Short Takes #25: The Hyper-Lightspeed Antenna

Hey Dan, thanks for joining in. Good solid information, appreciate it. Hard to believe someone would go to this much work, pay for a patent attorney and so on. Dave, W7DGJ

 

Important not to confuse 'feasibility' with "enablement".

Claims don't have to describe a "useful" invention. They have to describe a novel invention that is not prior art, not obvious to one skilled in the art, and one the passes the flag of enablement. Among others.

Patent examiners have a checklist that requires hitting the high points of rejection. They also are often reviewed by supervisors.

Patent examiners in modern times have a bad habit of asserting obviousness, rejecting most or all claims in round 1, and then making it the task of the inventor/RPA/patent attorney to show why that is wrong. Essentially your lawyer bill is often, but not always, paid to 'educate' examiners.

Note that inventors, on rejection, can ask the examiner to suggest wording on a claim that would take the patent application 'in allowance' on a claim.

I have found examiners to actually be pretty friendly and informed--and better informed after a phone call!

73
Chip W1YW

 

One of the parts of patent law that is most fraught with peril is that claims are interpreted with the meanings of the terms as used in the disclosure. Therefore it can be nearly impossible to know if you're infringing on another patent or not, and establishing infringement one way or the other can be very difficult. It's basically impossible to be certain what a claim means until its litigated, so that patents end up being more valuable in their ability to intimidate potential rivals rather than their utility as describing an invention (which was their original purpose), even though they are supposed to be enabling. As an inventor, it's more or less impossible for you to know if you are infringing or not, and if it is established that you willfully infringed because you read a patent to understand its contents, you might end up paying triple damages. The uncertainty of the outcome of litigation can make it risky for both the plaintiff and the defendant, especially if embarrassing material comes out during discovery, and so some sort of settlement is usually encouraged.

Because of this, the contents of a patent are often less material that its origins, and whether or not it might be attacked on grounds of existing prior art, or attacked because it is not the work of the inventors, or based on work of someone who was not credited as an inventor, or an important piece of background material was withheld known to the inventors, because a defense based on whether it is enabling or whether or not the claim language covers the infringing invention could be tricky. When it gets to this level or argument, only the lawyers win.

73,
Dan
KW4TI

 

I was production manager of the local radio station. I went in to work the midday shift and found the morning man a basket case. We recorded al the scripts because we didn't think we could get through them live. He had the cart in the machine and was ready to interrupt network news when the network announcer said "Hold It'!, which he did. After that, he didn't say a word on air and played records until I got there.

 

Mikel, sounds like your morning man saved the day by playing records. I would indeed have been pretty nervous myself. I was in the studio at Ohio University when the teletype machine went nuts with ringing (something it only did if there were REALLY big news stories coming). I looked over at the machine and it had printed out that students had been shot and killed by the National Guard at Kent State University, right up the road from us. It was a shocker. Dave, W7DGJ

 

I see what others have mentioned. "A Known Speed of Light" and a "New Dimension" Theoretical yes, maybe...at least enough for issuance. Practical or usable, that would be a NO from what I have read.

 

This seems idiotic, the submitter is attempting to redefine terms. Your punking us for April 1 right Dave?
Bob H N9NRW

 

Many entities are willing to spend money on patents to see what "sticks to the wall" universities and research centers have patent lawyers on staff. I worked at Honeywell and we had a huge team of them.

 

To be honest, I imagine there are some who seek a 'vanity patent'. I have met and known about 60 independent inventors--its not as if we have conventions-and all of them either had the expectation of benefiting from their patent, or actually had done so. One became a billionaire. Another drives a Maserati. Yet another has a 70 foot yacht. Most are still trying to climb the success ladder (God bless'em!)

Some are hams.

Not one applied for a patent for their vanity.

The 'wall of lawyers ' is quite real and IMO often (but not always) unethical. Many of those inventors do NOT actually invent, but throw out ideas. Now, ideation is a key and early component in 'pre-invention'. But its not invention. If so, we would have to say Jules Verne invented the the moon rocket and Capek invented AI robotics. Ideas are not inventions. BUT--'wall of lawyers' like to wordsmith so it SOUNDS like there are inventions. Thus the sad state of affairs where an idea becomes a patent without demonstrable novel invention. Assertions but not enablement. Patent without demonstrable benefit.

Patent examiners nowadays keep enablement as a negative in rare case--such as an invisibility cloak. I know. I did it. I showed them the data and invited them for a demo. A TLA colleague had come for a demo and apparently conveyed what he saw to the USPTO. Patent issued.

Obviousness and prior art are the reasons given for rejection, I would say, about 85-90% of the time.

73
Chip W1YW

 

And quite interesting!

73

 

Hi Bob -- Nope! Directly out of the US Patent Office. You can find it on Google Patent as well, Dave