View source for Dsakamot 3/23/11 homework

The case that I chose is MEHL/Biophile International Corp. v. Milgraum. This case was held in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and decided on Sept. 30, 1999.  MEHL/Biophile Corp. brought an action of infringement against Dr. Sandy Milgraum for a a patent claiming method of hair removal using a laser.  Milgraum moved for a summary judgment of invalidity stating that the patent claims were anticipated both by an instruction manual that uses a laser to remove tattoos and an article by the Dr. Luigi Polla which documents the use of laser irradition in guinea pig skin.  The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey considered both of the references and granted a summary judgment of invalidity on the manual.  

In its decision the USCAFC held that patent was not anticipated by the instruction manual but was anticipated by the Polla article.  In its decision, the Court cites that "To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently."  The court concluded that the manual couldn't anticipate because it didn't teach all the limitations of the claimed invention and did not give any inherent teaching of the laser alignment over the hair follicles.  The Polla article, however, would undoubtedly be able to followed by a person of ordinary skill to follow the teachings of alligning the laser light over a hair follicle.  In the article, laser lights were shown to have follicle damage when applied vertically over it.  While the article does not specifically mention hair loss, the results of the article would clearly show that its application could be used for hair loss.