From: stealthman@iglou.com   
      
   On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 08:36:25 -0400, STEALTHMAN    
   wrote:   
      
   >     That is how my filing date became Sept,   
   >1979 instead of Dec, 1978.   
   >   
   >      At no time was I ever aware of any of   
   >the things being done about stealth in   
   >government or industry.   
   >   
   >      I mailed in the required declaration that   
   >I had made the invention, myself, by myself,   
   >in my own home.   
   >   
   >      And then waited impatiently for the next   
   >patent office response.   
   >   
   >                          (4)   
      
          I was confused as to why the patent office   
   said the invention was not a national security   
   concern.   
         I started working at a new job, plus continued   
   to make Tiffany type leaded lamps in my spare   
   time.   
        On March 7, 1980 the first office action came,   
   it was a rejection, pretty much as all office actions   
   are if the application is not in condition for   
   allowance.   
      
        I wrote a response, as well as I could, this   
   case was a lot more complex than the airfoil   
   patent, and mailed it March 24, 1980.   
      
        I was not aware until 1996 that in January,   
   1980, not one, but 4 US Air Force officials   
   and officers accessed the application, that   
   must mean they were interested in some way.   
        The Navy and also NASA liaison official   
   also accessed the application in January, 1980.   
      
        I noticed that the application had first been   
   sent to group 140 for examination, but now   
   was being examined in group 222.   
      
        On September 2, 1980 I received a final   
   rejection, that really rang my bell, the only   
   two references for prior are were Wintersdorff,   
   et al, 4,019,699 and Duval, et al, 3,432,609.   
         Wintersdorff was for a low radar cross   
   section flying wing with a part of the claim   
   saying, "said wing having upper and lower   
   surfaces, major portions of which are   
   substantially flat".   
      
        I considered my wording in paper #11   
   to be different than that, "all surfaces   
   being flat (plane) surfaces" seemed to   
   be rather specific, so I couldn't understand   
   the final rejection.   
      
        Here I was, out in the hills of Pennsylvania   
   trying to patent technology that I was sure   
   would change the balance of power in the   
   world in favor of the country to implement   
   it first, and I was mired down in patent law   
   technicalities.   
      
       So I began to work on some response   
   to the final rejection, and also went to the   
   library and looked in a register of patent   
   attorneys, there were none locally, so I   
   looked in Washington, D.C. and found   
   an experienced patent attorney with a   
   degree in electrical or electronic engineering,   
   and he had been a Commissioner of Patents.   
      
        I called him, and asked if he could help,   
   and he sent me a "Permission to Inspect   
   and Make Copies document to sign on   
   September 26, 1980.   
      
        I signed it and mailed it, thinking he   
   would go to the patent office to look   
   at the application, but a partner in the   
   law firm typed on the bottom of the form   
   a permission for an office clerk or para-   
   legal to go to the patent office and make   
   a copy to take back to the law firm.   
      
        This was not what I planned, and not   
   what I wanted, and then I began to see   
   news about "invisible airplanes" on TV,   
   and even announcements by government   
   officials, and presidential candidate Reagan   
   being asked about it, and I think he responded   
   by saying, "I think they do it with configurations".   
      
                                (5)   
      
   STEALTHMAN	   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)