On 2/8/12 4:47 AM, Paul Christensen wrote:
>> Should have added the following description to the radial plate link
> The currently available radial plates are mechanically flawed. Now, if
> someone designed a radial plate that allows use of 2-hole lugs, perhaps
> that too would meet today's lax novelty test. The plate could support use
> of either single, or 2-hole lugs like these:
> The 2-hole lugs: (1) effectively double lug to plate conductivity; and (2)
> prevent the lug from spinning and loosening on its mounting bolt when
> accidental lateral pressure is applied. There, that's enough to start the
> first claim. Any takers :-)
> Paul, W9AC
that's actually the disclosure part and a bit of "knocking the prior
art".. you'd have a line about "Patent XYZ teaches using a single hole
lug, but this has the disadvantage of A, and B, and C". That way you
mention the prior art, and tell why it's lame, and why you are novel.
Examiners love this.
The claim would be
"A ground plate for antennas comprising a conductive sheet with holes;
where the holes are in pairs; where the pair of holes are spaced
commensurate with commercially available two hole lugs"
and so forth.
TowerTalk mailing list