I find the article unconvincing, although I'm open to being convinced. With historical hindsight, it should be easy to see if the Lamarr et al patent seems novel. Just because an examiner doesn't allow a claim, I don't see that as strong evidence it wasn't novel at the time. They always are rejecting claims, sometime for good reason, sometimes not.
A more convincing article would focus on purported prior art patents, and let the reader judge if really anticipated frequency hopping.
A more convincing article would focus on purported prior art patents, and let the reader judge if really anticipated frequency hopping.