Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Walter Maxwell wrote:
On 14 Oct 2004 08:46:50 -0700, (k4wge) wrote: And the crap begins to flow, now that classical physics has been slain. Ed wb6wsn Physics? You want physics? I'll show you physics :-) "The voltage and current applied to a Hertz antenna are in phase, therefore the E and H fields are not in phase, thus radiation does not occur until a great distance from the antenna. A proper phase shift network allows the Hertz antenna to become an EH Antenna where a 90 degree phase delay between the current and voltage applied to the antenna cause the E and H fields to be in phase, therefore the EH antenna is able to transfer power from the transmitter directly to radiation. This is the basis of the EH Antenna patent." http://www.eh-antenna.com/library/EH...DEFINITION.pdf I f there really is an issued patent on the EH antenna, the paragraph above is proof that the Patent Office examiner who approved the patent application for issuance was completely snowed by the applicant's patent attorney who wrote the application. This doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Unless the patent examiner is extremely well versed in electromagnetic theory he could easily be persuaded that the EH principle is valid, while it is not. Walt Maxwell, W2DU About the only thing the Patent Office will deny a patent on based on science is perpetual motion mechines; all bets are off on anything else. -- Jim Pennino Remove -spam-sux to reply. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
This doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Unless the patent examiner is extremely well versed in electromagnetic theory he could easily be persuaded that the EH principle is valid, while it is not. Walt Maxwell, W2DU Who was the examiner? They have some really great seasoned guys there in that department, and a rolling list of rookies. 73, Chip N1IR |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Hate to break the news, Walt, but it happens very, very often. Even
years ago, when I was doing some consulting work on a patent case and read a couple of hundred antenna patents, there was a great deal of pseudo- and voodoo-science in issued patents. These days, it's rampant. My favorite example is US patent #6,025,810, "Hyper-Light-Speed Antenna", but I'm sure even this is far from the most egregious. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Walter Maxwell wrote: I f there really is an issued patent on the EH antenna, the paragraph above is proof that the Patent Office examiner who approved the patent application for issuance was completely snowed by the applicant's patent attorney who wrote the application. This doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Unless the patent examiner is extremely well versed in electromagnetic theory he could easily be persuaded that the EH principle is valid, while it is not. Walt Maxwell, W2DU |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry to hear that, Roy. I was very much involved with the RCA Patent Dept in
my early years with RCA, 1949 to 1957. During that time the US Patent Office examiners were smart and tough. A patent used to be worth something. Walt On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:54:49 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote: Hate to break the news, Walt, but it happens very, very often. Even years ago, when I was doing some consulting work on a patent case and read a couple of hundred antenna patents, there was a great deal of pseudo- and voodoo-science in issued patents. These days, it's rampant. My favorite example is US patent #6,025,810, "Hyper-Light-Speed Antenna", but I'm sure even this is far from the most egregious. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Walter Maxwell wrote: I f there really is an issued patent on the EH antenna, the paragraph above is proof that the Patent Office examiner who approved the patent application for issuance was completely snowed by the applicant's patent attorney who wrote the application. This doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Unless the patent examiner is extremely well versed in electromagnetic theory he could easily be persuaded that the EH principle is valid, while it is not. Walt Maxwell, W2DU |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"k4wge" wrote in message om... And the crap begins to flow, now that classical physics has been slain. Ed wb6wsn Physics? You want physics? I'll show you physics :-) I prefer one of these: Physics? Physics?!? we don't need no stinking Physics! or The Physics? You want the Physics? You can't handle the Physics! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Examiners get a salary of $43,000 PER YEAR which is not much in Maryland.
The majority of examiners have English as a second language and most have Asian or Vietnamese heritage. ( A look at the telephone directory of the department is quite an eye opener). They are also on a time schedule on how many patents that they must move along per hour. Since the Patent Office is a "cash cow" patents or "'prior art" have been put on computor record so that examiners can feed in a few salient words from the application and then forward the resulting computor patent matches to the new applicant so that he can defend against the grammar of"prior art" ..This now means that the new applicant cannot "plagerise" a pre awarded patent grammatically. Since the patent office does not spend time researching physics or reviewing workability it does not matter if the patent works or not. Since the Government TAKES cash from the patent office where normally it gives money to various government offices it is encumbent on the patent office to move along patent requests as fast as possible and with as little work as possible to maintain the establishment and senior examiners salaries, of the latter there is very few., so that the department stays in business So to sum up, the patent office now review patent requests for grammatical duplication of "prior art" plus ensuring that the format of any new application meets regulations and to ensure that said application is placed in the correct pre-assigned grouping depending on its physics or intended use. Now some may argue against the above but this is how I see patents are dealt with at the present time. Art "Walter Maxwell" wrote in message ... Sorry to hear that, Roy. I was very much involved with the RCA Patent Dept in my early years with RCA, 1949 to 1957. During that time the US Patent Office examiners were smart and tough. A patent used to be worth something. Walt On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:54:49 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote: Hate to break the news, Walt, but it happens very, very often. Even years ago, when I was doing some consulting work on a patent case and read a couple of hundred antenna patents, there was a great deal of pseudo- and voodoo-science in issued patents. These days, it's rampant. My favorite example is US patent #6,025,810, "Hyper-Light-Speed Antenna", but I'm sure even this is far from the most egregious. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Walter Maxwell wrote: I f there really is an issued patent on the EH antenna, the paragraph above is proof that the Patent Office examiner who approved the patent application for issuance was completely snowed by the applicant's patent attorney who wrote the application. This doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Unless the patent examiner is extremely well versed in electromagnetic theory he could easily be persuaded that the EH principle is valid, while it is not. Walt Maxwell, W2DU |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Now some may argue against the above but this is how I see patents are dealt
with at the present time. Art Art, I spend a non-trivial fraction of any given week on patents. I can't say this view of yours duplicates my 15 years in the patent(ing) experience. 73, Chip N1IR |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Chip, I have no problem with that, but the PTO has changed in the last few
years in how it does things I read an article a few days ago where companies have gone into their basements to review old and forgotten patents as litigation between various companies has proved to be a cash cow for some when reviewing the grammer of patents (claims) and activities of other companies in a grammatical sense. You should also note that the Justice Department.has added elevated importance( strength) to grammer of claims in a attempt to curb increasing litigation against the P.T.O......... So things are a changing. I believe this to be a consequence of the PTO increasing dependence upon the grammer of the claims rather than the contents as a whole. Remember, lawyers and other reptiles can debate for hours as to what the definition of "is:":... is, in a grammatical sense. where-as old english law established the original INTENT as the primary definition . This difference is why the U,S. has a huge playground for its increasing lawyer population as its politicians do not seek prior legal aid regarding the blend of ":grammer" and "intent" when making laws. which the rest of the World does Art "Fractenna" wrote in message ... Now some may argue against the above but this is how I see patents are dealt with at the present time. Art Art, I spend a non-trivial fraction of any given week on patents. I can't say this view of yours duplicates my 15 years in the patent(ing) experience. 73, Chip N1IR |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Art, you seem to know a lot of what's happening in the US Patent Office. How do
you know this? Do you work there? Your 'insider-type' statements seem to say so. If what you said is happening there is true there has been a complete turn around in policy since I was knowledgeable in that area. You've described what seems to me to be fraudulent activity in the issuance of patents that have no value, and to use them in a court of law in an attempt for the patentee to obtain money is a mockery of the Patent System. I know there is nothing I can do about the situation, but I'm shocked to learn about it. Apparently this is what Roy was talking about in his previous post that answered mine. Walt, W2DU On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:21:53 GMT, " wrote: Examiners get a salary of $43,000 PER YEAR which is not much in Maryland. The majority of examiners have English as a second language and most have Asian or Vietnamese heritage. ( A look at the telephone directory of the department is quite an eye opener). They are also on a time schedule on how many patents that they must move along per hour. Since the Patent Office is a "cash cow" patents or "'prior art" have been put on computor record so that examiners can feed in a few salient words from the application and then forward the resulting computor patent matches to the new applicant so that he can defend against the grammar of"prior art" .This now means that the new applicant cannot "plagerise" a pre awarded patent grammatically. Since the patent office does not spend time researching physics or reviewing workability it does not matter if the patent works or not. Since the Government TAKES cash from the patent office where normally it gives money to various government offices it is encumbent on the patent office to move along patent requests as fast as possible and with as little work as possible to maintain the establishment and senior examiners salaries, of the latter there is very few., so that the department stays in business So to sum up, the patent office now review patent requests for grammatical duplication of "prior art" plus ensuring that the format of any new application meets regulations and to ensure that said application is placed in the correct pre-assigned grouping depending on its physics or intended use. Now some may argue against the above but this is how I see patents are dealt with at the present time. Art "Walter Maxwell" wrote in message .. . Sorry to hear that, Roy. I was very much involved with the RCA Patent Dept in my early years with RCA, 1949 to 1957. During that time the US Patent Office examiners were smart and tough. A patent used to be worth something. Walt On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:54:49 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote: Hate to break the news, Walt, but it happens very, very often. Even years ago, when I was doing some consulting work on a patent case and read a couple of hundred antenna patents, there was a great deal of pseudo- and voodoo-science in issued patents. These days, it's rampant. My favorite example is US patent #6,025,810, "Hyper-Light-Speed Antenna", but I'm sure even this is far from the most egregious. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Walter Maxwell wrote: I f there really is an issued patent on the EH antenna, the paragraph above is proof that the Patent Office examiner who approved the patent application for issuance was completely snowed by the applicant's patent attorney who wrote the application. This doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Unless the patent examiner is extremely well versed in electromagnetic theory he could easily be persuaded that the EH principle is valid, while it is not. Walt Maxwell, W2DU |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Walter Maxwell" wrote in message ... Art, you seem to know a lot of what's happening in the US Patent Office. How do you know this? Do you work there? Your 'insider-type' statements seem to say so. No I do not work there I am just stating how I see things in Crystal City. After I retired I did go thru the machinations of patent requests on a personal basis where I did everything by myself . This allowed me to discuss things directly with the PTO which is something you cannot do if you hire a representitive ( attorney ) or a part of a companyBy doing things this way you get a keener sense of what is going on and where the difference between a parallel circuit and a series circuit can be lost on the examiner. I have also been invited to PTO seminars where excuses have been made for irregular procedures because of money grabs by the government. I also had a meeting with a military patent attorney where he lamented about the lessening quality of examiners that took the easy way out of denying patent requests presumably because of efficiency drives and where the military attorney was forced to follow the costly appeal route with a more than 80% reversal success rate. You also now have the U.S. patent office dealing with World Patents so that even a simple "7" on a drawing with a slash on it (European style) can throw a patent into a unknown loop of uncertaincy. Ofcourse if you are a patent attorney you may well see things differently as it is your bread and butter and you recognise hitches ahead of time by knowing the ropes thru experience plus personal conversations with the PTO.as to obtaining a patent per present day aproaches which are very different from yesteryear.. This is how I personaly view things and it would appear from the media that many see the Patent Office as being in a hole from which it cannot extricate itself from given the present day litigation system. Mac is a professional in this field and may well provide insights that totally contradict my perceptions if he was so inclined. Art If what you said is happening there is true there has been a complete turn around in policy since I was knowledgeable in that area. You've described what seems to me to be fraudulent activity in the issuance of patents that have no value, and to use them in a court of law in an attempt for the patentee to obtain money is a mockery of the Patent System. I know there is nothing I can do about the situation, but I'm shocked to learn about it. Apparently this is what Roy was talking about in his previous post that answered mine. Walt, W2DU On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:21:53 GMT, " wrote: Examiners get a salary of $43,000 PER YEAR which is not much in Maryland. The majority of examiners have English as a second language and most have Asian or Vietnamese heritage. ( A look at the telephone directory of the department is quite an eye opener). They are also on a time schedule on how many patents that they must move along per hour. Since the Patent Office is a "cash cow" patents or "'prior art" have been put on computor record so that examiners can feed in a few salient words from the application and then forward the resulting computor patent matches to the new applicant so that he can defend against the grammar of"prior art" .This now means that the new applicant cannot "plagerise" a pre awarded patent grammatically. Since the patent office does not spend time researching physics or reviewing workability it does not matter if the patent works or not. Since the Government TAKES cash from the patent office where normally it gives money to various government offices it is encumbent on the patent office to move along patent requests as fast as possible and with as little work as possible to maintain the establishment and senior examiners salaries, of the latter there is very few., so that the department stays in business So to sum up, the patent office now review patent requests for grammatical duplication of "prior art" plus ensuring that the format of any new application meets regulations and to ensure that said application is placed in the correct pre-assigned grouping depending on its physics or intended use. Now some may argue against the above but this is how I see patents are dealt with at the present time. Art "Walter Maxwell" wrote in message .. . Sorry to hear that, Roy. I was very much involved with the RCA Patent Dept in my early years with RCA, 1949 to 1957. During that time the US Patent Office examiners were smart and tough. A patent used to be worth something. Walt On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:54:49 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote: Hate to break the news, Walt, but it happens very, very often. Even years ago, when I was doing some consulting work on a patent case and read a couple of hundred antenna patents, there was a great deal of pseudo- and voodoo-science in issued patents. These days, it's rampant. My favorite example is US patent #6,025,810, "Hyper-Light-Speed Antenna", but I'm sure even this is far from the most egregious. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Walter Maxwell wrote: I f there really is an issued patent on the EH antenna, the paragraph above is proof that the Patent Office examiner who approved the patent application for issuance was completely snowed by the applicant's patent attorney who wrote the application. This doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Unless the patent examiner is extremely well versed in electromagnetic theory he could easily be persuaded that the EH principle is valid, while it is not. Walt Maxwell, W2DU |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. | Antenna | |||
Mobile Ant L match ? | Antenna | |||
Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? | Antenna | |||
QST Article: An Easy to Build, Dual-Band Collinear Antenna | Antenna |