## 3 Comparison and Theoretical Analysis of the Proposed Design
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Antenna** & **Technique for Notches** & **Notched Band** & \multicolumn{1}{p{113.8 pt}}{**No. of Notches**} & \multicolumn{1}{p{113.8 pt}}{**Bandwidth**} \\ \hline MIMO or Diversity antenna [21] & L-shaped stub in the ground plane & C-band & 1 & 3.5–4.7 GHz \\ \hline Slot antenna [22] & Rectangular slits & WiMax,WLAN & 2 & 3.3–3.7 GHz, 5.1–5.9 GHz \\ \hline Slot antenna [23] & Two slots on the patch embedding PIN diodes along this slots & Wimax, WLAN & 2 & 3.1–3.8 GHz, 5.4–6.1 GHz \\ \hline Slot antenna [24] & Two Split-Ring Resonators (SRR) & WLAN & 1 & 5.5 GHz \\ \hline Monopole antenna [25] & W-shaped conductor and T-shaped slot on substrate & Wimax, C-band, WLAN & 3 & 3.5–5.5 GHz, 5.2–5.8 GHz \\ \hline Printed monopole antenna [26] & Three open-ended quarter-wavelength slots & WiMax,WLAN, X-band & 3 & 3.3–3.7 GHz, 5.1–5.8 GHz, 7.2 GHz \\ \hline Switched antenna [27] & Switches & WLAN & 1 & 5.1–5.9 GHz \\ \hline Slot antenna [28] & Inverted V-shaped slot & WLAN & 1 & 5–6 GHz \\ \hline Slot antenna [29] & Embedding two stubs & WiMax, WLAN & 2 & 3.5 GHz, 5.8 GHz \\ \hline Slot antenna [33] & Parasitic strip and U-slot & WLAN and satellite & 3 & 5.1 GHz, 5.5 GHz, and 8.2 GHz \\ \hline Circular slot antenna [34] & L and U slot & Wimax, WLAN, and satellite & 3 & 3.2 GHz, 5.2 GHz, and 8.9 GHz \\ \hline Monopole antenna [proposed work] & Two Complementary Split-Ring Resonators (CSRR) at the patch and ground & C-band, WLAN, satellite network & 3 & 4.1–4.3 GHz, 5.2–5.8 GHz, 7.8 GHz \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison of the proposed work’s notching characteristics with other designs. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Reference** & **Dimension (mm) Material** & **Isolation Minimizes (dB)** & **Technique Employed** & **Application/Ports** \\ \hline
[35] & 56 \(\times\) 68 \(\times\) 0.2 FR-4 & \(>\)\(-15\) at 3.89–17.09 GHz & Plus-shaped slotted & UWB, X, and Ku/4 \\ \hline
[36] & 40 \(\times\) 40 \(\times\) 1.6 FR-4 & \(>\)\(-20\) at 3.1–11 GHz & Decoupling structure & UWB/4 \\ \hline
[37] & 45 \(\times\) 25 \(\times\) 1.6 FR-4 & \(>\)\(-22\) at 3.1–12 GHz & SA asymmetrical placements & UWB/4 \\ \hline
[38] & 40 \(\times\) 53 RT-D5880 & \(>\)\(-30\) at 5.45 GHz & m-IFSD & -/2 \\ \hline
[39] & 130 \(\times\) 90 RT Duroid & \(>\)8.6 at 1.6 GHz & Common radiator & 5G, WiFi/4 \\ \hline
[40] & 120 \(\times\) 60 \(\times\) 1.5 RO4350 & \(\begin{array}{c}\geqslant\)\(-12\) dB at 1.77–2.51 GHz \(\geq\)\(-25\) dB at 0.75–7.6 GHz \(\geq\)\(-7.6\) GHz \\ \hline
[41] & 90 \(\times\) 45 \(\times\) 1.6 FR4 & \(\geqslant\)\(-30\) dB at 5.5 GHz & Periodic EBG structure-based technique & WLAN/dual ports \\ \hline
[42] & 186 \(\times\) 188 \(\times\) 1.6 FR-4 & \(>\)30 at 2.4 GHz & Diagonal elements & WLAN/4 \\ \hline
[43] & 36 \(\times\) 27 \(\times\) 1.6 FR-4 & \(-18\) at 7.90–9.59 GHz & MPS radiator & X-band/4 \\ \hline
[Proposed work] & 60 \(\times\) 60 \(\times\) 1.6 FR-4 & \(\geq\)\(-32\) dB at 3–12 GHz & Orthogonal and CSRR & UWB-MIMO/four ports \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Contrasting isolation improvement approaches with proposed work.