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, 2:59*pm, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:
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

Geoff, as you are aware I have many patents, both under the GE banner
as well as my own. The advantage of being an independent inventor or
private entity is that the Patent Office is committed to assist. To me
this is an advantage that exceeds paying $10,000 to a patent attorney.
In addition, when having a patent attorney he may well not advise you
as to what is happening between he and the PTO, and you as the
inventor cannot communicate with the PTO yourself. One time I had to
drive overnight to D.C. to fire my attorney such that I was able to
file something myself with just hours to spare. The costs that you
mentioned are incorrect even for a private entity on all that have
been filed by me but I understand changes have been made with respect
to the timing of maintenance fees e.t.c which appear to muddy up the
water some what. I have provided my credit card number to draw upon
and if they want less then they will tell me, which has been my
standard aproach over the years.I am comfortable with my present
status weather I win or lose as my work is now of record.
Cheers

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, 1 Sep 2009 12:01:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Jeff, as a past examiner you surprize me.

Jeff or Geoff? I was never a patent examiner.

Present day patent provide
an immense annount of false hood as one cannot judge what works or not
with the exception of perpetual motion.

Right. One does NOT need to demonstrate that something works in order
to obtain a patent. There are plenty of patents for some
non-functional devices. Basically, it needs to be novel, non-obvious,
and provide a useful function. That's all.

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 .

Rubbish. However, I think I now understand your writing style. Most
of your sentences are comma splices or conjunction splices, which glue
two marginally related concepts together. This lets you slide neatly
and gracefully from one topic to the next, usually in one paragraph.
Were this done without the splicing, it would appear as an abrupt
change in topic, or just random thoughts. Impressive. I need to
learn how to do that as it appears to be quite useful. Thanks.

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

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 17:30:33 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

The costs that you
mentioned are incorrect even for a private entity on all that have
been filed by me but I understand changes have been made with respect
to the timing of maintenance fees e.t.c which appear to muddy up the
water some what.

"What Does It Cost to Obtain a Patent"
http://home.netcom.com/~patents2/What%20Does%20It%20Cost%20Patent.htm
$10,000 for US only.

"Patent costs"
http://www.oppedahl.com/cost/
$2,000 to $10,000 (with an attorney).

"How Much Does a Patent Cost?"
http://ezinearticles.com/?How-Much-Does-a-Patent-Cost?&id=1620437
Several Thousand dollars.... oh well.

http://community2.business.gov/bsng/board/message?board.id=GeneralBusiness&message.id=338
Various opinions ranging from $5,000 to $20,000 (with an attorney).

USPTO fee schedules:
http://www.uspto.gov/go/fees/

USPTO FAQ on fees:
http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/index_feefaq.html

--
# 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 Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:22:57 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

I replaced my previously posted copy of Art's Patent Application with
a new version that can be searched and cut-n-pastiched:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/11-655899.pdf

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

Art wrote:
"I have untold books on antennas but none (not including ARRL stuff)
provide any sort of reason that this could be true."

It is almost self evident that if it takes 2 feet of wire to do the work
of 1 foot, you get twice the resistance and loss.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

tom wrote:

Ok, so this would mean that at every north or south latitude the angle
would be different, and at the equator would be zero, since there's no
coriolis effect there. Please give a table that shows the tip angle
versus latitude. (Bet you won't because it's secret) And at the north
or south pole it's not definable so antennas can't work there..

I already mentioned that in which case the rifling on a gun would need
to be in a different direction depending on the hemisphere, and no
rifling would be used at the equator. No answer.

Bullets do not use spin to utilize the Coriolis effect, they use spin as
gyroscopic stabilization.