On Sep 1, 2:09*pm, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Guys you are forgeting that it meets the metric of equilibrium thus
the arrangements that are random are only acceptable if they meet the
uniqueness ( see above) of being in equilibrium.

Then I would have said "place in a position of equilibrium" and not used
the word random at all. There is a very big difference between random
and equilibrium. If something is placed randomly, e.g. dropped on the floor,
and moves to a position of equilibrium it is no longer randomly placed.

I am glad that others see the difficulty I have been placed even tho
the method of equilibrium has been shown that is repeatable for others
to follow.

That sentence alone disputes your claim of randomness. If a system can be
set up in equilibrium in a repeatable method, then there is no randomness
in the system. There may be more than one optimal point, but that is not
the same as a random one.

Are you trying to patent the device, i.e. an antenna consisiting of elements
in equilibrium, or a method of placing elements in as seemingly random way
to achieve equilibrium?

The examiner has supplied some claims that he sees as
acceptable but as he is foreign born, his thoughts, as with mine, may
not hold up to challenge in the U.S.

That's how I found out that choosing a patent agent who charged us $3500
to write patent applications and then $3500 to chalenge a rejection was
worthless because in the end we did not get the patents. If we had
hired the "best in the country" at $600 an hour, we would of had our
patents.

Now we have nothing except rejected applications which while they bear our
names, they do not have the name of the patent agent we hired on them at all.

In all other countries intent is
acceptable as law is based on the intent of the lawwhen made. In the
US the problem is way different where the intent is established by the
words the intent of which depend on the times and the envinment which
is why there is a need for more lawyers than any where else.

No, that is why there are courts. Almost every country has them.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM

Courts are for applying the law of the land. In the U.S. laws are made
that cannot be enforced in the courts. In the UK the intent of any
initial law must be established and approved by the justices in the
House of Lords before it becomes the law of the land.
If the US Supreme Court did the same thing thousands of lawyers in the
land would be out of a job since the law is the law where intent has
been pre provided such that lawyers have very little work to do Or
even to argue about the intent of the law at hand. This allows for
separation of Church and State so that aparthide does not take place
and democracy is retained. The moment church is not separated a single
church then becomes dominant in the land where its edicts thus reign
supreme, which is a real problem if nearby Countries adopt a different
religion such that conflict reigns and where neither are willing to
abandon their faith to that of the unbelievers.