Blankman, Steven Michael.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 23, 2020

2019004094 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/998,532 11/28/2015 Steven Michael Blankman 8987
141673 7590 12/23/2020
Steven M. Blankman, P.E.
9511 Yarrow Circle
Pensacola, FL 32514
EXAMINER
ZARROLI, MICHAEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2020 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN MICHAEL BLANKMAN
Appeal 2019-004094
Application 14/998,532
Technology Center 3600
Before JEREMY M. PLENZLER, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant filed a Rehearing Request following the Board’s October 1,
2020 Decision affirming the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17–23 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
Having reviewed our Decision in light of the arguments in the Rehearing
Request, we decline to modify our Decision.
DISCUSSION
Our Decision affirmed the Examiner’s determination that Appellant’s
claims lack enablement because Appellant claims an inoperable invention.
In particular, the Examiner’s rejection and the Decision explain that
Appellant’s claimed invention would violate Netwon’s laws of motion.
Appeal 2019-004094
Application 14/998,532

2
Appellant’s Rehearing Request, like Appellant’s Appeal Brief, largely
disagrees with the explanations provided in the Examiner’s rejection and in
the Decision regarding application of physics to the claimed invention.
Request 2–5. According to Appellant, the Examiner and the Board “got the
science wrong.” Request 5. Appellant argues, for the first time in the
Rehearing Request, that for a centrifugal blower disposed in a closed
container, “the action forces and reaction forces are 90 degrees out of plane
with the desired direction; and therefore neither contribute directly to, nor
detract from, the desired net resultant force.” Request 5. Appellant further
argues “[s]o the entire discussion on Newton’s third law with respect to
blowers/compressors is moot with regard to the centrifugal
blower/compressor.” Request 5. And Appellant additionally argues that the
burden to show inoperability is on the Office and that the Office cannot have
met its burden “when the arguments presented got the science wrong.”
Request 5.
We disagree with Appellant. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, an
examiner has the initial burden to establish a reasonable basis to question the
enablement provided for a claimed invention. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557,
1562 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, the Examiner satisfied that burden by
explaining that the claimed invention violates Newton’s laws of motion and
is therefore inoperable. Final Act. 4–6.
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner and the Board,1 but neither
Appellant’s Specification nor Appellant’s arguments provides evidence that

1 We note that Appellant states that the Decision’s discussion of the gas laws
is “the most important part of the Decision,” but Appellant’s discussion of
the gas laws do not persuade us that the Examiner failed to satisfy the initial
Appeal 2019-004094
Application 14/998,532

3
the claimed invention would, in fact, be operable. Stated differently, neither
the Specification nor Appellant’s arguments evidences the operability of a
“closed container of gas” with “one or more mechanisms that acts upon the
gas in such a way as to create an imbalance in the pressure distribution
throughout the container yielding a net resultant force in a desired
direction,” as claimed. For the reasons explained in the Examiner’s rejection
and the Decision, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant has not
satisfied the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
For clarity, we can distill the Examiner’s rejection and our reason for
affirming that rejection to its most basic premise, which is that Appellant’s
purported invention cannot work as claimed because its “invention is based
upon . . . compressed gas within a closed container . . . to create an
imbalance in the distribution of pressure within the container.” Spec.
¶ 4. Although Appellant contends that “[i]t is an engine capable of
producing thrust from within a closed environment” (id.), internal forces
within that closed environment cannot propel the container. That is the basis
for the Examiner’s rejection and the reason for our affirmance of the
Examiner’s rejection.

burden to support the rejection based on Newton’s third law. Appellant’s
arguments do not rebut the Examiner’s reliance on Newton’s third law nor
otherwise persuade us that the claimed invention would produce the claimed
“net resultant force.”
Appeal 2019-004094
Application 14/998,532

4
CONCLUSION
Having considered the Decision in light of arguments raised by
Appellant’s Rehearing Request, we decline to modify our prior Decision in
any respect.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2016). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

REHEARING DENIED