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