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, 1:24*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.

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

JIMMIE wrote:

Arthur could help by defining randomness limiting it to positions
within a certain set as is done with gaming equipment.


As I said:

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

There are also
a few other words he also needs to define as they appear to have a
rather unique usage.

Or better still replace them with clear wording that leaves no doubt as
to what he meant.

Geoff.


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

On Sep 1, 3:35*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
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

Jim,
The patent examiner is committed to help me so such things do not
happen.
If you do not have an attorney they will step in and render
assistance.,Remember that It is really a question of presentation to
those skilled in the art of which the examiner is one
and not to the World at large. There is a former examiner in this
group so you really should address such questions to him for
verification that you can trust.

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 17:40:09 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

The patent examiner is committed to help me so such things do not
happen.

On what planet did you find this patent examiner? When I was trying
to help scribble some patent applications (in about 2000), I never was
able to communicate with any patent examiner. They're totally
isolated from the applicant to protect against intimidation and
bribery. I received a check sheet and a letter of explanation of what
needed correcting. Attached was a list of recommendations and a
schedule for resubmission. The first one required 5 resubmissions,
over a period of about 2 years to get through. The next two were
somewhat easier and only took about a year. I was about to give up on
the last two, when the company hired a patent attorney, who got things
rolling again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_examiner

Sigh:
http://usptoexaminers.com
You might want to see how your examiner rates.

If you do not have an attorney they will step in and render
assistance.,

Who will? Certainly not the examiner.

The USPTO has the "Inventors Assistance Center" to help individuals
with their documentation:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/pacmain.html
The problem is that they can only help with the process, not with the
merits of the individual patent. You can talk with someone in
customer service, but that's the same story. If you want help with
your claims, you'll get directed to a patent attorney.

Remember that It is really a question of presentation to
those skilled in the art of which the examiner is one
and not to the World at large. There is a former examiner in this
group so you really should address such questions to him for
verification that you can trust.

Agreed. Experience is good substitute for guesswork and Googleing.
Incidentally, I did a Google Groups search for "former patent
examiner" in this newsgroup and found nothing.


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

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:19:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

The first one required 5 resubmissions,
over a period of about 2 years to get through. The next two were
somewhat easier and only took about a year. I was about to give up on
the last two, when the company hired a patent attorney, who got things
rolling again.

Argh. I just checked my billing log (Quickbooks). The first one took
over 3 years. The other two about 2 years. My problem was that I
didn't get paid until AFTER the patent was accepted. Remind me to
never accept a contract like that again.

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

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.

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