Ex Parte O'Keefe, Appeal 2010-000479 (BPAI 2011). Judge Staicovici.

Posted Saturday, January 15, 2011 by Jim Ruttler.

The Board reversed the examiner’s rejections of claims directed toward a method of abatement of hurricanes.

Representative Claim 1 recited as follows:

1. A method for abating a cyclonic atmospheric disturbance, the method comprising the steps of:

identifying spatial coordinates of a time varying localized updraft tower of a cyclonic atmospheric disturbance utilizing a high resolution computer simulation of said cyclonic atmospheric disturbance,

delivering a coolant to said spatial coordinates of a time varying localized updraft tower of said cyclonic atmospheric disturbance, and

applying said coolant to said spatial coordinates of a time varying localized updraft tower of said cyclonic atmospheric disturbance.

The examiner rejected the claims as being inoperative and lacking utility under 101, lacking enablement under 112, and being obvious over certain references.

In reversing the inoperative and enablement rejections, the Board indicated that the Examiner has the burden of providing some reasonining to question the operability of the claims. The Board reasoned:

Likewise, the Examiner has not persuaded us that Appellant’s system and method for abating a cyclonic atmospheric disturbance involves an inherently unbelievable undertaking or implausible scientific principles, i.e., perpetual motion.

The Board further reversed the art based rejections because the Examiner did not cite to any particular portions of the cited prior art references and therefore failed to provide a factual basis for the rejections.

Quick Links

  1. Patent Applications
  2. Basic Intellectual Property Law Principles

Blog Archive