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