I have several patents issued to my name with US PTO. For Antennas. They are
not mine, technically. I made the innovations being a consultant to the
company, the company decided to patent it. My name is there but the patents
are theirs.

One patent is total nonsense. The design was original and practical, the
result went into production. Then I wrote a description, drew a diagram. I
discussed it with examiner who came over for that very purpose. The examiner
was an American, his English better then mine. I did not do the follow up -
left the company by that time. The resulting text has very little
resemblance to what I tried to say. It is clearly not what I made. It does
not make any sense to me. Moreover, I am not sure the described 'device' is
possible at all.

It was patented all right - anyone can see it on the Web now.

I show it to my friends sometimes, as object of curiosity.

Andrey




"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.

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

Thanks, Art, for the sad commentary.

Walt


On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 04:39:43 GMT, "
wrote:


"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

"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 :-)


"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.


Now that explanation is worth a patent all by itself! If "radiation does not
occur until a great distance from the antenna", just how does the energy
sneak out that great distance and suddenly manifest itself? Don't know about
your world, but I've been in the near field of a lot of antennas, and tissue
heating easily proved that they were radiating.

I believe the quote is:

"You want physics?"
"I think I'm entitled..."
"You want physics?!"
"I want the truth!"
"You can't handle physics!"


Anyway, patents and glib text are cheap (well, maybe not patents), but
far-field performance is the ultimate judge. Build me a couple of EH's, and
compare them to dipoles, say, mountain-top to mountain-top. Get 3rd party
witnessing, and publish. You know, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary
proof.

Ed
wb6wsn



Ed
wb6wsn

Art has invoked my name so the genie comes forth to tell a (short) story
somewhat simplified:

A client invented a useful device. Application was made. A long time
passed. Application was rejected in a communication that contained only
English words, but that was unintelligible. Efforts were made for
clarification. "Clarifications" were unintelligible. Client fell on hard
times and could no longer pay more than court fees. Another patent attorney
and I filed an appeal a significant part of which consisted of quotations
from PTO communications. (As in engineering, when doing really serious
stuff one wants a second opinion.) A panel of three of the most senior
judges held in our favor with a chastisement (to us) for a non-traditional
presentment. Examiner appealed. Another three judge panel again held for
our side and ordered the patent to be issued. Patent was issued some five
or six years after the start of this process. Someday, the client might
pay, but is under no obligation to do so and we have the satisfaction of
having done the right thing.

I do not think that things like this happened in the PTO in the "old"
days. All of those examiners could read and write in the English language.
Many, perhaps most, saw their time in the PTO as part of an apprenticeship
not as a job.

As an aside: I admonish you not to believe the characterizations you
see on TV.

73 Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:

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


Firstly, sorry for the 'e' in 'fraud' which does not belong there. In
fact, I asked for help from the hams' fraternity ('all the people know
all' ) - and in connection with the US PTO patent No. 6,486,846 B1,
issued on November 26, 2002 to Robert T. Hart. I live on the fifth floor
of a condominium building, and like many hams, I have no space on the
roof for a proper antenna. So, an EH-antenna would be ideal - if it
worked. I have not tried to build it yet, but I am trying to learn
about it as much as possible before that.

Obviously, my question has two aspects: a practical and a theoretical
one. The practical one: "The proof of a pie is in eating it." Has
anyone built it and can testify it is successful at least as much as a
standard dipole - according to the inventor's statements? I have not
found such an answer yet.

The theoretical one: My theoretical education in that field is rather
amateurish, but still I think I can put some questions: On the
EH-antenna homepage (http://EH-antenna.com) I found a statement that
in the classical dipole the E and the H fields are a result of a LINEAR
movement of electric charges, while those fields in the EH-antenna are
a result of the ROTATION of those charges - a feature unknown until now.
Nowhere in textbooks could I find any word about this possible
phenomenon. In science discoveries must be double confirmed at least,
but here this is not the case.

By the way, it was interesting to read that once an issued US Patent
was a guarantee that the patent at least worked, but today it
seems it is only a certificate that someone was the first to register
his idea or wouldbe invention. If so, I could even understand that,
because today the USPTO should have armies of different experts and
endless laboratories to test all the applications. However, it would
be fair to openly proclaim such a principle. In my country (Croatia) the
situation is similar. (The other day I read in the newspapers that
someone got a patent for superconductivity at normal temperatures
(through some alloys), although, to my knowledge, nobody saw it work.)
Imagine a coil without ohmic resistance, or long distance lines without
any losses!

I am still dreaming about an ideal antenna having not more than 10% of
wavelength and 100% efficiency. Thanks for all the posts, anyhow.

Bozidar, 9a2hl

I am still dreaming about an ideal antenna having not more than 10% of
wavelength and 100% efficiency. Thanks for all the posts, anyhow.

Bozidar, 9a2

Moderate/high efficiency with a 10% physical height is pretty easy to attain.
That's not an e/h antenna, as far as I am aware.


The e/h antenna appears to ignore the main point about Maxwell's equations:
changing fields generate changing fields. E' make B's and so on. You can't
separate a changing E field from its B field, and so on. Thus the premise is
wrong.

In a --very-- small volume (fraction of a radiansphere), any single current max
radiator is very inefficient. Similarly, any multiple current max radiator does
not exhibit constructive interference in the far field. That's the physics.
Antennas as a pure science are now an exhausted field.

73,
Chip N1IR

There is an antenna with dimensions as small as 1 / 70th ( 1.43 percent) of
a wavelength which has a radiating efficiency as high as 98.0 percent.

It is a vertical copper tube, 1 metre high (39.4 inches), 25.4 mm (1 inch)
in diameter, operating at 7 MHz.

It is only 0.86 dB worse than absolute perfection, equivalent to a loss of
only 1 / 70th of an S-unit.

It is more efficient than a very high half-wave resonant dipole, using 14
awg wire, at the same frequency. And uses a far smaller amount of expensive
copper.

Has anybody ever applied for a patent for such an antenna which has such an
outstanding performance? And did the Patent Examiner raise his eyebrows at
the claim?
----
Reg.

Reg Edwards wrote:

There is an antenna with dimensions as small as 1 / 70th ( 1.43 percent) of
a wavelength which has a radiating efficiency as high as 98.0 percent.

It is a vertical copper tube, 1 metre high (39.4 inches), 25.4 mm (1 inch)
in diameter, operating at 7 MHz.

It is only 0.86 dB worse than absolute perfection, equivalent to a loss of
only 1 / 70th of an S-unit.

It is more efficient than a very high half-wave resonant dipole, using 14
awg wire, at the same frequency. And uses a far smaller amount of expensive
copper.

Has anybody ever applied for a patent for such an antenna which has such an
outstanding performance? And did the Patent Examiner raise his eyebrows at
the claim?
----
Reg.



I don't know of any patents, but these "wonder antennas" are so
"efficient" because they use the feedline as a radiator. The feedline
is just terminated with a huge capacity. There is no magic to this -
it is just bad engineering. Good morning RFI!

Kind regards, Eike

they use the feedline as a radiator. The feedline
is just terminated with a huge capacity. There is no magic to this -
it is just bad engineering. Good morning RFI!

...and yet hams think the G5RV is a wonder antenna:-)

Radiating feedline is not bad engineering. Its one of many design options,
applicable in some circumstances.

73,
Chip N1IR

On 16 Oct 2004 13:07:25 GMT, (Fractenna) wrote:

I am still dreaming about an ideal antenna having not more than 10% of
wavelength and 100% efficiency. Thanks for all the posts, anyhow.

Bozidar, 9a2

Moderate/high efficiency with a 10% physical height is pretty easy to attain.
That's not an e/h antenna, as far as I am aware.


The e/h antenna appears to ignore the main point about Maxwell's equations:
changing fields generate changing fields. E' make B's and so on. You can't
separate a changing E field from its B field, and so on. Thus the premise is
wrong.

In a --very-- small volume (fraction of a radiansphere), any single current max
radiator is very inefficient. Similarly, any multiple current max radiator does
not exhibit constructive interference in the far field. That's the physics.
Antennas as a pure science are now an exhausted field.

73,
Chip N1IR

As I understand the theory behind Hart's 'EH' antenna, he believes that if the E
and H fields in the radiator are somehow caused to be out of phase the radiation
will be greater. We all know that when an RF voltage is applied to a conductor,
such as a single-wire antenna (the radiator), a corresponding current flows in
the radiator. We also know that the current flow produces both electric and
magnetic fields, and the crucial point in this is that the E and H fields are
inherently IN PHASE in time, but in space quadrature (90° apart). Physical laws
of nature as determined by Faraday and Ampere, and finalized by JC Maxwell, show
that the E and H fields are immutably etched in time phase, and nothing in the
feed configuration can alter that relationship.

Now along comes Hart, who says he can alter that relationship by inserting an
inductance in series with the radiator, which he says delays the current 90°
behind the voltage, and thus the H field is delayed 90° behind the E field.

I haven't read the claims in his patent, only the fiction appearing on his web
page, but if the claims reflect his misguided, and invalid theory about altering
the relationship between the E and H fields propagating along a radiating
element, the US Patent Office has established a new theory of electromagnetics
that contradicts Faraday, Ampere, and JC Maxwell.

What are we to do? Somehow we must fire the SOB's at the PTO.

Walt, W2DU

PS--don't you find it ironic that when radiation measurements are taken in the
far field the measured power already relates directly to the power delivered to
the radiator? Then if Hart's version radiates more power than the standard
radiator, where does his extra power come from. Looks like he's invented a new
version of the perpetual motion machine. After all, it's patented, isn't it? So
it's gotta' work.