GalenLeeBarefoot
9405 Lee Highway
Warrenton, VA20186
Mobile: 540-270-5916
Evening Phone: 540-347-4719
Email:
Mr. Barefoot had been with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for 34 1/2 years from June, 1972 to February of 2007. His primary area of expertise is in the aeronautics and aerospace art covered by USPTO classification as Class 244. During this time he has examined approximately 5000 patent applications and issued over 3500 patents in this area. As a result of this experience he has developed a very detailed knowledge of the majority of the patents in the field of aeronautics and aerospace. During the examination of these patent applications Mr. Barefoot had to defend his positions before the Board of Appeals on numerous occasions. In two of these appeals they were appealed to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, In re Reuter et al, 210 USPQ 249; and In re Piasecki, 223 USPQ 785. Both of these cases dealt with issues of patentability, but also dealt with issues of reissue/protest practice and specifically with evidence, expert testimony and the consideration of affidavits as they apply to the issues of obviousness. Both cases have been repeatedly cited in other cases in various courts and In re Piasecki was also relied on in the U.S. Supreme Court case, KSR International v. Teleflex Inc. and Technology Holdings Co., No. 04-1350.
Mr. Barefoot received his Full Signatory authority in 1977. Due to his superior performance as an examiner in Class 244 he received a Bronze Medal in 1983. The program citation stated:
“Mr. Barefoot has shown extremely competent performance in the examination of patent applications in the art of Aircraft over an extended period of time. His exceptional ability and dedication to duty has enabled him to make a major contribution to the Patent and Trademark Office to reduce pendency of Office programs. His outstanding production and superior quality of work coupled with an extremely high level of competency on special assignments and extra duties has been recognized in an unusually large number of awards. His overall performance serves as an outstanding example to his co-workers.”
The American Intellectual Property Law Association in 1987, in their first annual award ceremony for examiners in the USPTO, recognized the outstanding contribution of Mr. Barefoot to the integrity of intellectual property law while in distinguished service at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Also at the USPTO’s first annual Honor Awards Ceremony in 2000, Mr. Barefoot received a Distinguished Career Award.
During his time in the USPTO he has assisted in the training of numerous junior examiners and has been approached by numerous other patent examiners and Patent attorneys on questions of procedure and patentability. He was on detail to the Patent Academy on two separate occasions as an academy instructor. During this detail he was charged with teaching junior examiners in all aspects of patent examining and patent law interpretation as it applied to the examining practice. He was also on detail to the Assistant Commissioner of Patents office where he worked on some fraud cases, composing lengthy interrogatories, inquiring as to the actions of attorneys and applicants during the prosecution of applications. A third detail was to Quality Review where he reviewed the work of other examiners across all the mechanical disciplines.
As a Primary Examiner for nearly 30 years he has made informed decisions on patentability based on independent research. He has been a team worker who has always contributed to the goals and the set deadlines of the USPTO. As a result, he has merited almost continuous Outstanding Performance Ratings and Superior Achievement Awards over his 34 years in the USPTO.
Mr. Barefoot graduated from Pennsylvania State University (PSU) in 1970 with a Bachelors of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering and in 1972 with a Masters of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering. During Mr. Barefoot’s 6 years at PSU he took 16 undergraduate and 5 graduate Aerospace Engineering courses along with numerous other mechanical engineering courses. These courses had direct application to his work in class 244 at the USPTO and his continued area of expertise, as follows:
Aerospace Structures
Aero 5: Aerospace structures
Aero 7: Aerospace Structures
Aero 409: Advanced Aerospace Structures
Aero 402: Aerospace Design
Engineering Mechanics 14: Mechanical Properties Of Engineering Materials
These courses covered basic and advanced aspects of aerospace structures which provided both a theoretical and practical background in the design, strength and fatigue life of aerospace structures. This is particularly pertinent to the technology in Class 244 and specifically subclasses 45-49 and 117-133.
Viscous Fluids
Aero 3: Compressible Aerodynamics
Aero 407: V/STOL Aircraft Aero 505: Aeroelasticity and Hydroelasticity Aero 504: Aerodynamics of V/STOL Flight
Aero 508: Perfect Fluids Aero 511: Aerodynamic Noise Aero 412: Turbulent Flow Aero 510: Compressible Flow
These courses provided a strong foundation in aerodynamic principles regarding lift, Bernoulli’s principle, drag, flutter, boundary layer control, shock waves, aerodynamic heating, rotary wing aerodynamics, aerodynamic noise, and numerous other related areas. These courses were pertinent to the technology in Class 244, subclasses 1-23, 198-219, and 34-39.
Flight Dynamics
Aero 405: Experimental Methods Aero 413: Stability and Control Aero 420: Flight Testing Aero 425: Theory of Flight
These courses covered basic and advanced aspects of the dynamics of flight. They provided a good basis for an accurate determination of the operativeness of various aerodynamic designs, the pertinence of various test results and what results would be expected from various designs.
Propulsion
Aero 410: Aerospace Propulsion Mechanical Engineering 22: Engineering Thermodynamics
These courses covered the technical and theoretical aspects of the various forms of propulsion i.e., rockets, ram-jet, turbojet, fan-jet, etc.
All of this course work provided a good foundation from which to make informed decisions as to the operability of various aerodynamic patent applications and to evaluate affidavits of comparative test results and showings of unexpected results. Also Mr. Barefoot’s Master’s Thesis was entitled: “Fluctuating Pressure Characteristics In The Mixing Region Of A Perturbed and Unperturbed Round Free Jet”. This was a theoretical and empirical study of the near field pressure fluctuation in around free jet and how this could be equated to far field noise measurements.
Mr. Barefoot also has a private pilot’s license which provides a good common knowledge of the flight characteristics of aircraft and the various control functions needed to perform different flight maneuvers. He also has a good basic understanding of mechanics, in that he has rebuilt engines, done numerous repairs to cars and home appliances.
In 1984, Mr. Barefoot was recognized by the USPTO’s Patent Examiner Evaluation Board as an Expert in the Aeronautics and Aerospace area. This evaluation was based on concurring affirmation by the Board of Appeals, the Classification Group, and various Ranking Officials in the USPTO and others outside the USPTO. As part of the justification process numerous people submitted letters of recognition of the expertise of Mr. Barefoot. Here are a few excerpts:
Stephen Kunin, who was the Director of Group 320 and later became a deputy assistant commissioner of the USPTO, stated:
“I consider Mr. Barefoot to be one of the more capable examiners in the Patent and Trademark Office. This opinion of Mr. Barefoot has been formed by having reviewed his work prior to his being granted signatory authority and by his assistance rendered to me in mapping out fields of search in Class 244. I value his explanation on issues under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112, first paragraph which help to clarify applications of aeronautical theory in complicated disclosures. Questions of operability and enablement of disclosure are not infrequent in Class 244 applications.
On numerous occasions while conducting searches I found it profitable to consult with Mr. Barefoot. I discovered that I often saved time and effort by relying on Mr. Barefoot’s expertise. Mr. Barefoot has an excellent comprehension of the subject matter assigned to Class 244.”
Bobby Gray, who was the Director of Group 310 of the USPTO, stated:
“Throughout the period during which I have served as the Director of Group 310, it has become more and more evident that Mr. Barefoot’s expertise and superior knowledge in his art area have been utilized extensively in helping the Patent and Trademark Office achieve its goals and mission. I have particularly noticed the regularity and frequency with which he has been consulted on matters within his art area by members of the patent community, both from within and outside the Patent and Trademark Office.”
E.R. Kazenski, who was the Supervisory Primary Examiner of Group 324 and later became a deputy assistant commissioner of the USPTO, stated:
“I recognize Mr. Barefoot as speaking with authority on questions of operativeness and technological equivalence arising within his art and I place reliance on his conclusions as to the denotation of particular technical terminology.
I know Mr. Barefoot is a very capable person, fully knowledgeable in patenting examining practice and in the technology of Class 244 and I consider Mr. Barefoot, without question, the expert in Class 244.”
Paul Luckin, who was a trial attorney with the Civil Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., and was a Judge in Pittsburgh, PA, when he stated:
“I met Mr. Barefoot in connection with United States of America v. Aerospace General Company and Gilbert W. Magill. That case, filed in the Western District of Texas in 1979 requested cancellation of U.S. Patent 4,071,206 entitled “Portable Helicopters: granted to Magill on January 4, 1978. The case was instituted through the initiation and work of Mr. Barefoot. In 1978, after Mr. Barefoot had issued the patent, he discovered a statutory bar reference in Science and Mechanics which had been written for Mr. Magill and which substantially described the claimed invention of the Magill patent. Mr. Barefoot brought the reference to the attention of Mr. McKelvey of the Solicitor’s Office. Mr. McKelvey in turn contacted the Dept. of Justice.
Prior to initiating the action in Texas, I had discussions with Mr. Barefoot. He was extremely knowledgeable in aeronautics as was seen not only in his explanation of the primary reference but also of significant secondary and background material which he provided me in the course of the discussions. In addition to his expertise, Mr. Barefoot was very cooperative which made it a pleasure to deal with him.
After some discovery, the cancellation action on the Magill patent was set down for trial in Texas and Mr. Barefoot was scheduled to testify. However, a few weeks before the trial date, defendants hired counsel from an experienced Washington, D.C. patent law firm. Soon thereafter Mr. Magill agreed to dedicate his paten ab inito and a trial was averted. Mr. Barefoot is a dedicated public servant. I am very pleased to be able to recommend him for an expert rating in the area to aeronautics. Mr. Barefoot is well deserving of the rating and a credit to the Patent Office.”
Also during Mr. Barefoot’s time at the USPTO, he co-authored a formal paper that was presented at a Lecture Series held by the Advisory Group for Aerospace R & D (AGARD) in Germany and The Netherlands. The paper, “Technology Assessment – A Tool for Exploiting Patents” was presented on behalf of the USPTO by Donald Kelly. Mr. Kelly wrote in a letter of commendation to Mr. Barefoot’s group director:
“During the extensive and laborious preparation of the AGARD paper, Galen Barefoot was commendably responsive to, and cooperative with, the staff of the Office of Technology Assessment and Forecast (OTAF), and the written input and advice which he provided was a key part of the project.”
THE SCOPE OF THE TECHNOLOGIES COVERED BY MR. BAREFOOT’S AREA OF EXPERTESE.
Class 244 gets more than its fair share of individuals who assume that they have discovered a new form of propulsion, flight or space travel. In the prosecution of these applications one must analyze the Physics involved and convince the applicant in a diplomatic way that his new discovery violates basic laws of physics and will not work as described.
During the prosecution of applications in Class 244 one must continuously examine complex systems composed of a network of components having numerous interrelationships requiring such detail that numerous pages of drawings and specifications are required. Examples of these complex systems are found in the control of VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) aircraft, various types of control systems are involved which include: electro-hydraulic, electromechanical, hydraulic and mechanical systems often associated with computer control programs to coordinately control the control surfaces, angle of incidence of wings, pitch of the propellers and the power of the engines. Class 244 includes various arrangements whereby the lift of a wing is increased through well known aerodynamic concepts such as the Coanda effect (244/207+), whereby lift is increased by accelerating the flow over the upper surface of the wing by blowing high velocity air along the boundary layer. Other types of V/STOL aircraft use directed jets in combination with wings, i.e. Harriers (244/12.1+). A further example would he in helicopters where similar systems are used in the control of the cyclic and collective pitch of the rotor system, folding and unfolding of the rotor blades of convertible helicopters, the suppression of unwanted vibration and the transmission of power to the rotors at various attitudes. Other complex and involved systems are also found in aircraft arresting systems, pilot ejection systems where tractor rockets and involved extraction systems and parachute deployment systems are used, and landing gear arrangements.