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

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!