On 2/7/12 11:20 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> > Not being a lawyer I wonder what the "reexam" means?
> Reexam means the patent is being reviewed again to see if it was valid
> - specifically if the material covered was truly "novel." Whether the
> device/process in question was covered by other patents, was previously
> documented (publicly) by others or was "obvious to one trained in the
> field" (i.e., not "new" or unique).
> Reexamination is one way for a defendant in an infringement suite to
> to defend themselves - by invalidating the patent thus eliminating
> the possibility of infringement.
> In this case, I would expect a high probability of a reexamination
> finding the Rausch patent invalid. I have a file full of articles
> containing similar techniques for phasing arrays of receive antennas
> and I know W8JI has seen much of it. In addition, there are several
> Antenna Forum presentations from Dayton and on-line articles showing
> similar phasing systems using loops, active antennas, and K9AY
> elements. None of it can hardly be called novel or innovative.
In advance of actually reading the claims (probably do that tonight), I
think it's quite likely that the claims cover more details of the design
of the amplifier than phased arrays.
Sure, there will be a big claim for "A disposition of two or more
antennas with the signals combined to produce a directive antenna
pattern" which won't hold up, but there will be a claim like:
"A plurality of antennas as in Claim 1, with an amplifier, comprising an
arrangement of electrical components comprising A, B, and C, where the A
component is a capacitor..."
That kind of claim will usually hold up.
TowerTalk mailing list