Ex Parte Smolyaninov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

12968663 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/968,663 12/15/2010 Igor I. Smolyaninov
22500 7590 04/28/2016
BAE SYSTEMS
PO BOX 868
NHQl-719
NASHUA, NH 03061-0868
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.
20070085 2787
EXAMINER
BURKHART, ELIZABETH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1715
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2016 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 IGOR I. SMOL Y ANINOV, NIKOLA Y K. YUSHIN,
and LOUISE C. SENGUPTA
Appeal2014-009747
Application 12/968,663
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1--4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellants' invention is directed to a method of achieving
electromagnetic cloaking of an object. App. Br. 3. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
Appeal2014-009747
Application 12/968,663
1. A method of achieving electromagnetic cloaking of an
object comprising the step of coating said object with a
dispersion-compensated metal-dielectric composite material
including a dielectric component, wherein the dielectric
component is comprised of a material exhibiting anomalous
dispersion in a wide wavelength range.
Appellants request review of the Examiner's rejection in the Final
Action of claims 1--4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cai (US
2010/0110559 Al, published May 6, 2010) in view of Alu (Alu et al.,
Achieving transparency with plasmonic and metamaterial coatings; Physical
Review E 72, 016623; (2005); pp.016623-1---016623-9.). App. Br. 3; Final
Act. 2.
OPINION1
We AFFIRM.
Prior Art Re} ection
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 1--4
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and add
the following for emphasis.
We refer to the Examiner's Final Action for a complete statement of
the rejection. Final Act. 2--4.
1 Appellants rely on the same line of argument in addressing claims 1--4 in
the appealed rejection. See Appeal Brief, generally. Accordingly, we select
independent claim 1 as representative of the subject matter before us on
appeal and claims 2--4 will stand or fall with independent claim 1.
2
Appeal2014-009747
Application 12/968,663
Appellants argue none of the prior art references teach coating an
object with a dispersion-compensated metal-dielectric composite material
including a dielectric component as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br.
5. Instead, Appellants argue Cai discloses disposing a structure formed of a
metamaterial between an object and an observer while Alu involves design
of metamaterial covers to drastically reduce the total scattering cross section
of spherical and cylindrical objects. App. Br. 6; Cai i-f 16; Alu 016623-1
(Abstract), 016623-9 (Summary).
We are unpersuaded by these arguments for the reasons presented by
the Examiner. Ans. 4. As noted by the Examiner, Alu discloses it was
known to provide metamaterial coatings to cloak an object (emphasis
added). Ans. 4; Alu 016623-1. Moreover, Appellants acknowledge in the
Specification that it is known to provide metamaterial-based coatings to
cloak objects. Spec. 2. Given the guidance from the prior art, Appellants
have not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would not
understand the metamaterial of Cai was suitable for application as a coating
to cloak an object. Final Act. 2; Cai i-fi-111, 25-27, 47, 71, 72. Further,
Appellants have not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would
not have been capable of adapting Cai' s metamaterial for application as a
coating over an object sought to be cloaked. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738,
743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (skill is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in
the art); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 1-
4 for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above.
3
Appeal2014-009747
Application 12/968,663
ORDER
The Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 1--4 is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
4