## 4 Comparison with Recently Proposed Designs  
To validate the effectiveness of the proposed antenna over another state-of-the-art design, we perform a detailed comparison of the proposed antenna with other recently reported designs from the literature. Table 4 provides the comparison with recently proposed UWB antenna with multiple notches in terms of the dimensions of the antenna, and the number of notched bands. It is concluded that the presented antenna has obvious advantages in the antenna size with the largest number of rejection bands, a planar structure, and complete rejection of the interfering bands as well. Moreover, the proposed antenna in this paper also achieves stable radiation patterns over the complete UWB frequency band.  
The proposed antenna is easy to fabricate and the notched frequencies can be adjusted with the width of the slot resonators as compared to other antennas mentioned in the table which utilize irregular patch geometry, irregular slot resonators on the patch and ground plane, multilayered structures for notching, and parasitic stubs which lead to complex structures which result in a difficulty in massive fabrication. It is noteworthy that the implemented antenna in [19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29] completely rejected overall 5/6 GHz WLAN bands, which led to uncompromising signal quality degradation of the received information. The antenna will be highly applicable in microwave imaging sensing applications, motion sensing, and high speed wireless communication systems including wireless sensor networks, mobile handsets, and IoT due to its small size with an excellent performance as compared with other state-of-the-art structures.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Literature** & **Size (mm)** & **Filtering Bands (GHz)** & **Remarks** \\ \hline
[18] & 40 \(\times\) 30 &
\begin{tabular}{c} 3.3–3.8 \\ 5.0–6.0 \\ \end{tabular} & Antenna reject WiMAX and complete WLAN frequency bands \\ \hline
[19] & 26 \(\times\) 24 & 5.1–5.9 & Antenna reject the complete WLAN band \\ \hline
[22] & 45 \(\times\) 50 & 5.1–5.95 & Antenna rejects complete WLAN band \\ \hline
[23] & 36 \(\times\) 22 & 5.1–5.9 & Antenna reject the complete WLAN band with Large size and irregular structure \\ \hline
[25] & 25 \(\times\) 20 &
\begin{tabular}{c} 3.3–3.8 \\ 5.1–5.85 \\ \end{tabular} & Antenna rejects the WiMAX and complete WLAN band with stair cased ground plane \\ \hline
[26] & 33 \(\times\) 28 &
\begin{tabular}{c} 3.4–3.9 \\ 5.6–5.95 \\ \end{tabular} & Rejects WiMAX and upper WLAN bands with three different CSRR pairs \\ \hline
[27] & 28 \(\times\) 15 &
\begin{tabular}{c} 3.0–3.9 \\ 4.9–5.8 \\ \end{tabular} & Extra band rejection and irregular geometry at the cost of size reduction \\ \hline
[32] & 36 \(\times\) 34 &
\begin{tabular}{c} 3.31–3.90 \\ 5.2–5.35 \\ 5.8–6.0 \\ \end{tabular} & Triple band rejection with different irregular resonators placements \\ \hline
[33] & 34.6 \(\times\) 24 &
\begin{tabular}{c} 3.1–3.9 \\ 4.5–5.35 \\ 5.75–6.0 \\ \end{tabular} & Extra rejection bands using three different pairs of circular and rectangular CSRRs \\ \hline
[34] & 40 \(\times\) 40 &
\begin{tabular}{c} 3.1–3.8 \\ 5.0–6.0 \\ 7.9–8.7 \\ \end{tabular} & Triple band rejection at the cost of increasing size \\ \hline
[35] & 40 \(\times\) 40 &
\begin{tabular}{c} 2.37–2.39 \\ 3.27–3.76 \\ 5.2–5.89 \\ \end{tabular} & Quad notching at the cost of increased size \\  & & & Extra band-notching for WiMAX and X-band satellite \\  & & & communication while complete WLAN band-notching \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Performance comparison of the proposed antenna with another recently reported state-of-the-art design.