PTAB

IPR2025-00453

Eunsung Global Corp v. HydraFacial LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Devices and Methods for Treating Skin
  • Brief Description: The ’477 patent describes a skin treatment apparatus, such as for microdermabrasion, that includes a console, a handpiece assembly, and a manifold system. The manifold system is configured to connect to a plurality of fluid sources and selectively deliver treatment materials to the handpiece.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1A: Obviousness over Karasiuk and Palmer - Claims 1, 3, 6-10, 12, 14-16, 18, 20 are obvious over Karasiuk in view of Palmer.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Karasiuk (Application # 2003/0212415) and Palmer (Patent 5,199,604).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Karasiuk disclosed a microdermabrasion system with all the basic elements of the challenged claims but for a single fluid reservoir: a handpiece, a vacuum source, and conduits for supply and waste. Palmer disclosed a medical fluid delivery system featuring a manifold (“liquid solution coupling and selector means”) that allows a user to select from multiple fluid reservoirs. Petitioner asserted that placing the components of the combined system onto Palmer’s disclosed mobile cart would render the claimed console obvious. The combined system would use Karasiuk’s vacuum source to draw selected treatment fluid from one of Palmer's multiple containers to the handpiece and to remove waste. Palmer’s selector knob or selector valve would serve as the claimed control.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Palmer's multi-container and selector system with Karasiuk's microdermabrasion device to improve its functionality and flexibility. This combination would overcome the inefficiency of using a single-reservoir system by allowing easy, on-the-fly switching between different treatment solutions without needing to stop, empty, and refill a single container. Additionally, incorporating Palmer’s mobile cart would provide the known benefits of portability and organization.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references teach medical devices for delivering treatment solutions through a handpiece. The integration involved a simple substitution of a known multi-container fluid source (Palmer) for a single-container source (Karasiuk) to achieve the predictable result of selective fluid delivery.

Ground 1B: Obviousness over Karasiuk, Palmer, and Trueba - Claims 1-20 are obvious over Karasiuk and Palmer in view of Trueba.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Karasiuk (Application # 2003/0212415), Palmer (Patent 5,199,604), and Trueba (Patent 6,684,880).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground adds the teachings of Trueba to the Karasiuk-Palmer combination. Trueba disclosed a fluid delivery system featuring computer control and a touchscreen display for programming and selecting the delivery of fluids from multiple containers. Petitioner contended that adding Trueba’s computer controller and touchscreen to the Karasiuk-Palmer system would render obvious the dependent claims requiring a computing device (claims 2, 11, 17), a user input device (claims 3, 12, 18), a touchscreen (claims 4, 13, 19), and a display (claim 5).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Trueba’s computer controls and touchscreen to add precision, automation, and clarity to the manually operated Karasiuk-Palmer system. This would allow for pre-programmed, complex treatment protocols, reduce the potential for human error in selecting fluids, and provide a clear user interface for operation and monitoring.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable as automating a manual selection process with computer control was a well-known technique to improve similar devices. The technical elements were compatible, as all references relate to controlled delivery of topical treatments.

Ground 2A: Obviousness over Greenberg - Claims 1, 3, 6-10, 12, 14-16, 18, 20 are obvious over Greenberg.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Greenberg (Application # 2003/0093089).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Greenberg alone disclosed a microdermabrasion system that meets the limitations of the independent claims. Greenberg’s "apparatus 10" was argued to be the claimed console, which housed a manifold system (valve 108) connected to multiple supply containers (containers 90, 94, 98). The system included a hand tool (handle 102), a vacuum pump that serves as the vacuum source, and a control (switch 30 or regulator 42). Petitioner contended that the ’477 patent’s definition of "fluid" and "treatment material" is broad enough to include the solid abrasive particles disclosed by Greenberg.
    • Motivation to Combine: As this ground is based on a single reference, the argument focused on mapping Greenberg’s components to the claim elements. Petitioner asserted Greenberg’s system allowed for sequential treatment with different particles (e.g., highly abrasive followed by organic particles), meeting limitations in claims like 8, 14, and 20.
    • Expectation of Success: Not applicable for a single-reference ground.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Karasiuk and Palmer with Wunsch (for automated sequential delivery), and further combining that with Trueba. Another ground combined Greenberg with Trueba to add computer and touchscreen control.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) is unwarranted because the primary references of Palmer, Trueba, and Wunsch were never considered by the USPTO during prosecution. While Karasiuk was in an Information Disclosure Statement, it was one of over 400 references and never applied in a rejection. Petitioner asserted the Examiner erred by not rejecting the claims over Greenberg, which was of record.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’477 patent as unpatentable.