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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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:

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

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.