I am taking the liberty to repost Wesleys' recent posts from AOL's boards for those of you who dont have access....the following 3 posts should clear up any patent questions....all credit goes to Wesley:
Subject: Re: Patent talk
Date: Thu, Jan 29, 1998 13:28 EST
From: Wesley0428
Message-id: <19980129182801.NAA18780@ladder03.news.aol.com>
What follows is a repost of something I posted in June, '97 on these boards.
<<<I have copies of the Mentor and Misonix patents at the heart of
the suit. The Mentor patent (4886491) issued 12/12/89. The
Misonix patent (5419761) issued 5/30/95. Here's what the Misonix
patent text says in relation to the Mentor patent:
"Although an ultrasonic probe for liposuction was granted
in 1989 to Parisi, U.S. Pat. No. 4,886,491, there is no evidence
that the probe has ever actually been reduced to practice or put
into commercial use at least in the United States, despite the great
need for an improved liposuction procedure. In accordance with
the disclosure of Parisi, fat is melted by localized frictional heat
produced by the vibrating probe. Heat however, is dangerous in
that it may adversely affect other tissues such as muscle or nerve.
The ultrasonic probe of Parisi is provided at the distal end
with a large lateral hole, similar to standard liposuction cannulas.
This hole would make his cannula difficult to tune, as well as
increase the impedance and require extra power. There is also the
risk of cannula breakage, since the hole or holes in the Parisi
probes occupy a large percentage of the circumference. The hole
or holes are also near a node (point of no movement) where stress
is maximum. In order to achieve a 2 mil amplitude at 40 kHz,
Parisi's probe as pictured would likely heat an inordinate amount
along the length. In addition, the hole or holes at the side of
Parisi's probe will scrape tissue and blood vessels similar to older
methods.
Parisi's patent does not address the important question of
hematoma or seroma removal. These formations apparently cannot
be melted or separated by the method of Parisi.
A prior art tissue removal apparatus and associated
method are described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,886,491 issued December
1989. Related patents include U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,223,676, 3,589,363
to Banko, U.S. Pat. No. 3,526,219 to Balamuth, U.S. Pat. No.
4,861,331 to Parisi, and U.S. Pat. No. 4,750,902. Another related
patent, which is assigned to one of the same assignees as the
present invention is U.S. Pat. No. 4,902,954.
Lastly, in using the probe of Parisi, it would be necessary
to move the probe in and out, as well as twist it, in order to collect
the separated, melted and emulsified fat."
I'm not sure what all that means, but it seems clear to me that
Misonix' patent application obviously didn't sneak through the U.S.
Patent Office without consideration being given to the previously
issued Parisi (Mentor) patent. The issue was addressed very openly.
It seems (IMO) the patent office has already said, in essence, that
the two inventions are different or, perhaps even better, that the
Parisi patent is invalid. Furthermore, how could Mentor win an
emergency injunction when they've failed to commercialize their
patent in 7 1/2 years and have no product to ship today! And what
if their design corrected some of the flaws cited in the Misonix
patent and potentially infringes on the Misonix patent ;>) >>>> |
