US 6406474

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent number.

Let me check for litigation and USPTO records specifically.

Let me confirm the litigation/appeal status with a couple more targeted searches.

Search results for the exact number 6406474

I ran targeted searches for the literal identifier 6406474 (and the formatted forms "US 6,406,474", "6,406,474") against general web indexes, USPTO-derived patent databases, and court-docket aggregators. Results:

• USPTO/patent data: found — the number resolves to US 6,406,474 B1, application 09/409,358. (Google Patents; a PubChem patent record for US-6406474-B1.)
• CAFC 2026 dockets: no relevant results. Nothing tying 6406474 to a Federal Circuit appeal or docket. One search hit containing the digit string "6406474" was an unrelated mining assay table (drill-hole ID), and the Biolitec/CeramOptec litigation records that surfaced involve other patents (U.S. 6,986,764 and U.S. 5,428,699), not 6406474. I could not directly query PACER/CAFC's docket system, so treat the "no CAFC activity" statement as based on public web indexing rather than an exhaustive docket check. I did not find any IPR/PGR for this patent either.

---

US 6,406,474 B1 — bibliographic summary

Abstract (as published): "A photonic scanning and delivery system capable of controllable transmission of light energy to an irregularly shaped treatment area are disclosed. The desired uniformity (controllability) of light energy application is ensured by a tracking device, which monitors the position of the radiation applicator and thereby prevents over- or under-radiation. The system employs a light energy delivery hand-piece. By these means, structures in the lower dermis are irradiated. Because of the large size of the treatment area, damage to surface tissue is avoided. The hand-piece can operate while in contact with the treatment surface. Treatment surfaces include non-medical work sites. Alternatively, the hand-piece can operate in a non-contact mode. The system can also be used in non-medical applications such as UV curing."

---

Independent claim 1 — plain-language overview

There is only one independent claim. Claim 1 is a method claim, and reads step-by-step:

1. Pick a light source whose wavelength gives the desired depth of penetration.
2. Optically connect that light source to a manually operated photonic scanning-and-delivery device (i.e., a hand piece).
3. Bring the hand piece to an extended treatment surface — one whose area is substantially larger than the device's output beam.
4. Turn the light source on.
5. Manually scan the surface with the device to apply radiation to a selected treatment area.
6. Use a monitoring/measuring subsystem inside the device that relays the device's movement/position so radiation is delivered in a predetermined pattern.
7. The subsystem must communicate to the operator that a given part of the treatment area has already been treated with a quantity of light energy — thereby ensuring each part receives the desired amount (no over- or under-treatment).

In short: a manual laser hand piece for large/irregular treatment areas that self-tracks its position and tells the operator what has already been irradiated, so dosing is controlled/uniform.

Dependent claims 2–9 — plain-language overview

• Claim 2 — the scan is done in contact mode (device pressed against the surface).
• Claim 3 — the scan is done in non-contact ("touchless") mode (device held in proximity to the surface).
• Claim 4 — the light source is external to the hand piece.
• Claim 5 — the light source is a module selected and placed into the scanning/delivery device (interchangeable source).
• Claim 6 (depends on 2) — the contact-mode position measurement uses one of: a spinning cylinder/sphere, supersonic acoustical waves, or lasers.
• Claim 7 (depends on 3) — the non-contact-mode position measurement uses supersonic acoustical waves or lasers.
• Claim 8 — the subsystem tells the operator via an acoustical signal.
• Claim 9 — the subsystem tells the operator via a display unit using a color scheme.

---

Context notes and uncertainty

• The specification frames the invention against prior art said to lack either uniform distribution over three-dimensional/irregular areas or flexibility in scan patterns. It expressly discusses U.S. 4,733,660 (Itzkan) as failing to give uniform energy distribution, and U.S. 5,474,549 (Ortiz et al., Laserscope) as providing controlled velocity/pattern but limited scan patterns. It also incorporates U.S. 5,454,807 (Lennox & Beaudet) by reference. Cited prior art on the face of the patent also includes U.S. 5,286,970; 5,288,996; 5,410,151; 5,485,536; 5,770,856; 5,860,967; 5,971,978.
• Assignee discrepancy flag: the Google Patents page lists "Original Assignee: Individual," while a PubChem record lists the assignee as "CeramOptec Ind Inc." The assignment history shows CeramOptec was the recorded owner shortly after filing, which reconciles these. I have not independently verified the current owner beyond the recorded 2009 assignments.
• Litigation flag: The Biolitec/CeramOptec litigation I located (e.g., American Medical Systems, Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., D. Mass. 3:08‑cv‑30061; Fed. Cir. 618 F.3d 1354 (2010)) concerns U.S. 6,986,764 and U.S. 5,428,699, not 6406474. I found no case or 2026 CAFC appeal involving this specific patent, but I cannot rule out a non-indexed or very recent filing.
• Because the patent expired for nonpayment in 2014, any enforcement activity after that date would be unusual, which is consistent with the absence of recent docket hits.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 6406474. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me refine with more targeted searches, since the first pass returned mostly unrelated '474 patents.

Let me try several more targeted angles, including the patent owner's enforcement history and PTAB challenges.

Litigation Search Report — U.S. Patent No. 6,406,474 B1

Bottom line: I found no record of any litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 6,406,474 B1. No district court action, no Federal Circuit appeal, no ITC investigation, and no PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) asserting or challenging this specific patent surfaced in any of the searches I was able to run. Accordingly, I cannot provide a case list with plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, case numbers, filing dates, and outcomes, because I did not find any such cases.

I want to be explicit that this is a negative finding based on the sources I could reach, not a certified clearance search. Details and caveats below.

---

1. Patent identified (for the record)

The fee lapse is significant context: the patent's enforceable window ended in June 2014, roughly twelve years post-grant.

2. Sources searched

I ran searches covering the litigation-tracking and court-record sources you named and their equivalents:

• Google Patents / Google web results for the patent and its family (WO 01/23032, CA 2386154).
• Justia Patents and PubChem patent record for US-6406474-B1 (used as citation prior art in later patents, e.g., the Justia page for US 7,220,254 listing "6406474 | June 18, 2002 | Neuberger et al." — citation only, not litigation).
• CourtListener / RECAP dockets and opinions.
• RPX Insight litigation documents; Docket Alarm; Unified Patents materials surfaced via PTACTs/PTAB filings.
• PTAB/PTACTs filings, USPTO records, and CAFC opinions/orders for any challenge or appeal referencing this patent.
• General searches combining the patent number with the owner names (CeramOptec, Biolitec, Biolitec Pharma Marketing Ltd.).

None of these produced a case in which US 6,406,474 was asserted or challenged.

3. Disambiguation — results that are not this patent

To be clear that I did not substitute a similar number, the following superficially matching items were examined and excluded:

4. Caveats and recommended verification

• My searches were limited to public web results and indexed court/PTAB documents. I could not run a direct, structured query against the Unified Patents litigation portal, Docket Navigator, or PACER (all paywalled or not directly queryable in this session). A true "no litigation" conclusion should be confirmed in those databases, using the exact string "6,406,474" and the aliases "6406474."
• Because the patent lapsed in 2014 and its claims are a method claim set (claims 1–9, methods of controllably applying radiation), any enforcement would most plausibly have occurred between 2002 and 2014 by CeramOptec/Biolitec against laser-handpiece competitors. I found no such action, but the 2002–2014 window is less thoroughly indexed in free sources than recent years.
• The continuation/division US 6,660,000 B2 (also Biolitec/CeramOptec family) likewise returned no litigation in my searches. If you need family-wide clearance, that number should be searched separately in Docket Navigator/Unified Patents.

Conclusion: Based on the searches performed, there is no known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 6,406,474. I recommend confirming via Unified Patents' litigation portal, Docket Navigator, and PACER before relying on this as a definitive absence of litigation.

I'll start by verifying the structured "no proceedings" signal against live sources before drafting.

Let me probe for any PTAB filings under related entities and the patent's family, plus check for defensive-aggregator activity.

Let me do a final targeted check on any litigation/PTAB linkage for this patent and its divisional, to confirm the absence is genuine.

PTAB proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 6406474: zero. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal — returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent as of the most recent ingest (breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied). My live searches independently surfaced no AIA petition, institution decision, or Final Written Decision naming US 6,406,474 or any of its owners of record (CeramOptec Industries, Inc.; Biolitec, Inc.; Biolitec Pharma Marketing Ltd.).

Bottom line for a defendant: you cannot say "the patent has survived two IPRs and is hardened," and you also cannot say "claims 1–5 have been canceled." There is simply no PTAB record. The decisive defensive fact is not a PTAB outcome at all — it is that the patent lapsed for failure to pay a maintenance fee, effective 2014-06-18, roughly five years before its 2019-09-30 anticipated expiration. That is a stronger defense posture than any FWD would have given you. Treat any demand letter citing US 6,406,474 as a claim on an expired patent with an essentially empty damages window (see § 286 analysis below).

---

Proceedings

None to list. There is no proceeding to put at the top, no FWD to link, no judge panel to name, and no Federal Circuit appeal arising from a PTAB trial. I will not manufacture a proceeding number, a panel, or a disposition to fill this section.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all nine claims are UNTESTED by the PTAB — and all nine are expired. Claims 1–9 (claim 1 is the sole independent claim; claims 2–9 depend from it) were never the subject of an AIA challenge, so there is no canceled/sustained split to report. What is documented on the face of the record is the maintenance-fee history in the Legal Events: the 4-year fee was paid 2005-12-16, the 8-year fee on 2009-12-10, then a reminder mailed 2014-01-24, a lapse for failure to pay on 2014-06-18, a status entry for patent discontinuation on 2014-07-14 ("PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362"), and a lapse effective 2014-06-18 recorded 2014-08-05. The 12-year fee was never paid. Unless the lapse was later cured by petition (a possibility I could not confirm from the sources available to me — verify on Patent Center), the enforceable term ended in June 2014, not September 2019.

Estoppel landscape: there is none, and that cuts both ways. Because no IPR or PGR was ever instituted, no petitioner is subject to § 315(e)(2) estoppel on this patent, and correspondingly no prior art was ever "reasonably could have raised"-locked out for a defendant. Practically, this means a defendant retains the full prior-art toolbox in district court, including references an IPR petitioner would have been stuck with: US 4,733,660 (Itzkan — the reference the specification itself distinguishes in the Information Disclosure Statement), US 5,860,967 (Lucid, electronic visualization of a dermatological laser treatment area), US 5,977,978 (Nidek laser treatment apparatus), US 5,280,990-series near-field references, and US 5,474,549 (Ortiz/Laserscope scanning, cited in the background as prior art). Uniquely, because the patent never went through an AIA trial, there is also no SAS-type "all challenged claims or none" institution record and no Board claim construction that would constrain a district court under Phillips.

Pattern signals: no petitioner, no aggregator, no serial attacks. There is no evidence of the same petitioner filing multiple IPRs, no Unified Patents or other defensive-aggregator challenge in the chain, and no PTAB appeal history for the owner to brag about. The web results I retrieved showing Biolitec as a defendant concern unrelated patents — U.S. 5,428,699 (Laserscope/AMS side-firing probe) and U.S. 6,986,764, litigated in D. Mass. (Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and associated district court rulings) — and not US 6,406,474. The '474 references that do appear in PTAB materials (e.g., the Tesla/Autonomous Devices petitions and the Neenah/Schwendimann appendix) are different patents entirely; do not cross-contaminate them with this one.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Lead with expiration, not with PTAB. Pull the Patent Center maintenance-fee record and confirm whether the 2014-06-18 lapse under 37 C.F.R. § 1.362 was ever reversed. If not, the patent is expired and unenforceable going forward (no injunction, no ongoing royalty).
2. Run the § 286 six-year clock. 35 U.S.C. § 286 limits damages to infringement occurring within six years before suit. For any suit filed in 2026, that window opens in 2020 — entirely after the 2014-06-18 lapse and the 2019-09-30 nominal expiration. There is likely no recoverable damages period at all. This is a Rule 12 or early-summary-judgment argument, not an IPR argument.
3. Do not budget for an IPR on a dead patent. With no live claims and no estoppel risk to manage, an IPR would be a poor use of resources; the § 282 invalidity case (including the Itzkan '660 and Lucid '967 references) remains fully available in court.
4. Verify the negative directly. My conclusion rests on the ODP structured block plus search-based checks; I could not query PTAB E2E or the PTAB Decisions database directly within this session. Before relying on "zero proceedings" in a filing or opinion letter, confirm via the PTAB E2E public search and the "PTAB" / "Litigation" tabs on the Google Patents page for US 6,406,474, and check CourtListener for any Federal Circuit docket naming the patent.
5. Check the family for collateral exposure. The division US 10/115,662 issued as US 6,666,000 B2 ("Device for application of radiation") and the PCT/CA counterparts (WO 2001023032 A2/A3; CA 2386154 A1) are separate instruments. Confirm each's status before assuming a demand letter's patent number is the only one in play.

Known unknowns, stated plainly: whether the 2014 lapse was revived; whether the patent was ever asserted in litigation (I found no such assertion); and whether any recently filed but unindexed petition exists. Each of these should be verified at the primary sources named above rather than assumed.

I'll verify the ownership chain against live sources before writing up the record.

Good — that surfaced critical context (a Chapter 11 and an alleged fraudulent-transfer dispute). Let me pin down the recorded correspondence and any assertion activity.

US 6406474 B1 — "Device and method for application of radiation"

Assignment-chain reconstruction | prepared 2026-09-30

Important source caveat up front: the authoritative record supplied for this analysis (the Google Patents full text at https://patents.google.com/patent/US6406474/en) exposes reel/frame numbers, execution/effective dates, assignors and assignees for every recorded conveyance, but it does not expose the correspondent of record field for any of them. I therefore cannot state who filed the recordings without fabricating it. Where the correspondent is required, I mark it NOT EXPOSED IN SOURCE — must be pulled from Assignment Center and I do not guess. Everything else below is grounded in cited reel/frame entries or in the SEC/annual-report material cited inline.

---

Inventors

Unusual pattern check — the interesting one here is not inventor departure, it is inventor/assignee identity of interest. Both inventors assigned to the original assignee before the 1999-09-30 filing date (signing dates 1999-07-07 to 1999-07-18), which is normal. What is not normal is that the original assignee sat inside a group controlled by co-inventor Neuberger (per the Biolitec, Inc. debtor record, he controlled both Biolitec, Inc. and Biolitec AG, and ~75% of Biolitec AG). So the 2009 transfers below were effectively self-dealing transfers between entities under the same control — relevant to the asset-migration analysis, though it is not an NPE signal on its own.

---

Original assignee

Ceram Optec Industries, Inc. (styled "CERAM OPTEC INDUSTRIES, INC., MASSACHUSETTS" on reel 010320/0421; styled "CERAMOPTEC INDUSTRIES, INC." on the 2009 records), East Longmeadow, Massachusetts, USA.

• Primary line of business: specialty optical fiber and laser delivery hardware — silica/silica, plastic-clad and hard-polymer-clad silica fibers, fused-end bundles and assemblies for UV/VIS/IR transmission, medical laser delivery, sensing and spectroscopy; also diode and diode-pumped Nd:YAG lasers and spectroscopic fiber accessories (CeramOptec corporate capability material; a Cambridge product directory listing gives the US entity at 413-525-0600 / www.ceramoptec.com).
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? The claims recite a manually operated photonic scanning/delivery hand-piece with a position-tracking subsystem (claims 1, 6, 7). CeramOptec shipped the enabling hardware (fibers, hand-pieces, laser delivery accessories) and the group shipped diode laser systems, but I found no evidence of a commercial product specifically implementing the claimed position-tracking scanning hand-piece. Call it unclear rather than asserted.
• Current status: Not operating as an independent entity. Per biolitec AG's Q1 2011/2012 interim report, "biolitec Inc. and CeramOptec Inc. were sold to Biolitec Holding US Inc. by biolitec AG" (~EUR 3.3 m stake valuation correction). biolitec AG's annual reports consolidate "CeramOptec Ind. Inc., East Longmeadow, MA / USA" at 90%. Whether CeramOptec Industries, Inc. survives today as a registered US corporation is not determinable from the sources I could reach; the CeramOptec brand continues under CeramOptec GmbH (Bonn) / biolitec Holding.

Data inconsistency worth flagging (literal reading): the Google Patents bibliographic header lists "Original Assignee: Individual," which contradicts the recorded assignment to CERAM OPTEC INDUSTRIES, INC. on reel 010320/0421 and contradicts PubChem's indexing ("CERAMOPTEC IND INC (US)"). The single-field header is unreliable here; the recorded assignment is the better evidence.

---

Assignment timeline

Three recorded conveyances, all of them. No security agreements, no licenses, no releases, no name changes appear in the record.

• 1999-07-07 to 1999-07-18 (executed) / recorded 1999-09-30 — Reel 010320/0421

  • Conveyance: Assignment (assignment of inventors' interest)
  • Assignor: NEUBERGER, WOLFGANG; QUADE, MICHAEL
  • Assignee: CERAM OPTEC INDUSTRIES, INC. (Massachusetts)
  • Correspondent: NOT EXPOSED IN SOURCE — must be pulled from Assignment Center
  • Context: Ordinary pre-filing inventor assignment to the operating company; executed ~2.5 months before the 1999-09-30 filing date.

• 2009-03-30 (effective) / recorded 2009-04-02 — Reel 022482/0956

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: CERAMOPTEC INDUSTRIES, INC. (Massachusetts)
  • Assignee: BIOLITEC, INC. (Massachusetts)
  • Correspondent: NOT EXPOSED IN SOURCE — must be pulled from Assignment Center. Note: this and the next record share the same reel 022482 with consecutive frames, i.e. they were filed in the same recording batch. A single recording firm/attorney is therefore likely on both — but I cannot name them from this source.
  • Context: Internal group reorganisation — CeramOptec and biolitec were already affiliates (biolitec AG consolidated CeramOptec Ind. Inc. at 90%), so this is an intra-group asset move, not an arm's-length sale.

• 2009-03-31 (effective) / recorded 2009-04-02 — Reel 022482/0944

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: BIOLITEC, INC. (Massachusetts)
  • Assignee: BIOLITEC PHARMA MARKETING LTD. (Malaysia)
  • Correspondent: NOT EXPOSED IN SOURCE — must be pulled from Assignment Center. Same reel (022482) and same recording date as the prior entry — repeat-recording-batch pattern, cannot be attributed to a named attorney from this source.
  • Context: Intra-group transfer of the US patent portfolio to a Labuan, Malaysia IP-holding subsidiary, executed one day after the first step. The record elsewhere gives this entity's registered address as Level 6(D), Main Office Tower, Financial Park Labuan, Jalan Merdeka, 87018 Labuan F.T., Malaysia (INPI record for EP2288307), and biolitec AG's 2009/2010 annual report lists "biolitec Pharma Marketing Ltd., Kuala Lumpur / Malaysia" as a 100% group subsidiary — so it is a group IP holder, not a third-party licensor.

Post-2009 non-assignment events (for completeness, not conveyances): Certificate of Correction 2003-03-18; maintenance fee payments 2005-12-16 (4 yrs) and 2009-12-10 (8 yrs); maintenance-fee reminder 2014-01-24; lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees 2014-06-18; patent expired due to non-payment under 37 CFR 1.362 (recorded 2014-07-14 / 2014-08-05). Related family: divisional US10/115,662 → US6660000B2 ("Device for application of radiation," filed 2002-04-04, priority 1999-09-30); PCT WO2001023032A2; CA2386154A1 (abandoned).

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6406474
    1999 : Inventors assign to Ceram Optec Industries
         : Application filed 30 Sep 1999
    2002 : Patent issued 18 Jun 2002
    2009 : CeramOptec Industries to Biolitec Inc
         : Biolitec Inc to Biolitec Pharma Marketing Ltd
         : AngioDynamics fraud suit filed Oct 2009
    2011 : Biolitec AG sells US units to Biolitec Holding US
    2013 : Biolitec Inc files Chapter 11
         : Trustee seeks to avoid IP transfers
    2014 : Patent lapses for unpaid maintenance fee

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The destination entity, Biolitec Pharma Marketing Ltd. (reel 022482/0944), is not a licensing-only shell: biolitec AG's 2009/2010 annual report consolidates it as a 100%-owned group subsidiary with its own equity and operating losses, and it is named as applicant/co-applicant on numerous group patents (e.g. EP1912583, EP2870159, IL218603). The Labuan F.T. address is an offshore financial-centre address and is a hardening tell worth noting, but "offshore address + IP holding" is documented here as intra-group tax/asset structuring, not as a standalone asserting LLC. No "IP / Patents / Licensing / Ventures" suffix, no single-member Delaware/Texas LLC, no registered-agent-only footprint.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. Neither Ceram Optec Industries, Inc., Biolitec, Inc., nor Biolitec Pharma Marketing Ltd. matches any of the listed asserting entities (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). All three are members of a single operating medical-laser/fiber-optics group. No Unified Patents or RPX high-frequency-plaintiff listing surfaced for any of them.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT ASSESSABLE FROM THIS SOURCE. Reel 010320/0421 (1999) and both 2009 records on reel 022482 do not expose a correspondent in the supplied text. The two 2009 entries share one reel with consecutive frames (022482/0956 and 022482/0944), which is strong circumstantial evidence of a single recording agent on both links, but the signal as defined requires the named attorney/firm, and I will not supply one. Action item: query Assignment Center for reel 010320/0421 and reel 022482 and record the correspondent field for each.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT (mechanically), but intra-group, not NPE. Two assignments executed on consecutive days (2009-03-30 and 2009-03-31) and recorded on the same day (2009-04-02) carried the patent CeramOptec Industries → Biolitec, Inc. → Biolitec Pharma Marketing Ltd. within 24 hours. That is a textbook two-hop cascade footprint. It is not evidence of NPE funneling, because all three parties were affiliates of the same group with a common controlling shareholder (Neuberger). The correct characterisation is same-day intra-group reorganisation/asset migration, not chained shell LLCs.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT as defined. The signal requires an assignment within 6 months before an infringement suit naming this patent. No infringement suit naming US 6406474 was found; the patent lapsed in 2014 without assertion. However, a closely adjacent timing fact deserves recording: the 2009-03-30/31 transfers moved this asset out of the US entity roughly seven months before AngioDynamics filed its October 2009 suit against Biolitec, Inc., Biolitec AG, Biomed and Neuberger alleging fraudulent transfer and tortious interference — a suit that ultimately produced a $74,920,422.57 judgment against Biolitec AG, Biomed and Neuberger. The transfer is therefore best read as pre-litigation asset migration out of a liability-exposed US entity, not as pre-assertion venue/standing engineering.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — PRESENT (contextual). Biolitec, Inc. — the intermediate assignee on reel 022482/0956 — filed Chapter 11 (a Chapter 11 trustee, Melanie Cyganowski, was acting by 2013). On 2013-08-29 the trustee filed an adversary proceeding against Biolitec AG, Biolitec U.S., Inc., CeramOptec, Biomed, Biolitec Medical Devices, Biolitec FZ LLC, Neuberger and others seeking, inter alia, turnover of estate property and avoidance of unauthorized post-petition transfers of proprietary information and intellectual property; a separate adversary complaint (Adv. Pro. 13-02098, 2013-11-12) targeted alleged fraudulent transfer of the Massachusetts headquarters real property to CeramOptec Industries, Inc. Qualification: this specific patent was not sold in the bankruptcy — it had already left Biolitec, Inc. in March 2009, ~4 years pre-petition. So the distress/litigation element is present; the "patents auctioned in proceedings" element is not.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No evidence that any operating company transferred this patent to an unrelated NPE to assert against competitors. The 2009 transferee is an affiliate of the transferor, and the patent was never asserted.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents or OIN; it terminates at Biolitec Pharma Marketing Ltd. and then simply expires for non-payment of maintenance fees (2014).

---

Verdict

Insufficient data.

Justification: the recorded chain is short and fully intra-group — reel 010320/0421 (inventors → Ceram Optec Industries, Inc., 1999) and reel 022482/0956 plus 022482/0944 (CeramOptec Industries → Biolitec, Inc. → Biolitec Pharma Marketing Ltd., effective 2009-03-30/31, recorded 2009-04-02) — and every positive NPE signal is absent: no shell/asserter entity, no named asserter, no defensive-aggregator terminus, no assertion of this patent at all, and a 2014 lapse for unpaid maintenance fees. The residual uncertainty that forces "insufficient data" rather than a clean negative is that (a) the correspondent of record is not exposed in the authoritative source, so the strongest available NPE tell (repeat recording attorney across reel 022482) could not be tested, and (b) there is no assertion activity to classify, so neither "operating-company assertion" nor "defensive/non-asserting" fits. What the record does support is a distinct, real finding that is not an NPE finding: a 2009 same-day migration of the US patent estate offshore, ~7 months before a fraudulent-transfer suit, followed by the US entity's Chapter 11 and a trustee's IP-transfer avoidance action.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 6406474; pull correspondent fields for reels 010320/0421 and 022482), with the patent text at https://patents.google.com/patent/US6406474/en and the assignment/legal-events entries reproduced there.

I'll research the prior-art references cited on the face of US 6,406,474 and analyze them against the claims. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me gather data on the remaining cited references and the two specification-discussed references.

I've reached the tool-call limit, so I'll now synthesize the analysis from the sources retrieved. Where full text of a reference could not be retrieved in this session, I say so explicitly.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,406,474 B1

Note on the identifier: Per the instruction to interpret identifiers literally, the number 6406474 resolves, in the USPTO-derived records, to U.S. 6,406,474 B1, "Device and method for application of radiation," application 09/409,358, filed/priority 1999‑09‑30, granted 2002‑06‑18. This is the patent analyzed below; I have not substituted any similar number.

---

1. Scope and method

The task asks me to walk the patent citations of 6,406,474 and, for each, give (a) full citation, (b) publication/filing date, (c) brief description, and (d) which claim(s) it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Two distinct citation sets exist in the record and I treat them separately:

• The eight references cited on the face of the patent ("Patent Citations (8)") — the art the examiner actually considered. This is the core answer.
• References discussed in the specification / listed under family citations (e.g., Itzkan '660 reappears; Ortiz '549 and Lennox & Beaudet '807 are recited in the text; several fiber-optic and scanning references appear in the "Citations / Family Cites Families" tables). These are covered in §3–§4.

Anticipation standard applied: Under §102 a single reference must disclose every element of the claim, arranged as in the claim. A dependent claim incorporates all limitations of the claim from which it depends, so if no reference anticipates independent claim 1, none can anticipate claims 2–9 on the strength of the cited art alone. I therefore report where each reference discloses individual claim elements and whether it could anticipate any claim.

For reference, claim 1's elements (from the previously generated section) are:

• (a) select light source with wavelength giving desired penetration depth;
• (b) optically connect it to a manually operated photonic scanning/delivery device;
• (c) bring the device to an extended treatment surface larger than the output beam;
• (d) activate the source;
• (e) manually scan the surface;
• (f) a monitoring/measuring subsystem within the device that relays movement/position to deliver radiation in a predetermined pattern; and
• (g) the subsystem communicates to the operator that a part of the area has received a quantity of light energy, ensuring each part receives the desired amount.

---

2. The eight references cited on the face of US 6,406,474

Source for the citation set and dates: Google Patents record for US 6,406,474 B1 (patents.google.com/patent/US6406474/en).

---

Reference 1 — US 4,733,660 A (Itzkan)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 4,733,660, "Laser system for providing target specific energy deposition and damage," applic. 06/940,195; assignee Medical Laser Research and Development Corp.
• Dates: priority 1984‑08‑07; granted 1988‑03‑29.
• Description: A light-energy delivery hand-piece with an adjustable scanning mechanism that manipulates the dwell time of a focused spot to control the energy absorbed by target material; dwell time is matched to the thermal-diffusion time for destroying an abnormal vessel wall and surrounding collagen. (Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4733660)
• Relation to claims: Discloses a manually manipulable hand-piece that scans a focused spot and controls energy per spot (elements (b), (e), partly (d)/(f)).
• Potential §102 anticipation: None of claims 1–9. It does not disclose the extended-treatment-surface-larger-than-beam limitation (c), nor the in-device movement/position monitoring subsystem (f) or its operator communication of accumulated dose (g). The patent itself distinguishes '660 on exactly this basis ("fails to provide for a uniform distribution of energy throughout a work or treatment site"). Best viewed as element-level / §103 art.

Reference 2 — US 5,286,970 A (AT&T Bell Laboratories)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,286,970, "Near field optical microscopic examination of a biological specimen," appl. 07/615,409; assignee AT&T Bell Laboratories.
• Dates: filed 1990‑11‑19; granted 1994‑02‑15.
• Description: A near-field scanning optical microscope (NSOM) in which a sub-wavelength aperture is placed in the optical near field of a specimen and scanned in raster fashion to build a high-resolution image. (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5286970)
• Relation to claims: Relevant only to optical-probe/scanning mechanics and fiber coupling; it is a microscope, not a therapeutic or dose-controlled delivery system.
• Potential §102 anticipation: None. It lacks every treatment-related element (a), (c), (d), (g) and the dose-monitoring subsystem of (f).

Reference 3 — US 5,288,996 A (AT&T Bell Laboratories)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,288,996, "Near-field optical microscopic examination of genetic material."
• Dates: filed 1990‑11‑19; granted 1994‑02‑22.
• Description: Sibling of '970 in the same NSOM family; near-field aperture scanning applied to examination of genetic material.
• Relation to claims: Same category as '970 — optical near-field probe art.
• Potential §102 anticipation: None. (Flag: I was unable to retrieve the full text of '996 in this session due to a search-step limit; the description above is inferred from its title, family relationship to '970, and the examiner's grouping. Treat the "none" conclusion as high-confidence, the description as lower-confidence.)

Reference 4 — US 5,410,151 A (Sumitomo Electric Lightwave Corp.)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,410,151, "Fiber optic probe and method of making same."
• Dates: filed 1993‑07‑15; granted 1995‑04‑25.
• Description: Fiber-optic probe construction and fabrication.
• Relation to claims: Bears on the "light delivery optics" / fiber-probe hardware recited in the specification (rectangular or round fiber core), not on treatment control.
• Potential §102 anticipation: None. (Same retrieval caveat as Reference 3 — description derived from title/assignee/citation grouping.)

Reference 5 — US 5,485,536 A (Accuphotonics, Inc.)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,485,536, "Fiber optic probe for near field optical microscopy."
• Dates: filed 1994‑10‑13; granted 1996‑01‑16.
• Description: Fiber-optic probe for NSOM.
• Relation to claims: Same near-field-probe category as References 2–4.
• Potential §102 anticipation: None (retrieval caveat as above).

Reference 6 — US 5,770,856 A (British Technology Group Ltd.)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,770,856, "Near field sensor with cantilever and tip containing optical path for an evanescent wave."
• Dates: filed 1993‑07‑22; granted 1998‑06‑23.
• Description: A near-field sensor with a cantilever and optical-path tip for evanescent-wave detection.
• Relation to claims: Near-field sensing/probe art; unrelated to controlled therapeutic dose delivery.
• Potential §102 anticipation: None (retrieval caveat as above).

Observation on the five near-field/probe references (Refs. 2–6): They appear to have been cited for the optical-delivery/fiber-probe hardware aspects, consistent with the specification's emphasis on light-delivery optics with rectangular or round fiber cores. None addresses the treatment-control, position-tracking, or operator-feedback subject matter that defines claim 1.

Reference 7 — US 5,860,967 A (Lucid, Inc.; Zavislan et al.) — most material of the eight

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,860,967, "Dermatological laser treatment system with electronic visualization of the area being treated," appl. 08/094,296; inventors Zavislan & Eastman; assignee Lucid, Inc.
• Dates: priority 1993‑07‑21; granted 1999‑01‑19. (uspto.report/patent/grant/5860967; https://patents.google.com/patent/US5860967)
• Description: A hand-held microsurgical instrument that projects a laser beam, focuses it at spots within tissue (selectively destroying vessels/hair follicles), and deflects/scans the beam in X and Y over the area while the area is visualized electronically (CCD camera + display), so the operator can verify that the spots are at the selected sites before firing.
• Relation to claims: Discloses elements (b) hand-held laser device, (e) scanning the beam over an area, and notably touches the "communication to operator" theme via the display. It explicitly states the beam "may be tracked as it is deflected over the area … by visualization thereof on a display or monitor."
• Potential §102 anticipation: None of claims 1–9, in my assessment. Two gaps defeat anticipation:
  1. Its monitoring is visualization of tissue/beam placement, not a movement/position subsystem that relays the device's position to deliver a predetermined pattern (element (f)); and
  2. There is no disclosure that the system informs the operator that a given part has already received a quantity of light energy to prevent over/under-treatment (element (g)).
     It is nonetheless the best §103 primary reference among the face citations, especially against the "hand-held, scanning, visualized" concepts in claims 1–3 and 9.

Reference 8 — US 5,971,978 A (Nidek Co., Ltd.)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,971,978, "Laser treatment apparatus," appl. filed 1997‑08‑29; assignee Nidek Co., Ltd. (Mukai).
• Dates: filed 1997‑08‑29; granted 1999‑10‑26. (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5971978; uspto.report/patent/grant/5971978)
• Description: A laser treatment apparatus with a hand-piece unit and a scanner head (driven/galvano mirrors) that performs two-dimensional X/Y scanning of a treatment area under set irradiation conditions; a controller turns the treatment beam on/off "in correspondence with an operation of the laser scanning means" to prevent over-irradiation of any part. Notably it explains that galvano mirrors change speed with swing angle, causing over-irradiation of slowly-scanned parts — the exact uniformity problem the '474 patent addresses.
• Relation to claims: Directly relevant to element (f) ("predetermined pattern," controlled delivery) and to the anti-over-irradiation purpose behind element (g).
• Potential §102 anticipation: None of claims 1–9. The apparatus is a motorized/computerized scanner, not a manually operated scanning-and-delivery device moved by the operator (element (b)/(e)); and it does not disclose a position-tracking subsystem that communicates accumulated dose to the operator (element (g)) — its control is automatic, not operator-informing. Strong §103 art on the "controlled, non-overlapping pattern" concept.

---

3. References discussed in the specification but not among the eight face citations

US 5,474,549 A — Ortiz et al. (Laserscope) — key

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,474,549, "Method and system for scanning a laser beam for controlled distribution of laser dosage," appl. 07/727,952; assignee Laserscope.
• Dates: filed 1991‑07‑09; granted 1995‑12‑12 (listed in the family-citations table). (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/00/b7/f4/68140cf6f8167a/US5474549.pdf)
• Description: A system distributing a laser output on a body to provide a uniform fluence level across a treatment region by scanning the beam at a controlled scan velocity and pattern; includes a data processor and an operator interface "for providing operator input and feedback." The spec cites it as prior art giving uniform fluence/controlled patterns but limited scan patterns.
• Relation to claims: Discloses uniform-fluence delivery, a predetermined pattern, and an operator interface — i.e., element (f) and part of (g)'s feedback idea.
• Potential §102 anticipation: None for claim 1: it is a mechanized/computerized scanner (not manually operated, elements (b)/(e)) and the operator interface is for input/feedback of the scan, not for informing the operator which regions already received how much energy (element (g)). Important §103 art.

US 4,733,660 A (Itzkan)

• See Reference 1 above; it is both face-cited and spec-discussed. The specification expressly criticizes it for lacking uniform distribution.

US 5,454,807 A — Lennox & Beaudet (Boston Scientific) — incorporated by reference

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,454,807, "Medical treatment of deeply seated tissue using optical radiation," appl. 08/061,687; inventors Charles D. Lennox and Stephen P. Beaudet; assignee Boston Scientific Corp.
• Dates: filed 1993‑05‑14; granted 1995‑10‑03.
• Description: Coolant/liquid application to the skin surface to prevent tissue damage during deep optical treatment. Expressly incorporated by reference into the '474 disclosure.
• Relation to claims: Supplies the fluid/coolant-application subject matter described in the specification; not to position tracking or operator dosing feedback.
• Potential §102 anticipation: None. (Retrieval caveat: description is from the patent's own text and bibliographic listing, not from the '807 full text in this session.)

---

4. Other references in the citation / family tables (secondary)

These appear in the "Citations (8)" / "Family Cites Families (10)" tables of the record but were not the eight examiner face-citations:

• Potential §102 anticipation: None of these anticipates any of claims 1–9 standing alone. US 6,193,710 is the most conceptually relevant (non-overlapping scanned patterns) for element (f) and possible §103 combination.

---

5. §102 conclusion

No reference cited on the face of US 6,406,474 (nor any reference discussed in its specification) anticipates claim 1 or, consequentially, any of dependent claims 2–9. The reason is consistent across all of them: none discloses the combination of

• a manually operated scanning/delivery device applied to a treatment area larger than the output beam (elements (b)–(e)), together with
• an in-device monitoring/measuring subsystem that relays the device's movement/position to deliver a predetermined pattern (element (f)) and that communicates to the operator the accumulated light-energy dose per region to prevent over/under-treatment (element (g)).

Element (g) in particular — operator-directed dose feedback tied to device position — is the feature the cited art is missing (the closest, US 5,860,967, shows tissue/beam visualization, and US 5,474,549 shows an operator interface for scan control, but neither reports accumulated dose per treated region).

Best §103 combination candidates (for completeness, not §102):

---

6. Uncertainty and caveats

1. Retrieval limits. Full texts of US 5,288,996, US 5,410,151, US 5,485,536, US 5,770,856, and US 5,454,807 were not retrieved in this session (I exhausted the search-step budget). Their descriptions above are inferred from titles, assignees, family relationships, and the patent's own text. My "no anticipation" conclusions for them are high-confidence (they are optical-probe/cooling references), but their descriptions should be verified against the primary documents.
2. Anticipation vs. obviousness. I applied a strict single-reference §102 test. A stricter reading of any reference as anticipating a single dependent claim is not possible here, because every dependent claim incorporates claim 1's limitations.
3. Date basis. Filing/priority and grant dates are taken from the Google Patents citation tables and cited web records; where a reference's own front page was not retrieved, treat dates as recorded metadata rather than confirmed front-page data.
4. No litigation/PTAB context is relevant to this question, and per the earlier generated section, no such proceedings were found; the patent lapsed for non-payment effective 2014‑06‑18.

Primary sources used: Google Patents records for US6406474, US4733660, US5286970, US5860967, US5971978; the US5474549 PDF (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com); and uspto.report grant pages for 5860967 and 5971978.

I'll do a small number of targeted checks on the two references I lean on most heavily before drafting the obviousness analysis, using the Prior Art section's citations as the starting point.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,406,474 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Prepared 2026-09-30 | Builds on the Prior Art section above (not repeated here)

Scope note: This is a retrospective/hypothetical validity analysis of an expired patent (maintenance-fee lapse effective 2014-06-18; see the Assignment History and PTAB sections above). It is written for defensive and portfolio-diligence purposes, not for an IPR (which would be uneconomic on a dead patent). All prior-art characterizations below are anchored to the Prior Art section, supplemented by live verification of four specific points noted inline.

---

0. Cross-section consistency notes (flagged per instruction)

• Contradiction flagged: the previously generated PTAB section refers to "US 5,280,990-series near-field references." The authoritative record and the Prior Art section both give these as US 5,286,970 and US 5,288,996 (AT&T Bell Labs NSOM). "5,280,990-series" is a transcription artifact; the correct numbers are used here.
• No contradiction between the Prior Art section's "US 5,441,496 A (Infinitech)" and the authoritative text's "US5441496A" — same number (5,441,496).
• Refinement (not contradiction): my live check of US 5,860,967 confirms a disclosure point the Prior Art section did not record — the treatment laser may be external to the hand piece (fed by optical fiber or articulated arm) or mounted in the housing, e.g. a laser diode. That directly touches claims 4 and 5 and is used below.
• New material surfaced in this session: the WO 98/51235 / EP 0 991 372 (Palomar + General Hospital Corp.) disclosure includes a contact head moved at a controlled rate over an area larger than its optical channel, a mechanism for measuring the head's rate of movement, and an audio or visual indication to the operator when the rate falls outside the desired range. This is the single most probative reference for the § 103 case and is of record in the family (listed under "Family Cites Families (10)" in the authoritative text).

---

1. Governing framework

The application was filed 1999-09-30, so pre-AIA § 103(a) governs, applied through the Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) factors and, decisively, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). No teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the references is required; the question is whether the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, considering (i) the scope and content of the prior art, (ii) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (iii) the level of ordinary skill, and (iv) objective evidence of nonobviousness. KSR authorizes the classic rationales I apply below:

Statutory-date layer (important for the combinations):

---

2. Person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

The specification supplies no explicit skill level. For this analysis I adopt the following, which is the construct most favorable to the patentee (a higher skill level makes invalidity easier, so this is the conservative choice):

A person with a B.S. in electrical, optical, or biomedical engineering (or physics) and 2–4 years of experience designing laser/light-delivery systems for medical or industrial surface treatment, or a technician with 5+ years of hands-on laser-handpiece experience and demonstrated familiarity with position-sensing and closed-loop dose control.

This person would know, as of 1999: (a) how to select a wavelength for a target chromophore and depth (Anderson & Parrish selective photothermolysis, discussed in the '474 specification itself); (b) how to couple a source to a delivery fiber/hand piece, including fiber-diode coupling; (c) that opto-mechanical encoders ("mouse wheels"), acoustic/laser three-dimensional digitizers, and video-based tracking exist and are cheap; and (d) that closed-loop control of delivered dose based on device velocity is a routine engineering objective. The '474 specification itself concedes (b), (c), and (d) — see § 5.4 below.

---

3. The three "gating" limitations in claim 1

Any obviousness theory must meet all elements; three do the analytical work:

• G1 — "manually operated photonic scanning and delivery device" (§ 1(b), (e)).
• G2 — "a monitoring/measuring subsystem within said scanning and delivery device, which relays movement/position of said device to controllably deliver said radiation … in a predetermined pattern" (§ 1(f)).
• G3 — "said monitoring/measuring subsystem communicates to inform an operator that a part of said extended treatment area has been treated with a quantity of a light energy … to ensure that each said part … receives a desired amount" (§ 1(g)).

The Prior Art section correctly concluded that no single reference discloses G1+G2+G3 together, so there is no anticipation. Obviousness does not require that. As shown below, G1 and G2 are squarely met by the art, and G3 is met by the combination of Palomar's operator indication and Lucid's position/visualization tracking, with the caveat in § 9 that G3 is the point of maximum vulnerability.

---

4. Claim 1 element map — primary combination (Combination I)

Combination I (strongest): WO 98/51235 / EP 0 991 372 (Palomar + MGH) + US 5,860,967 (Lucid) + US 5,474,549 (Ortiz) or US 5,971,978 (Nidek).

Dependent-claim coverage in the same combination: claim 2 (contact mode) → Palomar is expressly in contact with the patient's skin; claim 4 (external source) and claim 5 (source module placed into the device) → Lucid's external-fiber and in-housing diode laser alternatives; claim 8 (acoustical signal) → Palomar's "audio … indication"; claim 9 (color-scheme display) → Lucid's monitor visualization (color coding a display is an ordinary GUI choice).

---

5. Motivation to combine (the heart of the analysis)

The record here is unusually favorable because the motivation is written into the prior art itself, not inferred from the inventor's hindsight.

5.1 — The art defines the identical problem. Ortiz's background (quoting WO 87/06478) states the problem in the patentee's own terms: manual treatment suffers from "problems with regulating the distribution of the dosage of radiation … which avoids overexposing certain areas and underexposing other areas," so that "the skill of the practitioner … is of utmost importance." Ortiz then states its object as "a uniform fluence level throughout an entire treatment region." Palomar states the same problem for a hand-moved head ("[s]uch uniform irradiation is very difficult with a pulsed source"; the head "is moved at a selected rate … preferably substantially uniform"). The '474 specification repeats the identical problem statement almost verbatim ("Uneven distribution of light energy may lead to too much or too little energy at certain portions of the work or treatment site … require[s] re-treatment"). Same problem ⇒ same solution is obvious (KSR rationale D/F).

5.2 — Explicit prior-art motivation for hand-moved dose control (rationale G). Palomar does not merely suggest; it teaches the combination that claim 1 recites: a hand-held head, manually moved over an area larger than its aperture, plus a movement-measuring mechanism, plus an operator indication derived from that mechanism. Adding Lucid's beam-tracking/visualization or Ortiz's controlled-pattern scanning to Palomar's rate-measuring head is the natural, incremental completion of Palomar's own disclosure — not a leap.

5.3 — Design incentives and market forces (rationale F). The '474 specification lists the commercial drivers: hair removal ("one of the largest potential markets"), tattoo removal requiring multiple wavelengths over irregular areas, varicose-vein shrinkage, wound treatment, and non-medical UV curing. Each involves large or irregular areas where a computer scanner's fixed patterns ("square, line, rectangle, rhombus, serpentine, triangle, or hexagon," per the specification) fail. The incentive to keep the operator's manual freedom while bolting on measured delivery from the Ortiz/Nidek/Palomar art is a textbook market-driven predictable variation.

5.4 — Applicant admissions supply the missing pieces (usable against interest). The specification itself admits:

• Non-uniformity is a known, identified problem requiring re-treatment (Background/ID S).
• "Various scanning photonic delivery systems, typically incorporating a computerized sub-system, have been suggested" — i.e., automated dose control was known.
• The position-tracking subsystem "can be analogized to that of a common computer mouse," and three-dimensional positioning systems "similar to those currently used in multimedia virtual world applications in the entertainment field" using "supersonic acoustical waves or lasers" are adapted from existing technology. That is an admission that G2's tracking function was a known technique (rationales B/C/E).
• "During most applications, it is difficult to visually determine which treatment areas have previously been scanned." That is an admission that the G3 problem was recognized, and Lucid's display is art-directed at exactly that deficiency.

5.5 — Reasonable expectation of success: high. Every element is a known device performing its own established function (source selection, fiber coupling, hand-moved head, motion sensor, dose display/alert). No reference teaches that any element would defeat another; no new physics is required. The combination is at most a predictable aggregation of known functions — the classic "collocation" posture — with no asserted (and no evidenced) unexpected synergy. Under KSR, the burden was on the applicant to show a nonobvious interaction, and the specification points to none beyond ordinary feedback.

---

6. Alternative and supplementary combinations

Combination II — Lucid '967 + Nidek '978 (+ Palomar). Lucid supplies the hand-held, source-agnostic scanning laser and display-based tracking; Nidek supplies the motorized X/Y scanner and — critically — a controller that turns the beam on/off "to prevent over-irradiation" caused by non-uniform scan speed. Motivation: Nidek's own diagnosis (galvano mirrors change speed with swing angle, over-irradiating slowly scanned areas) is the same non-uniformity problem, and applying Nidek's automatic control to Lucid's hand-held scanner is a known-technique improvement of a similar device (rationale C/D). Add Palomar for the contact mode and the audio/visual operator alert.

Combination III — Ortiz '549 + Lucid '967 + Palomar. Best construction for claims 8 and 9 (operator signalling and display). Ortiz provides the data processor and "operator interface … for providing operator input and feedback"; Lucid provides the monitor on which the beam's position is tracked; Palomar provides the audio/visual indication tied to head movement. Substituting an acoustical alert (claim 8) for a visual one is a simple substitution of one known signalling modality for another for predictable results (rationale B); substituting a color-coded display (claim 9) for a monochrome one is an equally predictable ergonomic variation, and the '474 specification claims nothing more for it than legibility.

Claims 6 and 7 (tracking modalities). These recite "a spinning cylinder/sphere, supersonic acoustical waves, [or] lasers" (contact; claim 6) and "supersonic acoustical waves [or] lasers" (non-contact; claim 7). These are not invented here — they are named in the claim in the same terms the specification uses to describe pre-existing, off-the-shelf technology ("common computer mouse"; "multimedia virtual world applications"). Choosing among a finite, identified set of known position-sensing techniques with a reasonable expectation of success is KSR rationale E, and, for the spinning-cylinder option, rationale C (the mechanical mouse encoder is the archetypal known technique). Caveat: for a formal validity challenge I would want at least one dated documentary reference for the encoder/spin-tracking feature rather than relying on the specification's admission and general knowledge, because claims 6–7 are the claims most likely to survive on a "specific mechanism" theory.

---

7. Claim-by-claim obviousness summary

---

8. Objective evidence of nonobviousness (Graham factor 4)

Nothing in the record supports it, and this is an independent reason the § 103 case is strong:

• No commercial success evidence, no nexus evidence, no licensing revenue, no copying evidence surfaced (the Prior Art and PTAB sections found no assertion activity at all).
• No long-felt-but-unmet-need weight: the need was identified and addressed in the prior art (Ortiz's uniform-fluence object; Nidek's over-irradiation control; Palomar's rate measurement), so any "long-felt need" was already being met by others.
• No failure of others: the art shows multiple working solutions to the same problem.
• The patent expired for non-payment in 2014, which is at least consistent with a low-value/weak-right posture (though I would not press that as a legal argument).
• The "lower skilled people are able to operate it safely" passage in the specification is a functional-recitation argument, not objective evidence; absent testing data or a nexus, it carries little weight.

---

9. Counterarguments and the weakest link

Patentee's best rebuttals, and my assessment:

1. "The art teaches away from manual operation." The specification criticizes computerized systems (limited patterns; cannot handle large three-dimensional surfaces). Assessment: fails. The Ortiz background passage expressly identifies the deficiencies of manual treatment and motivates mechanization — the opposite of a teaching away. And Palomar teaches a manually moved contact head, so the art does not disparage manual operation as such; it supplies the missing measurement layer. Moreover, applicant's own admission that manual use is skill-dependent is an admission of the problem to be solved, not of a technical prejudice.

2. "No reference teaches or suggests the combination." Assessment: weak under KSR. Explicit motivation exists (Palomar's own rate-measuring + operator-alert architecture; Ortiz's uniform-fluence objective; Nidek's over-irradiation discussion). KSR also permits reliance on market forces and design incentives, which are evident in the hair-removal/tattoo/varicose-vein markets the specification itself lists.

3. "Within said scanning and delivery device — the subsystem must be inside the hand piece." Assessment: weak. Palomar's measuring mechanism is in the head; Lucid's deflection system and optics are in the housing; Nidek's scanner is in the hand-piece unit. Where a computing unit sits (monitor/computer, per the specification's own FIG. 2 and 3 discussion of "unit 25") is a design choice, not a patentable distinction.

4. "Element (g) requires reporting accumulated quantity of light energy per region, not merely visualization or a rate alert." Assessment: this is the patentee's strongest point — and the case's weakest link. Palomar indicates that the rate is out of range; Lucid shows where the beam is; neither expressly reports "this region has received X joules/cm²." A formal challenge should be strengthened with prior art directed at accumulated-dose mapping / treated-area overlays / energy-density displays. Candidates to pull and verify (all needing date checks before the 1999-09-30 priority): intra-operative dose-accumulation displays in ophthalmic laser delivery (the Visx '710 line and its siblings), radiotherapy/brachytherapy treatment-planning dose maps, and industrial laser surface-treatment scanning with energy-density logging. Absent such art, G3 remains a genuine, if unpersuasive-in-context, limitation.

5. "Claim 6/7 mechanisms are specific and enabled only by the applicant." Assessment: weak. The mechanisms are conceded to be pre-existing and off-the-shelf; the claims recite them by generic category.

---

10. Bottom line

Claim 1 would more likely than not have been obvious under pre-AIA § 103(a) as applied in KSR. The strongest, most defensible combination is:

WO 98/51235 A1 (Palomar + General Hospital Corp., pub. 1998-11-19) as the base — a hand-held, manually moved treatment head applied in contact with a treatment area larger than its optical channel, having a mechanism to measure the head's movement rate and to give the operator an audio or visual indication when the rate is out of range —
in view of US 5,860,967 (Lucid/Zavislan) — a hand-held scanning laser delivery instrument whose beam is deflected and tracked by visualization on a display, and whose source may be external (fiber/articulated arm) or an in-housing diode laser —
and further in view of US 5,474,549 (Ortiz/Laserscope) or US 5,971,978 (Nidek) — controlled-velocity, predetermined-pattern, uniform-fluence scanning with a controller that prevents over-irradiation.

Every element of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 is met by that combination, with claims 3, 6, 7, and 9 met by known-technique substitution or by the applicant's own admissions. The only limitation that requires genuine argument is element (g)'s "communicates … that a part has been treated with a quantity of light energy," and conventional secondary considerations are absent from the record.

Confidence: strong on obviousness of claims 2, 4, 5, 8; moderate-to-strong on claim 1 (hinging on G3); moderate on claims 3, 6, 7, 9.

---

11. Recommended verification before relying on this

1. Pull the full text of WO 98/51235 A1 and confirm the claims/description support: (a) manual movement of the head over an area larger than the channel; (b) the movement-rate measuring mechanism; (c) the audio/visual operator indication. (I confirmed these from the EP 0 991 372 A2/B1 text via Google Patents; the WO parent controls the priority date.)
2. Verify the WO 98/51235 international filing date (≈1997-05-15) and English publication to lock in the § 102(e)(2) date — do not cite the EP publication date (2000-04-12) as the art date.
3. Hunt specifically for accumulated-dose-display art to close G3 (ophthalmic laser dose maps; radiotherapy dose displays; industrial surface-treatment energy logging).
4. Pull US 5,971,978 (Nidek) and US 6,193,710 (Visx) front pages to confirm the 1997-08-29 and 1998-07-16 filing dates that make them § 102(e) art.
5. Check US 5,860,967's full claim set — its "tracked as it is deflected … by visualization on a display or monitor" language is the sentence most likely to be quoted in any invalidity contention.
6. Confirm no terminal disclaimer / § 103(c) common-ownership overlap between the '474 and Nidek/Visx (they are unrelated owners, so the § 102(e) proviso should not apply — but confirm).

Known unknowns, stated plainly: I could not retrieve full text for US 5,288,996, US 5,410,151, US 5,485,536, US 5,770,856, or US 5,454,807 (per the Prior Art section's caveats); none of those matters to the § 103 theory above, which does not rest on them. I have not verified the file history wrapper (e.g., whether the examiner ever raised a § 103 rejection over Ortiz or Palomar-family art and what arguments were made) — that is the single most useful remaining document, because the applicant's own arguments, if any, would frame the estoppel-free district-court dispute.

Primary sources: Google Patents records for US6406474, US5860967, US5971978, US5474549, EP0991372A2, EP0991372B1, JP4361082B2 (WO 98/51235 family listing); uspto.report grant page for 5860967; patentimages PDF of US 5,474,549; EP 1700573A3 and EP 2311399A3 search reports (WO 98/51235 publication date and co-applicant).