On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 04:17:40 -0400, STEALTHMAN <stealthman@iglou.com>
wrote:

01   This invention relates to a concept of electronic
       avoidance and the
02   exact exterior physical configurations of the craft
       or objects that
03   would best be invisible to radar or other means
       of electronic 
04   detection.    Although this concept is effective 
       when utilized  in 
05   the design of any craft, object, or body, no claims
       are mare or
06   infered  in this application for any objects or bodies 
      other than
07   aircraft or spacecraft.

                                   (6)

08  Conception took place during preparation and shortly
       after application
09  which resulted in United States Patent Number 4066226,
       which, when
10  constructed as envisioned by the inventor, results in
       an aircraft
11  or spacecraft which is, without any modification,
       extremely effective
12  in avoiding electronic detection, so much so, that it
      would be a very
13  considerable danger  to allow it to operate  in
      controlled airspace.
14  The basic concept of the system simply deduces
       that if all reflected 
15  electromagnetic radiation is focused or directed
       into as small a
16  return beam as possible, it would be extremely
       likely that that beam
17  would be reflected in a direction other than back
      to the receiving
18  antenna of the detection system.    Claims will be
       confined to specifics 
19  furnished to the United States in paper No. 11,
       U. S. Patent Number
20  4066226 , Airfoil, Reduced Profile, 'Y' Flow, hybrid,
       and to refined 
21   theoretical  configurations which while more effective,
       might not be
22  practical or economical to construct, and also to
       configurations 
23  which were not mentioned but which might not be
       know in the present
24  state of the art but which complete all of the possible
       configurations
25  which are effective in electronic avoidance.

             (end of page 1 of application 05/972527)

      Note:   By this time the application cover sheet
had been marked "DO NOT SEND TO ISSUE,
First to Licensing an d Review   DOE
       Part of the line after "ISSUE" is blacked out,
and part missing or whited out.


        Page Two, Application 972527 - Continued

01  This concept is more effective when the radar is
       the type normally
02  used as combat radar.     Larger radar such as 
       used for some space 
03  projects, might or might not be effective in 
      detecting some or all 
04  of the mentioned configurations.

05  Considering the simplicity of the concept, after 
      conception, prior art
06  seemed a certainty, but then again, the massive
       losses in Vietnam
07  and the loss of life and suffering in imprisonment
       of fine American 
08  men during the conflict and in the bombing of
      Hanoi in December of
09  1972, suggests that the state of the art was not
       too advanced.
10  It is the primary object of this invention to provide
       a simple but
11  effective means to construct vehicles, craft, vessels,
      aircraft,
12  spacecraft, rockets, re-entry vehicles, and other
      land craft and
13  objects in such a manner that they will be nearly
      or completely 
14  invisible to radar or other means of electronic
      detection.
15  It's use is meant to be exclusively military in nature
      and has no 
16  purpose in public, commercial or civilian activities
      of any kind.
17  There are no further objects of this invention.


      Note:   By this time, after one or two office actions,
the Washington patent attorney had read the application
and when I called him, he said, "this is pretty important
art you have", and I was hesitant in saying anything
technical about the invention over the phone, and
then he said, "just what is it you want to protect?".
       That floored me, and I wondered how I could
have written 3 or 4 pages in the specification and
he didn't know what I wanted to protect.
      He then asked if I could come to Washington
to discuss the modifications to the specification,
and I said I would have to think about it.

      I was short of money, had a job, had two kids
in college, and did not feel like making a trip, and
feared running up a bill with the law firm and the
possibility that I would have had to give them 
part of the invention if I couldn't pay the bill, so
I began thinking of how to file a "continuation-in-
part application, rather than try to salvage the
apparently less than adequate application 972527.

                        (7)

STEALTHMAN