How can this be?
W4JLE
particularly when you have stated here in the newsgroup and in your white
paper that Yagi's are fractals as well. In fact, have you not stated that
any random antenna is a fractal? How did you get around the "prior art"?
I
"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001002140653...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> >Microstrip fractal patch antenna for multi-band
> >communication
> >
> >Hara Prasad, R.V.; Purushottam, Y.; Misra, V.C.; Ashok,N.
> >
> >Defense Electronics Research Lab, Hyderabad, India
> >
> >Abstract
> >
> >A novel square microstrip fractal patch antenna in a
> >Sierpinski carpet is proposed for three-band operation.
> >Measured results indicate that the return loss is better
> >than 10 dB and that the gain is greater than 7 dB in
> >each band. This antenna is an attractive candidate for
> >wireless, satellite and mobile communication
> >applications. [Author abstract; 6 Refs; In English]
> >
> >Index Terms: Microstrip antennas; Fractals; Wireless
> >telecommunication systems; Satellite communication
> >systems; Mobile telecommunication systems; Microstrip
> >fractal patch antennas
> >
> >
> >Electronics Letters
> >Volume 36, Issue 14 2000
> >Pages 1179-1180
> >
> >--
> >Posted from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]
> >via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
> >
>
> As of tomorrow, said descriptions are covered by patent.
>
> With best regards,
>
> Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.
Richard Clark
>I am somewhat curious as to how you can patent a fractal antenna,
>particularly when you have stated here in the newsgroup and in your white
>paper that Yagi's are fractals as well. In fact, have you not stated that
>any random antenna is a fractal? How did you get around the "prior art"?
Hi OM,
You are probably under a false assumption as to "what" is patented
(read the claims - the only content that counts). After all, this
patent you speak of is NOT a design patent (that would protect a
particular form), but is rather a method patent (that protects how
something is done).
There is no one here practicing that art by any stretch of the
imagination. I can't imagine why anyone would, either - especially at
HF.
You will note that once the patent issued, the claims of "possible"
infringement dropped to ZERO and the bogus notion of copyright moved
into its place in this wobbly logic. That was why it was so amusing
that I "might" be subject to legal action (as we all "might" be if we
live long enough - duh, sure and as Ed McMahon would say "you may
already be a winner!").
For other amusing insight, compare the statements made before and
after publication by the Patent Office. It certainly appears the
patentee hadn't a clue as to what was in the patent, what was
protected, or what the coverage was. You may see pictures of several
familiar fractal forms, but NONE of them has been patented by Fragile
Antennas in this last round - only a method to tune them. I will
stick with EZNEC to perform this loathsome chore. The publication was
a tremendously boring non-event.
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Yuri Blanarovich
>
>I am somewhat curious as to how you can patent a fractal antenna,
>particularly when you have stated here in the newsgroup and in your white
>paper that Yagi's are fractals as well. In fact, have you not stated that
>any random antenna is a fractal? How did you get around the "prior art"?
The fract is that Clintonistas "streamlined" the patent laws to the point that
one can get patent for any garbage (just read the incoherent freaky patent) and
then it is up to the patentee to defend it in the court. (Thank you lawyers for
your election fund contributions!) Just like Clinton vetoed the law on limiting
frivolous law suit "rewards".
The dismantling of America continues. Give your hard drives to Chinese, you
will "find" them behind the copier.
Standby for more crap.
Yuri
Tom W8JI
I have excluded you from my filter, so this is the first F-word post I
have seen in a week. I have a question.
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 19:41:23 GMT, rwc...@seanet.com (Richard Clark)
wrote:
>protected, or what the coverage was. You may see pictures of several
>familiar fractal forms, but NONE of them has been patented by Fragile
>Antennas in this last round - only a method to tune them. I will
>stick with EZNEC to perform this loathsome chore. The publication was
>a tremendously boring non-event.
That was my conclusion also. The patent essentially said if you place
one fractal thing in front of another and rotate it or alter the
length of wires, it might be used to "tune" the system in a few
non-amazing ways.
I couldn't find any other claim.
I suspect if someone wanted to tune an antenna that way, the whole
patent could easily be tossed out. Mutual coupling effects are well
known, and have been for years.
IMO, it is another one of these nuisance patents designed to be a fake
feather in the cap of the holder or a slight thorn in the side of
someone who wants to use what is an obvious system of tuning.
It was a method of tuning that was patented, nothing more. Unless I
missed something in all the technobabble. Has anyone else found
anything other than this one single claim?
73 Tom
Fractenna
Hi Tom!
I believe the phrase is 'patent pending'. Do you understand what that means? Or
you under the impression that a new technology may only be awarded one patent?
Actually, it's PATENTS and patents pending.
Hope that helps. If not, please consult a patent attorney as I find many
incorrect statements in your comments, even here.
73
Chip n1IR
Richard Clark
wrote:
Hi Tom,
All claims appear to be bloated and ambiguous except to a lawyer
(something about an ugly child only a mother could love). I speak
from the experience of having some 300+ claims allowed among my 5
patents and having had to read more than one action to dismiss, and
then writing appeals. The key factor to this fractal patent list of
claims is found in the first one, which through the successive claims
is constrained and reduced in scope for this patent (not remarkably
written either). In effect, there is only one claim with
subordinating clauses for a process to tune an antenna. Not much to
speak of. I would suggest my own patents for pointers, but I hesitate
to impose that soporific on anyone.
If you read the text and read the claims you will notice a disconnect
between the two. Simple fact of the matter is that the original
claims (suggested by the textual content) have NOT survived and the
review process whittled down the application to the method now
patented. This is, no doubt, a source of great disappointment for the
patentee. My original patents probably totaled 1000 claims (easy to
lose track when the Patent Office sends you a final notice of
rejection four or five times for each application - ah! the process of
appeal, what a game). The difference is that my text and
illustrations probably exhibit more coherence with the surviving
claims than most patents (it takes the master's hand to accomplish
this).
In general, the text and the images are of no particular merit, except
where the images are referenced specifically in the claims. Many
naive readers would assume that upon seeing those familiar fractal
designs, that those same images and their application as antennas were
covered by the patent publication. NOPE, NADA, NOT IN YOUR LIFETIME.
This would not be possible as those topics were revealed here in this
forum more than 2 years before the patent was applied for. Many of
these images where published at my various web sites more than 4 years
ago. This created prior art which now disallows the patentability for
anyone. I would suggest that being demanded to provide notice that
the design elements were "patent pending" are now exposed to have been
a fraudulent statement (base stupidity works as a defense - maybe).
But to be fair, I am sure that upon examination of the exact
statements made, these were inferences (as much of that correspondence
is), with the ambiguity leveraged to present the illusion of legal
authority.
Another point, you can LOSE your patent if you are aware of
infringement and fail to act (and act means more than posting a
"notice" :-> to a newsgroup).
And yes, I have consulted a patent attorney, my partner. He smiles
and informally extends his regrets to the aggrieved party. He is one
sharp dude who averages 4 times the claims as the patent we are
currently considering. He is the one with the master's touch. Claims
are the asset - nothing else.
Tom W8JI
wrote:
><snip>
>And yes, I have consulted a patent attorney, my partner. He smiles
>and informally extends his regrets to the aggrieved party. He is one
>sharp dude who averages 4 times the claims as the patent we are
>currently considering. He is the one with the master's touch. Claims
>are the asset - nothing else.
>
>73's
>Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Several others have e-mailed me suggesting exactly the same thing
Richard.
Seems like nearly everyone is in agreement.
73 Tom
Roy Lewallen
although they differ only very slightly from each other, and both deal
with a method of tuning.
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
Tom W8JI wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I have excluded you from my filter, so this is the first F-word post I
> have seen in a week. I have a question.
>
J. Mc Laughlin
site has it posted. The last one is 6,104,349.
Regards, Mac
--
J. Mc Laughlin n8...@tir.com Michigan ~
Dick Carroll
Richard Clark wrote:
Dick Carroll
on this "type" olf antenna or just what is mentioned here, questionable that
it is?
Dick
Roy Lewallen
(6,104,349), and just within the last couple of days, number 6,127,977,
for an implementation of a fractal microstrip (patch) antenna. Saying a
patent is for a type of antenna is almost always misleading. A patent
covers only, and exactly, what is described in the claims (and
modifications which are "obvious to one skilled in the art", as
interpreted by a court as necessary). To see what a patent is for, you
have to read the claims. You can look at these and other U.S. patents at
http://www.uspto.gov.
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
Richard Clark
>On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 22:31:15 GMT, rwc...@seanet.com (Richard Clark)
>wrote:
>><snip>
>>And yes, I have consulted a patent attorney, my partner. He smiles
>>and informally extends his regrets to the aggrieved party. He is one
>>sharp dude who averages 4 times the claims as the patent we are
>>currently considering. He is the one with the master's touch. Claims
>>are the asset - nothing else.
>>
>>73's
>>Richard Clark, KB7QHC
>
>Several others have e-mailed me suggesting exactly the same thing
>Richard.
>
>Seems like nearly everyone is in agreement.
>
>73 Tom
Hi Tom,
I was sure there would be some dissenting voice to confound your accuracy.
I was wrong.
Everyone is in agreement!
This thread is closed ;->
Bill Aycock
antenna patent, but , according to the claims, it is severely limited.
As an example, unless I am reading it wrong, it only covers antennas
having conductive material on BOTH sides of a substrate. Any antenna on
only one surface, or of wire, is not even related.
The additional discussion covers LOTs of things, but, as has been
pointed out, the claims are all that defines anything. There is some
discussion in there that highlights the recent failed claims regarding
the possibility of making a small antenna that beats the fractal
version. (the failure being of the fractal version), and at least one
claim concerned with the perimeter of the fractal that is obviously
false.
It appears, from the list of abandoned claims, that what he got aint
what he thought.
Bill-W4BSG
Bill
W4JLE wrote:
>
> I am somewhat curious as to how you can patent a fractal antenna,
> particularly when you have stated here in the newsgroup and in your white
> paper that Yagi's are fractals as well. In fact, have you not stated that
> any random antenna is a fractal? How did you get around the "prior art"?
>
Roy Lewallen
> . . .
> It appears, from the list of abandoned claims, that what he got aint
> what he thought.
And this is one of several reasons why pending patents don't "cover"
anything or otherwise carry any legal weight. You never know what's
actually going to be patented until, and if, the patent issues.
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
Fractenna
Fractal element antennas are patented and patent pending.
My experience with other inventors is that when they write a highly documented
and expansive application, and have a finite set of claims for that given
patent, there are likely to be many, many other patents to follow which capture
other pieces of that description.
If not, then the patent constitutes a publication and thus prior art--which
prevents others from obtaining patents on that subject.
As to fractal antennas, there does not exist a non-fractal design that beats
the MI2.
I will announce the FRACTAL ANTENNA CHALLENGE results shortly.
Hope this helps.
73,
Chip N1IR
Dick Carroll
AFTER and only after a pantent is issued - IF and only if it is issued
following all the investigation, serving as notice to all that the inquiry
is in progress?
Not only that, is there anything that makes it a fraudulant activity of
claiming that certain features are "patent pending" when they are not even
a part of the claims?
Dick
Roy Lewallen wrote:
> Bill Aycock wrote:
> > . . .
> > It appears, from the list of abandoned claims, that what he got aint
> > what he thought.
>
Dick Carroll
form of a damages suit, and maybe harassment, for falsely claiming
infringement or threatening others with action against their use of
material that an alleged patentee claims to have under patent or pending,
when it was not a valid or even claimed part of any patent application?
Looks to me like a certain Piddly Hippee Dee who reguarly posts here is
operating under the old saw that the best defense is the first offense.
Wonder when it'll all blow up in his face.
Dick
Roy Lewallen wrote:
> Bill Aycock wrote:
> > . . .
> > It appears, from the list of abandoned claims, that what he got aint
> > what he thought.
>
CAM
> As to fractal antennas, there does not exist a non-fractal design that beats
> the MI2.
How about a seven element Yagi? ;-)
--
http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
Yuri Blanarovich
>
>Fractenna wrote:
>> As to fractal antennas, there does not exist a non-fractal design that
>beats
>> the MI2.
>
>How about a seven element Yagi? ;-)
>--
>http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
>
>
>
>
7 el Yagi is Fractal too. Everything is, don't you get it by now. It is
patented, patent pending, or considered to be patented. All antennas belong to
Freak, any publicity, reproduction or even pictures are ferbotten!
7 el. Yagi is fairly straight fractal, as soon as you have one bent in the
antenna, it is Fractal Antenna Systems's property.
This threat is closet!
Another incoherent patent, referring to abandoned patent applications that
cover anything from DC to light. What's next? Method of looking at the
Fractals?
Sad and pathetic, and he don't get it, and looks like never will.
bada BUm
Richard Clark
>Not only that, is there anything that makes it a fraudulant activity of
>claiming that certain features are "patent pending" when they are not even
>a part of the claims?
>
>Dick
Hi Dick,
Yes. But in this case no contract was entered into, except the moral
contract of civil behavior and the Amateur code of open technical
discussion.
No fraud was committed - except against that same moral contract, the
standards of scientific enquiry, and OUR code.
W4JLE
to be a fractal. Now let's see if you have enough integrity to admit that
Steve's designs beat the M12.
"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001005080816...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
As to fractal antennas, there does not exist a non-fractal design that beats
> the MI2.
>
Fractenna
1)
Please publicly quote where I have said:" all antennas are fractal". This is a
prevarication from you;
2) No one named "Steve" submitted an entry.
73
Chip N1IR
W4JLE
expressed in the troll.
"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001006042455...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
Rick Littlefield
the MI2.<
Finally got a look at Steve's files and read the commentary regarding
alternative geometries to the MI2. The first thing I noted was Steve's decision
to make the two high-current portions of the loop straight and optimally
separated. Good move!
In the case of loop #3, significantly more wire was needed to resonate
the loop, but--ironically--the resultant resistive losses appear to have worked
in Steve's favor. He obtained a higher feedpoint impedance (41.4 ohms) and
improved bandwidth (2.14%), while paying no appreciable penalty in gain.
Now, here's a puzzler. Why was there no gain penalty?? If Steve's #3 loop
showed gain equal to the MI2 while simultaneously exhibiting significantly
higher wire losses, doesn't that prove the MI2 shape is LESS effective as a
radiator than a quad using straight and optimally separated conductors in the
highest-current segments of the antenna?
Same signal strength, twice the bandwidth, and connected directly to your
50-ohm rig without matching loss. Go figure?
By way of history, two-dimensional loading schemes for the quad loop are
nothing new. Andy Pfeiffer, K1KLO, built a linear-loaded 12-meter quad around
10 years ago. Not long after, Paul Carr, N4PC,
authored the "Squad", a 17-meter linear-loaded quad with 10-meter dimensions in
the early 90's for CQ.
Prior to building the two-element version, Paul built an experimental single
quad loop yielding a near 50-ohm feedpoint and modeling less than 1-dB down
from full size. Paul used a diamond-quad shape fed at its base and loaded by
four-wire meander lines extending inward from each of the two horizontal
corners. He claimed +5 dBd gain (calculated) for his two-element "Squad".
Rick K1BQT
Fractenna
>the MI2.<
>
Sure seems to be the case.
>Finally got a look at Steve's files and read the commentary regarding
>alternative geometries to the MI2. The first thing I noted was Steve's
>decision
>to make the two high-current portions of the loop straight and optimally
>separated. Good move!
>
>In the case of loop #3, significantly more wire was needed to resonate
>the loop, but--ironically--the resultant resistive losses appear to have
>worked
>in Steve's favor. He obtained a higher feedpoint impedance (41.4 ohms) and
>improved bandwidth (2.14%), while paying no appreciable penalty in gain.
>
What were his ohmic losses?
>Now, here's a puzzler. Why was there no gain penalty??
Because the ohmic losses were low I bet. Even I know that.
If Steve's #3 loop
>showed gain equal to the MI2 while simultaneously exhibiting significantly
>higher wire losses, doesn't that prove the MI2 shape is LESS effective as a
>radiator than a quad using straight and optimally separated conductors in the
>highest-current segments of the antenna?
Do you know what MI2 means? There are lotsa MI2 shapes. This statement of your
is wrong.
>
>Same signal strength, twice the bandwidth, and connected directly to your
>50-ohm rig without matching loss. Go figure?
I have an MI2 here with an impedance of 52 ohms with j1.0 according to the MFJ
thingie.
>
>By way of history, two-dimensional loading schemes for the quad loop are
>nothing new.
I hope not!
Andy Pfeiffer, K1KLO, built a linear-loaded 12-meter quad
>around
>10 years ago.
Too big. Bad match. See Chip's patents. If this quad was so good then Chip
wouldn't have used it as an incentive to show people something better.
Not long after, Paul Carr, N4PC,
>authored the "Squad", a 17-meter linear-loaded quad with 10-meter dimensions
>in
>the early 90's for CQ.
Too big.
>
>Prior to building the two-element version, Paul built an experimental single
>quad loop yielding a near 50-ohm feedpoint and modeling less than 1-dB down
>from full size.
Chip matches things to 50 ohms all the time. Big deal. Waszat gotta do with
Chip's FRACTAL ANTENNA CHALLENGE? Wasn't Paul Carr the guy you Comm Quat folks
paid to write junk science articles?
Paul used a diamond-quad shape fed at its base and loaded by
>four-wire meander lines extending inward from each of the two horizontal
>corners. He claimed +5 dBd gain (calculated) for his two-element "Squad".
Wicked cool!
You still haven't been able to show Chip's statement is wrong. Why? Because
he's right.
>
>Rick K1BQT
>
73
Phil
de N1ZKT
Rick Littlefield
Second-iteration Minkowski Island, off the top of my head and without bothering
to look it up. Even bent up a couple of them awhile back.
>There are lotsa MI2 shapes.<
I'm familiar with one MI2 shape.
>This statement of your is wrong.<
Are you referring to my puzzler? Perhaps someone will jump in and straighten
me out. I'm having a little problem with AYEM modulation at the moment, too,
but I'm making progress.
>I have an MI2 here with an impedance of 52 ohms with j1.0 according to the MFJ
thingie.<
Have we seen that one? I hope you're not holding out on us.
>Wasn't Paul Carr the guy you Comm Quat folks paid to write junk science
articles?<
That would be Joe Carr, a somewhat more widely-known and internationally famous
professional writer who also gives excellent seminars to industrial and
government procurement specialists on how to spot bullshit artists and
flim-flam in the technological marketplace. Not to take anything away from
Paul, of course, who's built some nifty antennas, writes well, teaches
electronic theory, and is a great guy with an active interest in QRP.
>You still haven't been able to show Chip's statement is wrong.<
Well, no big thing. But, if you see him, please let him know I'll try to give
it some more thought!
Rick K1BQT
Ian White, G3SEK
>
>By way of history, two-dimensional loading schemes for the quad loop are
>10 years ago. Not long after, Paul Carr, N4PC,
>the early 90's for CQ.
>
>quad loop yielding a near 50-ohm feedpoint and modeling less than 1-dB down
>four-wire meander lines extending inward from each of the two horizontal
>corners. He claimed +5 dBd gain (calculated) for his two-element "Squad".
>
It goes back a long way further than that. Sometime back in the 1960s
(or maybe even earlier) G3IMX devised a quad element for 14MHz that was
the size of a 21MHz element. The loading was capacitive at the high-
impedance points.
Imagine a square element, fed at the bottom. The two loading wires that
bring the resonance down to 14MHz run parallel to each vertical leg of
the loop, inside the loop. At each side, a short jumper wire connects
the mid-points of the two vertical wires. The lengths of the two loading
wires adjust the resonance.
G3IMX's clever trick was to insert a 21MHz trap in the jumper wires, to
make a true dual-band element. The loop was self-resonant on 21MHz, and
the loading kicked in on 14MHz. A full-size 10m element could then be
nested inside. This idea was patented, and maybe G3IMX sold plans or
parts, but as far as I know it was never published in a magazine.
73 from Ian G3SEK Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.com/g3sek
CAM
> It goes back a long way further than that. Sometime back in the 1960s
> (or maybe even earlier) G3IMX devised a quad element for 14MHz that was
> the size of a 21MHz element. The loading was capacitive at the high-
> impedance points.
I've done a similiar thing for 20m/17m operation. The quad reflector
element is sized such that a fixed open-wire stub can be either shorted
or opened by a relay. Open it's capacitive and resonates on 17m and shorted
it's inductive and resonates on 20m. The driven element is simply fed with
open-wire feedline on both 17m or 20m. The result is a dual band quad
beam.
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
Reg Edwards
evenings. QTH = Isle of Wight. Very strong signals. Always
available for technical old-times rag-chew.
----
Reg, G4FGQ.
==============================
Ian wrote -
> It goes back a long way further than that. Sometime back
in the 1960s
> (or maybe even earlier) G3IMX devised a quad element for
14MHz that was
> the size of a 21MHz element. The loading was capacitive at
the high-
> impedance points.
>
Ian White, G3SEK
>G3IMX is frequently on 160m, 1930 kHz, very late in the
>evenings. QTH = Isle of Wight. Very strong signals. Always
>available for technical old-times rag-chew.
Thanks, Reg. If it ever stops raining, I'm hoping to get a 160m antenna
up... first time in 35 years!