Homework 5 - ewolz

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Revision as of 13:17, 22 March 2011 by Ewolz (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Printed Publication

In the US Court of Appeals case MEHL/Biophile Itern. Corp. v. Milgraum, the court held that a method for laser hair removal was invalid on the grounds of anticipation in the prior art. MEHL/Biophile accused Dr. Milgraum infringed on US Patent 5059192. In a summary judgment, Milgraum claimed the patent was anticipated in two prior arts. The first was an instruction manual for the Spectrum RD-1200 laser used in tattoo removal, and the second was an article in the 1987 Journal of Investigative Dermatology authored by Dr. Luigi Polla. The District Court agreed that the manual anticipated the claims and granted a judgement of invalidity. Upon appeal, the US Court of Appeals disagrees that the RD-1200 manual anticipated the claimed invention, but found the Polla article did and thus affirms the lower courts decision. The Court of Appeals bases this decision on In re Schreiber 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) which stated that "to anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently." The court qualifies the the use of the term inherently by referencing In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981) which stated "inherency...may not be established by probabilities or possibilities." Because the Spectrum manual does not discuss hair follicles or the act of aligning a laser over a hair follicle opening, it does not teach all the limitations of the claimed invention.