PS Crowboy you sure are fast with finding out about patents………any particular reason??

Glenn

Hi All,

The only things that matter in a patent are the “claims”. All the other stuff, the abstract, the description, the references are there to support the claims. But it is the claims that derive the intellectual property rights.

Having said that, a review of this newly issued patent appears to be nothing very new. They define “electromagnetic energy” as the Er, Cr, YSGG and a specific wavelength of 2.78 microns, the “target tissue” as a tooth, and the “atomized mixture” as air and water. Did I miss anything?

Patents are more important to a pubic company, a sale of stock strategy, and the audience they really cater to–Wall Street, than they mean to clinicians–even as all but the most sophisticated of clinician investors.

The mechanism of cut is irrelevant to a clinician. Clinicians want to have what works in their hands.

So what really drives the marketplace adoption of lasers is dentists’ opinion of technology, clinical applications, return on investment, etc. New patent issues have little impact on that, other than maybe impress investors–important for a public company stock strategy.

Biolase is will soon be embarking on a national “Road Show” to sell 2.5 million shares of stock. They announced their “IPO” a few months ago, then canceled it when there were questions about their method of reporting sales:

Tuesday, August 5, 2003

Biolase shows delayed

San Clemente maker of dental lasers postpones investor meetings while awaiting SEC approval to offer new shares

By DAVID EVANS

Bloomberg News

BioLase Technology Inc., a San Clemente-based manufacturer of dental lasers, postponed 12 investor meetings across the United States because of a delay in obtaining Securities and Exchange Commission approval for the company’s offering of 2.5 million new shares, Chairman Federico Pignatelli said Monday.

The company has decided to put off the roadshow until next month, said Jerry Brown, a managing director of Needham & Co., a managing underwriter for the stock sale. The delay came after a partner at BioLase’s outside audit firm requested more time to study the company’s finances, Brown said.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, BioLase’s auditor, is studying several issues, including the company’s methods of accounting for revenue, Brown said.

“That was one of the issues the partner is reviewing,” Brown said. PricewaterhouseCoopers spokesman Mike Ascolese declined to comment.

Pignatelli said the company’s revenue accounting practices aren’t being questioned. He said it was an “unfounded rumor.” He did not return telephone calls to his home and office asking him to explain why Brown said the postponement was due to revenue-recognition issues.

Pignatelli said the delay in regulatory approval occurred because the SEC asked the company to answer questions about the registration document BioLase filed for its proposed stock sale. He declined to say what the SEC questions were. The registration, filed June 19, has been amended twice by the company.

BioLase postponed presentations that were scheduled to begin last Wednesday in New York and continue to cities including Kansas City, Chicago, Dallas, San Diego and Salt Lake City.

Edson Rood, chief financial officer of BioLase, said PricewaterhouseCoopers assigned the company a new audit partner earlier this year because of the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate-governance law. The law requires rotation of auditor partners every five years. He declined to comment on whether the company’s revenue accounting policies are under review.

BioLase’s flagship product is Waterlase, which dentists use to cut through bone and teeth, instead of using a drill. BioLase sells the laser for &#3650,000.

Biolase shares closed Monday at &#3610.95, down 50 cents and off their 52-week high of &#3616.03.

The company on July 23 reported net quarterly income of &#361.7 million, compared with a loss of &#36669,000 a year earlier. Sales increased 55 percent to &#3611.1 million.

August 27, 2003

Biolase asks SEC for accounting advice

Biolase Technology Inc. submitted a request to the Securities and Exchange Commission for guidance on an issue involving its purchase order forms and their potential effect on revenue recognition.

Earlier this month, the San Clemente company found that the language on the forms could affect the timing of revenue recognition, which could alter results for prior periods.

Biolase planned to ask the SEC for advice on the accounting effect of the matter. The company reported Tuesday that it expects to receive an SEC response this week and will file its second-quarter report and proceed with its public offering after resolving the matter and determining whether to adjust prior financial reports.

The maker of laser-based dentistry and dermatology tools records revenue upon receipt of purchase orders and shipment of its products. Biolase said language in the purchase order forms raised the question of whether it should recognize revenue upon shipment or receipt of payment.

The company’s Nasdaq-traded shares closed Tuesday at &#3610.70, down 72 cents.

What is claimed is:

1. A method of mechanically removing portions of a target surface, comprising the following steps:

a user control accepting a user input, which specifies a cutting efficiency wherein at least one physical characteristic of atomized fluid particles from an atomizer is controlled by the user input;

outputting atomized fluid particles from the atomizer into an interaction zone, the interaction zone being defined as a volume above the target surface;

focusing or placing a peak concentration of electromagnetic energy onto the atomized fluid particles in the interaction zone, the electromagnetic energy having a wavelength which is substantially absorbed by the atomized fluid particles in the interaction zone; and

the atomized fluid particles in the interaction zone highly absorbing the electromagnetic energy, exploding, and imparting disruptive mechanical forces onto the target surface to hereby remove the portions of the target surface.

2. The method of mechanically removing portions of a target surface according to claim 1, wherein the step of outputting atomized fluid particles from the atomizer into an interaction zone above the target surface includes a substep of outputting atomized water particles from the atomizer into the interaction zone above the target surface.

3. The method of mechanically removing portions of a target surface according to claim 2, wherein the step of focusing or placing a peak concentration of electromagnetic energy onto the atomized fluid particles in the interaction zone comprises a substep of focusing or placing a peak concentration of electromagnetic energy from an erbium, chromium, yttrium scandium gallium garnet (Er, Cr:YSGG) solid state laser, which generates electromagnetic energy having a wavelength of approximately 2.78 microns, onto the atomized water particles in the interaction zone.

4. The method of mechanically removing portions of a target surface according to claim 1, wherein the target surface comprises a tooth.

5. The method of mechanically removing portions of a target surface according to claim 1, wherein the step of outputting atomized fluid particles from an atomizer includes a step of outputting atomized fluid particles from an atomizer that is connected to an air supply line and a water supply line, wherein air and water are mixed by the atomizer to form the atomized fluid particles.

6. The method of mechanically removing portions of a target surface according to claim 5, herein the air supply line is operated under a relatively high pressure and the water supply line is operated under a relatively low pressure.

7. The method of mechanically removing portions of a target surface according to claim 6, wherein the atomized fluid particles have sizes narrowly distributed about a mean value.

8. A method of providing electromagnetically induced mechanical cutting forces onto a target surface to thereby remove portions of the target surface, comprising the following steps:

inputting a user-specified combination of atomized fluid particles, the user-specified combination of atomized fluid particles corresponding to a user-specified average size, spatial distribution, and velocity of atomized fluid particles;

generating the user-specified combination of atomized fluid particles, in response to the user input device;

placing the user-specified combination of atomized fluid particles into an interaction zone, the interaction zone being defined as a volume above the target surface; and

focusing electromagnetic energy into the interaction zone, the electromagnetic energy having a wavelength which is substantially absorbed by a portion of atomized fluid particles of the user-specified combination of atomized fluid particles in the interaction zone, the absorption of the electromagnetic energy by the portion of atomized fluid particles causing the portion of atomized fluid particles to explode and impart mechanical cutting forces onto the target surface.

9. A method of controlling a cutting efficiency of an electromagnetically induced mechanical cutter, comprising the following steps:

focusing or placing a peak concentration of electromagnetic energy into a volume adjacent to a target surface;

specifying at least one of a cutting resolution and a penetration level for the cutting efficiency;

selecting one of a plurality of fluid spray nozzles, in response to a specification of the cutting resolution;

selecting an upstream fluid pressure for the selected fluid spray nozzle, in response to a specification of the penetration level;

applying the upstream fluid pressure to the fluid spray nozzle, to thereby generate a user specified combination of atomized fluid particles; and

placing the user-specified combination of atomized fluid particles into the volume adjacent to the target surface, the electromagnetic energy being substantially absorbed by the user-specified combination of atomized fluid particles, the user-specified combination of atomized fluid particles, upon absorbing the electromagnetic energy, exploding and imparting mechanical cutting forces onto the target surface.

10. The method of controlling a cutting efficiency of an electromagnetically induced mechanical cutter according to claim 8, the step of specifying at least one of a cutting resolution and a penetration level for the cutting efficiency further comprising the following steps:

specifying, via a user input, one of a high resolution cut and a low resolution cut; and

specifying, via a user input, one of a deep-penetration cut and a shallow-penetration cut.

11. The method of controlling a cutting efficiency of an electromagnetically induced mechanical cutter according to claim 10, wherein the step of applying the upstream fluid pressure to the fluid spray nozzle comprises the following substeps:

generating a combination of atomized fluid particles comprising relatively small fluid particles, in response to a user input specifying a high resolution cut;

generating a combination of atomized fluid particles comprising relatively large fluid particles, in response to a user input specifying a low resolution cut;

generating a combination of atomized fluid particles which comprises a relatively low-density distribution of fluid particles, in response to a user input specifying a deep-penetration cut; and

generating a combination of atomized fluid particles which comprises a relatively high-density distribution of fluid particles, in response to a user input specifying a shallow-penetration cut.

12. The apparatus for controlling a cutting efficiency of an electromagnetically induced mechanical cutter according to claim 11, wherein the step of applying the upstream fluid pressure to the fluid spray nozzle further comprises the following substeps:

generating atomized fluid particles with relatively high kinetic energies, in response to at least one of a user specification for a deep-penetration cut and a user specification for a high resolution cut; and

generating atomized fluid particles with relatively low kinetic energies, in response to at least one of a user specification for a shallow-penetration cut and a user specification for low resolution cut.

Hi Ray,

How’s your summer?

“Very useful” for what…..exactly?

This new patent defines a new series of specific claims for cutting teeth at 2.78 microns using Er, Cr:YSGG with air and water.  

So what’s new?  What’s very useful about it?:confused:

I’m sorry, but as a dentist, I don’t get the distinction or the practical difference.

Now maybe as a CEO Fortune 500 consultant looking at “market barriers to entry” in using a new set of claims for cutting steel,  diamonds, or gold titanium in a quicker and better fashion–it might have some business value.  

But that’s not what this patent is about.  It’s about teeth, erbium, air and water.

As a Quantum Physicist it may have some practical value outside the theoretical or the estoteric.:cool:

But as a dentist–I don’t the point.  Does it cut teeth?  Yes.  How?  I don’t care.  Does it cut gold, porcelain, or amalgam?  No.  Does it vaporize amalgam into volitale gasses?  Yes.  So where the HK effect?  Where’s the safety?  Where’s the value?  What’s the point?

My personal opinion:  For competative advantage, patent and IP portfolio postitioning, perceived investor & shareolder value.:poll_icon:

Investors take note:

E=Mc2 has not been repealed  

“Hydrokinetic” cutting of teeth using energized water remains a scientific theory, not an accepted scientific or proven fact……………

Hi Ray,

Summer going that good?:biggrin:

I may consider HK fiction–but others are being sold a bill-of-goods that it is fact and science when it is neither.  So, Ray, tell me, is posting an informed reply to a forum question now to be equated with “stress”?

Instead of answering my question about exactly what about this newly issued patent is “very useful”, you’ve poked fun at me Ray, and avoided the real question.  Are you suggesting with your remarks that I am “stressed out” and need to “relax and enjoy” my Nd:YAG (as well as my holmium, Argon, and CO2) because you feel my opinion is not welcome or appreciated?  Or that my opinion is not relevant or not shared by others who won’t or don’t post on it?

I would have thought you would understand me better than that.  You’ve followed my posts long enough here and on Dental Town and my goal on this topic is consistent with others, which is to inform and educate those who don’t hear the contrarian opinions to what is popularly or presently being espoused (advertised, hyped, misrepresented).

The only people that need be stressed-out over HK as the primary tooth cutting effects using Er, Cr,: YSGG, for a wavelength that is highly absorbed in water, are those who have a vested interest in the stock performing to their liking.  Since I have no position in the stock either short or long (and never have), I could care less what the stock does, and I therefore have no stress either way.  

But I understand why those who do have a vested interest in the intellectual property would be nervous about people actually learning the truth about HK fiction, as you called it.  There is no science to support it.  As you well know, Prof. Daniel Fried at UCSF refuted HK in a recent paper he published.  Like I said to you before:  It is up to the advocates of a science or technology to demonstrate and prove it, not for the skeptics or others to disprove it.  That’s what we have done with Nd:YAG lasers for periodontal bone regeneration.  We have proved it at LSU…….

The original post question had to do with the “newness” and/or significance of the recently issued patent for HK.  I responded with an opinion that considered the public nature of the company, its upcoming stock sales strategy, the interest of the user dentists, and the possible implications to investors.  I have not yet seen such a perspective in any Wall Street analysts’ assessment (but maybe it SHOULD be) or posted on a forum anywhere.  Maybe that’s why they come here to view this forum and call us asking our opinions?

The fact that the guys you reference have no experience in dentistry–I got that in your first post about them–is the point I was trying to make.  They may know neat technology, but they may have no clue about what dentists need.  I wasn’t ridiculing them, just asking on what basis they are offering up their opinion, and for what application?  

Come on Ray, why don’t you answer my question, or provide some additional information or insights other than suggest I need to relax…..which is exactly what I plan to do this weekend….enjoy my fresh Florida lobster (overnighted yesterday), with a barbequed filet from Beef Palace, served with a Clo du Bois Merlot, and watch the US Open Tennis starting at 4:00pm……..:cool:   But then again, I don’t have any stock I need to worry (stress?) about……..:cheesy:

Have a good Labor Day Weekend, Ray.

Bob

So Ray this is unique to that wavelength.

Why wont it cut porcelain?

I just want the truth not all the gobbledy gook

Ray, one last question. Why is it that you are such a big proponent of this theory? You keep promoting it.

Glenn

Hey Bob,

I am sure the Loster was delicious although I prefer Maine lobsters myself.  Glad you are not having a coronary over this.   Sorry if I mis-interpreted your first post as a further sign of being stressed by Biolase patents and further apoligies if I interpreted your response to my response as “I know better than a bunch of ivory tower physicists who have no business sticking their nose into dental lasers”.

Lets start from the beginning shall we.  We all have to make value judgements about decisions occasionally.  Equipment and patient care in your case and capital allocation in my case.  We first met at your invitation to discuss your perspective about dental lasers and your views about the usefulness of Er based hard tissue lasers versus soft tissue lasers, and you were interested in my feedback on your business plan.  As I recall, you were very upset with Biolase that they were sleazy marketers that are lying through their teeth just about everything.  Your laser was the way dentists can really make money and save the patients teeth etc ….  Your laser can do the same “hydrokinetics” as the Waterlase and I recall the effectiveness of that demo well (you were having one of your bad days I think).  Anyway, I came away with the sense that you considered Biolase a ruthless competitor.   Your message that the CEO of Biolase is unethical and use HK as fradulent marketing was repeated enough times that I have that message still resonating in my head every once in while.   I assume that all dentists that pass through your office get the same message.  Now criticism of competition doesn’t really bother me and to be honest, I gave your criticism serious deliberation and research.  I also had to make some value judgement about the credibility of your criticism.  Of your criticisms, I think the criticism of the lack of REQUIRED training is probably the one that I attach the highest value to.  Your knowledge about the history of dental lasers is also a treasure trove.  

However, on criticisms that require an understanding of physics and engineering, I assigned a very low value to your view points.  And I apologize for being blunt about that.  Lets just say that you said somethings and presented some results during our first meeting that gave me pause upon reflection and the review of your presentation materials  caused me to discount your physics based arguments.  Needless to say, this reflection also cast a shadow over your criticisms of competition.  I had subtly asked about one of the problems I found in your results a while back on Dental Town (soon after your presentation and my review of the biz plan package) and I found your answer  unsatisfactory.  I left sleeping dog lie since it was not my business to referee marketing articles.  Nevertheless, my value judgement although reversible has not been reversed (remember ‘incomplete’ grades?)  Addressing those erroneous results (that were being used (use?)) marketing would help in raising the credibility quotient when throwing stones at others.  

Before I leave the subject, let me comment on your critcism of Jeff Jones using HK as fradulent marketing hype.   Almost all of the R&D work that went into the recently granted (and it’s sister patent) were done before Biolase had a glimmer of a notion about  the future of hard-tissue laser dentistry.  In fact, the patent was filed in 1997 before Jeff Jones was hired by Biolase.  Does he hire on in 1998 believing the company is built on fictional technology or does he hire on believing and embrace the technology and its potential?

I guess the Kodak R&D folks must be a bunch of lunatics too, citing Biolase work in their patent on etching of print plates.  The complete patents are out there for everyone to review without somebody else parsing certain sections for whatever point they want to emphasize.  For those that want to do their own thinking, my suggestion is to the read the whole patent, the sister patent and the Kodak patent.  Dr Fried’s paper is also available in it’s entirety and I again suggest for those interested that it would be worthwhile to read the whole paper instead of reading parsed sentences or others’ interpretation.

Last of all, I greatly respect your competitiveness,  clinical skills and your knowledge of dental laser history.  But please try to not to convince me that you know more physics then somebody that has trained and worked in the physics IP field all their career.  They are not even in our league.

Best and enjoy the last bit of summer.

(Edited by lagunabb at 11:10 pm on Aug. 29, 2003)

Ah my dear Ray……….you ask them to prove it.

I already have, and by my count they are down 3 already (Fried, Couzon and Rechman ) but of course who is scoreboard watching and Biolase keeps the score themselves.

I doubt we will ever see them spend money to “prove” anything. A patent is all that they need.

Does it matter if they keep selling them as fast as they can make em?

I doubt it.

Good thread though.

Glenn