Blankman, Steven Michael.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2020

2019004094 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 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 10/01/2020
Steven M. Blankman, P.E.
9511 Yarrow Circle
Pensacola, FL 32514
EXAMINER
ZARROLI, MICHAEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2020 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 APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17–23. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies himself as the real party in interest. Appeal Br.
3.
Appeal 2019-004094
Application 14/998,532

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an “Internal Air Pressure Imbalance
Engine.” Appeal Br. 10. Claim 17, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
17. A device capable of producing useful force, comprising:
a closed container of gas; and
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.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Wilson US 2005/0178920 A1 Aug. 18, 2005

REJECTIONS
Claims 17–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to
comply with the enablement requirement.
Claims 17–23 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Wilson.
OPINION
Enablement
Appellant’s Specification describes what Appellant calls an “Internal
Air Pressure Imbalance (IAPI) Engine.” Spec. ¶ 1. Appellant’s Figure 1,
reproduced below, depicts one embodiment of Appellant’s invention.
Appeal 2019-004094
Application 14/998,532

3

Appellant’s Figure 1 depicts a closed container filled with gas having a
motor, a “centrifugal blower/compressor . . . at the top of the container [and]
[a]n inlet tube extend[ing] from the inlet of the blower down almost to the
bottom of the container.” Spec. ¶ 13. The Specification states that at rest,
the pressure within the container is in equilibrium throughout the container,
but “[w]hen the blower/compressor is energized; gas is drawn up from the
bottom of the container through the intake, compressed, and expelled across
the top of the container.” Spec. ¶ 13. “The action of the blower upsets the
resting equilibrium; creating lower pressures in the intake tube and at the
bottom of the container, and higher pressures at the top of the container.”
Spec. ¶ 13. In Figure 1, “areas of increased pressure are indicated by plus
Appeal 2019-004094
Application 14/998,532

4
signs (+), while areas of decreased pressure are signified by minus signs (-).”
According to the Specification, “higher pressures now existing at the top of
the container are not fully offset by the lower pressures at the bottom, thus
creating a net force in the upward direction. As long as the blower is on, and
the resulting internal air circulation continues, the device will produce this
thrust.” Spec. ¶ 13.
In rejecting claims 17–23 for lack of enablement, the Examiner states
that the claimed invention violates the laws of physics, including Newton’s
laws of motion. Final Act. 4–6. According to the Examiner, with no net
force exerted on the claimed container, the invention disclosed and claimed
will not work. Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues the Examiner is misapplying the laws of physics.
Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. According to Appellant, “the local force the gas
applies to the shell at a given location, is the equal and opposite reaction to
the force the shell applies to the gas at that location to prevent it from
escaping the containment.” Appeal Br. 8. Further, Appellant contends
“[t]he forces acting within the shell to propel the shell in one direction, and
the forces within the shell acting in the opposite direction, are not a
Newton’s 3rd Law action-reaction couple.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant
contends “[t]he pressure within the container won’t balance itself out until
the engine is shut off” and, according to Appellant, if there is not a uniform
pressure distribution throughout the container, the force applied to the shell
at one location cannot be assumed to be the same as the force applied to the
shell at some other location. Reply Br. 3–4. Finally, Appellant argues the
claimed invention does not violate the laws of physics because the invention
Appeal 2019-004094
Application 14/998,532

5
uses external energy sources to drive the internal workings such that the
invention is not a perpetual motion machine. Reply Br. 6.
We agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s invention is inoperable
and therefore does not satisfy the enablement requirement of § 112(a). As
cited by the Examiner, Newton’s third law of motion requires that for every
action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Final Act. 5; Ans. 5. As one
example of how that law applies to Appellant’s invention, if a blower inside
a closed container of gas applies a force to move gas in one direction, the
gas applies an equal force against the blower in the opposite direction.2
Because Newton’s third law requires that the force acting against the blower
is equal to the force acting against the gas, and the blower is connected to
the container, even if it were possible to impart all of the force from the
blower onto the container via movement of the gas, movement of the gas
within the closed container cannot yield “a net resultant force in a desired
direction,” as claimed. Appellant’s arguments (Reply Br. 2–4) regarding the
Examiner’s explanation of the forces and different action-reaction pairs
misses the point—Appellant does not, and cannot, enable a person of

2 We also note that the gas laws require that pressure in a closed container
changes with changes in temperature, mass, and volume. Appellant does not
suggest that the pressure changes within a sealed container due to change in
mass or volume, and instead relies on movement of the gas and/or
temperature within the container to create “a net resultant force.” Among
other laws of physics, Appellant’s suggestion that a mechanism acting on
gas within a container can create “an imbalance in the pressure distribution
throughout the container yielding a net resultant force in a desired direction”
cannot be reconciled with the gas laws. Even if it were possible to create
“an imbalance in the pressure distribution throughout the container” by
acting upon the gas within the container, physics requires the gas to reach
equilibrium, not to produce a net resultant force in a desired direction.
Appeal 2019-004094
Application 14/998,532

6
ordinary skill to create a net resultant force in a desired direction from a
mechanism acting on gas in a closed container.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner and sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 17–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of enablement.

Anticipation
Wilson discloses a spacecraft having a “pressure hull” designed to
contain a fluid such as air. Wilson ¶ 12. A propulsion system within the
pressure hull can include, for example, counter-rotating propellers inside the
pressure hull acting on the fluid inside the pressure hull “permitting the
propeller to generate its propulsive force.” Wilson ¶ 22.
The Examiner finds that Wilson discloses each limitation of, and
therefore anticipates, claims 17–23. Final Act. 7. Although we agree with
the Examiner that Wilson discloses each structure recited in claim 17, a prior
art reference must be enabled to anticipate a claim. In re Antor Media
Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2012). For the same reasons that
claims 17–23 are inoperable and therefore do not satisfy the enablement
requirement, Wilson’s propulsion system would also violate the laws of
physics and is therefore not enabled.
Appellant does not directly address Wilson in terms of enablement,
but Appellant’s arguments addressing the inoperability of Wilson’s
embodiments are akin to contesting Wilson for lack of enablement. See
MPEP § 2120 (“Where a reference appears to not be enabling on its face . . .
an applicant may successfully challenge the cited prior art for lack of
enablement by argument without supporting evidence.”) (citing In re Morsa,
713 F.3d 104, 110 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). Appellant argues, for example, that
Appeal 2019-004094
Application 14/998,532

7
“[e]ven someone of only very limited skill in the art ought to know better
than to fire up a rocket, or a turbojet, inside a closed container.” Reply Br.
18. Appellant’s arguments are sufficiently close to arguing enablement to
overcome the presumption that Wilson is enabled.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17–
23 as anticipated by Wilson.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 17–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is
affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 17–23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
17–23 102 Wilson 17–23
17–23 112(a) Enablement 17–23
Overall
Outcome
17–23

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED