Patent 5139684 Blood electrification, filed Nov 16 1990, granted Aug 18
Electrically conductive method and systems for treatment of blood and
other body fluids and/or synthetic fluids with electric forces
Dr. Steven Kaali, Peter Schwolsky
A new process and system for treatment of blood
other body fluids and/or synthetic fluids from a donor to a recipient or storage
receptacle or in a recycling system using novel electrically conductive treatment
vessels for treating blood and/or other body fluids and/or synthetic fluids
with electric field forces of appropriate electric field strength to provide
electric current flow through the blood
or other body fluids at a magnitude that is biologically compatible but is
sufficient to render the bacteria, virus, and/or fungus ineffective to
infect normally healthy cells
while maintaining the biological usefulness
of the blood or other fluids.
For this purpose the low voltage electric potentials applied to the treatment
vessel should be of the order of from about 0.2 to 12 volts and should produce
flow densities in the
blood or other fluids of from one microampere per square millimeter of electrode
area exposed to the fluid being treated to about two milliamperes per square
millimeter. Treatment time within this range of parameters may range for a
period of time from about one minute to about 12 minutes
U.S. References Cited:
15 patents: #'s 5049252, 3994799, 4473449, 5133932,
2490730, 3692648, 3753886, 3878564, 3965008, 4616640, 4770167, 4932421, 5058065,
5133932, 592735, 672231
Foreign References Cited:
1 patent: # SU 995848
Other References Cited:
Journal of the Clinical Investigation published by the American Society for
Clinical Investigations, Inc, vol. 65, Feb 1980, pp 38: Photodynamic Inactivation
of Herpes Simplex Viruses - Lowell E Schnipper
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol 17, No 2, Feb 1983: Photodynamic Inactivation
of Pseudorabier Virus with Methylene Blue Dye, Light and Electricity - Janine
Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology & Medicine, vol 1,
1979, pp 204-209: Inactivation of Herpes Simplex Virus with Methylene Blue,
Light and Electricity - Mitchell R Swartz
About Patent Validity
Patent 5139684 on blood electrification describes two systems for passing
an electrical current
It claims to kill every bacteria, virus, parasite, and fungus it was tested
on. The usual concern about this is whether a patent can be obtained on just
about anything and whether the inventors are required to prove the patent
actually does what they claim to someone in the patent office. This patent
was obtained by Steven Kaali and Peter M. Schwolsky as a result of a study
performed at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. Even so,
the concern is still there.
A customer of ours has a friend who has the experience to resolve this concern.
Philip M obtained an Electrical Engineering degree with the goal in mind of
becoming a patent lawyer. After he graduated from the University of Utah he
obtained a job with the U.S. patent office. It wasn't long before he attracted
the attention a law firm that specializes in patent law. They offered him
a job and also offered to pay his way through law school. Right now he is
drawing a salary while still going to school.
Philip was emailed and asked his opinion on this patent. This was his response:
I took a look at the patent in question. You were wondering if the inventors
have to prove the patent actually does what they claim to someone in the patent
office. Well, yes and no.
A patent is a monopoly right that is granted to the first person to make the
invention or "reduce it to practice." This reduction to practice
may be a constructive reduction to practice, however, which means that it
has been filed in a US patent application in sufficient detail to enable one
of "ordinary skill in the art" with which the patent deals to make
and use the invention.
A patent examiner in the Patent Office examines the patent application to
make sure that it conforms to the various requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C.
101, 102, 103, 112, and other relevant sections. Essentially, this includes:
verifying that the invention described in the patent application is within
statutorily defined areas of invention (101) and is novel and unique from
anything that has already been done before, or unique (102); it entails verifying
that the invention is not "obvious" to "one of ordinary skill
in the art" in which the invention would be classified (103); and verifying
that the invention has been described in the application in sufficient detail
such that one skilled in the art of the invention is "enabled" to
make and use the invention (112, 1st paragraph).
The patent laws also require the inventor to set forth his or her invention
in claims by "particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming"
the invention (112, 2nd paragraph). So, if you want to know what the inventor
is protecting with his monopoly right, you look to the claims, which define
the intellectual property line or boundary of the invention.
With all patents, there is a presumption of validity in the courts because
the patents have undergone the examination process in the Patent Office by
an examiner who is trained in that particular "art" or field of
invention. That being said, there are patents that slip through the system
from time to time. For example, cold fusion received several patents, I believe,
all of which were later invalidated. There are no requirements that the invention
is commercially viable or useful to the public as a whole-- only that they
meet with the standards set forth in Title 35 U.S.C.
While some patents are a little strange, the majority are good, viable inventions
for which people want to protect a right to make and use the invention. Maintaining
a patent requires a significant investment and most people do not do it frivolously.
The patent that you asked me about was a continuation of another application,
which means that the inventor paid for at least two applications in order
to get the patent granted. He was probably pretty serious about it.