On 2/7/2012 9:52 PM, Jim Lux wrote:
> On 2/7/12 6:30 PM, Jim Lux wrote:
>> Some of the claims, if litigated, would probably fail as non-novel.
>> Claim 19 is basically a generalized phased array.
OTOH has any one other than me, built a radial connection out of: A
square plate with connections around the periphery or a metal frame (IE
strips of copper or aluminum either bolted together or welded to create
roughly the same thing. The plate looked very much like their
connections for radials on verticals and that was before we moved here
over 27 years ago.
I also use a hinged base for verticals almost identical to the new MFJ
base advertised in this months QST. I've since cut off all but the
hinge because I didn't need the top part. I now clamp the mast that
supports the vertical to one of my guy anchor posts about 12 ft off the
ground. But I still have the two pieces and I was using that over 2 to
3 years ago. The only difference, I welded mine up out of steel instead
of using Aluminum channel and it's actually a bit more simple.
BTW US law has changed from first to invent to first to patent. I worked
for a large chemical corporation who kept all of their work
proprietary. That worked for over 50 years. Then another large (well
known) company finally reverse engineered the process (which was
surprisingly simple), patented it and then sued for infringement. This
was before first to patent. They lost and we won.
Now days we would lose even though we invented the materials over 50
years prior to them making the patent application.
Now for the average ham it'd be far simpler and save a lot of time to
just purchase either the radial connection plate , or the vertical mount
than to make their own from the companies selling them.
Staying proprietary is now very risky.
> having just read the re-examination request..
> Given the prior art submitted (an article from the internet in 2001 on a
> 4 square array), the examiner identified how the patent's claim 19 is
> sufficiently novel based on that reference.
> A lot has to do with the arrangement of the combiners and transformers,
> which apparently wasn't described anywhere else. Most phased array
> references talk about the general principle of phasing, and describe
> some simple phasing schemes, but NOT the specific one claimed in the patent.
> Whether that would be obvious to one skilled in the art is another
> question, but at some point, things that look obvious in retrospect
> really are novel when you start.
> Some years ago, I came up with a clever switching arrangement of
> "baseball switches" to switch N amplifiers to N antennas in a variety of
> ways, and while they didn't seek a patent, they DID do a fairly
> extensive search and couldn't find any prior art, so it's possible that
> a patent would have issued. As it happens, there wasn't any significant
> commercial advantage to be gained by patenting, so it was just published
> for the whole world to see.
> TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk mailing list