There are other remote control antennas that have been patented. In fact
there is a patent already in the mix that uses exactly the same method as
the STEPPER that was printed in RADCOM several years ago.What exactly did
the new patent claim?
Art
"Minnie Bannister" wrote in message
...
www.steppir.com

Alan NV8A


On 08/23/04 04:23 pm Jimmie put fingers to keyboard and launched the
following message into cyberspace:

How is it I get the feeling they are not trying to develope the
remotely
tunable antenna. Seem to me someone just wants to have the patent on
the
idea

Huh?
They developed it, making it and selling like a hotcakes. That's the
idea,

to

have a patent on the idea for terrific product!

Really, didnt know the things were on the market.

"Minnie Bannister" wrote in message
...
www.steppir.com

Alan NV8A


On 08/23/04 04:23 pm Jimmie put fingers to keyboard and launched the
following message into cyberspace:

How is it I get the feeling they are not trying to develope the
remotely
tunable antenna. Seem to me someone just wants to have the patent on
the
idea

Huh?
They developed it, making it and selling like a hotcakes. That's the
idea,

to

have a patent on the idea for terrific product!

Really, didnt know the things were on the market.


What happens when one of these antennas takes a lightning strike. .

The links to the patent application for the SteppIR are in the original
post that started this thread. *Perhaps* what was new was the
microprocessor control unit that can sit between the rig and the antenna
and readjust the antenna as the rig is tuned. But since I haven't seen
the RadCom one to which you refer, I don't *know* what is new in the
SteppIR.

Alan NV8A


On 08/23/04 09:26 pm put fingers to keyboard and
launched the following message into cyberspace:

There are other remote control antennas that have been patented. In fact
there is a patent already in the mix that uses exactly the same method as
the STEPPER that was printed in RADCOM several years ago.What exactly did
the new patent claim?

www.steppir.com

Some SteppIR antennas have been up for a year or more already and have
survived high winds and ice storms, but I don't recall hearing of any
lightning strikes.

The antenna itself has only beryllium-copper tapes whose length is
adjusted by stepper motors, the latter being pretty robust devices by
all accounts.

The sensitive electronics (microprocessor control unit) are in the shack
rather than up on the tower, so the smart thing to do would be to
disconnect and ground the control cable when not in use (after
retracting the elements completely), just as one would disconnect and
ground the feed line.

Alan NV8A


On 08/24/04 07:48 pm Jimmie put fingers to keyboard and launched the
following message into cyberspace:

www.steppir.com

What happens when one of these antennas takes a lightning strike. .

I'm not sure what the interest might be in the application, if a patent
has been issued. Typically, an application undergoes modification --
sometimes, extreme modification -- before the patent issues. And only
the patent carries any prohibition about anyone making, using, or
selling the item.

The patent (6,677,914) is interesting in that it's a patent not for an
antenna, or a method of tuning the antenna, but a system which includes
the antenna, a transmitter/receiver, and "means to coordinate the means
for adjusting the length of said conductive members to receive a desired
frequency used by said radio transmitter/receiver." To see exactly what
is patented, look up the patent at the USPTO's web site and read claims
1 and 16. Those describe exactly what is patented -- the patented system
includes all the components in either claim. (The remaining claims are
more restrictive, put there in case the less restrictive claims are
deemed invalid in the future.) Only a system which includes all the
components in a claim is covered under the patent, except for
modifications "obvious to one skilled in the art".

DISCLAIMER: I'm not an attorney, patent or otherwise. This is based on
my limited and layman's knowledge of the law. Don't regard it as legal
advice -- see a qualified patent attorney if you need real legal advice.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

J. McLaughlin wrote:
Dear Group:
One may see a patent application for the "SteppIR" antenna on the
PTO's web site.

Look for:
20020171598 Tunable antenna system

Punch in the above number he
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html

The application issued as patent 6,677,914.

I can not remember if this has been posted. 73 Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin - Michigan USA
Home:

Alan,
the article in RADCOM (UK) described the moveable radiator as a loop of
material half of which contained a copper strip and the loop of material was
driven by a motor such that the copper length was resonant.
Now a stepper motor is still an electrical motor which turns the shaft in a
series of steps which is nothing unusual.
The use of a microprocessor to run a stepper motor is also normal as well as
a comparitor system to control the length of the radiators to maintain
resonance. There is also prior use of where the motors are enclosed and also
controlled remotely.
Roy makes the point that the design in its entirety was the main claim which
appears to be in the design patent bracket. Thus it would appear that the
patent design in its entirety is protected which to my mind makes it one of
the most weakest things to claim court protection but that is just my
opinion. For amateurs who make their own antennas a patent does not really
have any powers unless manufacture is a business.
It seems these days that those who move fast and take the cream and then
quickly fade away can easily beat any justice system that reqiures a lot of
cash and a strong push to get it moving on ones behalf. It is like the'
pursuit of happiness' statement which gives one only the right to pursue but
not to attain happiness"
ART
Minnie Bannister" wrote in message
...
The links to the patent application for the SteppIR are in the original
post that started this thread. *Perhaps* what was new was the
microprocessor control unit that can sit between the rig and the antenna
and readjust the antenna as the rig is tuned. But since I haven't seen
the RadCom one to which you refer, I don't *know* what is new in the
SteppIR.

Alan NV8A


On 08/23/04 09:26 pm put fingers to keyboard and
launched the following message into cyberspace:

There are other remote control antennas that have been patented. In fact
there is a patent already in the mix that uses exactly the same method
as
the STEPPER that was printed in RADCOM several years ago.What exactly
did
the new patent claim?

www.steppir.com

wrote:
. . .
Roy makes the point that the design in its entirety was the main claim which
appears to be in the design patent bracket. . .

The term "design patent" refers to a kind of patent that applies to an
esthetic design, such as a unique shape for a vase or the classic
Coca-Cola bottle. The patent in question isn't a design patent (even
though the claims describe a whole system) but a "utility patent".
Design and utility patents are different critters. Each has its own
sequence of numbers, and I believe they have different application
processes. When a technical person speaks of a patent, he or she almost
always means a utility patent.

I know this to be true only for U.S. patents; I don't know about the
rules or terminology used in other countries. You can find more
information about the two distinct kinds of U.S. patents at the USPTO
website.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Agreed
Art
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
wrote:
. . .
Roy makes the point that the design in its entirety was the main claim
which
appears to be in the design patent bracket. . .

The term "design patent" refers to a kind of patent that applies to an
esthetic design, such as a unique shape for a vase or the classic
Coca-Cola bottle. The patent in question isn't a design patent (even
though the claims describe a whole system) but a "utility patent".
Design and utility patents are different critters. Each has its own
sequence of numbers, and I believe they have different application
processes. When a technical person speaks of a patent, he or she almost
always means a utility patent.

I know this to be true only for U.S. patents; I don't know about the
rules or terminology used in other countries. You can find more
information about the two distinct kinds of U.S. patents at the USPTO
website.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

In article NuTWc.304708$a24.39955@attbi_s03,
wrote:

For amateurs who make their own antennas a patent does not really
have any powers unless manufacture is a business.

In practice, you're largely correct.

In fact of law (here in the US), a patentholder *does* have the right
to forbid individuals from making and using a copy of the patented
device. You can build one to study it, or figure out improvements, or
figure out an alternative approach which isn't covered by the patent,
but the law says that if you actually make practical use of your
homebrew version of the patented invention, you're infringing.

As you say, this isn't likely to ever be enforced against individual
builders. However, there have been cases in the past where an
individual published plans in a magazine article, and the magazine was
sued or challenged by a patentholder for "contributory infringement"
(i.e. for inciting, encouraging, or enabling private individuals to
infringe on the patent, by building something according to the
published plans).

I've seen situations in the past where patent-holders have offered
individuals a royalty-free license to build a limited number of the
patented inventions, for personal use in a noncommercial context.
Sure seems like good, cheap PR to me!


--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Dear Roy:
You have wondered about what the interest might be in the
application.

As you have accurately indicated, applications do sometimes undergo
extreme modification before one or more patents issue. Only the claims
in the issued patent constitute the meets-and-bounds of what is
protected.

However, comparing an application to the issued patent (or patents)
can be very revealing of the PTO's view of the subject matter. Insight
so gained can be of great help with further patent applications dealing
with similar subject matter.

In the days when it was not easy to compare applications with issued
patents, I had a case where a claim in an issued patent appeared to
encompass all archery targets having the appearance of an animal.
Paying to get a copy of the proceedings led to the conclusion that what
was actually protected were animal looking targets using two densities
of plastic! -- I have abbreviated the case --

The short answer is that one can (sometimes) learn from examining
the before and after.

To follow-up on another of your cogent observations: Design patents
protect the esthetic appearance of a useful article (and thus might not
be eligible for copyright protection) and their numbers start with a
"D." Plant patents have numbers that start with a "P."

Warm regards, Mac N8TT
--
J. Mc Laughlin - Michigan USA
Home:

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure what the interest might be in the application, if a
patent
has been issued. Typically, an application undergoes modification --
sometimes, extreme modification -- before the patent issues. And only
the patent carries any prohibition about anyone making, using, or
selling the item.

The patent (6,677,914) is interesting in that it's a patent not for an
antenna, or a method of tuning the antenna, but a system which
includes
the antenna, a transmitter/receiver, and "means to coordinate the
means
for adjusting the length of said conductive members to receive a
desired
frequency used by said radio transmitter/receiver." To see exactly
what
is patented, look up the patent at the USPTO's web site and read
claims
1 and 16. Those describe exactly what is patented -- the patented
system
includes all the components in either claim. (The remaining claims are
more restrictive, put there in case the less restrictive claims are
deemed invalid in the future.) Only a system which includes all the
components in a claim is covered under the patent, except for
modifications "obvious to one skilled in the art".

DISCLAIMER: I'm not an attorney, patent or otherwise. This is based on
my limited and layman's knowledge of the law. Don't regard it as legal
advice -- see a qualified patent attorney if you need real legal
advice.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

J. McLaughlin wrote:
Dear Group:
One may see a patent application for the "SteppIR" antenna on
the
PTO's web site.

Look for:
20020171598 Tunable antenna system

Punch in the above number he
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html

The application issued as patent 6,677,914.

I can not remember if this has been posted. 73 Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin - Michigan USA
Home: