaft 216 of one of the pinions 230 & position partially closing off the passageway 316 from

is connected by a belt drive 222 to the output shaft of the inlet 310 when the paravane 300 is first placed in the

& reversing electric motor 224, The motor 224 is rigidly water. Thus, as the paravane 300 is towed through the

secured in the housing 202 in any desired manner. water, the water flowing through the inlet passageway

A pendulum 226 is suitably journaled on a shaft 228 15 310 and then upwardly and rearwardly through the pas-

supporied in a horizontal in the housing 202 by — sageway 314 will cause a reaction on the pererene to make

a pair of bearings 230 and supports 252, such thai the the ge dive toward the predetermined depth of op-

pendulum 226 will tend to swing transversely with respect — eration. When the predetermined depth is reached, the

to the cable 20 at any time the angular Orieniation Of — vane 318 will have been moved to a neuiral position as

the 202 is changed. As schematically iltustrated 90 illustrated in FIG. 11. In the event the paravane 300 is

in FIG. 10, the pendulum 226 is connected 10 8 source § —.jowered from the desired operating depth, the vane 318

a will be turned by the pressure sensing device to partially

of —clote off the passageway 314 from the inlet passageway

the pendulum 226 and are connecied to the forward and 310. The water then flowing through the inlet passageway

reverse inputs 240 and 242, respectively, of the reversing 95 310 will be directed downwardly by the passageway 316

motor 224, and cause a reaction force for raising the paravane 300

A complete paravane 200 will also include diving planes ack to the desired operati

depth.

and © pressure responsive device therein similar to the Prom the foregoing kt will be apparent thet the present

na ileca described in connec- javention will effectively maintain a morine seismic de-

tion with FIG or 8 to control the operating 30 tector cable at a predetermined depth in water as the

— of the paravane. cable is being towed through the water. The noise received

in operation of the paravane 200, the pendulum 226 — by the deteciors in the cable will be substantially reduced

in as the housing Over previous operating techniques and the cable may

202 is as the be left in the water during the night and, in fact, the seis-

eS Oe eee oe Se cee SS See ot 35 mic surveying operations may be continued throughout

= the night if desired. The paravane provided by this inven-

contact one of the contacts 236 to energize tion will not be affected by twisting of the cable, as whea

motor 224 in one direction. The motor 224 will in turn the direction of the surveying vessel is changed, such that

Grive the pinion 210 connected thereto in a given direc- the means for controlling the depth of the paravane will

tion, The respective pinion 210 will in turn. engage the 40 remain oriented in the proper position and remain effec-

. fing gear 208 and return the housing 202 to the proper —_— tive for controlling the depth, even as the cable is turned.

angular orientation. In the event the bousing 202 starts Changes may be made in the combination or arrange-

turning in the opposite direction the pendulum 226 will ment Em os Comnaes 0 hesstatere oat Costh te che

contact the opposite contacts 236 or 238 and energize § — specifics and shown in the drawings, it being under-

the motor 224 in an opposite direction to return the hous |. stood that changes may be made in the embodiments dis-

ing 202 to the desired through the driving en “" closed without departing {rom the spirit and scope of the

agement of the 10 connected to the motor 224. — invention as defined in the following claims.

The remaining 210 act as idlers and equalize the What is claimed is:

forces imposed on the ring gear 208. : J. A poravene for 0 selamie cable adapted to be towgs

50 substantially horizontally ¢ gh water, comprising:”a

Embodiment of FIG. 11 , housing having a bore means along its length thercof, said

Still another paravane structure 200 is schematically bore means of a size to receive said se cable and

Mustrated in FIG. 11. The wane 300 comprises an allow rotation of said seismic cable without rotation of

upper bousing section 302 a lower housing section 304 said housing while ne geen upward and downward

by forces betyren the housing tbe adjacent portions of

said cable; bearing means for securing the housing onto

said seismic cable against movement of said housing along

said cable; means carried by the housing including at

least one vane for maintaining the paravane at a prede-

termined depth in the water as the paravane is moved

through the water by the cable and for counteracting up-

~te

svF

e ward, downward and turning forces imposed on the hous-

The upper housing section 302 contains walls forming ing, whereby the paravane maintains the adjacent por-

an inlet passageway 310 communicating with the forward tions of the said seismic cable at said predetermined depth.

05° 2. A paravane as defined in claim 1 wherein said last

ocludes:

34 with the mentioned means i :

teading peumeanen 50° Consens we en tie ballast carried by the housing below the cable to coun-

downwardly and rearwardly extending passageway teract turning forces imposed on the housing;

Ps pn oA with the Inlet passageway 31@ and depth sensing means carried by the housing; and

the outer surface of the section 302. A vane 318 70 cthatable Ching eam cnstied ty ta theden, oo

eo ceees sees G(s tho tevdioa conten 306 by 0 shad gaging the water and connected to the depth sensing

320 in a position to selectively at least partially close off means for varying the depth of the paravane io re-

the passageways 314 and 316 from the inlet passageway sponse to the depth sensing means.

0. In other ' vane 3. A paravane as defined in claim 2 characterized fur-

6 is turned counterclockwise, the passageway 314 will 75 ther to include:

D-9

3,375,800

: ian

vertical and horizontal fixed fins secured to the ex-

terior of the housing for further counteracting turn-

ing forces imposed on the bousing.

4. A paravane as defined in claim 2 wherein seid ad-

justable diving means comprises:

diving planes rotatably secured to the opposiie sides

of the housing; and

means interconnecting the diving planes for uniform

adjustment of the diving planes in response to the

depth sensing means.

3. A-paravane as defined in claim 2 whercin said hous-

ing has @ forward end and a rearward end, whercin said

adjustable diving means comprises:

walls in the housing forming an inict geway for

water at the forward end of the a rearward

and upwardly extending passageway communicating

with the lelet passageway and ihe exterior of the

extending

moved through the water.

6. A paravone for a seismic cable adapted to be towed

an clongated comin having an upper portion, a

and a rearward end,

means rotatably securing the bousiog on the

cable while preventing lengthwise movement of the

housing along the ca’ 33

stabilizing means carried by the housing to prevent

the housing from rotating while being towed

the water by the cable;

depth control means carried by the housing for main-

taining the housing, and hence the jon 40

of the cable, at a predetermined depth in the water

as the cable and housing are towed

water.

7. A paravane as defined In claim 6 wherein said hous-

in comprises an upper section, a lower section, and 45

said inner

it sk

HH ae

;

ig i

Zé

70°

the center line of suid bore expored to the water are

equal to the area of the surfaces of the housing sbove

the center line of said bore exposed to the water.

14. A patavane as defined in claim 13 characterized

further to include fixed vertical and horizontal fins se-

cured to the outer surface of the housing.

paravane as defined in claim 12 wherela said

15. A

Hast is positioned below the housing.

vier a sorovune as éefiaed ia claim 6 wherein sald depth

control means includes:

horizontally extending shafts journaled in the opposite

sides of the hou ;

a diving plane rigidly secured on each shaft; a piston

reciprocally carried by the housing having one end

thereof exposed to the water through which the

puravane is towed; oh

adjustable clastic means engaging the piston whereby

the piston will move in response to changes in depth

of the paravane above and below a predetermined

—_=

a linkage connecting the piston to said shafts for turn-

ing said shafis and controlling the settings of the

diving planes.

17. A paravane as defined in claim 16 whereio said

piston is supported in the housing for vertical movement

with solid one end thereof exposed to said axial bore,

and wherein

the diameter of sald axial bore is larger than the

diameter of the — whereby the water through

one

end of the piston. :

18. A paravane as defined in claim 16 wherein said

poe rte ag with the center line of said axial bore,

said linkoge includes a U-shaped yoke having its free

ends extending upwardly and being sized

vertically without interference with the

means connecting the closed end of the yoke to

piston for vertical movement of the yoke with

free

piston; and

ends of

the re-

an arm pivotably secured to cach of the

the yoke and rigidly secured to the shaft on

spective side the cable for turning the shafts

1g planes.

20. A paravane as defined in claim 6 wherein said hous-

ing is hollow and characterized further to include:

floatation material —

means carried by

for maintaining the paravane at a predetermined

depth in the water as the paravane is moved through

D-10

3,375,800

housing, whereby the paravane mainiains the adja-

a of the cable al said picdetermined

dept

23. Apparatus for maintaining a scismic cable at &

predetermined depth as the cable is being towed through

waiter, .

a plurality of paravanes secured in spaced relation

along the cable, cach of said paravanes comprising:

cable;

bearing means rotatably securing the housing on

the'cable while preventing lengthwise movement

of the housing along the cable;

stabilizing means carried by the housing io prevent

housing from rotating while being towed

through the water by the cable; and

control means carried by the housing for

water.

24. A paravane for a seismic cable adapted to be towed

motor means in the

to said pinion;

a source of electrical energy;

a pendulum secured in the. housing for swinging when

the housing turns on the cable and being connected

to the source of electrical energy;

cuntacts in the housing on the opposite sides of and

positioned to be selectively engaged by the pendu-

lum upon turning of the housing on the cable, said

— bousing drivingly con-

contacts being connected to the forward and reverse

inputs of the reversing motor for maininining the

housing in a predetermined angulur orinctation upon

twisting of the cable; and

depth control means carried by the housing for main-

taining the housing, and hence the adjacent portion

of the cable, at a predetermined depth in the water

as the cable and housing are towed through the

woler. .

25. A paravane for an elongated member adapted to

be substantially horizontally through water, com-

prising; a housing having @ bore means along {ts length

thereof, said bore means of a size to receive said elongated

member and allow rotation of said elongated member

without rotation of said housing while transmitting up-

ward and downward forces between the housing and the

adjacent portions of said elongated member; ‘bearing

means for securing the housing onto said elongated

member against movement of the housing along said

elongated member; and, means carried by the housing

including at least a vane for maintaining the paravane at

& predetermined depth in the water as tbe paravane is’

moved through the water by said member and for coun-

pigs upward, downward and turning forces imposed

on the ing, whereby the paravane maintains the ad-

SS Ee Oe ae ee

References Cited

UNITED STATES PATENTS

2,607,842 8/1952 Reid.

2,729,200 1/1956 Paslay et al. :

2,610,240 9/1952 Pottorf .......... 114-235 X

3,224,406 12/1965 Clark.

3,332,058 7/1967 Loper et al.

FERGUS S. MIDDLETON, Primary Examiner.

MILTON BUCHLER, Examiner,

T. M. BLIX, Assistant Examiner.

APPENDIX E

E-l

March 12, 1968 B. M. BAKER . 3,372,666

DEPTH CONTROLLER

Filed Oct. 24, 1965 2 Sheets-Sheet 1

K\4 w T =

ee 2 2 IS*DIVE-|—'

ee «| rf = |

» “eee re di

mise den ee

Pk 90, F l 0 ' iS*CLIMB S|

i 82 3 30

4 . ein DEPTH FEET

'° 5

a8 44 eg

INVENTOR

190 ta. ——J ee . Buford M. Baker

E-2

March 12, 1968 B. M. BAKER 3,372,666

DEPTH CONTROLLER

Filed Oct. 24, 1965 2 Sheets-Sheet 2

‘ INVENTOR

Buford M. Boker

€

A eh

ATTORNEY

United States Patent Office

E-3

3,372,666

Patented Mar, 12, 1968

3,372,666

DEPTH CONTROLLER

Buford M. Noker, Dallas, Tex., assigour to Texas Tostro-

one Incorporated, Dallas, Tex, a corporation of

elaware

FUed Oct. 24, 1965, Ser. No. 504,724

5 Claims, (CL 114-235)

ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE

Apparatus for controlling the depth of a device

such as a towed streamer in a fluid medium. A pres-

sure responsive sensor is connected to a wing for con-

trolling the variance of the deflection angle of an elevator

and tbe wing in a linear manner related to the depth of

the sensor within a predetermined range of cepths and

in a consiant manner at all depths above and below the

predetermined range.

This invention relates to a depth controliet aod more

particularly to an appararuy for controlling the depth

of a towed streamer or otber such device in @ fluid

medium.

Streamers construcied so as to be approximately neu-

tally bouyant and containing sensing elements for receiv-

ing acoustic energy propogated through the water are

widely used, such as for seisinic exploration for oil. It has

been found that if the front end of a streamer is controlled

by appropriate sneans to maintain a certain depth, aod the

streamer is carefully adjusied as to weight and size to be

nearly neuirally bouyant, then the streamer will maintain

a near consiant depth throughout its length, in most cases,

if it is of rather short length (for caample, leas than 2400

feet). If the sticasner is as long as 8000 feet, for example,

it is extremely difficult to majotain a reasonably constant

depth throughout its length by weight and bouyancy ad-

justment alone. This is because a sircamer cannot be

made exactly bouyant as they are usually oil filled, and

temperature variations cause changes io the density of

the oil, thereby changing (he bouyancy. Also, changes in

the salinity of the sea water, from one location to an-

other, cause variations in the bouyancy. This is an espe-

cially large effect off-shore from the mouths of rivers

where the fresh water from the rivers dilutes the sea

water.

It is therefore an object of this iavention to provide an

apparatus for maintaining a body at a predetermined

depth, the depjb being sensed by a pressure sensor assen>-

bly included within the apparatus.

Another object of the invention is to provide an appi-

ratus which includes an elevator means that is ve.

10 an output [rom a pressure sensing device,

Yet another object of tbe invent is to provide an

apparatus which seeks a predetermined depth at a maai-

mum rate and then maintains that depib.

Other odjects and features of the Invention will be-

* come more readily undersiood from the following detailed

description and appended claims when read in conjunc-

tion with the accompanying drawings, in which Jike refer-

ence numerals designate like parts throughout the figures

thereof, and in which:

FIGURE | is a perspective view of the depth controller

viewed from the top;

FIGURE 2 is a perspective view of the depth controller

viewed from the bottom;

FIGURE 3 is a view of the Interconnection of the shafi

of the pressure sensor assembly with the elevator of the

cuntroller;

FIGURE 4 is a cross-section of the pressure sensor

assembly;

FIGURE 5 shows the relatiomsbip of elevator angle to

depth in the water,

Referring now to FIGURES 1! and 2, the depth con-

troller is indicated generally by the sefereoce numeral 10.

* To this depth controller is attached a streamer 12 having |

& metallic sleeve 14 a3 an integral part thereof. The metal-

lic sleeve is attached to the point oo the streamer for

maintaining.a portion of the streamer at a predetermined

depth, for example, at a depth of 30 feet. The depth con-

trolier 10 is connected to the streamer 12°by means of

an attaching clamp 16 which surrounds the sleeve 14

and is bolted to a metallic Y support bracket 18. Across

the upper portion of the support bracket. is a bar 20

which provides additional support and strength for the Y

bracket, The ends 22 and 24 of the Y support bracket

are connected to hinges 26 and 23, respectively (FIG-

URE 2), which allow wing member 30 to pivot a0 amount

dependent upon tbe angle of defection of the elevator 40.

Wing member 30, in this embodiment, is hollow and

made of plywood although it can be made of any otber

suitable material, Included in the outer sections of the

wing are styrofoam blocks 32 to add bouyancy or floata-

tion to same. In the center section of the wing is a pres-

sure sensor assembly 34, the structure of which will be

described below. Elevator booms 36 and 38 are attached

to wing 30 at one end, while each of the otber ends

provide support for elevator 40. The elevator 40 is con-

nected to each of the elevator booms 36 and 33 by hinges

42 and 44, respectively.

Since the wing 30 is buoyant (due to Ns plywood mate-

rial and tbe styrofoam blocks in the wing), it is neces-

sary to provide additiona) weight and stability below the

streamer 12 to maintain wing 30 in a horizonial position.

This weight is provided by steel tube 46 attached to the

end of the metallic Y support bracket under the streamer.

On the other hand, the stability is provided by a horizon-

tal stabilizer or tail assembly 48 which has attached to it

two rudders 50 and 52, The tail assembly 48 aod rudders

50 and 52 may be made of a suitable material, such as

plywood. The tail assembly is attached to the weighied

steel tube 46 by means of clamps 54, By use of the

weighted tube and the tail assembly, the necessary weight

and horizontal stability is provided for wing member 30.

FIGURE 3 shows the apparatus necessary to translate

the — of — eeedton ts asembly 34 to eleva-

tor 40. As was stat y, the pressure assembly 3,

in this embodiment, sits io the center portion of wing 30

(as shown in FIGURE 2) with shaft $6 extending through

the wing. Attached to bracket $8 and fixed at point 60 is

a bell crank 62. This crank is secured at points 64 and

transmitted into » substantially horizontal motion

66, this being subsequently transferred

the tang 68 to the control rod 70. One end of extension

rod 72 is attached to control rod 70 and the other end of

said extension rod is coupled to an extension rod end

74. This rod end has a hole in it which allows the elevator

hinge to pass therethrough. As shown in FIGURE 1},

hinges 42 and 44 allows the elevator 40 to rotate around

the points attached to the elevator booms 36 and 33.

Accordingly, if shaft 56 were to move downward from

its midpoint position, this motion would be transmitted

to elevator 40 which would, in turn, move the elevator

upw...d to a position such as that shown at 400, An up

ward inovement by shaft $6 would have the reverse effect

and cause the elevator to move to a position such as

that shown in 40). Thus the control rod and pressure

eyed eg Getermine the angle of deflection of the

elev.iw

E-4

3,372,666

FIGURE 4 shows the preswre

which senses the depth of depth controller 10. The

78 is attached to the

rie

se is limited by mechanical stop 100, whereas the upward

movement of the shaft ’

piston cap 86 coming in contact with the

of pressure uwombly cover 78.

FIGURE 5 is a graphical re

essary 10 position the elevator

precompressed during the

sensing mee Renae a

lower surface of the assembly

: rmost 5 the elevator

be in position 40) (FIGURE 3) which will

maximum dive angle of the device. This can

in FIGURE 5, for at zero —

mum dive angle. As t

water will enter through

the hydrostatic pressure to

of the barrel, whereupon

Eri

Ses

the elevator, will not move until a depth of 26 fect is

réached; that is, at that depth the hydrostatic pressure

of the water equals the

30, thus forcing the

accordance with the

mum downward

— 40a (FIGURE 3), the maximum

relore, the depth cont will climb unt

that depth at which the

to overcome the hydrow

move the piston skirt 92

This point corresponds to a depth of 34 feet

silk

in FIGURE 5), and as the streamer 12 and depth con-

troller continue to climb, the decreased water pressure

on the piston 90 causes a reduction of clevaior angle -

until at 30 {cet the pision assembly will again be in the

mid-position, with the elevator angle correspondingly

being at zero degrees. Wing member 30 will be at a

zero degree angle to the water flow and there will no

longer be a climbing force exerted.

It should be noted that the depth controller 10 auto-

matically reaches that climbing of diving angle which

will ccunterbslance the force acting upon it. It should

be further noted that th: piston motion is not propor-

tienal to depth (as can be secn in FIGURE 5). The

dep:h controlicr will climb or dive at a maximum angle

(whichever is necessary) to approach the desired depth.

This is a:sured in shallow water by the precompression

of the spring 94 eaceeding the hydrostatic pressure, therc-

by maintaining the shaft £6 a1 its maximum upward posi-

tion (which corresponds to the maximum elevator dive

angle). If the device is too deep in the fiuid medium, the

hydrostatic pressure of the medium will substantially ex-

ceed the tension of the spring and force the piston and

shaft against the mechanical siop 100 to its maximum |

downward position, which corresponds to the maximum

elevator climb angie. This means of turning the elevator

40 through a full range of 30 degrees over a depth change

of 8 fcet results in control of the depth very close to the

* desired 30 foot depth, even though the sireamer 12 is

either too heavy or 100 light.

Although the preient invention has been shown and

Mvustrated in terms of a device for controlling a streamer

at a 30 foot depth, it will be apparent that the device-can

be made to control a body at any desired depth by select-

ing a suitable spring for the pressure sensor assembly.

Also, although the device has been described as being use-

ful for maintaining predetermined depths for dtismic

Streamer applications, it will be furtber apparent that

the depth controller can be used for controlling the towed

depth of other equipment, such as sonar transducers and

sensors for measuring temperature, salinity, light inten-

sity, and the like.

It is to be undersiood that the form of the invention,

herewith shown and described, is to be taken as a pre-

ferred example of the same, and that various changes in

the shape, size and arrangement of parts may be resoried

to without departing from the spirit and scope of the in-

vention as defined in the appended claims.

What is claimed is:

1. A depth controller for maintaining a body at a pre-

determined depth in a Nuid medium, comprising:

<8) means responsive to the pressure of said medium

Jor generating a control mechanical output linearly

related to the depth of said body within a predeter-

mined range of depths and for generating a constant

mechariral output at all depths above and a constant

mechanical output at all depths below said prede-

termined range, said means comprising a barrel and

limited in one direction oy a cap on une end of said

barrel and in the other direction by » shoulder with-

in said herrel ang spaced‘from the other end of sai?

‘barrel and

(b) variable deflection means responsive to said me-

chanical outputs for controlling the depth of said

body in said medium, the angle of deflection of said

variable deflection means being proportional to said

control or said constant mechanical outputs.

2. A depth controller for maintaining a body at a pre-

Getermined depth in a fivid medium, comprising:

‘a) means responsive to the pressure of said medium

fc. generating a control output linearly related to

te depth of said bay within a predetermined range

of .Jepths and for generating a consiant output ot all

d:,ths above and a constant output at all depths be-

le said predetermined range said means comprising

E-5

3,372,666

a barrel and 2 piston having a range of travel witb-

in said barrel limited in one direction by a cap on

one end of said barrel and ia the otber direction by a

shoulder within said barrel and spaced from the

other end of said barrel,

‘b) elevator means having a variable angle of defiec-

tion responsive either to said control output or the

constant outputs for varying its angle of

when said body deviates from said pr

depth, and ;

_fesponsive to the deflection of said elevator means

for controlling the depth Of said body.

3. A depth controller for maintaining a body at a pre-

determined depib in a fluid medium, comprising:

.(a) means responsive to the pressure of said medium

for generating on output linearly related to the depth

of the body within a predetermined range of depths

and also responsive to the pressure of said medium

for generating a constant output at all depths above

and a constant output at all ceptbs below said pre-

, Cetermined range,

(b) control means responsive either to said output or

said constant outputs of said first-meationed means,

. (c) elevator means having a variable angle of defiec-

tion responsive to said control means for varying its

angle of deBection when said body deviates from said

predetermioed depth,

«d) wing means baving a variable angle of deflection. .

ponsive

res ve io the defectiod of said elevator means,

(e) support means, said support means being pivotally

connected to said wing means, and

“(f) stabilizing means connected 19 said support means

ee maintaining said wing meaoz ia a borizootal po

ion.

4. A depth controller for maintaining a body at a pre-

determined depth in a fiuid medium, comprising:

(a) @ pressure sensor means having:

(1) a movable shaft with a maximum and mini-

mum output aod varying linearly therebetween,

s3id output being indicative of the depth of said

body in said medium, f

(2) a piston assembly responsive to the pressure

of tbe medium, said assembly being attached to

said shaft,

(3) a precomprezsed spring exerting a force

against said piston assembly,

(b) control means responsive to said output,

tion responsive to said control means for varying

its angle of deflection when said body moves from

said predetermined depth,

(d) bovyant wing means having a variable angle of

defection responsive to the deflection of said ele-

vator means,

(e) support means, said support means being pivotal-

ly connected to said wing means, and

({) stabilizing means connected to said support means

for maintaining said wing means io a horizontal

position.

5. A depth controller for maintaining 4 towed body

al a predetermined depth in a fluid medium comprising:

(a) a cylinder haviog a piston therein,

(b) a compreeeinn spring forcing said viston against

the ton of said cylinder,

ton to said cylinder while admitting movement of

$3id pistoa within said cylinder,

(d) a structure formiag a flow channel leading into

said cylinder to force said piston against said spring,

(¢) stop means comprising a stepped diameter in said

cylinder providing a shoulder facing the top of said

“cylinder for limiting travel of said piston into said

cylinder to a linear range of said spring, and

(f) means connected to said body and responsive to

the position of said piston in said cylioder to control

the attitude of said body. “

References Cited

UNITED STATES PATENTS

1,666,787 4/1928 Michelio .......... -- 73—409

2,718,145 9/1955 WNisle ..... ocnecnennals 73—410

2,729,910 1/1956 Fryklund ...... wnwes 114-235

2,945,469 7/1960 Pulsifer ............ 114—235

2,980,052 4/1961 Fehiner ............ 114—235

MILTON BUCHLER, Primary Examiner.

45 T. M. BLLX, Assistant Examiner.

APPENDIX F

F-1

TJ MEMORANDUM

DATE: August 5» 1965.

TO: Buford Baker

COPY: Personnel File - Buford M. Baker

FROM: Harold Levine

SUBJECT: Invention Disclosure

This will acknowledge receipt by this department of your

disclosure dated July 23, 1965 , entitled "DEPTH

CONTROLLER, "

For your records, this disclosure has been assigned case

number TI-2244,

Your disciosure will be taken up for further consideration as

soon as possible, but in order to assure appropriate action

thereon, it is important that this department be promptly

notified in advance of the first date that a public disclosure

(e.g., public use or publication) or sale of an item embodying

this invention is to take place.

HAROLD LEVINE

Patent Department

HL/sr-

Joy

F-2

SOE *. has D vor

Hp a Bae BLE Fes.

a a,

4d [ee feel

RECENT

Mi 2s He

TH PATLEN FE a CT

& ASNT Rverd

ese

1 wENTION cascarrve True: DEPTH COWTROMLER

F-3

nNcMmnMwe. ..

PATENT BISCLOSURE IRSTRUCTION AND COVER SHEET

i PR 00ee Cont OF TYRE)

aaeg

ore eqxseettd anotS.00 ly) 908...2- =<

Morris Beker Engr.

“ bp er ae

es cx? euneet CO

vi ctumons OM 1) cee

1) mae (aan

Crown Orive = Dail Dalles Texas

a qr enti 1 arr aan

ened ane GAT, cayneet® Ao. eee 1 968

vi CTU OVO MO Mca

; 1D mac (OAs

Ee city aun a han *

IMOUSTRIAL PRODUCTS «—-MMICONDUCTORS. OTHER

2 test ware. O tw oOfvects 1 Gata Paoctess M artasy (Que

11 Gal acseamenens ncecun Th UPLORATION min mas cacurrs

DATE INVENTION CONCEIVED ... 1965_

DATE FIRST SKETCH OR DRAWING MADE _.—Aprit_. 45.

DATE CONSTRUCTION OR MODEL ST ee

ame wm seers

Th CondnmrC ans ma TEARS

MOT VET STastto 1)

CATE TESTING STARTED ae RTT

OATE SUCCESSFUL, TESTING Pee. ee ae

SUCCESSFUL TESTING RECORDED IN ENGINEERING NOTEBOOK NO. ... PAGES)...

ANO WITHESSED 6Y 1) ae ae -! ee

4 HAS THERE SEEN ANY DPERIMENTAL USE OF THE INVENTION? ow yx

HAS THERE BEEN ANY SALE OR PRODUCTION USE OF THE INVENTION? ove gg

1S SALE OR PRODUCTION USE SCHEDULED? ms =6=6COM

7. WARY ANSWERS Wt 6 ARE “YER” DXPLAIN, GIVING OATES duly, 1965 ———

" RZCEIV P |

4. HAS THERE BEEN A DISCLOSURE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS INVENTION IN PUBLICATION, PROPOSAL,

PORT, OR 1S SUCH DISCLOSURE ANTICIPATED? 0 a a

if YES WOONTIFY: . i; Ove A ee

omens J ‘ Th PANT PrreitaCnT

F-4

dae Tha Peet sett ot tee bay cet

‘Contract or Subcontroct: OG Yes ix No

(b) The performance of Any Experimental, Developmental, or Research Work Reloting to the Subject Motter

of o Government Contract and which Done upon the Understanding in writing thot o Contract

Would be Awarded: i O Yes No

10. Numbers of Controcts Referred to in 9: (a) IE 3 bahisshastbsheeinpsiatenn iad tasieiad eos

11. Is tne Invention Embodied in Any Material or Product Furnished or To Be Furnished under o Government

Contract of Subcontract? 0 Yes %4 No

12. Numbers of Controcts or Subcontrocts | ee eee ce ae nel

13. Prepare ond attach to this cover sheet o complete written disclosure of your invention including ony sketches,

diagroms, drawings, prints, etc. which will aid in understanding this invention. The outline below should be

foliowed in writing the disclosure:

(1) Briet Discussion of Problem Solved ‘by Invention

(2) Presentation and Discussion of Known Prior Art, Including Manner in which Others Hove Attempted

To Solve the Problem. Point Out Disadvontoges ond Weaknesses in Prior Art. Include Literature

(3) Description of Invention Including o Specific Embodiment. Point Out Importont Features ond Points

Believed To Be Novel. Stote Advontoges of Invention ond Sacrifices, If Any, Mode To Achieve These

Advantages. Describe Any Experiments Conducted and Results of Those Experiments

* (4) Is the Concept of the Invention Applicable to Other Problems ond Fields of Interest? If So, What Arc

They and How Would the Principles of the Invention Be Used? ’

’

(5) The Inventor(s) end Witnesses Should Sign ond Dote Each Pege of the Attoched Disclosure.

The Invention Described by the Attoched Patent Disclosure which Comprises Poges Is Submitted

Pursuont to My Employment Agreement with Texos Instruments Incorporoted

lier za 196)

Sign Full Nome(s), (1)

(2)

(3) ‘ ; ok

[) This invention wos first explained to me by the ¥0 tis iewersion ROSIE ae

inventor(s) on 5 engheeinene irwerterts) on. € a+ a

19, ond understood by me; ond/or / 19, and ihe,tond/or

CD The ottoched wos reed Pa it, RACE

aa od by me on...

—= "tages ).. bashed Ach... FAAS LY Ria! fe pith ylih

F-5

DEPTH CONTROLLER

This invention consists of @ means of controlling the depth of « towed

streamer submerged beluw the water surface,

Strcamers constructed, such as to be approximately neutrally buoyant and

containing sensing eloments for receiving acoustic energy propogated

through the water, are widely used in seismic exploration for oi! and

other purposes.

REFERENCE PATENT: 2,465,696

2,729,300

It has been found, by experience, that !f the front end of the streamer

is controlied by means shown in the above patents and If the streamer Is

carefully adjusted as to weight and size so as to be nearly neutral buoy-

ancy, that the streamer will maintain @ sufficiently near constant depth

through out Its length, In most cases - -

. te has also been found, by experience, that |

the streamer is as long as 8,000'feet, that it Is @ practice! Impossibility

to maintain a reasonabi lity constant depth through out Its length by

weight and buoyancy adjustments. A streamer cannot be made exactly buoy-

ancy for the following reasons:

a. The streamers are ol! filled and temperature variations cause

changes in the density of the oj); and thus, @ change in

buoyancy. :

b. Changes In the salinity of the sea water, from one location to.

another, causes variations in the buoyancy. This Is an especial-

ly large effect off shore from the mouths of rivers where the

fresh water from the rivers dilutes the sea water In "streams"

or "streaks".

c. The ol! is more ‘compressible than water. Increased depths cause

increased density relative to water. Decreased depth causes

decreased density relative to water. Thus, the buoyancy adjust-

ment is unstable.

tt is desirable, from the standpoint of the selsmic signals processing

and interpretation, to use streamers as long as 8,000 feet or more.

F-6

This device, such as shown in Figure |, has been bullt and tested. This

device, when under tow underwater, will closely maintein @ constant 30

foot depth, even when attached to # load (streamer) which Is either

heovier or lighter than water, The amount of toad ic wil! contro! ts,

of course, @ function of the towing speed. ‘For exemple, the controller,

shown in Figure |, at 4 MPH towing speed will contro! forces as high as

100 pounds excess weight or excess buoyancy. This particular controller

hos @ wing chord of 39 Inches an’ # wing span of 36 Inches.

The Pressure Actuator construction Is shown on Drawing $K-88-P38-10!,

This pressure actuator senses the depth of the water and also furnishes

the forces needed to position the elevator.

The pressure actuator consists 0} barre! apd cov @ and ® ‘

A spring exerts force on ston tending keep the piston

essembiy in tect with the cover @ . The drawing shows the piston

In mid-position, as It Is when It Is at design depth. The force of the

spring is belenced by the external water pressure acting on the piston

eres, At lesser depths, the spring forces the piston In the up ward

direction, At greater depths, the water pressure forces the piston down

rd compressing the spring further. Through the IInkage ¢ °

& > r)) , the motion Is. transferred to the elevator contro! rod (Figure

g and thus, to rotete the elevetor.

Into the pressure actuetor assembly. Thus at the water surface, the

spring Is holding the piston ageinst the cover - Movement of the

piston does not oceur unt!! there Is sufficient pressure (depth) to over

come this Initial spring force. Thus, piston motion Is proportions!

to depth. The ection Is shown In graph at lower left of Figure |.

At the surface, the elevator hes @ 15° angle to couse Lift of the tall;

and thus, forces the wing to @ dive angle. As the device Is towed, It

dives. Oue to the precompression of the spring {mn the pressure actuetor,

no change in elevator engle will occur until « depth of 26 feet Is reached.

As the device continues to dive, the Increased water pressure covses @ +

reduction of elevator angle until et 30 foot depth the pressure actuator

fiiford Mali bebe ith PDih helagy

THVENTOR oe Witness Pye

2% y! r

F-7

«j-

piston Is In mid-position, the elevator angle is at zero degrees, the

wing Is at zero engle to the water flow and there Is no more diving force,

If the streamer is heevier than neutrally buoyant, the controller will be

forced to « depth greater than 30 feet, the pressure ectuator will cause

the elevator to move to an angle causing depression of the tall and the

wing Into a climbing angle. i¢ will, thus, sutomatically arrive at

climbing angle (or diving angie) such as to counter balance the force

acting upon it.

This means of turning the elevator through the full range of 30° over «

depth change of eight feet results in contro! of depth close to 30 feet,

even though the streamer is considerably heavy or light.

While the explanations are confined to # device for controlling # streamer

#t 30 foot depth, the device can be made to control at any desired depth

by selecting @ sultable spring for the pressure actuator, Also, the

device can be used for controlling the towed depth of other equ! pments

such a8 sonar transducers, sensor for measuring temperatures, salinity,

light Intensity, ete, Vt

WING 1S BUOYANT, PARTS BELOW STREAM

‘ARE WEIGHTED, THUS MAINTAINING WIG Hoel Zo/7Al.4

EvnRE DEVICE 4S SLIGHTLY BUOYANT]. .

Mp hy 7Al1e_B0omMS wn on Conf het. Ro

— hte mereant SS isn hy

PRESSURE ACTURTOR WITHIN WING

CovTaas Samer ANGLE

ST7REAMER OEPTY CONTROLLER

MODEL --38

PES 2.3 1905 . se

Fe |

APPENDIX G

Aug. 19, 1952 A. C. REID 2,607,642

MARINE SEISUOMETER SPREAD

Filed Warch 2, 1949 “7 2 SHEETS—SHEET 1

INVENTOR:

ALLERNT C. REID

Drwell Pring

ATTORNEY

G-2

2,607,842

A. C. REID

MARINE SEISUONETER SPREAD

Aug. 19, 1952

Filed March 2, 1949

a, ana

SSS=

INVENTOR:

ALBERT C. REID

ATTORNEY

” Avett, ting

G-3

£&.60.Cu uy auy ASum

UNITED STATES

hey Pe “

PATENT OFFICE

2,607,842

MARINE SEISMOMETER SPREAD

CG. Neid, Tulsa, Okla., arsignor to Stane-

Albert

lind Oll and Gas Company,

poration of Delaware

Tulsa, Okla., a cor-

Applcalion March 2, 1949, Serial No. 79,234

10 Claims. (CL 177352)

This invention relates ta geophysical surveying

ind is directed particularly to prospecting by the

seisutic method over water-covered areas such as

in the Golf of Mexica. .

Geophysical surveying using artificially-created

selsmic waves hag becn extensively and succcss-

fully used on Jand for a number of years, but it is

prospects.

the improvement, and a of spe-

the proper handling of the sciamometers used

for detecting the selsmic waves. Placing the sels-

monvtcrs at known locations in a spread on the

Marine Door es in Jand prospecting proved even

more laborious and time-conswaing than on land.

Towing ao spread af scismometers connected to-

gether by @ conductor and tensicn cable along

the marine Noor or supported by Moats behind

the recording vessel from one location to another,

lis

Fits

Rie

“a

Lie

cest

16 weaker Cosired seismic refiection signals.

68 ware

refiecticns and make prospecting impossible. As

®& moatver of fact, there ore some seasons of the

year in the Gulf of Mexico when the nolse condi-

tions from the woter surface have been so

troubiesome that prospecting operations were .

possibie only a small fraction of the time. The

resulta: delays while the crews and equipment

are beld in readiness for favorable working con-

ditions add very greatly to the expense of the

10 operation.

It is, accordingly, a primary object of my inven-

tion to provide a marine seismometer assembly

which gives a greatly improved signal-to-noise

ratio, permitting the detection of deeper =

other object is to provide a selsmomweter sprer.d

assembiy for marine prospecting in which the

depth of the selsmometers is automatically con-

trolled to bring them to the most effective depth

20 for signal reception, A further object is to pro-

vide a marine seismometer spread capable of

opcration under adverse weather or water con-

ditions to obtain good geophysical data which

‘could rot hitherto be obtained under such condl-

25 tions. Stil] ar.other object is to provide a towable

marine seismometer spread in which the depth

of submergence of the seismometers is auto-

maticaliz7 Noat-controlled fiom the water surface,

but in a manner which minimizes the transmis-

30 sion vf noise signals from the water surface to

the selsmometers. A still further object is to pro-

specd of

pecting operation. Still another and further ob-

seismometer

40 compensates fur changes in Buoyancy while effee~

tively Altering out water-surface noises. Another

and still further object of my invention Is to pro-

vide a marine selsmometer spread suitable for use

in areas where the copth of water is too great

of the invention wil) become apparent as the

Ccescription

Procecds.

From ovservations mede under a variety of

copditicus, it has pow been fourd that the range

of depihs jo water where selsmometcrs may be

placed for the moat eXclent operation is relatively

narrow. Due to the greaily difforent selsmic-

Properties cf air and weter,

G-4

seismic wus .+.'hary uewsrd from the carth

below thy wivtitr etch Une woter to i:3 surface

are a:most tutaliy iciiected Usere. As a result.

there is a strong probability of interference be-

tween succeccing waves ina train of seismic waves

ata depth in the water which is one-quarter of

the seismic wave length in that medium. To

mometers as close as possivie to the water sur-

FERR

;

This 30

rigid Zostisan0t tr waleresurface nolses

sre attenuate by the re.clicnee of the float ma-

terial which da:nars out, rather than transmits,

vibrations impressed on it.

This wil) be better undcrstood by reference to

the accompanying drawings, forming a part of

this application and illustrating typical emboci-

ments of my invention, in which drawings like

numerals are applicd to the same or correspond-

a a In these

wings,

Figure 1 is a cross-section of a body of water

which a marine seismometer spread,

being towed by a vessel and is shown in a posi-

tion suitable for making s record;

trol as distinguished from support for the spread:

Figure 3 is a similar cross-section showing a

modificaticn of the spread of Figure 1;

Figures 4, 5, 6,

assembly, consisting of a separate scismonicter-

supporting float and the depth-controlling fica

of the invention; and. °

* Figure 9 is a cross-section showing a means of

comping She Stat of the invention to the apuend

Referring

ing @ considerable tensite strength for con-

nec together and towing the various com-

ponents, an‘ a plurality of insulated electrical

G-5

‘Hstenee teyond. These Joats 33 ore pre:s ‘7

“si'o Nexihle so that the tup end of each ...:

Fee

res

i Hue

;

”

. 2

V" tic gdenometer urdts 26 at the ost's-=m

fv eu Coptis, °

tt slture 3 ts shown a particularly advan-

tag.u33 etnbodiment of the epread of Fizwe 1

in which the cable 23 a::d seirmometer units 24

nye entirely supported by the elonyated Do2‘s 33.

In this figure, the particular Slonts 33a connected

to th> cable 23 and chicfiv responsible for the

depth control of the scismometer units 24 are of

distinctly larcer cross-s-~Jonal arca than the

fiosts 33d, spaced along the cable 23 itself, between

the locations of seismometer units 24. By thus

making the buoyancy per-unit-lencth of the ficats

33 different depending on the amount of the

cupport for the spread 22 required of them, the

of these floats along the cable may be

maintained reasonably uniform. Ic is preferred

shat the floats 33b support cable 23 at poicts

spaced from 15 to 50 feet apart-—for example,

about 45 feet. Unsupported sections of cable 23

longer than 50 fect or so are undesirable. The

point cf attachment of the floats 33a to the cable

23 on either cids of the seismometer unit 24 is

spaced from that unit by distances of from cue

to 10 feet—preferably ahout3 feet. This provides

erred, however, that it possers a substantial

buoyancy in the water so that its entire support

is not provided by the floats 32a. It is preferred

also to adjust the buoyancy per unit Ienzth of the

floats 33d and their spacing along the cable so

that the desired spacing interval can be main-

tained recsonably uniform sithout the addition

of many balancing weights 31. *

Tt wil) be noted that when float 33 is in the form

of a single clongated fiexible tube, it will be col-

lapsed by the water pressure at its lower end, if

the inflation pressure is less thar the hydrcstatic

pressure at that depth. As a matter of fact, by

permitting more or less of the float 33 te collapse

under the pressure of the water at its lower end,

a convenient m<thod of adjusting the buovancr

Best Copy Available

SEghS B B8Es BEETLE

GH8gsk S2958eg3ges2sg23% stilaglitiiis STL

og oe ue aly teHHEN BEETLE

ae ae imei ea

bre apeuigtis: THT IGN Ey Ab betaa?s

TAHIR eo a aii tf hibal HUH Hl

ag %8 eseue oss is> ti 3 agi ie i i nit alata ip

He eT Tn HAUT eee

a an pace

che fizeslisti3a23 te 43 rer PEEERE EDEL ES peas i

A SET La WAU eS

F 33 d 3 32a 5 ei shs ys as; 1 & Bs

ei rein (ace [ll va

fetal iia raat ali mel

a) rite a8 i Eagds a3 . : 235 pga ea. B268 gepeed3

| anelaidi Hel Hi he Ht t tet Hat atl

see Co Tn eget nne

pH EEr A tT et Ure tk

G-7

apugegsapsaee fguee SUB Lea Ue Eee. SHES

ee Hilrgtat tata ca

aie He rr PR

nately ay nl ial

eit! ly ity Ak sy gage HH : st HERE i Hilt

ij ila itll HE “ie in a3;

eas hy iF He it aie italy nel

_ Ge En aT AE iit

He a PACA en Hi f Hl

ul a a rey HF aj nH it it Et TE

aul a eat

Tali silat itil: HEHE

Hen ARI ite BEM al

eee iki el 14 inal nnieat Hat ae aE

portion is not self-supporting ver~-

below-surface portion but collnpses

§§ 3

Hitt

ie:

positive 79 ably greater or less than

of exerting, where- amounts

f said member are

of said two portions o:

ALBERT C. REID.

(References on following pase)

tubular, buoyant member

portions, one portion 75

an elongated, flexible,

having, when in use, two

G-8

a sete eR

as © 22

; NLFERENCLS CITCD rete m Nome " Pm is

‘dhe followkig references are of record in the = 3/19. STUER concocccce Sept, 36,

2,405,696 Paslay .....-..---. Mar. 29, 1949

Ale of this patents 2,570,101 Parr ..--------...2- Oct 9, 1951

STATES oan aayenme

UNITED STATES PATENTS : P rah

Number Date

1,470,733 MBYCS cncccccccseee Oct. 16, 1933 Popular Mechanics, May 1941, pp. 728, 729

2241428 §«Gliverman ........ May 13, 1941 :

Best Copy Available

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.