Gentlemen
! promised in the past that I would make details of my antenna
available to you in September, something I am not able to do now
My initial patent request at the moment is in the rejection mode.
Like many others of this group the PTO do not recognise the importance
of equilibrium with respect to the classical form of physics. In fact
they state that all can be pre anticipated as there are many antennas
that fall under such a scheme of things.
In addition, they are asking for changes to a drawing that does
not exist, either in my records or the web pre printed application.
Obviously they are in a pre mode rejection approach since I cannot
possibly accede to their request. Thus, in turn, I cannot release the
antenna replication information because of their actions with respect
to equilibrium .
I know that some will cry fraud but there is nothing I can do about
it.
I spoke to a patent attorney for the military who tells me that most
military
patent requests are initially rejected but they are easily reversed if
one
took on the labor of a beurocratic appeal for which I do not have the
funds or inclination.
The first patent request on this subject is on the web as Patent #
2008
655,899 I think, where Fig 3 is a computer info print out and not
accompanied by any such drawing which I am required to add to. If the
PTO changes its stance on equilibrium I will, of course, proceed with
sharing my antenna design work.
I expect that this posting will provide cat calls and insults but I
have been placed into a impossible position. If the patent office is
correct that all
shown is declared as obviouse then somebody, some day, will share with
the rest of the World and we all will be privy to much smaller antenna
designs.
If the past century can be seen as a guide I and many of you will be
long gone before this journey is repeated again.

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

The first patent request on this subject is on the web as Patent #
2008
655,899

Methinks these are yours:

Constant impedance matching system
http://www.google.com/patents?id=hCMpAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,790,081

Variable capacitance antenna for multiband reception and transmission
http://www.google.com/patents?id=GEsbAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,625,367

Push button arranged for mounting to a panel
http://www.google.com/patents?id=qaY3AAAAEBAJ

Push button assembly
http://www.google.com/patents?id=YF0tAAAAEBAJ

Any more that I missed?
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Aug 30, 1:57*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
The first patent request on this subject is on the web as Patent #
2008
655,899

Methinks these are yours:

Constant impedance matching system
http://www.google.com/patents?id=hCMpAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,790,081

Variable capacitance antenna for multiband reception and transmission
http://www.google.com/patents?id=GEsbAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,625,367

Push button arranged for mounting to a panel
http://www.google.com/patents?id=qaY3AAAAEBAJ

Push button assembly
http://www.google.com/patents?id=YF0tAAAAEBAJ

Any more that I missed?
--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

Yes, they are mine in this country but I am talking about
2008 when I applied for the subject antenna

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Aug 30, 1:57*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
The first patent request on this subject is on the web as Patent #
2008
655,899

Methinks these are yours:

Constant impedance matching system
http://www.google.com/patents?id=hCMpAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,790,081

Variable capacitance antenna for multiband reception and transmission
http://www.google.com/patents?id=GEsbAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,625,367

Push button arranged for mounting to a panel
http://www.google.com/patents?id=qaY3AAAAEBAJ

Push button assembly
http://www.google.com/patents?id=YF0tAAAAEBAJ

Any more that I missed?

Yes, they are mine in this country but I am talking about
2008 when I applied for the subject antenna

Well, the only application I could find with 655,899 in it is a seat
belt buckle. I thought I was being helpful by reminding you of some
of the numbers. Numbers are always a nice thing to have. Do try to
recall your application number so I can look it up.

As for your difficulties with the USPTO, I have no idea what you're
talking about. If you need help obtaining a patent, the very last
place I would ask is the military. All their patents tend to become
classified, even if they're trivial. Unless your patent has some
obvious military significance, such as a plasma antenna, don't bother
with the military. If you go to NASA, they'll want the rights to sell
licenses for the technology:
http://technology.arc.nasa.gov/partnering/licensing.cfm

It's not terribly difficult to get a patent on your own:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/howtopat.htm
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-29493.html
http://www.ehow.com/how_4441109_get-patent.html
and the usual YouTube videos:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&source=hp&q=how+to+get+a+patent
in 20 parts at about 9 min each.

There's even fill in the blank software to make the necessary
documentation and drawings easier:
http://www.inventorprise.com
http://www.patentpro.us

If you can't get patent protection, you can manufacture your antenna
and protect the technology as a trade secret. However, that's very
difficult with antennas, as they're easily reverse engineered and
analyzed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret
Hmmmm.... are you planning to manufacture and sell your antenna?


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Aug 30, 7:02*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin



wrote:
On Aug 30, 1:57*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
The first patent request on this subject is on the web as Patent #
2008
655,899

Methinks these are yours:

Constant impedance matching system
http://www.google.com/patents?id=hCMpAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,790,081

Variable capacitance antenna for multiband reception and transmission
http://www.google.com/patents?id=GEsbAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,625,367

Push button arranged for mounting to a panel
http://www.google.com/patents?id=qaY3AAAAEBAJ

Push button assembly
http://www.google.com/patents?id=YF0tAAAAEBAJ

Any more that I missed?
Yes, they are mine in this country but I am talking about
2008 when I applied for the subject antenna

Well, the only application I could find with 655,899 in it is a seat
belt buckle. *I thought I was being helpful by reminding you of some
of the numbers. *Numbers are always a nice thing to have. *Do try to
recall your application number so I can look it up.
You are different, you are polite
Yes I will supply the patent request number and the subject is well
discussed on this group.
The bottom line is that the PTO does not recognize the term
equilibrium the same as most of this group. From my education a theory
is only that until it satisfies the laws of Newton
and Maxwell. The boundary laws are such that with classical physics
all laws deal with the Cosmos as a whole where balance or equilibrium
reins supreme. There is no law in existence that is accepted without
conforming to boundary laws which goes back to Newtonian laws. Now
equilibrium and boundary rules do not occupy the curriculum in the
U.S. I cannot explain why but this group and the PTO subscribe to the
idea that equilibrium has no position in this Universe, that I have to
accept even tho commercial computer programs based on Maxwell provide
confirmation of my findings. I can move on,no sweat







As for your difficulties with the USPTO, I have no idea what you're
talking about. *If you need help obtaining a patent, the very last
place I would ask is the military. *All their patents tend to become
classified, even if they're trivial. *Unless your patent has some
obvious military significance, such as a plasma antenna, don't bother
with the military. *If you go to NASA, they'll want the rights to sell
licenses for the technology:
http://technology.arc.nasa.gov/partnering/licensing.cfm

It's not terribly difficult to get a patent on your own:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/howtopat.htm
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-29493.html
http://www.ehow.com/how_4441109_get-patent.html
and the usual YouTube videos:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&source=hp&q=how+to+get+a+pa...
in 20 parts at about 9 min each.

There's even fill in the blank software to make the necessary
documentation and drawings easier:
http://www.inventorprise.com
http://www.patentpro.us

If you can't get patent protection, you can manufacture your antenna
and protect the technology as a trade secret. *However, that's very
difficult with antennas, as they're easily reverse engineered and
analyzed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret
Hmmmm.... are you planning to manufacture and sell your antenna?


The PTO is losing examiners faster than it can replace them and this
is showing.
I want ham radio to serve those who are not equipted to join the
group. If I apply for a patent and thus reveal my findings and the
patent office does its thing then amateurs will gain by it but the
wolves are then able to take all. On this group there is denial of a
better way which is an obsticle all patent owners have to face so it
is better for me to stay silent and wait for a better environment to
provide my antennas. I have antennas that are way smaller than present
even a directive rotatable top band antenna and I am content as are
others I have shared with. While equilibrium in physics are disparaged
in the U.S. sciences
then I must be content with what I have! And I am as others are in the
denial of its possible existance.
Regards
Art




--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Yes, they are mine in this country but I am talking about
2008 when I applied for the subject antenna

Foundit. It's not on Google Patents for some odd reason.
See: Application Number 11/655899 or 20080231540 at:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2 FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=655899&OS=655899&R S=655899
Sorry about the giant URL. If that wraps or doesn't work, try:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html
and type in either application number. If you're going to refer to
your patent application by number, don't forget the 11/ prefix.

For some odd reason, I can't see the five attached figures. Probably
my fault (or Quicktime).

I suspect you may have some problems with claim 3.
"3. A clustered array according to claim 1 where the radiating
elements of said cluster have random three dimensional Cartesian
directional positions of placement with respect to each other and the
surface of the earth."

I don't think you can patent a random collection of elements as it
would be classed as too broad a claim. That would encompass all
antennas that were NOT designed according to non-random calculations.
While the use of randomness is possible (and common) in patents, I've
noticed that they always disclose the method by which the randomness
is achieved.

I would be interesting in seeing a photo, NEC2 deck, and test results
for your random element antenna. Take you time, no hurry.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Aug 30, 8:44*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
Yes, they are mine in this country but I am talking about
2008 when I applied for the subject antenna

Foundit. *It's not on Google Patents for some odd reason.
See: *Application Number 11/655899 *or *20080231540 *at:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1...
Sorry about the giant URL. *If that wraps or doesn't work, try:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html
and type in either application number. *If you're going to refer to
your patent application by number, don't forget the 11/ prefix. *

For some odd reason, I can't see the five attached figures. *Probably
my fault (or Quicktime).

I suspect you may have some problems with claim 3.
"3. A clustered array according to claim 1 where the radiating
elements of said cluster have random three dimensional Cartesian
directional positions of placement with respect to each other and the
surface of the earth."

I don't think you can patent a random collection of elements as it
would be classed as too broad a claim. *That would encompass all
antennas that were NOT designed according to non-random calculations.
While the use of randomness is possible (and common) in patents, I've
noticed that they always disclose the method by which the randomness
is achieved.

I would be interesting in seeing a photo, NEC2 deck, and test results
for your random element antenna. *Take you time, no hurry.

The PTO has offered alternative claims but after trashing the request
such an offer would not stand up in court. True a lot of people are
just interested in saying they have a patent
but I am not willing to pay maintenance fees for something that does
not provide protection.
The killer of course is the allegation that I have not placed numbers
on a drawing which does not exist or was submitted from me. There is
no oversight or redress from an examiners descision and no discussion
available since he is not fluent in spoken English so time will run
out and it will be declared abandoned. Walter Cronkite had the phrase
that deals with such situations. By the way I use a program that uses
Mininec as well as being an optimizer. I did have a academic in the
antenna field confirm that my discovery was correct and provided NEC4
proofs which is what PTO accepts as a basic of proof. I got this
confirmation not because I doubted what I had but it is the thing all
engineers should do.
So my work will sleep with me at night and never see the light of day
and hams can feel they have lost nothing. At present I have no
antennas left to operate on.


--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

Art Unwin wrote:
snip
The bottom line is that the PTO does not recognize the term
equilibrium the same as most of this group.

I wonder why that is? Maybe something to do with reality?

tom
K0TAR

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

snip

The boundary laws are such that with classical
physics all laws deal with the Cosmos as a whole
where balance or equilibrium reins supreme.



What about the notion of entropy in a closed system? No balance there.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...


snip

I spoke to a patent attorney for the military

What person is this?

I ask because the phrase "military patent attorney" produced no results at
Google. The phrase "patent attorney for the military " produces exactly one
result: your post using the phrase.

Why involve the military at all?

I ask because the military doesn't buy from individuals. It buys from
companies. Your antenna, whatever its ability to inspire wonderment (or
not), will be developed and produced by a company that acquires rights to
your eventual patent. (I have a passing acquaintance with military
procurements, having worked on all three sides of that triangle: 21 years
active military, 20 years defense contractor and five years Civil Service,
including training for procurement.)