Ex Parte Varaksin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 201613101388 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/101,388 05/05/2011 40854 7590 09/21/2016 RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP 38210 GLENN A VENUE WILLOUGHBY, OH 44094-7808 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Alexey V araksin 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. ROZ-33345.01 4903 EXAMINER FERENCE, JAMES M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3635 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/21/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): 40854@rankinhill.com spaw@rankinhill.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALEXEY V ARAKSIN, ARKADY ROZENSHTEYN, MIKHAIL ROMASH, and V. KOPEITSEV Appeal2014-008947 Application 13/101,388 Technology Center 3600 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--14. App. Br. 8. Claim 3 has been canceled. App. Br. 27, Claims App. Claims 15--47 have been withdrawn from consideration. App. Br. 29-33, Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal2014-008947 Application 13/101,388 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter "relates to methods and systems for protecting areas or regions from destructive dynamic vortex atmospheric structures (DV AS) such as tomados, cyclones, and the like." Spec. i-f 1. Independent claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below: 1. A method for destabilizing a dynamic atmospheric vortex structure, the method comprising: providing a cluster of spatially oriented discrete mechanical elements at a location relative to the vortex structure to thereby produce an area of local active anisotropy, which creates a non-stationary, turbulent field with significant anisotropy that destabilizes the vortex structure, wherein the vortex structure is a tornado. REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Banks US 6,601,348 B2 Aug. 5, 2003 Graf US 2008/0083171 Al Apr. 10, 2008 THE REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 1, 2, and 4--14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Graf and Banks. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites a method for destabilizing a dynamic atmospheric vortex structure "wherein the vortex structure is a tomado." 1 The Examiner primarily relies on Graf for disclosing the limitations of claim 1 Appellants' Specification provides further guidance stating that vortex structures of the type recited include "tomados, cyclones, and the like." Spec. i-f 1; see also f 53. 2 Appeal2014-008947 Application 13/101,388 1 but finds that "Graf does not teach wherein the vortex structure is a tornado." Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on Banks for teaching "a method for destabilizing a dynamic atmospheric vortex structure, wherein the vortex structure is a tornado (col. 4, lines 60-65)." Final Act. 3. To be clear, Banks is concerned with "heavy winds, especially those experienced with severe weather including tornado and twisters of the Midwest." Banks 4:60-62. Nevertheless, despite the above recitation in claim 1 as to what constitutes a vortex structure (i.e., a tornado), the Examiner states, "applicant has not defined what constitutes a dynamic atmospheric vortex structure, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, the wind flow paths of Graf meet the term." 2 Final Act. 3. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Banks into the method of Graf "since it is known in the art to destabilize dynamic atmospheric vortexes, including tornados, as taught by Banks." Final Act. 3. Appellants dispute the Examiner's interpretation of the teachings of Graf and Banks in regard to destabilizing a tornado. See App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 4--5. More particularly, Appellants assert: "It is respectfully submitted that upon closer review, it will be understood that Banks does not teach a method for destabilizing a tornado. Instead, Banks describes redirecting wind flows which may originate from a tornado." Appeal Br. 9 2 Figure 2a of Graf is relied on by the Examiner as teaching a vortex structure. Final Act. 3. A "vortex" is defined as "a whirling mass of air, fire, etc." The Random House College Dictionary 1476 (Rev. ed. 1980). "Vortex' is also defined as "a mass of spinning air, liquid, etc., that pulls things into its center." See http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/vortex (last visited August 23, 2016). Inspection of the wind flow paths 3 in Figure 2a of Graf reveals that they are substantially linear and not whirling or spinning in the manner of a vortex. 3 Appeal2014-008947 Application 13/101,388 (referencing Banks 4:60 to S:2 and S:9-19). Appellants additionally assert: "Banks is silent as to any method or technique for destabilizing a tornado. Instead, Banks attempts to provide elongated assemblies which redirect wind flows. Banks devotes efforts to mitigate damage resulting from high winds instead of eliminating the source of the high winds." App. Br. 10. Appellants further point out that the Examiner admits that "both Graf and Banks attempt to protect structures by merely redirecting air flows." App. Br. 10 (citing Final Act. 6, 7). Appellants contend: "It is unclear why the Office views redirecting air flows as described by Graf and Banks to somehow correspond to the recitation of claim 1 for destabilizing a tornado." App. Br. 10. Appellants' arguments are persuasive. Neither Graf nor Banks teach methods or techniques for destabilizing a tornado. Rather, Graf and Banks disclose the use of elements secured to a structure to be protected in order to redirect winds that strike the structure. See, e.g., Graf, Figs. 2a, 2b; Banks, Figs. SA, SB, 6, 7 A-7F. Further, as noted in Footnote 2, supra, the linear wind flow paths 3 illustrated in Figure 2a of Graf do not constitute a dynamic atmospheric vortex structure under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term as alleged by the Examiner. Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 16S F. 3d 13S3, 13S8 (Fed. Cir. 1999). For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1under3S U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Graf and Banks. We likewise do not sustain the 4 Appeal2014-008947 Application 13/101,388 rejection of dependent claims 2 and 4--14 which are subject to the same ground of rejection. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--14 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation