On 18 Jun, 12:01, Jim Lux wrote:
J. Mc Laughlin wrote:
Dear Group:

Details of the patent applications may be found on the USPTO's site.

Robert J. Vincent (Electronics Technician II, Physics-URI)

Application 20060022883; published Feb. 2, 2006
Application 20070132647; published June 14, 2007

I think that ends in ..649
filed 25 Jan 2007

one might note that claims 1-23 were cancelled...

The second application is basically a revision of the first amd has more
details of why it has priority over earlier applications (presumably
over other inventors?)

The first is a continuation application as well.

I'm going to guess that the examiner came back on the first app and
said: Uh,uh, you need to update to establish why a)you're first and b)
why you're novel

If you've got significant time available, compare the two applications
and it may be revealed





73, Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home: - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jim,
I just looked at the patent application and I feel the University
has not been a service to the inventor. The university did not supply
or did not have the mathematical underpinning of the design. The whole
patent
evolves about one antenna arrived in experimental form. As normal
additional claims were made in an effort to cover other possibilites
of that empirically found antenna without the mathematical
underpinnings
to guide for additional claims. Yes he has numourous claims but
without
the underminnings the claims are severely hampered. I would have
thought
that any University after being presented emperical results would
have
followed the lines of any scientific institution until the
underlining
mathematics could be solved to provide a firm basis for the
application
based on science or mathematics of which the antenna was just one
sample to validate the request. At least the University gave him an
avenue to pursue the patent in the hope that something of value would
rub of
as some sort of esteem but without scientific backing from extensions
of
laws of past masters I cannot see that comming about. For instance he
has made no reference to the makings of radiation, it's pulsatic form
or a connection to all other laws of the masters other than laymans
terms of what a inductance does other than refering to the current
bucking.
Both of the patents will come out together and the combination will be
instructive.
My request publishing date will be held back until at least the first
review since
I wrote it myself together with the request for examiner help, a given
proviso
that is provided for inventors who have not handed all power to an
attorney
and who relies on direct comunication with the examiners by the
inventor himself.
This way the claims which is really the only guts that count with a
patent are a
cooperative development between the examiner and the patentee which
gives it
a perceived advantage if litigation is followed. In one past
application
there was numourous intercomunications between the examiner as well as
his boss
before a particular claim was formulated as the first claim that
satisfied all
based on given information and around which other claims were made.
Since my claim was not of a commercial nature some errors were agreed
to
but as a learning exersize which is how I treat anything I do, it was
a extremely
good learning experience. One patent I pulled or let it run out before
review
because of so many doubting thomases and now I can't even remember
what is was
and what I did with the paperwork. That also was a learning experience
that I will not duplicate. As far as the tests applied to the new
invention
from the University where the testing was against another antenna
under the
same conditions. This totally nullified ground conditions and other
environmetal
conditions that can change the attributes of the test in both an
disadvantegous
way as well as advantageous allowing for a apples
and apples comparison where very questionable observables were
cancelled out.
With reference to Jim Lux comments with respect to the testing
procedure.
I certainly see that as a reputable test if one accepts the validity
of the
specs assigned to that which it is being compared to. Which is tested
in the
very same environment and using the very same equipment. As an
engineer I see
no better way to test an antenna for the military. Trust but verify
which
is often beyond the amateur who often relies on smell.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG.