In patent application US 2012/0262358 of title "BEAM FORMING ANTENNA" one finds a very clever, I think very novel and useful new way to arrange vertical elements into a Yagi-Uda array. Irregardless of the fact the first claims are often way way broad in scope, I puzzle over the wording in the claims. To wit claim #1...
"1. A high frequency (HF) beam antenna comprising: a set of radiating vertical monopole elements; a set of horizontal dipole elements; Wherein said horizontal dipole elements are parasitically coupled to corresponding radiating vertical monopole elements and are configured to counterpoise radiation from the radiating vertical monopole elements and to effectively isolate the vertical monopole elements from the underlying ground."
The phrase "horizontal dipole elements" is most certainly defined by practitioners in the art as an antenna element with opposing voltages at the ends and a continuous current through the middle. This is an electrical specification, not mechanical. You find similar a definition for other things like a polarized water molecule.
I know from looking at the design and some of the various articles put out by the author the entire horizontal element is not a dipole, but only a counterpoise to the vertical element. The opposing voltage requirement for a dipole appears at the tip of the vertical and the opposite and equal ends of the horizontal member. In other words, this is a form of vertical dipole... there is no horizontal dipole anywhere in this design.
The "Wherein said horizontal dipole elements..." wording clumsily attempts to un-define the dipole aspect and correctly redefine as a counterpoise - which has equal voltages at the tips and is more akin to the familiar radials we see beneath many other monopole antennas.
It's as if he uses the term "horizontal dipole" to mechanically describe the horizontal member and then un-defines this to change it electrically to a counterpoise.
I know darn well the inventor knows better than this making me wonder who in their right mind wrote these contradictory clumsy claims.
Much of my clumsy claims, claim (no pun intended) depends on how one defines things in the claims. I am antenna designer by trade and these claims are knee slappers. Are technically odd words in claims actually not a problem when viewed by the legal eye?
Who decides what is legally correct in claims?