On Aug 31, 5:43*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:28:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
On Aug 31, 3:10*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Here's a copy of the patent application, with the figures included:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/11-655899.pdf
PTO states they will review all again. As I am a private entity w/o
attorney they are committed to supplying assistance. Have about 25
days to resolve, so all is not lost.

Good luck. *As I previously ranted, the obvious stumbling block is the
user of the term "random" array of elements. *If the examiner
interprets that as "arbitrary", then your patent is too general to be
considered passable. *You might what to look at other patents for
antennas at:
http://www.google.com/patents/
Ignore the applications and concentrate on the patents that have been
issued. *Compare these patents with your application. *You should see
fairly quickly what you're missing. *(Hint: References and Citations).

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

Oddly enough they ( PTO)have offered claims with "arbitrary" involved
I say that is not bad since the positions are arbitrary but dependent
solely
on equilibrium where all are resonant, as is the enclosure, and can be
chosen as the feed..
all of which is determined on weighting applied which provide multiple
arrangements.
It is possible that if more radiators are added then one may not be
resonant and the boundary close to fracture. It is important to note
however that tho the majority will be resonant some will have a
impedance that is too low to feed. As can be seen from the above, for
equilibrium there are no compelling reasons for the elements to be
straight
We have to wait to what the supervisor has to say and what options are
available
Accept or role it in to the followi up application which is in the
same antenna catagory, the latter I am hoping for as it cuts down on
maintenance fees.
Regards