On Aug 31, 3:10*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:44:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

For some odd reason, I can't see the five attached figures. *Probably
my fault (or Quicktime).

Here's a copy of the patent application, with the figures included:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/11-655899.pdf

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

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.

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 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

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

"tom" wrote in message
. net...
Art Unwin wrote:
snip
The bottom line is that the PTO does not recognize the term
equilibrium the same as most of this group.

I wonder why that is? Maybe something to do with reality?

tom
K0TAR

reality has never stopped a patent in the past... search for the faster than
light antenna that also makes plants grow faster.

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Yes, they are mine in this country but I am talking about
2008 when I applied for the subject antenna

Foundit. It's not on Google Patents for some odd reason.
See: Application Number 11/655899 or 20080231540 at:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2 FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=655899&OS=655899&R S=655899
Sorry about the giant URL. If that wraps or doesn't work, try:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html
and type in either application number. If you're going to refer to
your patent application by number, don't forget the 11/ prefix.

wow! exciting to finally see it in print! i already have the perfect name
for it... the "pickup stick antenna"... or what is that asian fortune
telling stick thing... google to the rescue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kau_cim the "Kau cim antenna" gives it a more
authoritative sound, maybe that would be better... throw some sticks in a
can and design a new antenna!

On Aug 31, 7:16*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message

...

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Yes, they are mine in this country but I am talking about
2008 when I applied for the subject antenna

Foundit. *It's not on Google Patents for some odd reason.
See: *Application Number 11/655899 *or *20080231540 *at:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1...
Sorry about the giant URL. *If that wraps or doesn't work, try:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html
and type in either application number. *If you're going to refer to
your patent application by number, don't forget the 11/ prefix.

wow! *exciting to finally see it in print! *i already have the perfect name
for it... the "pickup stick antenna"... or what is that asian fortune
telling stick thing... google to the rescue:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kau_cimthe "Kau cim antenna" *gives it a more
authoritative sound, *maybe that would be better... throw some sticks in a
can and design a new antenna!

Too late David
But I have a question for you, Does the New World ( Rumsfield) use
the term "equilibrium" in any of the engineering curriculums or are
you quoting what appears to be American English and not that of the
Olde World? Personaly if I was dealing with entropy or those wonderful
graphic steam tables +equilibrium" would be discarded in favor of
yours. But to explain all that stuff would be impossible with this
group so I opted for the Universal term that was current in Newton and
Maxwell time. Maybe what we are seeing is a intrusion of new math
into physics! Either way it does explain to me why american jaws
dropped in ignorance when the term was used.

Dave wrote:

wow! exciting to finally see it in print! i already have the perfect
name for it... the "pickup stick antenna"... or what is that asian
fortune telling stick thing... google to the rescue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kau_cim the "Kau cim antenna" gives it a
more authoritative sound, maybe that would be better... throw some
sticks in a can and design a new antenna!

Interesting! And from the verbiage -

"The Yagi antenna has a plethora of detuned elements compared to the
driven element which is always resonant".

Funny, every yagi I've designed and built has a driven element which is
NOT resonant. It has a non-resonant element and a matching network of
one sort or other, which is entirely different than being resonant. And
strangely enough, is high 90's efficient. Which Art claims isn't possible.

tom
K0TAR

On Aug 31, 8:44*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


Too late David

Yes Dave, you are too late. I already named this antenna
months ago. "The Cluster@#$%".
I see he has adapted part of my suggestion, but dumped
the most descriptive part of the name.. :/
It kills me that he actually sent this package of mumbo
jumbo to the patent office with a straight face.
And just think, all this was inspired due to delusions
of grandeur brought on by improper use of a modeling program.
:/
But what really kills me is it's already been shown that
a properly designed yagi with a number of elements equal
to the Cluster@#$% is actually the superior antenna of
the two.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:43:02 -0500, tom wrote:

Funny, every yagi I've designed and built has a driven element which is
NOT resonant. It has a non-resonant element and a matching network of
one sort or other, which is entirely different than being resonant. And
strangely enough, is high 90's efficient. Which Art claims isn't possible.

tom
K0TAR

Huh? I can tune across the frequency range of a Yagi-Uda antenna,
measure the VSWR, and most certainly see a resonance dip at the design
center frequency. I can also attach a grid dip meter to the feed,
through a coupling loop, and see the resonance. Take away the
reflector and directors, and we're left with an ordinary dipole, which
is most certainly a resonant antenna. If the driven element is not
resonant, what is producing the dip in VSWR at the design frequency?

Goggling for added support:

http://www.hamuniverse.com/yagibasics.html
"The Yagi antenna's overall basic design consists of a "resonant" fed
dipole..."

"Resonance phenomena on Yagi arrays"
http://adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/1981CEEJ....6....9T

http://books.google.com/books?id=ujr0WOkx_nkC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=yagi+r esonant&source=bl&ots=VLXGYNabey&sig=6r-TqPQHdMNb9Zg9sV8olViIeTc&hl=en&ei=7LWcSszEG4ayswPc wK2TDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12#v=o nepage&q=yagi%20resonant&f=false
"Resonant with directivity...yagi..."



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

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Huh? I can tune across the frequency range of a Yagi-Uda antenna,
measure the VSWR, and most certainly see a resonance dip at the design
center frequency. I can also attach a grid dip meter to the feed,
through a coupling loop, and see the resonance. Take away the

That's not resonance, it's matched at that frequency.

reflector and directors, and we're left with an ordinary dipole, which
is most certainly a resonant antenna. If the driven element is not
resonant, what is producing the dip in VSWR at the design frequency?

The match. It's normally not a resonant element when in the middle of a
Yagi-Uda array, although it's _near_ resonance when the rest of the
elements are removed.

It is possible to have a resonance at the match frequency, but unusual.
Run a couple yagis through Eznec and check the driven element impedence.
For instance, the NBS yagi that comes with Eznec. At 50.125 it's
11.7+j5.9, not very resonant. I have a 222 yagi that has a DE longer
than the reflector, also unusual, but it works fine.

tom
K0TAR