PTAB

PGR2025-00026

Therabody Inc v. DataFeel Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Communication Devices, Methods, and Systems
  • Brief Description: The ’174 patent specification describes devices that use a plurality of energy generators to communicate information to a user's skin through non-visual means, such as impact, heat, or electrical energy. The challenged claims, however, are directed to "treatment devices" that combine different energy types, such as percussive impact and heat, for therapeutic purposes.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lee and Barasch - Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-19 are obvious over Lee in view of Barasch.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lee (Korean Application # 10-2001-0008111) and Barasch (Application # 2016/0310353).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lee disclosed the core elements of the claimed treatment device. Lee taught a handheld automatic percussion massager with a body, power source, and a motor-driven reciprocating massage rod that provides impact (the first energy generator). Lee also disclosed a heat wire surrounding the massage rod to provide heat therapy (the second energy generator), with the two elements arranged coaxially and operable independently. For claims requiring a sensor and processing unit, Petitioner asserted that Barasch, which teaches a massager with a computing device (processor), user interface, and various biometric sensors (e.g., a heart rate sensor on the handle), supplied these missing elements.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Lee and Barasch to improve the functionality of Lee’s basic percussion massager. Barasch’s teachings on processors, user interfaces, and biometric feedback would provide more user-friendly control, personalized settings, and valuable physiological feedback (like heart rate), representing a predictable enhancement of Lee's device.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because both references are in the field of massage devices and teach compatible systems. Integrating Barasch's electronic controls and sensors into Lee's electromechanical massager would be a straightforward application of known technologies to improve a known device.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Giraud and Choi - Claims 1-7 and 17-18 are obvious over Giraud in view of Choi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Giraud (Application # 2015/0305969) and Choi (Korean Patent # 10-1123926).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Giraud disclosed a massaging appliance with interchangeable heads, a processing unit, and a power source. Giraud’s embodiments included a head with reciprocating "rectilinear piston" massaging fingers that create an impact force (first energy generator) and another with infrared diodes for heat (second energy generator), which could be operated independently. To the extent Giraud's handheld device did not explicitly teach a gun-style grip or a coaxial arrangement, Petitioner argued Choi supplied these features. Choi disclosed a gun-shaped muscle massager for improved ergonomics and a circular infrared lamp housing with a central pass-through hole for the massage element, teaching the claimed coaxial arrangement.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Giraud with Choi to improve Giraud's ergonomics and heating efficiency. Choi’s gun-shaped grip offered a more stable and intuitive way to handle the device, while its circular, focused infrared lamp housing provided a more effective way to deliver heat than Giraud's more generally positioned diodes.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected, as both references describe handheld skin treatment appliances with similar components. Applying Choi’s ergonomic and heating element design to Giraud’s versatile massaging appliance would be a predictable combination of known features to create an improved product.

Ground 3: Lack of Written Description and Enablement - Claims 1-19 are unpatentable under §112.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The ’174 patent specification itself.

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Lack of Written Description: Petitioner argued that the claims are invalid because the specification fails to demonstrate that the inventor possessed the claimed "treatment device." The specification’s title, abstract, and detailed description exclusively disclose "communication devices" that use energy generators to convey information to a user's skin. The petition asserted there is no embodiment, example, or description of a device using energy generators solely for therapeutic treatment. The few mentions of "treatment" were argued to be in the context of communicating patient data or applying medicinal coatings, not applying therapeutic energy from the generators.
    • Lack of Enablement: Similarly, Petitioner argued the claims are not enabled because the specification provides no guidance on how to make and use the claimed invention as a "treatment device." It allegedly fails to describe what conditions could be treated, what energy parameters would be effective, or how to control the output for therapeutic purposes without the primary function of communication, thus requiring undue experimentation.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claim 4 is obvious over Lee, Barasch, and Choi, and claim 7 is obvious over Lee, Barasch, and Rhoades (Patent 7,384,405). These grounds built upon the Lee/Barasch combination by adding teachings for a reflecting groove (from Choi) and a removable housing for an energy generator (from Rhoades), respectively.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner noted that should the Patent Owner argue for discretionary denial under Fintiv, Petitioner may serve a prior art stipulation or request leave to file a Preliminary Reply.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of Post-Grant Review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’174 patent as unpatentable.