On Sep 1, 4:04*am, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I especially want to see how the elements
can be random and resonant at the same time, and what degree of
randomness is required.

Jeff, Art,

What bothered me is that if an antenna is really made from random elements,
I can't quite figure out who designed it? G-D? The ether bunnies? No one?
Is it a karmic joining of the forces of the universe? The work of the devil?

If it is a fixed number (or limited set) of elements placed in position,
then it is certainly not random.

I am not an expert on patents, but from what I do know, if you can't patent
randomly placing elements in no pattern. If you place them in a pattern, it
is no longer random and can be patented if you can define that pattern.

You could observe, measure or calculate that if you randomly place
elements, one or more of the resulting patterns, layouts, etc will
produce specific results and patent that specific pattern. There is no
requirment that you invent something by any means more scientific than
just throwning sticks on the floor randomly.

However if you can not identify that pattern, you can't patent it. If
you do identify that pattern, you can patent an Unwin antenna, or a
Liebermann-Unwin antenna, if Jeff were to find that critical piece you
were missing.

I did not read the entire patent application, Jeff posted it what was very
late last night for me, but I did browse it. If the antenna is a modified
Yagi-Uda design, then it is a design and not random. If it just happens to
work better than one, I'm not sure that is relevant to the patent.

I think that what you are trying to patent is randomly tossing metal
sticks on the ground and connecting wires to some of them in some random
fashion. I don't think this is what you had intended to do at all.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM

The first object is to establish equilibrium by using a WL radiator.
Anything less breaks away from equilibrium.Adding a second radiator
affects the electrical length of both radiators together with their
angle with respect to each other i.e. not planar.
The question then becomes what is the reference line to determine the
exact position?
Now you can deviate from such a equilibrium by adding a radiator that
is not a WL which then pressures the arbitrary boundary close to
rupture and so on. Thus the available number and electrical WL
escalate each without a reference point expands because it will change
as you move it on the surface of the Earth. Thus "random" is a hard
word to use when it is any arrangement that satisfies the term of
equilibrium. If the radiators were magnetic in nature and was thrown
on the floor they could combine in a arrangement via repell and
attract that would be maintained or jarred to another cluster position
while still retaining equilibrium. Thus one should see how difficult
it is quantasize an arrangement when equilibrium has no measurable
point of reference that meets PTO requirements. But I would be
interested if a solution could be presented that provided the metrics
of such a arrangement such that a drawing could be made that is a
picture of any final arrangement of the cluster that would occur for
all to duplicate. It was for the above reasons why I included a
typical computerized arrangement which by itself is not required in a
patent request. As always the difficulty is in the details thus the
need to establish a datum line which I can use for the remaining
disclosures is required such that it is not rejected on technicalities
while providing all details in advance to the World. Thus we have what
Jeff said, The sum of all comments on this new group amount to zero"
duplicate under any circumstances.

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:04:04 +0000 (UTC), "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I especially want to see how the elements
can be random and resonant at the same time, and what degree of
randomness is required.

Jeff, Art,

What bothered me is that if an antenna is really made from random elements,
I can't quite figure out who designed it?

The patent application requires references to prior art. How far one
goes back is strictly up to the applicant. If one wants to go back to
the creation of the universe, it's probably acceptable.

G-D? The ether bunnies? No one?

Actually, it is possible to patent something that requires randomness.
I did some patent searching and found something on the topic. 4
example:
"Random antenna array interferometer for radio location"
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=yip4AAAAEBAJ&dq=random+antenna
However, my reading of Art's application shows that the proposed
antenna is not really random, as it would fail any test for the degree
of randomness, mostly because the method of achieving random element
lengths is not specified. For example, the range of acceptably random
element lengths is missing, as is the effects on the basic parameters
(gain, F/B, VSWR, etc).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness_tests
In my never humble opinion, the term "arbitrary" would be more
appropriate, as it does not require such a test and is not constrained
by any real or imaginary limits. Unfortunately, an arbitrary design
is not patentable.

Is it a karmic joining of the forces of the universe? The work of the devil?

I don't know, and don't care. While some of my antennas require
divine inspiration during the design phase, and divine intervention
during testing, one would hope that Art would supply sufficient
information in the patent application to remove any need for such
outside assistance.

If it is a fixed number (or limited set) of elements placed in position,
then it is certainly not random.

Substitute arbitrary for random and see if the description works any
better.

Incidentally, it appears that not everything is random.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/11-655899.pdf
See background [0015] which proclaims:
"... where elements 22 through 24 are made of aluminum
rods of one inch in diameter."
Well, "one inch" doesn't sound particularly random. Does it only work
with this diameter? Does it need to be solid rod, or can it be
tubing? What's this monster going to weigh on top band? What
happened to elements 1 through 21?

I am not an expert on patents, but from what I do know, if you can't patent
randomly placing elements in no pattern. If you place them in a pattern, it
is no longer random and can be patented if you can define that pattern.

Yep.

You could observe, measure or calculate that if you randomly place
elements, one or more of the resulting patterns, layouts, etc will
produce specific results and patent that specific pattern. There is no
requirment that you invent something by any means more scientific than
just throwning sticks on the floor randomly.

Yep. I'll leave the question of how one achieves resonance and
randomness simultaneously as an exercise for the reader.

However if you can not identify that pattern, you can't patent it. If
you do identify that pattern, you can patent an Unwin antenna, or a
Liebermann-Unwin antenna, if Jeff were to find that critical piece you
were missing.

There's more than one piece missing. I suggested that Art look at a
finished antenna patent for the missing parts and pieces. However,
I'm sure the USPTO examiner will supply a shopping list, so there's no
need for me to do the same. Although there are no patents with my
name attached, I've helped craft about 3 patents. The problems I ran
into were excessively broad claims, and insufficiently specific
descriptions and claims. It turned out to be a rather difficult
exercise, but eventually was accepted. Art's patent application has
both these problems. In this case, random is excessively broad, while
if they interpret it as arbitrary, it's insufficiently specific.

I'll see if I can get the application scanned so that the PDF text is
searchable. Then, I'll run a grammar chequer on it.

I did not read the entire patent application, Jeff posted it what was very
late last night for me, but I did browse it. If the antenna is a modified
Yagi-Uda design, then it is a design and not random. If it just happens to
work better than one, I'm not sure that is relevant to the patent.

Antennas are best designed under cover of darkness. However, testing
should be done when the sun is shining or you might fall off the roof.

I think that what you are trying to patent is randomly tossing metal
sticks on the ground and connecting wires to some of them in some random
fashion. I don't think this is what you had intended to do at all.

Yep.

--
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 Sep 1, 9:41*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 1, 4:04*am, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:



Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I especially want to see how the elements
can be random and resonant at the same time, and what degree of
randomness is required.

Jeff, Art,

What bothered me is that if an antenna is really made from random elements,
I can't quite figure out who designed it? G-D? The ether bunnies? No one?
Is it a karmic joining of the forces of the universe? The work of the devil?

If it is a fixed number (or limited set) of elements placed in position,
then it is certainly not random.

I am not an expert on patents, but from what I do know, if you can't patent
randomly placing elements in no pattern. If you place them in a pattern, it
is no longer random and can be patented if you can define that pattern.

You could observe, measure or calculate that if you randomly place
elements, one or more of the resulting patterns, layouts, etc will
produce specific results and patent that specific pattern. There is no
requirment that you invent something by any means more scientific than
just throwning sticks on the floor randomly.

However if you can not identify that pattern, you can't patent it. If
you do identify that pattern, you can patent an Unwin antenna, or a
Liebermann-Unwin antenna, if Jeff were to find that critical piece you
were missing.

I did not read the entire patent application, Jeff posted it what was very
late last night for me, but I did browse it. If the antenna is a modified
Yagi-Uda design, then it is a design and not random. If it just happens to
work better than one, I'm not sure that is relevant to the patent.

I think that what you are trying to patent is randomly tossing metal
sticks on the ground and connecting wires to some of them in some random
fashion. I don't think this is what you had intended to do at all.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM

The first object is to establish equilibrium by using a WL radiator.
Anything less breaks away from equilibrium.Adding a second radiator
affects the electrical length of both radiators together with their
angle with respect to each other i.e. not planar.
The question then becomes what is the reference line to determine the
exact position?
Now you can deviate from such a equilibrium by adding a radiator that
is not a WL which then pressures the arbitrary boundary close to
rupture and so on. Thus the available number and electrical WL
escalate each without a reference point expands because it will change
as you move it on the surface of the Earth. Thus "random" is a hard
word to use when it is any arrangement that satisfies the term of
equilibrium. If the radiators were magnetic in nature and was thrown
on the floor they could combine in a arrangement via repell and
attract that would be maintained or jarred to another cluster position
while still retaining equilibrium. Thus one should see how difficult
it is quantasize an arrangement when equilibrium has no measurable
point of reference that meets PTO requirements. But I would be
interested if a solution could be presented that provided the metrics
of such a arrangement such that a drawing could be made that is a
picture of any final arrangement of the cluster that would occur for
all to duplicate. It was for the above reasons why I included a
typical computerized arrangement which by itself is not required in a
patent request. As always the difficulty is in the details thus the
need to establish a datum line which I can use for the remaining
disclosures is required such that it is not rejected on technicalities
while providing all details in advance to the World. Thus we have what
Jeff said, *The sum of all comments on this new group amount to zero"
duplicate under any circumstances.

Nothing wrong with this patent application except that granting it
would give Art rights to every antenna made. An antenna with randomly
placed elements could be defined as almost anything. In other words
the patent application lacks UNIQUENESS.

Jimmie

JIMMIE wrote:
Nothing wrong with this patent application except that granting it
would give Art rights to every antenna made. An antenna with randomly
placed elements could be defined as almost anything. In other words
the patent application lacks UNIQUENESS.

I disgree. If you place element(s) deliberately, they are not placed
randomly. It may appear random, for example a discone made of wire elements
for both the disk and the cone, but I assure you they were not placed randomly.
Maybe not with much forethought, or any accuracy, but that is still not
random.

Even if I were to toss a wire out of my window and let it fall where it may,
that is not random. There are some random elements of it's placement (where
is Ian Malcom when you need him), but the size, length and type of wire were
chosen by me, the window was chosen by me, and I had some control of the
direction and force.

Seemingly random, arbitrary, etc seem more appropriate than random.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

On Sep 1, 1:06*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Sep 1, 9:41*am, Art Unwin wrote:



On Sep 1, 4:04*am, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I especially want to see how the elements
can be random and resonant at the same time, and what degree of
randomness is required.

Jeff, Art,

What bothered me is that if an antenna is really made from random elements,
I can't quite figure out who designed it? G-D? The ether bunnies? No one?
Is it a karmic joining of the forces of the universe? The work of the devil?

If it is a fixed number (or limited set) of elements placed in position,
then it is certainly not random.

I am not an expert on patents, but from what I do know, if you can't patent
randomly placing elements in no pattern. If you place them in a pattern, it
is no longer random and can be patented if you can define that pattern.

On Sep 1, 8:41*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 1, 4:04*am, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:



Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I especially want to see how the elements
can be random and resonant at the same time, and what degree of
randomness is required.

Jeff, Art,

What bothered me is that if an antenna is really made from random elements,
I can't quite figure out who designed it? G-D? The ether bunnies? No one?
Is it a karmic joining of the forces of the universe? The work of the devil?

If it is a fixed number (or limited set) of elements placed in position,
then it is certainly not random.

I am not an expert on patents, but from what I do know, if you can't patent
randomly placing elements in no pattern. If you place them in a pattern, it
is no longer random and can be patented if you can define that pattern.

You could observe, measure or calculate that if you randomly place
elements, one or more of the resulting patterns, layouts, etc will
produce specific results and patent that specific pattern. There is no
requirment that you invent something by any means more scientific than
just throwning sticks on the floor randomly.

However if you can not identify that pattern, you can't patent it. If
you do identify that pattern, you can patent an Unwin antenna, or a
Liebermann-Unwin antenna, if Jeff were to find that critical piece you
were missing.

I did not read the entire patent application, Jeff posted it what was very
late last night for me, but I did browse it. If the antenna is a modified
Yagi-Uda design, then it is a design and not random. If it just happens to
work better than one, I'm not sure that is relevant to the patent.

I think that what you are trying to patent is randomly tossing metal
sticks on the ground and connecting wires to some of them in some random
fashion. I don't think this is what you had intended to do at all.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM

The first object is to establish equilibrium by using a WL radiator.
Anything less breaks away from equilibrium.Adding a second radiator
affects the electrical length of both radiators together with their
angle with respect to each other i.e. not planar.
The question then becomes what is the reference line to determine the
exact position?
Now you can deviate from such a equilibrium by adding a radiator that
is not a WL which then pressures the arbitrary boundary close to
rupture and so on. Thus the available number and electrical WL
escalate each without a reference point expands because it will change
as you move it on the surface of the Earth. Thus "random" is a hard
word to use when it is any arrangement that satisfies the term of
equilibrium. If the radiators were magnetic in nature and was thrown
on the floor they could combine in a arrangement via repell and
attract that would be maintained or jarred to another cluster position
while still retaining equilibrium. Thus one should see how difficult
it is quantasize an arrangement when equilibrium has no measurable
point of reference that meets PTO requirements. But I would be
interested if a solution could be presented that provided the metrics
of such a arrangement such that a drawing could be made that is a
picture of any final arrangement of the cluster that would occur for
all to duplicate. It was for the above reasons why I included a
typical computerized arrangement which by itself is not required in a
patent request. As always the difficulty is in the details thus the
need to establish a datum line which I can use for the remaining
disclosures is required such that it is not rejected on technicalities
while providing all details in advance to the World. Thus we have what
Jeff said, *The sum of all comments on this new group amount to zero"
duplicate under any circumstances.

Jeff, as a past examiner you surprize me. Present day patent provide
an immense annount of false hood as one cannot judge what works or not
with the exception of perpetual motion.
There fore isnt it just the claims that count as long as information
is provided in the body
to justify it. I could claim in the body that an antenna described
requires only a small battery to work the world and use that in the
claim. Whether it is true or not cannot be determined by the examiner
and the inventor does not now need to present a sample.
It is for the next inventer to claim a better mousetrap for economical
reasons that he sees where others think it has no valueand not worth
the effort. The initial inventor can lose all if he does not commence
with a commercial effort as ordained by the PTO
No wonder the courts want to limit their involvement in patent cases
and why the rules were changes i.e. PTO being challenged by those who
preside over justice in cases that are challenged. It is for this very
reason that laws in other countries establish the intent of the law AT
THAT TIME so a judge presides only with the case at hand and not
challenge the political made laws .

Art Unwin wrote:
Guys you are forgeting that it meets the metric of equilibrium thus
the arrangements that are random are only acceptable if they meet the
uniqueness ( see above) of being in equilibrium.

Then I would have said "place in a position of equilibrium" and not used
the word random at all. There is a very big difference between random
and equilibrium. If something is placed randomly, e.g. dropped on the floor,
and moves to a position of equilibrium it is no longer randomly placed.

I am glad that others see the difficulty I have been placed even tho
the method of equilibrium has been shown that is repeatable for others
to follow.

That sentence alone disputes your claim of randomness. If a system can be
set up in equilibrium in a repeatable method, then there is no randomness
in the system. There may be more than one optimal point, but that is not
the same as a random one.

Are you trying to patent the device, i.e. an antenna consisiting of elements
in equilibrium, or a method of placing elements in as seemingly random way
to achieve equilibrium?


The examiner has supplied some claims that he sees as
acceptable but as he is foreign born, his thoughts, as with mine, may
not hold up to challenge in the U.S.

That's how I found out that choosing a patent agent who charged us $3500
to write patent applications and then $3500 to chalenge a rejection was
worthless because in the end we did not get the patents. If we had
hired the "best in the country" at $600 an hour, we would of had our
patents.

Now we have nothing except rejected applications which while they bear our
names, they do not have the name of the patent agent we hired on them at all.

In all other countries intent is
acceptable as law is based on the intent of the lawwhen made. In the
US the problem is way different where the intent is established by the
words the intent of which depend on the times and the envinment which
is why there is a need for more lawyers than any where else.

No, that is why there are courts. Almost every country has them.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

On Sep 1, 1:24*pm, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:
JIMMIE wrote:
Nothing wrong with this patent application except that granting it
would give Art rights to every antenna made. An antenna with randomly
placed elements could be defined as almost anything. In other words
the patent application lacks UNIQUENESS.

I disgree. If you place element(s) deliberately, they are not placed
randomly. It may appear random, for example a discone made of wire elements
for both the disk and the cone, but I assure you they were not placed randomly.
Maybe not with much forethought, or any accuracy, but that is still not
random.

Even if I were to toss a wire out of my window and let it fall where it may,
that is not random. There are some random elements of it's placement (where
is Ian Malcom when you need him), but the size, length and type of wire were
chosen by me, the window was chosen by me, and I had some control of the
direction and force.

Seemingly random, arbitrary, etc seem more appropriate than random.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM

Could be, but in this case there are three degrees of freedom for
placement where only the
cluster as a whole meets equilibrium are those that are acceptable
under the claims.
For descriptive purposes those familiar with the art or even physics
would accept almost anything as long as the entirety is considered in
equilibrium. Remember that after one element is placed in position at
any random place or angle then other added must follow in kind
dependent on how many elements are added even tho the first two
element placed meets all the requirement for commercials. Never the
less, one can choose to include any number of element to be used where
the addition of one immediately changes the position of others
including length to remain in equilibrium. So as I stated before there
is no datum to fix upon so that metrics can be applied. In any othe
Country a cluster of elements which in their entirety are in a state
of equilibrium is acceptable. As seen by prior posts on this newsgroup
"equilibrium" provides confusion in the U.S. and was the subject of
many years of auguement But for those familiar with the state of the
art would see no problem.
and it is they that all patents are addressed to.

Art Unwin wrote:

There fore isnt it just the claims that count as long as information
is provided in the body
to justify it. I could claim in the body that an antenna described
requires only a small battery to work the world and use that in the
claim. Whether it is true or not cannot be determined by the examiner
and the inventor does not now need to present a sample.

That's were having an expert write your patent matters. Depending upon
how the application was written, such a claim could leave operating it
without a battery or with a large battery in the public domain
(outside the scope of the patent), and so on. Claims like that are best
left to advertising and not patents.

It is for the next inventer to claim a better mousetrap for economical
reasons that he sees where others think it has no valueand not worth
the effort. The initial inventor can lose all if he does not commence
with a commercial effort as ordained by the PTO

No, the inventor is not required to do anything with their patent. You can
sit on it for the rest of its life and do nothing. You are assuming that
one has to sell something to pay the mantainance fees. The total paid out
in parts at 3.5, 7.5 and 11.5 years is under $4,000 for a small inventor
or company. That's $266 a year over 15 years, the approximate life of a
patent that takes 5 years from first invention/publication to approval.

I'm sorry that patent bombing is no longer a poor man's game. (filing lots
of patent applications and hoping one will pay off). However the rules of the
game changed, possibly for the better. If you are quick about it, you can file
a provisional patent and shop it around for the money to make a real patent
out of it, or sell it to professional investors.

Since the filing fee for a small inventor is $110, you can file one for
the cost in the US of dinner, a movie and a baby sitter.

The downside is if you fail to file, or fail to convert the provisional
patent into a real one before the year is out, you loose, as I did with
several inventions I wrote provisional patent applications from my blog
postings but was unable to file them.


No wonder the courts want to limit their involvement in patent cases
and why the rules were changes i.e. PTO being challenged by those who
preside over justice in cases that are challenged. It is for this very
reason that laws in other countries establish the intent of the law AT
THAT TIME so a judge presides only with the case at hand and not
challenge the political made laws .

The courts want to get out of it because it is a lose-lose situation for
everyone. If there were to be binding arbritation by experts, or just licensing
deals, everyone would be happy.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

On Sep 1, 2:24*pm, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:
JIMMIE wrote:
Nothing wrong with this patent application except that granting it
would give Art rights to every antenna made. An antenna with randomly
placed elements could be defined as almost anything. In other words
the patent application lacks UNIQUENESS.

I disgree. If you place element(s) deliberately, they are not placed
randomly. It may appear random, for example a discone made of wire elements
for both the disk and the cone, but I assure you they were not placed randomly.
Maybe not with much forethought, or any accuracy, but that is still not
random.

Even if I were to toss a wire out of my window and let it fall where it may,
that is not random. There are some random elements of it's placement (where
is Ian Malcom when you need him), but the size, length and type of wire were
chosen by me, the window was chosen by me, and I had some control of the
direction and force.

Seemingly random, arbitrary, etc seem more appropriate than random.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM

Lets say you toss a bunch of metal rods up in the air and let them
fall randomly, the odds of them falling in the shape of a yagi is the
same as falling in any other position. While it is extremely unlikely
they will take the pattern of a useful Yagi antenna it is also just as
extremely unlikely that they will take any other pattern.

In your case there are a number of variables with that could be
predetermined, however all it takes is one variable chosen by chance
to make it random.

Arthur could help by defining randomness limiting it to positions
within a certain set as is done with gaming equipment. There are also
a few other words he also needs to define as they appear to have a
rather unique usage.





Jimmie