On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:52:43 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:26:52 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

[Bingo, you've just said why your invention is "different" than Smith's]

Here's another "different" antenna:

To increase the directivity of such an antenna, a parasitic reflector
element, usually tuned to a frequency slightly higher than the driver
resonant frequency, can be placed parallel to the driver element along
the boom. For further increased directivity, one or more director
elements, usually tuned to frequencies slightly lower than the driver
resonant frequency, can be placed at various distances along the boom
on the other side of the driver element and parallel to the driver
element.

This is the world's first gaussian array.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Or maybe you had tongue planted firmly in cheek?

Hi Tom,

It support's Arthur's faith in the PTO giving authority to invention:
As a side note, one of my past PTO examinas did not know the
difference
between parallel and series circuit but that is O.K.

Of course, Arthur also leand on their credibility to recognize
something "different:"
The patent was accepted by the PTO so on the surface it would
appear that there is something new here even if the experts are
baying at the moon ahead of time knowing that all is known about
antennas.

Considering that the PTO can be condemned and praised for the same
thing is about as clarifying as his explanation for gaussian antenna
theory. The original quote above (drawn from an actual patent that
teaches the "different" antenna theory of the inventor) has its
problems too, of course, but its "difference" makes it patentable.
Afterall, who could possible beat him in the marketplace by stealing
this idea?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC