Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> IPBiz

Patent Law

: IPBiz

Kanzius IP concerns patent applications, not issued patents

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

An editorial in the News-Press on March 7, 2009 writes of the Kanzius patent applications as if they were issued patents:

Kanzius? widow, Marianne, the new owner of the patents protecting the treatment, has expressed interest in continuing conversations with Lee Memorial Health System CEO Jim Nathan about the invention. Nathan is interested in Lee Memorial remaining involved, which is only fitting.

Of Kanzius patent application 11/215,825 (published application 2007-0250139 A1), a final rejection of all claims was mailed 15 Sept. 2008. There were rejections under 35 USC 112 P 2 that claims were indefinite. There were rejections for obviousness over Fallik (US 5,922,013) in view of Butler (article in Amateur Radio, 1988). The specific frequencies taught by Kanzius (eg, 13.56 and 27.12 MHz) were found obvious in view of Leveen (US patent 5,128,147). The law firm handling the case is CALFEE HALTER & GRISWOLD, LLP.

The (currently) most recent transaction in the file wrapper of the '825 application is an IDS filed 15 Oct 2008, which includes papers filed in the parallel case 11/050,478 and the parallel Canadian case 2,562,265. Some of this appears to be evidence of "secondary considerations."

An "advisory action" in the '478 case mailed on 23 Oct. 08 DENIED entry of an amendment after final. An RCE was filed 16 Dec. 2008.

See also the previous IPBiz post:
Some Kanzius patent applications

**Submitted to TGDaily on March 8-->

Further to the post "Kanzius info available", the frequencies of operation of the Kanzius machine are BOTH disclosed in the Kanzius patent applications AND they were known in the prior art. The Patent Office found the frequency selection obvious over that already in US Patent 5,128,147, in rejecting all claims of one Kanzius application. The knowledge of operation of the Kanzius machines is available for view, and, if the patent applications continue to be rejected, this knowledge will be in the public domain, free for anyone to practice. The "burning water" business won't be used because it is not energy efficient (costs more energy than it produces), not because it is some kind of secret.

Also, of text --the new owner of the patents protecting the treatment, -- in the Ft. Myers News-Press on 7 March 2009, these are patent applications, not issued patents.

Full post as published by IPBiz on March 08, 2009 (boomark / email).