Fishing – trapping – and vermin destroying – Decoys – Duck
Reexamination Certificate
2000-12-13
2002-11-26
Jordan, Charles T. (Department: 3644)
Fishing, trapping, and vermin destroying
Decoys
Duck
Reexamination Certificate
active
06484431
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a decoy apparatus, and, more particularly, to a decoy apparatus with rotatable wing assemblies for alluring birds within visual distance of the decoy apparatus regardless of their environmental location.
2. Description of the Prior Art
Decoy art is ancient. Hunter societies on the American Continent have used decoys in their hunt for centuries. These ancient decoys were designed, in part, to bring game birds within close proximity to the hunters due to the relatively primitive weaponry of the day. Bird decoys estimated to be over a thousand years old and made of reeds and feathers have been discovered and preserved from these earlier times. Down through the centuries, hunters have continually endeavored to improve upon their decoys and the process of continual improvement persists to this day.
Despite the trend to constantly improve upon that which has come before, it is well known in the art that waterfowl decoys, in particular, can be very simple and yet allure waterfowl. For example, effective waterfowl decoys can be made from mud lumps, newspapers, bottles, diapers and even rags. Conversely, complex decoys are also effective. Robotic decoys, for example, lure not only other game, but human poachers as well. The more lifelike the decoy, it is argued, the more effective the decoy for alluring game.
In the early 1900's, hunters commonly used trained live game birds to lure wild game birds. The use of these live so-called decoys, however, was outlawed in the United States in 1935, prompting hunters in the United States to find life-like substitutes. Decoy dogma teaches that visually imitative, naturally-animated decoys tend to be more effective at luring wildlife. When used with an eye toward wildlife population sustainability, visually imitative, naturally-animated decoys enable the user to reach a hunt limit more efficiently, thus leaving far fewer wounded animals in the environment. Similarly, visually imitative, naturally-animated decoys enable users to lure wildlife away from environmental locations where its presence is undesirable. Visually imitative decoys employing motorized systems for animation are among the most effective decoys available.
Decoys employing motorized systems for animation, however, are both detrimental to the environment and have limited effectiveness. Decoys employing motorized systems for animation are environmentally detrimental in that power sources are often discarded into the environment. Decoys employing motorized systems for animation have limited effectiveness in that their visually apparent animation tends to be static, mechanical and highly repetitive. Additionally, motorized systems for animation often conflict with environmental conditions, namely wind conditions, and tend to wear more quickly due to oppositional forces impinging upon mechanically operative parts.
Visually imitative decoys employing wind-actuating systems for animation are preferred. Wind-actuated systems for decoy animation rarely result in environmentally discarded material. Further, wind-actuated systems animate decoys in tune with environmental conditions, namely wind conditions, thereby creating more random, natural animation. In this manner, the alluring effect is maximized. Moreover, wind-actuated systems for decoy animation harness wind energy, operate in tune with wind conditions and wear more slowly as a result.
Bird decoys having wind-actuated means for wing movement are known in the prior art and some are described hereinafter. U.S. Pat. No. 4,620,385, which issued to Carranza et al., teaches rotatable wings rotatably received on an axle member and being bracketed to an existing decoy. The wing structures generally comprise multi-bladed, crosswind, Savonius-type, horizontal-axis, rigid blade members shaped to receive wind energy and rotate about the axle member. The blades are colored in contrasting colors on opposite sides of the wing so that when the wings rotate, driven by wind energy, a more attractive visual effect is created, which can be seen from greater visual distances. The shape of the rotatable wings is not visually imitative thus limiting decoy effectiveness. Further, the rotatable wings are not integrally formed with the bird decoy body structure, which detracts from the decoy's visually imitative effect thus limiting decoy effectiveness. Moreover, the rotatable wings are not readily viewable from extreme lateral viewpoints thus further handicapping decoy effectiveness.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,144,764, which issued to Peterson, teaches a decoy with wind-actuated flexible wings which when exposed to wind energy fluctuate in an up and down manner. When the wings are oriented in a relaxed state and wind is directed against the wings, lift is generated, causing the wings to rise to an ultimate stall position causing the wings, in turn to fall, thereby creating the effect of life-like wing movement. This disclosure lacks the preferred realism of an anatomically correct bird body structure and lacks alluring effect at greater visual distances, but is otherwise believed to be an effective wind-animated decoy insofar as the flexible wings are integrally formed with the decoy portion representing the bird body.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,862,619, which issued to Stancil, teaches a rotatable vane used in cooperative association with an existing decoy. The vane employs elliptical blade members shaped to receive wind energy and colored on opposite sides in contrasting colors so as to create a more alluring visual effect upon rotation. The vane is rotatably attached to an existing decoy by a support. The rotation is one-way creating lift thereby and causing the decoy to slightly rise out of water. A motor may be used to supply rotational force in the absence of wind. This disclosure is not visually imitative in that it lacks the preferable integral wing to body configuration and seems awkward in practice. While the vane blades approach a more life-like wing shape, the support structure simultaneously detracts from the lure's visually imitative effect thus limiting decoy effectiveness. Further, the blade members do not produce a visually alternating signal viewable from extreme lateral viewpoints, thus further limiting decoy effectiveness.
It is noted that many different types of wind energy collectors have been devised. Basically, almost any physical configuration, which produces an asymmetrical force in a windstream can be made to rotate, translate, or oscillate. Machines using rotors or blade members as wind energy collectors may properly be classified in terms of the orientation of their axis of rotation relative to the windstream and as such are classified, as follows: (1) head-on horizontal-axis rotors for which the axis of rotation is parallel to the direction of the windstream (akin to conventional windmills); (2) crosswind horizontal-axis rotors for which the axis of rotation is both generally horizontal to the surface of the earth and perpendicular to the direction of the windstream (akin to a water wheel); and (3) vertical-axis rotors for which the axis of rotation is both horizontal to the surface of the earth and the windstream. In terms of wind energy collection efficiency, vertical axis rotors are to be preferred since they do not have to be turned into the wind as the direction of the windstream varies. However, in terms of waterfowl decoy application purposes, horizontal-axis rotors are preferred in that wings tend to have a substantially horizontal orientation. Comparatively, head-on horizontal-axis rotors are preferred to crosswind horizontal-axis rotors in that crosswind horizontal-axis rotors have consistently been found to be generally less effective and less efficient wind energy collectors.
Crosswind, Savonius-type horizontal-axis wind energy collectors, as taught in U.S. Pat. No. 4,620,385, generally experience a relatively greater amount of drag and tend to produce a larger wake of air behind the blades, both of which characteristics reduce the effic
DeSmidt James J.
Price, Sr. Fred F.
Meroni & Meroni P.C.
Meroni, Jr. Charles F.
Scott Christopher J.
Smith Kimberly S.
LandOfFree
Decoy apparatus with integral rotor blade wing assembly does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Decoy apparatus with integral rotor blade wing assembly, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Decoy apparatus with integral rotor blade wing assembly will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2942437