US 7427289

I'll search for authoritative information on US 7,427,289, including any litigation/CAFC docket activity, then summarize.

Let me run a couple more targeted searches for any litigation or Federal Circuit activity involving this specific patent.

US Patent 7,427,289 — Summary

Important caveat on scope of search: I ran targeted searches against public patent databases and general web/court-docket sources. I found no authoritative evidence that US 7,427,289 has been the subject of a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appeal or any 2026 docket activity. I cannot confirm the existence of any CAFC 2026 case involving this patent number, and my search tools do not give me direct, reliable access to the full PACER/CAFC docket systems. Treat the litigation-absence statement below as "not found in my searches," not as a positive assertion that no litigation ever existed.

---

Bibliographic data (from the patent document itself)

Minor discrepancy noted (not corrected): Google Patents lists the priority date as 2005-01-14 (same as filing); a Unified Patents page for the pre-grant publication lists a priority date of 2005-01-13. I report both as found; the patent-office records cited in the patent document support 2005-01-14.

---

Abstract (as granted)

"Lasers capable of lasing at at least two wavelengths are provided having a lasing medium which is capable of lasing at a first wavelength and at a second wavelength. Also disclosed are laser workstations having two lasers driven by a single electronics drive system in which a single energy storage network is connected to a first laser pump chamber operative to excite a first laser medium and connected to a second laser pump chamber operative to excite a second laser medium."

Note: The abstract emphasizes the dual-wavelength resonator and the shared-drive-workstation concepts, but omits the beam-block-shutter detail that appears in the specification and dependent claims.

---

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Laser workstation (apparatus).
A workstation with two lasers, each having a lasing medium in a pump chamber containing an ionizable flashlamp. A single electronics drive system includes (a) a controller that can selectively activate the first or second laser by selectively ionizing that laser's flashlamp, and (b) one energy storage network that, after that selective ionization, delivers energy simultaneously to both ionizable lamps. Because only the pre-ionized lamp conducts, only the intended laser fires. The core idea is: pick the laser by which lamp you ionize, then dump shared stored energy to both — the ionized one lases.

Claim 23 — Method of treating skin tissue (sub-pulses).
A treatment method using a workstation with two lasers driven by one drive system having one energy storage network connected to both pump chambers (each with an ionizable flashlamp). Laser energy from the first laser (first wavelength) and from the second laser (second wavelength) is applied to the skin sequentially or simultaneously, with energy from at least one laser applied in sub-pulses. The claim expressly recites, for each laser, the sequence: selectively ionize that laser's flashlamp, then provide energy from the drive system simultaneously to both lamps so the ionized lamp excites its medium.

Claim 32 — Method of treating skin tissue (same-site, two lasers).
A closely related treatment method: provide the two-laser/single-drive-system workstation (flashboard-ionization architecture as above), then apply laser energy from the first laser to skin tissue and laser energy from the second laser to the same skin tissue, again reciting the selective-ionization-then-simultaneous-energy steps for each laser. Notably, this independent claim does not itself recite "different wavelengths" or "sub-pulses" (those appear in dependent claims 33–34 and elsewhere).

Claim 35 — Method of treating a vascular lesion (585/595 nm → 1064 nm).
A method using a workstation with two lasers driven by a single drive system having a single energy storage network connected to two pump chambers. The treatment step is specific: apply 595 nm energy from the first laser to the vascular lesion at an effective fluence to convert oxy-hemoglobin to met-hemoglobin, and then apply 1064 nm energy from the second laser to the vascular lesion. This is the "wavelength multiplexing" embodiment — the dye-laser pulse chemically primes the blood (met-hemoglobin absorbs 1064 nm far better), so the follow-up Nd:YAG pulse works at reduced fluence.

---

Representative dependent-claim coverage (for context)

• Pulse dye laser first laser, output ~575–650 nm (claims 4–5, 17, 33).
• Nd:YAG second laser (claims 6–9, 21–22, 34), including the dual-wavelength resonator: output coupler at one end; highly reflective 1064 nm first mirror at the other end; 1320 nm-reflective / 1064 nm-transparent second mirror between them; and a beam block shutter movable into or out of the axis between the mirrors (claim 7). Claim 9 adds an anti-reflective 1064 nm coating on the second mirror.
• Alternative first laser: Alexandrite, including a "variable pulse 755 nm Alexandrite laser" (claims 18–19).
• Active semiconductor switches (IGBT or FET) connecting the energy storage network to each pump chamber (claims 14–16) — the sub-pulse architecture.
• Handpiece, lenses, optical fiber or waveguide delivery (claims 10–13).
• Treatment indications: leg/facial veins (595 nm + 1064 nm); acne, acne scarring, scarring, sun-damaged or wrinkled skin (595 nm + 1320 nm) (claims 27–29).
• Sub-pulse sequencing: intercalated sub-pulses (claims 30, 37); pulse train followed by another laser's pulse train (claims 31, 38).

Observation (flagged, not corrected): Claim 13 depends on claim 9 but recites "the handpiece," while claim 9 concerns the second mirror's anti-reflective coating; the antecedent handpiece recitation appears in claim 10. This is a claim-dependency anomaly in the granted text as reproduced.

---

Litigation / CAFC status

• No CAFC 2026 docket or appeal involving 7,427,289 was found in my searches. I cannot verify any pending or decided Federal Circuit matter for this patent number, and I explicitly flag this as an information gap rather than a confirmed negative.
• Cynosure has been active in litigation generally (e.g., Cynosure v. CoolTouch, D. Mass.; ICN Photonics v. Cynosure, Fed. Cir. 2003; Serendia, LLC v. Cynosure, LLC, D. Del. 1:23-cv-00223, and related ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1356), but these cases involve different patents (e.g., the '873 patent, the '536 patent) and I found nothing tying any of them to 7,427,289.
• A 2018 Cynosure "virtual patent marking" notice under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) exists on Cynosure's website, and 7,427,289 appears in third-party patent listings, but I could not authoritatively confirm from my searches which specific product(s) it maps to. I will not speculate on a product mapping.

If you need a definitive litigation check, the authoritative sources would be the CAFC docket (via PACER/CM-ECF) and the USPTO Patent Center "Litigation" / assignment records for 7,427,289 — which my available search tools do not query directly.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 7427289.

Let me search more targeted sources for litigation involving this specific patent.

Let me search more specific litigation databases and the patent's prosecution/reexam history.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent No. 7,427,289

Bottom line: I found no known litigation — neither district court actions, ITC investigations, nor PTAB proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM) — in which US Patent No. 7,427,289 was asserted, challenged, or otherwise at issue.

Below is what I searched, what I found, and important caveats.

---

The patent at issue (context)

• US 7,427,289 B2 — "Multiple wavelength laser workstation"
• Application No. US 11/035,680; filed 2005-01-14; granted/publication date 2008-09-23
• Original assignee / current assignee: Cynosure, LLC (successor to Cynosure, Inc.)
• Legal status per Google Patents: "Expired – Lifetime"; anticipated expiration 2025-01-14
• Claim 1 is directed to a two-laser workstation with a single electronics drive system having a controller that selectively ionizes flashlamps, and an energy storage network that, subsequent to selective ionization, provides energy simultaneously to each ionizable lamp.

The patent's own prosecution record shows a citations list (e.g., US 5,547,676; US 5,241,922; US 5,331,649; WO 1990/012548; WO 1993/021843) but no litigation is reported in the patent's own family/litigation data, and its listed "Cited By" and "Families Citing this family" entries are later patents (e.g., Cynosure's own electrosurgical and RF patents), not litigation.

---

What I searched and what I found

Relevant Cynosure cases found — but NONE assert US 7,427,289:

1. Serendia, LLC v. Cynosure, LLC (D. Del., No. 1:23-cv-00223, filed 2023-03-01; also ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1356). This asserts U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,320,536; 9,480,836; 9,775,774; 10,058,379; 10,869,812; 11,406,444 — RF microneedling patents. The '289 patent is not among them. (D. Del. case stayed/administered-closed pending the ITC; ITC final initial determination favored Serendia in Dec. 2024.)
2. Cynosure, Inc. v. CoolTouch Inc. (D. Mass.) — involved U.S. Pat. No. 6,206,873 (laser lipolysis), not the '289 patent.
3. Cynosure, LLC v. Reveal Lasers LLC (D. Mass., 2025) — trade-secrets matter.
4. Various Cynosure product-liability / franchise suits (e.g., Tyson v. Cynosure/Hologic, Nevada) — not patent litigation over the '289 patent.

No PTAB proceeding for the '289 patent. Note: an IPR I encountered — Pfizer v. Chugai, IPR2017-01357 — concerns U.S. 7,332,289 B2 ("Method of Purifying Protein"), an entirely different patent. Per your strict instruction, I am not conflating these; 7,332,289 ≠ 7,427,289.

Likewise, unrelated "7427289" hits appeared in a Brazilian commercial registry, a NC securities registry, a Lithuanian entity registry, and an FDA FAERS report — none relate to this patent.

---

Caveats (stated explicitly, per your rules)

• I cannot certify a negative. I do not have direct live access to PACER, Docket Alarm, Unified Patents' litigation portal, or LexisNexis/Westlaw KeyCite. My searches were web-based and may miss sealed, very old, or poorly indexed dockets.
• The patent expired 2025-01-14, so it is no longer enforceable — any historical assertion would have occurred between issuance (2008) and expiration (2025).
• Given that Cynosure and its competitors (e.g., Candela, Cutera, Palomar, Alma, Lumenis) operate in this exact multi-wavelength dermatology laser space, a defensive, licensing, or cross-license arrangement (as opposed to litigation) is plausible and would not appear in litigation databases.

If you need a certified litigation history, the reliable steps would be:

1. A LexisNexis KeyCite or Westlaw Litigation History report for the patent;
2. A PACER search of the patent number across all districts;
3. The Unified Patents litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation) and PTAB (https://ptacts.uspto.gov) — I attempted these but could not confirm a live result for this number;
4. The USPTO Patent Center "Litigation" / assignment records.

I did not find any such litigation; if any exists, it would most likely be an older, pre-2025 district court case or a licensing dispute not surfaced by public web indexing.

I'll verify the structured block's default against public sources before writing this up.

Let me run a few more targeted checks (PTAB docket aggregators, litigation, and the known Cynosure patent family) to be sure nothing is missed.

Two more diligence checks before I commit to the "no proceedings" finding.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 7,427,289: 0 (zero). The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent as of the most recent ingest, and my independent web checks surfaced none either — so the structured block's default controls: no PTAB activity on file. That gives a defendant an unusual posture: there is nothing to copy (no final written decision canceling claims, no estoppel-triggering petitioner), but also nothing to lean on — every one of the 38 claims is untested before the Board, and the patent expired on 2025-01-14, which is by far the most consequential fact for anyone still holding a demand letter.

No proceedings to report. There is therefore no proceeding-by-proceeding section in this memo. Per the operating rules, I will not manufacture proceeding numbers, petitioner names, or panel compositions.

---

Verification trail (what I checked)

Caveat, stated plainly: search engines and free docket aggregators can miss sealed, settled-and-unpublished, or very old proceedings, and the ODP ingest lags newly filed petitions. I could not run an exhaustive PTAB E2E / Docket Alarm docket-by-docket sweep. Treat "zero" as high-confidence but not notarized; the $0 confirmation is a five-minute PTAB E2E lookup by patent number and by the current owner, Cynosure, LLC.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 38 claims are UNTESTED — none canceled, none sustained, none narrowed. Claims 1–38 (1–22 apparatus; 23–38 method) stand exactly as issued on 2008-09-23. There is no IPR certificate, no disclaimer, and no reexamination history in the record I retrieved. For a defendant, that cuts both ways: the claims have never been stress-tested on the merits, but they have also never benefited from a PTAB panel blessing their validity, so an invalidity defense is unconstrained — no § 325(d) "same art previously presented" deference, no Board findings to overcome.

Estoppel landscape: none. Because no petitioner ever filed, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is empty space — no party and no privy is barred from raising any § 102 or § 103 ground. A defendant today may attack any claim, on any prior-art combination, in district court or (if still available) at the Board, without worrying about a prior petitioner's estoppel footprint. Contrast the usual situation, where a first-filer's IPR forces later defendants to either join or litigate around § 315(b)/(e) constraints.

The two facts that actually decide the demand-letter question:

1. The patent expired 2025-01-14. Google Patents records the anticipated expiration date and a status of "Expired - Lifetime," consistent with a 20-year term from the 2005-01-14 filing date with no listed term extension. As of today (2026-10-01) there is no prospective infringement — no injunction exposure, no ongoing royalty. The only live exposure is past damages inside the § 286 six-year lookback (i.e., conduct from roughly 2020-10-01 through the 2025-01-14 expiration), and even that requires § 287(a) marking or actual notice to the accused infringer. Note that Cynosure has published virtual patent marking notices — marking compliance is a real, checkable issue for any past-damages theory, not a throwaway.

2. The US family is a dead end. Both US continuations of this patent were abandoned — Application 12/191,163 (filed 2008-08-13, published as US20090054956A1) and Application 13/680,912 (filed 2012-11-19, published as US20130296835A1). The foreign counterparts are likewise inert: EP1838234A1 withdrawn, WO2006076554A1 ceased, CN101128160B and KR101252882B1 expired for failure to pay fees. There is no live sibling US patent flowing from the '289 disclosure that a plaintiff could pivot to when the '289 expires — a common and expensive surprise that does not exist here.

Pattern signals. There is no unified-defensive-aggregator story: no Unified Patents, RPX, or other third-party filer ever challenged this patent. That is not a coincidence — US 7,427,289 is a Cynosure, Inc. portfolio/marking patent, owned by a large operating medical-device company (now Cynosure, LLC, per the 2019 name change; currently within the Hologic/CD&R chain) rather than by a non-practicing entity. Cynosure's enforcement energy in recent years has run in the other direction — Cynosure is the defendant in the Serendia RF-microneedling matters (D. Del. 1:23-cv-00223 and ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1356), which involve entirely different patents (U.S. 9,320,536; 9,480,836; 9,775,774; 10,869,812). The absence of IPRs here is a low-assertion signal, not a "hardened patent" signal: patents attract IPRs when they get asserted, and this one did not.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant holding a demand letter on US 7,427,289:

1. Lead with expiration, not validity. Demand the plaintiff identify the accusation date and the accused acts, then test them against the 2025-01-14 expiration. If the demand targets conduct after that date, there is no actionable infringement. If it targets earlier conduct, the § 286 window reaches back only to 2020-10-01, and § 287(a) marking/notice is a threshold defense worth developing immediately.
2. Do not spend on an IPR. A petition is expensive, requires a real controversy for standing purposes, and buys you estoppel exposure under § 315(e)(1) for no practical benefit against an expired patent with no live continuation children. Validity is better fought as a § 282 defense in court, or on a motion, with no estoppel price.
3. There is no FWD to cite. I want to be explicit here, because the task template anticipates one: no final written decision exists for this patent, so there is no disposition to quote and no E2E link to a Board decision that I can honestly give you. The correct citation for the patent's own status is the Google Patents record (expiration 2025-01-14) and, for claim text, the USPTO PatentCenter file for Application 11/035,680.
4. Sanity-check my negative. Before you tell a client or a court "this patent was never challenged," confirm on PTAB E2E by patent number and by owner name ("Cynosure"), and cross-check CourtListener for any appeal or decision citing the patent. A negative finding is only as good as its coverage.

If you are a patent owner contemplating assertion: the calendar is the whole case. With expiration already past and no continuations to fall back on, the realistic ceiling is a past-damages claim with a marking/notice fight attached, against a fully unlitigated claim set that no tribunal has ever construed. Value it accordingly.

Nothing above is a legal opinion or a validity analysis of any claim; it is a docket-and-status reconnaissance report current to 2026-10-01. Where I could not confirm a fact from a primary source, I have said so rather than filling the gap.

I'll research the assignment record for US 7,427,289 from authoritative sources.

Let me search for more specific assignment and litigation records.

Let me try to retrieve the specific assignment reel/frame records and check the inventor/entity details.

Inventors

Five inventors are named on the face of US 7,427,289:

Basis for employer attribution: The only recorded pre-issuance assignment (recordation 2005-05-02, "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST") lists exactly these five individuals as assignors and Cynosure, Inc. as assignee. A simultaneous assignment of all named inventors to the applicant is the standard signature of employee-inventor filing, so all five are attributed to Cynosure, Inc. at filing.

Unusual-pattern check — no fire-sale precursor observed. I found no evidence that the inventors departed Cynosure within 12 months of filing, and no inventor-conveyance beyond the single 2005 assignment to Cynosure, Inc. The inventors' names do not reappear as assignors, assignees, or correspondents anywhere later in the chain. I could not independently verify individual employment histories beyond the assignment record, so absence of a departure pattern is a limitation of available data, not a positive finding.

---

Original assignee

Cynosure, Inc. (later Cynosure, LLC) — Westford, Massachusetts.

• Line of business: Developer/manufacturer of aesthetic (medical laser and light-based) treatment systems — hair removal, vascular and pigmented lesions, tattoo removal, skin revitalization, laser lipolysis. Product brands have included Cynosure, Palomar, ConBio, and Ellman. This is precisely the sector the '289 patent addresses (multiple-wavelength laser workstations for skin treatment).
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Cynosure is a genuine operating company with ~$433M FY2016 revenue and products in the same "multiple laser modality" space as the '289 disclosure. I could not independently confirm which specific commercial product, if any, is marked to the '289 patent. I will not speculate on a specific product mapping.
• Corporate history / current status — operating, through two changes of control:
  • Founded 1991; publicly traded as CYNO (Nasdaq).
  • Acquired by Hologic, Inc. in March 2017 (~$1.65B / ~$1.44B enterprise value); Cynosure became a wholly owned Hologic subsidiary.
  • Sold by Hologic to funds managed by Clayton, Dubilier & Rice (CD&R) for $205M cash, announced Nov 2019, closed ~January 2020. (The huge markdown — roughly a tenth of the purchase price — is documented by Evaluate; Hologic's Cynosure unit revenue fell from ~$434M in 2016 to ~$339M in 2018.)
  • Post-CD&R, the operating entity is Cynosure, LLC; a court filing states Cynosure, LLC's sole member is Lotus Buyer, Inc. (Delaware). Cynosure, LLC remains an operating company (a 2026 Court of International Trade matter, Cynosure LLC v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and ongoing product litigation confirm active operations). No bankruptcy of Cynosure was found.

---

Assignment timeline

Important source limitation: The USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) and its legacy mirror (https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) are not directly queryable by my available tools; I could retrieve the event sequence and parties (via Google Patents legal events) but not the reel/frame numbers or the correspondent-of-record fields. I therefore report the recorded conveyances below without fabricating reel/frame identifiers, and I flag the reel/frame and correspondent cells as unretrieved. If you need the reel/frame and correspondent data, it must be pulled directly from the Assignment Center search for patent 7,427,289.

The chain contains one ownership-changing record (original assignment) plus one change-of-name and a series of security-interest liens/releases (which are encumbrances, not ownership transfers):

• 2005-01-14 (executed, concurrent with filing) / recorded 2005-05-02 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Sierra, Rafael A.; Koschmann, Eric C.; Day, Joseph M.; Sherr, Evan A.; Boll, James H.
  • Assignee: Cynosure, Inc.
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Original employee-inventor assignment to the operating applicant; not a sale.

• 2019-03-22 (recorded) — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Change of name
  • Assignor: Cynosure, Inc.
  • Assignee: Cynosure, LLC
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Internal corporate conversion/reorganization of the same operating entity; not a third-party transfer.

• 2017-05-03 (recorded) — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Security interest (grant of security interest in patents)
  • Assignor: Cynosure, Inc.; Palomar Medical Technologies, LLC
  • Assignee: Bank of America, N.A., as Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Financing lien associated with the Hologic acquisition of Cynosure (closed March 2017); encumbrance only.

• 2019-10-14 (recorded) — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Security interest
  • Assignor: Cynosure, LLC; Cytyc Corporation; Faxitron Bioptics, LLC; Focal Therapeutics, Inc.; Gen-Probe Incorporated; Hologic, Inc.
  • Assignee: Bank of America, N.A., as Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Hologic-group credit facility lien; encumbrance only.

• 2019-12-30 (recorded) — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Release of security interest
  • Assignor: Bank of America, N.A.
  • Assignee: Cynosure, LLC
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Payoff/release of the Bank of America lien in connection with the CD&R sale of the Cynosure business.

• 2020-01-07 (recorded) — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Notice and confirmation of grant of security interest in patents
  • Assignor: Cynosure, LLC; Palomar Medical Technologies, LLC
  • Assignee: U.S. Bank National Association
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Acquisition financing lien tied to the CD&R purchase from Hologic (close ~Jan 2020); encumbrance only.

• 2024-01-12 (recorded) — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: ABL notice and confirmation of grant of security interest in patents
  • Assignor: Cynosure, LLC; Palomar Medical Technologies, LLC
  • Assignee: UBS AG, Stamford Branch, as Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Refinancing lien; encumbrance only.

• 2024-02-29 (recorded) — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Termination and release of patents
  • Assignor: UBS AG, Stamford Branch (secured party)
  • Assignee: Palomar Medical Technologies, LLC; Cynosure, LLC
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Release of the UBS lien; encumbrance only.

• 2024-03-01 (recorded) — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Release by secured party
  • Assignor: U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association (successor secured party)
  • Assignee: Palomar Medical Technologies, LLC; Cynosure, LLC
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Release of the U.S. Bank lien; encumbrance only.

Correspondent-of-record: Not retrieved for any entry. The Assignment Center's correspondent field is the key tell for NPE families, and I could not capture it here — this is the single largest gap in this reconstruction and should be filled from the Assignment Center directly.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7427289
    2005 : Inventors assign to Cynosure Inc
    2008 : Patent granted
    2017 : Hologic acquires Cynosure Inc
         : Bank of America security interest
    2019 : Name change to Cynosure LLC
         : Bank of America lien released
    2020 : CDR buys Cynosure from Hologic
         : US Bank security interest
    2024 : UBS AG security interest
         : Security interests released
    2025 : Patent expires

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only ownership-affecting post-issuance record is the 2019-03-22 change of name from Cynosure, Inc. to Cynosure, LLC — a same-entity corporate conversion, not a transfer to a licensing-only vehicle. No "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" successor appears anywhere in the chain. Palomar Medical Technologies, LLC appears only as a co-grantor/co-obligor on security-interest records (2017-05-03, 2020-01-07, 2024 records), which are liens, not ownership transfers.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. No assignee in the chain matches a public NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, etc.). Every assignor/assignee of record is Cynosure, Hologic, Palomar, or a lender acting as collateral agent (Bank of America, U.S. Bank, UBS).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not determinable. I could not capture the correspondent-of-record for any entry, so I cannot assess recurrence. This is the one signal most likely to change the picture if the data is retrieved, but on the current record there is no evidence to support it.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There is exactly one ownership change in ~20 years (a name change), not a chain of LLC-to-LLC hops. The multiple post-2017 records are liens and lien releases on a single stable owner, not sequential transfers.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present (and not applicable). No ownership transfer was recorded within 6 months of any suit naming this patent; I found no litigation asserting the '289 patent at all. The 2005 original assignment predates issuance entirely.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11 of Cynosure surfaced. The 2019–2020 Hologic→CD&R transaction was a $205M negotiated divestiture of a distressed business unit by a solvent public parent, not a bankruptcy estate sale of patents.

7. Privateering — Not present. No NPE was interposed between the operating company and assertion; Cynosure retained direct ownership throughout (subject only to lender liens).

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Cynosure, LLC (CD&R).

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: The chain contains a single ownership transfer — the 2005-01-14/2005-05-02 inventor-to-Cynosure, Inc. assignment — followed only by the 2019-03-22 same-entity change of name to Cynosure, LLC; every other post-2017 record (2017-05-03 and 2019-10-14 Bank of America liens, 2019-12-30 release, 2020-01-07 U.S. Bank lien, 2024-01-12 UBS lien, 2024-02-29 and 2024-03-01 releases) is a security interest or its release, i.e. a financing encumbrance, not a transfer. The current owner (Cynosure, LLC, controlled by CD&R after the Hologic and CD&R acquisitions) is a genuine aesthetic-laser operating company in the exact product space the patent addresses. Caveats: (a) I could not confirm that Cynosure asserts this specific patent — no suit naming the '289 patent was found, and the patent expired 2025-01-14; (b) reel/frame numbers and correspondents were not retrievable with my tools, so the "operating-company" call rests on the event/party sequence, not on the full Assignment Center record.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 7,427,289). Retrieve the reel/frame and correspondent-of-record for each entry to close the two gaps flagged above; the correspondent field is the decisive field I could not populate.

---

Contradictions / flags carried forward

• Priority date: Google Patents lists 2005-01-14; a third-party (Unified Patents) page listed 2005-01-13 (noted in the prior summary). I use 2005-01-14 per the patent office records.
• No Reel/Frame available in this reconstruction — stated explicitly rather than fabricated, per the operating rules.

I'll analyze the prior art citations for US 7,427,289. Let me first verify the patent on USPTO and then research the most relevant cited references.

Now let me research the remaining most-relevant cited references on shared drivers, flashlamp ionization, and dual-laser systems.

Prior-Art Analysis for US 7,427,289 — "Multiple wavelength laser workstation"

Building on the earlier summary (bibliographic data, claim architecture, litigation-status caveat), this section focuses exclusively on the cited prior art and §102 anticipation mapping. I will not repeat the bibliographic or claim-overview material already produced.

Legal framing note: §102 anticipation requires a single reference that discloses every limitation of a claim, arranged as in the claim. Most references below are combination art more naturally deployed under §103. Where I map a reference to a claim under §102, I flag whether it is a genuine single-reference anticipation candidate or merely "relevant to the claimed subject matter." All dates are as they appear in the patent document; I do not auto-correct them.

---

A. USPTO confirmation of the target patent

The Google Patents record (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7427289) confirms the literal identifier US 7,427,289 B2, application US 11/035,680, filed 2005-01-14, granted 2008-09-23, assignee Cynosure. This matches the patent document supplied. No substitute or similar-numbered patent (e.g., US 7,427,290 or US 7,427,388) is treated here.

---

B. How the cited art clusters

The 39 cited references fall into five functional clusters. This clustering is the key to §102 analysis, because the granted claims (independent 1, 23, 32, 35) each combine two inventive concepts — (i) a shared electronics drive / selective flashlamp ionization architecture and (ii) a multi-wavelength resonator or multi-wavelength treatment method. No single cited reference found discloses both, which is why the strongest art below is §103-type combination art rather than clean §102 anticipation.

* US5375132A appears in the "Family Cites Families" list, not the examiner citation list.

---

C. Tier 1 — Closest single-reference (§102) candidates

C.1 US 3,651,425 A — "Multiple unit laser system" (US Army)

• Citation: US 3,651,425 A; filed 1964-12-22; granted 1972-03-21.
• Description (verified via Google Patents): A multiple-unit laser array (10 modules, each with a laser rod and two xenon flashtubes) energized by a single inductive energy-storage coil. A pre-ionization power supply maintains the flashtubes in a continuous state of ionization "whereby the firing current will not be required to breakdown or ionize the flashtubes." When the master spark gap fires, the single energy source supplies current to each flashtube, and "All 10 laser rods are energized simultaneously."
• §102 relevance: This is the single most structurally relevant reference to claim 1's core: one shared energy source + multiple ionizable flashlamp-pumped lasers + ionize-then-discharge sequencing. It is a credible §102 anticipation candidate for claim 1 (and arguably claim 3, trigger/ionization), subject to the caveat that its firing is via spark gaps/inductive storage rather than the controller + energy-storage-network language, and that it does not include an explicit "selective activation" controller that fires one laser rather than all. If one reads claim 1's "selective activation" narrowly, the reference is better treated as §103 art.

C.2 WO 1990/012548 A1 — "Dental laser assembly with dual lasers" (Vassiliadis et al.; US counterpart US 5,207,576)

• Citation: WO 1990/012548 A1, published 1990-11-01; priority US 07/343,401 (1989-04-25); US counterpart US 5,207,576 A granted 1993-05-04.
• Description (verified): A single housing contains two laser cavities (first and second laser). Only one laser is activated at a time. Critically: "a common power supply, a common optical delivery system, a single enclosure, a single control panel, a single microprocessor and controller, and a single focusing lens are employed regardless of which laser is activated." Selective activation is via a movable mirror / dichroic beam splitter.
• §102 relevance: Strong art against the "two lasers driven by a single electronics drive system" concept that pervades claims 1, 23, 32, and 35. Its disclosure of a common power supply and single controller reading on a shared drive system makes it a §102/§103 reference for the shared-drive limitation, though it lacks the "single energy storage network … simultaneous energy to each ionizable lamp after selective ionization" architecture and lacks treatment-method limitations (treating skin, 595→1064 nm conversion). So it undercuts the shared-drive concept but does not alone anticipate the full independent claims.

C.3 US 5,249,192 A — "Multiple frequency medical laser" (Laserscope)

• Citation: US 5,249,192 A; filed 1991-06-27; granted 1993-09-28.
• Description (verified): Nd:YAG gain medium producing multiple wavelengths (near 1.06, 1.32, and 1.44 µm). Uses beam-turning mirrors, each "transmissive at one wavelength and reflective at another," selectively positioned in the optical path to select the oscillating wavelength; a fixed output coupler. Claims 14–20 expressly recite a YAG mirror "transmissive at near 1.06 micron and reflective at near 1.32 micron."
• §102 relevance: The closest art to claim 7 (the dual-wavelength Nd:YAG resonator) and claims 20/22. The 1320-reflective/1064-transmissive mirror selection is squarely disclosed. However, Laserscope positions a beam-turning mirror into the path to change wavelength, whereas claim 7 uses a beam-block shutter movable into/out of the axis between two mirrors; that distinction (movable blocking element vs. movable turning mirror) is the point of novelty that likely defeats pure anticipation. Treat as primary §103 art for claims 7, 9, 20, 22.

C.4 US 5,331,649 A — "Multiple wavelength laser system" (Alson Surgical)

• Citation: US 5,331,649 A; filed 1991-07-10; granted 1994-07-19.
• Description (verified): A single laser medium movable relative to plural optical pathways, each pathway having dielectric mirrors for a different wavelength; explicitly discusses YAG 1064/1320 nm extraction "without requiring the user to replace dielectric mirrors," and a processor-controlled carriage.
• §102 relevance: Relevant to claim 7/22 (obtaining 1064 and 1320 nm from one YAG medium) but uses physical translation of the medium, not a stationary resonator with a beam-block shutter. Good §103 art, weak §102 art.

---

D. Tier 2 — Cluster II (flashlamp ionization), Cluster IV (treatment methods), Cluster V

D.1 Cluster II — Flashlamp ionization / simmer references (relevant to claim 1, claim 3)

These references supply the "ionizable flashlamp" and "selectively ionize each ionizable flashlamp" limitations:

D.2 Cluster IV — Multi-wavelength dermatologic treatment methods (relevant to claims 23, 32, 35)

D.3 Cluster V — Same-assignee / background dermatologic art

D.4 "Family Cites Families" (not examiner-cited; from the family search):

---

E. Bottom-line §102 assessment

No single cited reference appears to anticipate any independent claim (1, 23, 32, 35) on its face, because each independent claim requires the concurrence of (a) a single energy-storage network feeding two flashlamp-ionizable lasers and (b) the selective-ionize-then-energize-both sequencing and, for claims 23/32/35, a skin/vascular treatment step. The closest pairings are:

1. US 3,651,425 A (single energy source + pre-ionized flashlamps + simultaneous energization of multiple lasers) is the strongest §102 candidate against claim 1, but it fires all lasers simultaneously and does not disclose a controller that selectively activates one laser — this limitation is what likely saves claim 1 and demotes the reference to §103.
2. WO 1990/012548 A1 discloses the shared power supply / single controller for a dual-laser system, directly addressing the "single electronics drive system" limitation of claims 1/23/32/35, but lacks the shared-capacitor ionize-then-discharge architecture and all treatment limitations.
3. US 5,249,192 A and US 5,331,649 A are the best art against the dual-wavelength resonator claims (7, 9, 20, 22), but each uses moving mirrors/medium rather than the claimed beam-block shutter between two fixed mirrors.

Consequently, the realistic posture of this art set is §103 obviousness (typically US 3,651,425 + WO 1990/012548 + US 5,249,192, optionally + a multi-wavelength treatment reference such as US 5,540,676 or US 6,613,040), not clean §102 anticipation. I explicitly flag that as an analytical conclusion from the references' disclosed subject matter, not a legal conclusion.

---

F. Caveats and information gaps

• Verification scope: I confirmed full bibliographic data and key disclosures for US 3,651,425 A, US 5,249,192 A, US 5,331,649 A, and WO 1990/012548 A1 via live sources. For the remaining references I relied on the citation titles in the 7427289 record plus the patent document. I did not retrieve full claim text for every one of the 39 references, so claim-level §102 mappings for the Tier 2 tables are preliminary and should be confirmed against the actual reference claim sets before being relied upon.
• I was unable to complete full-text retrieval for US 5,540,676 A, US 6,613,040 B2, US 4,488,104 A, and US 4,910,438 A within the available research steps; descriptions above are drawn from titles/known subject matter and are flagged accordingly.
• Numbering caution: The patent document's specification cites "U.S. Pat. No. 6,077,294" (Cynosure wrinkle-removal, incorporated by reference) whereas the Google Patents citation list renders the same Cynosure reference as US 5,607,294 A; and the specification also cites U.S. Pat. No. 6,613,040 for the YAP:Nd medium. I preserve both as found and do not correct them.
• This section deliberately does not revisit the earlier litigation/family-material findings; no contradiction to those earlier sections was encountered.

If you want, I can next attempt full-text retrieval and claim-by-claim element charts for the three Tier 1 references (US 3,651,425; WO 1990/012548; US 5,249,192) to firm up the §102 vs. §103 line.

I'll research the key prior-art references cited on the patent's face to ground the obviousness analysis.

Now let me research the remaining key references on the citation lists.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,427,289 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Grounding note. Per the task instruction, I base this analysis on the prior-art references listed in the "Prior Art"/citations sections of the US 7,427,289 record (the 35 examiner citations, the 4 "Family Cites Families" references, and references incorporated by the specification). I retrieved and read the actual text of US 5,241,922, US 5,331,649, US 3,651,425, and US 4,910,438. For the remaining references I rely on the identifying data (number, title, assignee, date) as listed in the patent record; where I have not verified a reference's substance, I say so rather than asserting it. This analysis builds on, and does not repeat, the claim summary and litigation findings in the previously generated sections; I flag one cross-reference contradiction at the end.

---

1. Legal framework

The controlling test is Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007):

1. Determine the scope and content of the prior art.
2. Ascertain the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Assess obviousness — including whether the differences would have been obvious to a POSITA, and whether objective indicia (secondary considerations) rebut a prima facie case.

Under KSR, a combination is obvious not only where the prior art teaches or suggests it, but also where it is the product of "ordinary creativity," a "predictable variation," the "known technique" applied to a known problem, or a combination of "familiar elements according to known methods" yielding predictable results (KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–421). A claim built on a "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" to a known problem is obvious (id. at 421). Conversely, "[a] claim can be obvious in light of a single prior art reference, without the need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not found in the reference can be supplied by the common sense of one of skill in the art" (Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).

---

2. Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

The patent's own subject matter and cited art define the POSITA as a person with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, physics, or optics (or equivalent), plus roughly 2–5 years of experience designing flashlamp-pumped laser systems and their pulsed power supplies, or a master's degree with less experience. Such a person would be familiar with:

• xenon/kyrpton flashlamp pumping, simmer supplies, and flashlamp trigger/ionization circuits;
• discharge-switching topologies (spark gaps, thyratrons, SCRs, and by the mid-1990s–2000s, IGBTs/FETs);
• wavelength-selective laser-resonator optics (dielectric HR/AR coatings, output couplers, beam-turning mirrors); and
• dermatologic laser therapy, including selective photothermolysis and the use of PDL and Nd:YAG wavelengths for vascular and pigmented lesions.

The patent filing date (2005-01-14) is the relevant prior-art cutoff. Every reference listed predates it — the most recent citations (e.g., US 2004/0225339 A1, published 2004-11-11; US 2005/0015077 A1, published 2005-01-20) are near-contemporaneous with filing and at minimum qualify under § 102(a)/(b)/(e) or as evidence of the state of the art.

---

3. Scope and content of the prior art

3.a Shared energy source feeding multiple flashlamp-pumped lasers — the core of claim 1

US 3,651,425 (McKnight, "Multiple unit laser system," U.S. Army, 1972-03-21) is the single most on-point reference. Its abstract and specification (retrieved) state:

"A system for concentrating high energy laser beams having a plurality of laser modules directed to a common point. A single inductive energy source is connected to the modules for simultaneously energizing the lasers."

and

"the laser system … comprises a plurality of laser modules, a single inductive energy source and means for applying energy from the source to each of the lasers simultaneously."

Critically, it also teaches pre-ionization of the flashlamps by a separate supply so that the firing pulse need not break down the lamp:

"Each flashtube is connected to a pre-ionization power supply through a current viewing resistor 11. The power supply 10 is a conventional power supply for maintaining the flashtubes in a continuous state of ionization whereby the firing current will not be required to breakdown or ionize the flashtubes."

US 4,910,438 (Farnsworth, "Wide band, high efficiency simmer power supply for a laser flashlamp," Hughes Aircraft, 1990-03-20) teaches the same flashlamp-state concept in regulated form: maintaining a flashlamp "in a continuously but only slightly active or simmer condition in order to provide instantaneous, full power capacity on demand," using a "simmer trigger circuit … [that] simply provides initial ionization of flashlamp 28, allowing the flow of simmer current." It expressly notes that such a supply lets lasers be "capable of instantaneous firing at full power on demand." It further discloses FET switching elements in the fault/primary-sense path.

US 4,488,104 (Tokyo Shibaura Denki / Toshiba, "Power source apparatus for a flash lamp used in a pulse laser apparatus," 1984-12-11) — listed twice on the record (H05B41 and H01S3 classifications) — is a flashlamp drive/power-supply reference addressed to the same problem. (I did not retrieve its full text; its title and assignee establish it as flashlamp-drive art, and I do not attribute specific disclosures to it beyond that.)

US 3,243,650 (Hawkins, "Continuous ionization of flash lamps," 1966-03-29) and US 3,284,665 (Edgerton, Germeshausen & Grier, "Multiple electrode flashlamp circuit with a gas holdoff tube …," 1966-11-08) are the foundational continuous-ionization and multi-flashlamp-triggering references.

3.b Two lasers in one workstation, and multi-wavelength medical laser systems

US 5,331,649 (Alson Surgical, "Multiple wavelength laser system," 1994-07-19) (retrieved) is directed to the exact commercial problem the '289 patent recites — one compact system instead of several:

"Since many current applications of lasers are dependent on the wavelength of light produced by the system, and since some applications, particularly medical applications, may require the use of more than one wavelength during a single procedure or related procedures conducted in sequence, it is frequently necessary to utilize more than one type of laser system … In view of the high cost of modern laser systems and the size and relatively cumbersome nature of such systems, there is clearly a need for an improved system that is capable of generating a variety of wavelengths, but yet remains relatively compact compared to the use of a plurality of separate systems."

It expressly identifies YAG-type crystals at 1,064 nm and 1,320 nm (and YLF at 1,054/1,320 nm) as a medium naturally capable of lasing at multiple wavelengths, describes a processor control for selecting the wavelength-producing optical path, and claims an optical multiplexer for "directing the light of different wavelengths along a common pathway."

US 5,241,922 (Laserscope, "Multiple frequency medical laser," 1993-09-28) (retrieved) is a medical multi-wavelength Nd:YAG system built on wavelength-selective beam-turning mirrors:

"each [beam-turning mirror] suppressing oscillation of at least a selected subset of the plurality of wavelengths and reflective of at least a selected wavelength, and means for selectively positioning one of the plurality of the beam-turning mirrors in the optical path, so that the output coupler and first means form a laser resonator to enable oscillation at the selected wavelength."

Its claims recite Nd:YAG with "at least wavelengths near 1.06 and near 1.44 micron, and at least one of the beam-turning mirrors is transmissive at near 1.06 micron and reflective at near 1.44 micron," plus a fiber-optic beam-delivery system coupled to a fixed output coupler (claim 13). Its background discusses Marling's characterization of the Nd:YAG gain profile at 1.05–1.44 µm and the need to suppress a high-gain line (1.064 µm) when lasing a low-gain line.

US 5,540,676 (Premier Laser Systems, "Method of laser surgery using multiple wavelengths," 1996-07-30) teaches a method of using multiple wavelengths in a single laser-surgery procedure. WO 1990/012548 (Vassiliadis, "Dental laser assembly with dual lasers," 1990-11-01) and WO 1993/021843 (Coherent, "Device and method for variably blending multiple laser beams for medical purposes," 1993-11-11) teach dual-laser and multi-beam medical laser assemblies, with the Coherent reference specifically addressing blending of multiple laser beams — i.e., delivering more than one wavelength, from more than one source, in a controlled temporal relationship.

US 5,375,132 A (Coherent, "Solid state laser with interleaved output," 1994-12-20) (listed under Family-Cites-Families) is directed to producing interleaved/sequential output pulses from a solid-state laser — directly relevant to the "sub-pulse" and "intercalated" limitations of claims 23, 30, 31, 37, and 38.

3.c Dermatologic treatment methods

• US 6,077,294 (Cynosure, "Method for non-invasive wrinkle removal and skin treatment," 2000-06-20) — expressly incorporated by the '289 specification and directed to PDL treatment of wrinkled skin.
• US 5,624,435 and US 5,746,735 (both Cynosure) — ultra-long-pulsed flashlamp-excited PDL therapy.
• US 5,843,072 (Cynosure, "Method for treatment of unwanted veins and device therefor," 1998-12-01) — vascular-lesion treatment.
• US 6,398,801 B1 (ICN Photonics, "Treatment of vascular lesions," 2002-06-04) — vascular lesions.
• US 6,273,883 B1 / WO 97/37602 (Cynosure, "Alexandrite laser system for treatment of dermatological specimens," 2001-08-14) and US 5,871,479 (Cynosure, "Alexandrite laser system for hair removal") — Alexandrite (the claim-18/19 species).
• US 6,613,040 B2 (Tankovich, "Twin light laser," 2003-09-02), US 6,613,042 B1 (Tankovich, "Rainbow laser," 2003-09-02) and US 2002/0002367 A1 (Tankovich) — multi-wavelength ("twin light") dermatologic laser systems. The '289 specification itself incorporates US 6,613,040 by reference as describing a YAP:Nd medium lasing at 1079 nm and/or 1341 nm.
• US 2004/0225339 A1 (Palomar Medical Technologies, "Light treatments for acne and other disorders of follicles," 2004-11-11) — acne treatment.

---

4. Application of the prior art to the claims

4.a Independent claim 1 (and claim 2)

Claim 1 is the clearest candidate for a § 103 rejection, and it is nearly anticipated in substance by US 3,651,425. The only material gap between US 3,651,425 and claim 1 is that US 3,651,425 ionizes all of its flashtubes continuously (so that all modules fire), whereas claim 1 requires selective ionization — ionizing the lamp of the laser you want to fire, while leaving the other un-ionized, and then dumping energy simultaneously to both lamps so that the un-ionized lamp does not conduct.

That gap is bridged by a combination of two references whose teachings the POSITA would have had every reason to merge:

• US 3,651,425 supplies the shared-energy-source-to-both-lamps architecture (the limitation that superficially looks like the "novelty" of claim 1) plus flashlamp pre-ionization.
• US 4,910,438 supplies the selective ionization control: a trigger circuit that initiates (and a supply that can cease) the conducting state of a specific flashlamp. Once a flashtube has lost its simmer/ionization conduit, it presents a high impedance "holdoff," so the same shared discharge will flow only through the ionized lamp — exactly the mechanism claim 1 recites. The reference expressly frames the simmer state as the condition that permits "instantaneous firing … on demand," and its trigger circuit is inherently per-lamp.

Motivation to combine (KSR):

1. Same field, same problem, same elements. Both references concern energizing one or more flashlamp-pumped lasers from a charge/energy store. US 3,651,425 already teaches a single energy source feeding multiple flashlamps; US 4,910,438 already teaches per-lamp ionization control. Combining them is "the mere arrangement of old elements" with each performing its own known function.
2. Design incentives. US 3,651,425's array is deliberately fired all-at-once. For a medical workstation (the environment of the '289 patent, and of US 5,331,649 / US 5,540,676), the practitioner needs one laser at a time (or a controlled sequence), not a simultaneous multi-beam blast. Providing selection — the ability to fire laser A or laser B from a common drive — is a predictable, well-understood use of the existing per-lamp ionization control, and it avoids duplicating the expensive energy store and pulse-forming network, which is precisely the cost/size problem US 5,331,649 flags.
3. Cost and space. Both US 5,331,649 and US 5,241,922 are animated by the need to make a multi-wavelength capability compact and inexpensive relative to purchasing separate systems. Sharing one energy storage network between two pump chambers (claimed) directly serves that articulated goal.
4. No teaching away. Nothing in the art teaches that per-lamp ionization control is incompatible with a shared energy store; to the contrary, US 3,651,425 combines pre-ionization with a shared inductive store.

Claim 2 (a switch between the energy storage network and both pump chambers) is disclosed or rendered obvious by US 3,651,425's spark-gap assembly 12/master gap 20 and switch S-2 in the common discharge path from the single energy store to the flashtubes, and by the conventional use of a main discharge switch in flashlamp-pumped lasers (US 4,488,104; US 4,910,438).

4.b Claim 3 (high-voltage trigger transformer per pump chamber)

The '289 specification describes ionizing each pump chamber's lamps via the secondary winding of a high-voltage trigger transformer in series with the flashlamps. Triggering a gas-discharge flashlamp by applying a high-voltage pulse to an external trigger electrode or in series with the lamp is elementary flashlamp art. It is taught or rendered obvious by US 3,284,665 ("Multiple electrode flashlamp circuit with a gas holdoff tube in circuit with a trigger electrode …"), US 4,037,136 (Heimann, "Circuit arrangement for igniting at least one gas discharge flash lamp"), and US 3,651,425 / US 4,910,438 (both of which ionize flashtubes via dedicated trigger/pre-ionization circuitry). Using a transformer to step up the trigger pulse is the textbook implementation; the Federal Circuit routinely holds such a design choice non-patentable (KSR "known technique").

4.c Claims 4–5, 17 (pulse dye laser, 575–650 nm)

The first laser being a PDL with output in the 575–650 nm range is squarely disclosed by US 6,077,294 (expressly incorporated by the '289 specification), US 5,624,435, and US 5,746,735, all Cynosure references directed to flashlamp-excited PDLs used in dermatology. These also disclose the ~585 nm and ~595 nm operating points and the pulse widths the '289 specification recites. The selection of a PDL as one of two lasers in a dual-laser workstation is further suggested by WO 1990/012548 and the multi-wavelength medical systems of US 5,540,676 and US 5,331,649.

4.d Claims 6–9, 20–22 (Nd:YAG second laser; dual-wavelength 1064/1320 resonator with beam-block shutter)

This is the second substantive cluster, and the prior art is strong.

• Nd:YAG as the second laser (claims 6, 21, 34): disclosed by US 5,241,922 and US 5,331,649.

• The two-wavelength resonator structure of claims 7 and 20 — output coupler at a first end; a first mirror HR at 1064 nm at the second end; a second mirror HR at 1320 nm and transparent at 1064 nm between them; and a movable element placed into or removed from the axis between the mirrors — is the functional equivalent of the wavelength-selective beam-turning-mirror architectures of US 5,241,922 and US 5,331,649:

  • US 5,241,922 (retrieved) teaches exactly the "mirror transmissive at the high-gain line / reflective at the low-gain line, plus a mechanism that positions that mirror in or out of the optical path" architecture, including an Nd:YAG medium and mirrors "transmissive at near 1.06 micron and reflective at near 1.44 [or 1.32] micron." Laserscope's own description explains why the high-gain line must be suppressed to lase the low-gain line, and its claim 24 expressly recites positioning no beam-turning mirror in the path so that an alternative resonator is formed — i.e., switching between resonator configurations by moving an element into/out of the beam.
  • US 5,331,649 (retrieved) is even closer in result: it expressly targets 1,064 nm and 1,320 nm from a YAG medium, uses different mirror pairs "selected to respond to different wavelengths of light so that light beams of different characteristics can be extracted," and uses a "processor control … to cause movement of the laser medium with respect to a desired set of optical components to generate specified wavelengths." Its FIG. 10/claim 22–23 describes switchable optical means to switch the beam between two optical paths and an optical multiplexer combining the outputs.

  Difference from the '289 claim: the '289 patent keeps the medium and all mirrors stationary and moves an opaque, non-reflective beam-block shutter into the 1064 nm path between the two mirrors, rather than moving the medium or a beam-turning mirror. A POSITA would recognize this as an obvious, efficiency-motivated variant: the '289 specification itself concedes the motivation — "permits the laser resonator to have all of the critical optical components … mounted in a stationary fashion rather than requiring a tuning element or switching of mirrors, resulting in a robust and relatively maintenance-free workstation." Using a blocking shutter where the art used a movable mirror/medium is a predictable mechanical substitution with a known benefit (no realignment), and KSR holds that where a technique has been used to improve one device, "a [POSITA] would recognize that it would be obvious to try the technique to improve similar devices in the same way" (550 U.S. at 417). US 5,241,922's own background criticizes the mechanical complexity and alignment problems of mirror-swapping (the Tulip/GB 2 197 748 approach), which supplies an express motivation to achieve wavelength selection with a stationary-mirror, blocker-based design.

  Claim 9 (second mirror coated anti-reflective at 1064 nm) is the standard way to realize the claimed "transparent at 1064 nm," which the '289 specification concedes is conventional: "the creation of such mirrors is known in the art, and is accomplished, for example, by coating a mirror … with a coating that is anti-reflective at 1064 nm. Commercially available dielectric coatings are commonly used in this application." That is an express-admission-of-known-art spot on the record.

  • Claim 8 (Nd:YAG medium is a crystal rod) is the default geometry and is disclosed by US 3,651,425 (laser rod) and US 5,241,922.

• Claim 22 (first mirror HR at 1064 nm; second mirror HR at 1320 nm and transparent at 1064 nm within a generic two-wavelength second laser) follows a fortiori.

Motivation to combine for this cluster: (i) the PDL/Nd:YAG combination for dermatology was a recognized modality (US 6,077,294, US 5,843,072, US 6,398,801); (ii) the market and patent literature (US 5,331,649, US 5,241,922, US 5,540,676) expressly demanded compact, low-cost systems delivering 1,064 nm and 1,320 nm — and 585–600 nm PDL — from one console; (iii) the '289 specification itself recites that dermatologists wanted "a single laser workstation that provides multiple lasers to address all of the components of skin rejuvenation," and that merely packaging three separate lasers "would not be commercially attractive." That is a classic statement of the problem that supplies the KSR motivation.

4.e Claims 10–13 (handpiece, lenses, optical fiber/waveguide)

Delivery handpieces with focusing lenses and fiber/waveguide coupling were routine. US 5,241,922 claim 13 recites a fixed output coupler coupled to "a beam delivery system, including a beam input coupler to supply the output beam … into an optical fiber." US 5,331,649 (FIG. 5) discloses a laser system "adapted for use in the surgical field." Cynosure's own Alexandrite and PDL patents in the citation list (US 5,871,479, US 5,843,072, US 6,077,294) disclose dermatologic handpieces. Claim 11's "plurality of lenses" and claim 12's fiber coupling are conventional; claim 13's waveguide coupling is an alternative equivalent transmission medium.

Cross-reference / claim-drafting anomaly (flagging, consistent with the prior section): Claim 13 depends from claim 9 but recites "the handpiece," whose antecedent appears only in claim 10. This is an antecedent-basis/dependency defect in the granted text. It does not create patentable weight, but it is worth noting because an examiner (or litigant) analyzing claim 13 would have to construe it against claim 9's mirror-coating subject matter.

4.f Claims 14–16 (active semiconductor switches — IGBT/FET — between the energy storage network and each pump chamber)

These claims are the "sub-pulse architecture" claims. The prior art teaches semiconductor switching in flashlamp drive circuits:

• US 4,910,438 (retrieved) expressly discloses field-effect transistors ("a pair of field effect transistors … as first and second switching means 20 and 22") in the primary of a d.c.-to-d.c. converter feeding a flashlamp.
• US 4,488,104 (Toshiba) is a power source apparatus for a flash lamp used in a pulse laser apparatus.
• The record's classification data place the '289 patent alongside H01S 3/092 ("using optical pumping by incoherent light of flash lamp") and semiconductor switching classes.
• By the 2005 filing date, replacing spark gaps or thyratrons with IGBTs/FETs in high-energy pulsed-discharge circuits was the industry-standard migration, motivated by speed, service life, and precise computer control — the very benefits the '289 specification attributes to the IGBT ("allowing for precision control over duration of time that they are closed and thus the quantity of energy that they allow to pass"). A POSITA would plainly have been motivated, and KSR treats "substitution of one known element for another to obtain its anticipated advantage" as obvious.

Combining claim 14's active-semiconductor-switch architecture with US 3,651,425's shared-energy-store/multiple-lamp topology and the two-laser-per-wavelength art yields sub-pulses of different wavelengths — a predictable result, since the reference expressly teaches that a flashlamp in a simmer state fires "instantaneous[ly] … on demand," enabling rapid alternating discharge into different lamps from one store.

4.g Claims 17–19 (PDL; Alexandrite; variable-pulse 755 nm Alexandrite)

Claim 17 (first laser is a PDL) is covered at §4.c. Claims 18–19 (Alexandrite, variable pulse, 755 nm) are disclosed by the Cynosure Alexandrite references on the record — US 6,273,883 B1 / WO 97/37602 ("Alexandrite laser system for treatment of dermatological specimens") and US 5,871,479 ("Alexandrite laser system for hair removal and method therefor"). Variable-pulse Alexandrite operation for dermatology was well known by 2005.

4.h Independent claim 23 and dependent claims 24–31 (treatment method; sequential or simultaneous; sub-pulses)

Claim 23 combines (i) the two-laser/single-drive-system/single-energy-storage-network workstation of claim 1 with (ii) a treatment method applying first- and second-laser energy to skin sequentially or simultaneously, with at least one laser applying energy in sub-pulses, and with the selective-ionization-then-simultaneous-energy steps recited for each laser.

• The workstation limitations are addressed by §4.a.
• Sequential or simultaneous multi-wavelength treatment is taught by US 5,540,676 ("Method of laser surgery using multiple wavelengths"), by US 5,331,649 (multiple wavelengths "during a single procedure or related procedures conducted in sequence"), and by WO 1993/021843 (Coherent, variably blending multiple laser beams for medical purposes).
• Sub-pulses / rapid alternation / interleaved output is taught by US 5,375,132 A (Coherent, "Solid state laser with interleaved output") and by the fact that a common energy store with per-lamp switches produces discrete partial discharges (the natural consequence of the claim-14 architecture).
• Clinical motivation for rapid alternation: the '289 specification itself argues that existing multi-laser treatments involve separate systems with poor timing control ("the time between pulses is usually seconds, rather than fractions of a second. Such timing problems may affect the clinical outcome"). That articulated problem supplies the KSR "known problem / predictable solution" nexus for combining a shared-drive, sub-pulse-capable workstation with a multi-wavelength dermatologic method. It is a design need, not an invention.

Claims 24–27: different wavelengths (US 5,331,649, US 5,540,676); PDL + 1064 nm Nd:YAG at 595/1064 (US 6,077,294; US 5,843,072; US 6,398,801; US 5,241,922); leg or facial veins (US 5,843,072, "Method for treatment of unwanted veins"; US 6,398,801, "Treatment of vascular lesions").

Claims 28–29: 595 nm + 1320 nm for acne, acne scarring, scarring, sun-damaged or wrinkled skin — supported by US 6,077,294 (wrinkle removal), US 2004/0225339 A1 (Palomar, light treatments for acne), US 5,871,479, and the multiple YAG lines of US 5,241,922/US 5,331,649.

Claims 30–31: intercalated sub-pulses and pulse-train-followed-by-pulse — US 5,375,132 A ("interleaved output").

4.i Independent claim 32 and claims 33–34 (same-site, two lasers)

Claim 32 is broader than claim 23: it does not itself require different wavelengths or sub-pulses (as the prior section correctly observed) — it requires only (i) the two-laser/single-drive/single-store/selective-ionization architecture and (ii) applying laser energy from both lasers to the same skin tissue. Applying two lasers to the same treatment site is the ordinary way to perform a multi-modality treatment and is squarely disclosed/obvious from US 5,540,676 ("multiple wavelengths" in one procedure), US 5,331,649 ("more than one wavelength during a single procedure"), and US 6,077,294. Claims 33–34 (PDL + solid-state/Nd:YAG) are addressed at §4.c and §4.d.

Because claim 32 lacks the wavelength-difference and sub-pulse limitations, it is the broadest independent claim and the easiest to reject: it reduces to "use a two-laser shared-drive dermatologic workstation to treat the same spot with both lasers," which is disclosed or obvious from the combination above.

4.j Independent claim 35 and claims 36–38 (vascular lesion: 595 nm → 1064 nm; oxy-hemoglobin → met-hemoglobin)

Claim 35 recites a specific mechanism and sequence: apply 595 nm at "an effective fluence to convert oxy-hemoglobin to met-hemoglobin," then apply 1064 nm.

• 595/1064 nm treatment of vascular lesions is disclosed by US 6,398,801 B1 (ICN Photonics, "Treatment of vascular lesions"), US 5,843,072 (Cynosure, unwanted veins), and the Nd:YAG/P DL systems of US 5,241,922, US 5,540,676, and US 6,077,294. The '289 specification's own clinical narrative — PDL for "hemoglobin of blood in skin tissue," Nd:YAG to "treat larger vessels" — is drawn from this body of art.
• The "convert oxy-hemoglobin to met-hemoglobin" limitation is the hardest limitation to meet with the references provided. I did not retrieve a reference in the '289 citation record that expressly discloses (a) the oxy-→met-hemoglobin conversion and (b) the use of that conversion to enhance subsequent 1064 nm absorption. The '289 specification introduces this rationale with the hedge "Without wishing to be bound by theory, it is believed that …." The prior art on the record teaches the result (PDL then Nd:YAG on a vascular lesion) but, on the record as reproduced here, not the express met-hemoglobin mechanism.
• Consequences. If the met-hemoglobin conversion is treated as a process step that must be carried out (applying 595 nm "at an effective fluence to convert oxy- to met-hemoglobin"), then claim 35 may present the strongest § 103 argument for the patentee unless a secondary reference discloses met-hemoglobin absorption enhancement at 1064 nm or the converting fluence/endpoint. If, instead, the conversion recitation is construed as a statement of inherent result or a mechanism of action (i.e., the 595 nm pulse inherently converts some oxy- to met-hemoglobin), then claim 35 collapses to "595 nm then 1064 nm on a vascular lesion," which the above references render obvious — and the mechanism rationale would be an inoperable/non-limiting recitation in that case. I flag this as the claim requiring the most careful validity analysis and recommend a dedicated search of the met-hemoglobin / "blood priming" art (not fully present in this record) before concluding.

Claims 36–38 add sub-pulses / intercalation / pulse trains — see §4.f and §4.h (US 5,375,132 A; the claim-14 switch architecture).

---

5. Summary table

---

6. Secondary considerations

No objective indicia appear on the face of the patent or in the record as reproduced. Specifically:

• No unexpected results are asserted with data; the '289 specification's mechanism discussion is expressly hedged ("Without wishing to be bound by theory").
• No licensing, industry praise, or long-felt-need evidence is in the record. (The prior section found no litigation over this patent; a licensing/cross-license arrangement in the dermatology laser field — Cynosure, Candela, Cutera, Palomar, Alma, Lumenis — is plausible but unverified and would need documentary proof.)
• Commercial success, if any, would require a nexus to the claimed features (shared drive, selective ionization), not merely to the well-known PDL/Nd:YAG modalities.

Absent such evidence, the § 103 combinations above are not rebutted on the present record.

---

7. Conclusion

1. Claims 1–3 are, in my assessment, highly likely obvious over US 3,651,425 in view of US 4,910,438 (optionally with US 4,488,104 and the multi-laser medical art). US 3,651,425 discloses the very "single energy store → energy simultaneously to multiple flashlamps" architecture that claim 1 recites; US 4,910,438 supplies the per-lamp ionization control that makes firing selective.

2. Claims 6–9 and 20–22 are likely obvious over US 5,241,922 and/or US 5,331,649 in view of the acknowledged conventional dielectric-coating art. The '289 patent's claimed advance — stationary optics plus a movable beam-block shutter to select the 1,064 nm or 1,320 nm line — is a predictable substitution for the movable mirrors/medium of the cited art, motivated by the cited art's own criticism of mirror-swapping and by the spec's stated goal of a robust, maintenance-free resonator.

3. Claims 14–16 are likely obvious (known-technique substitution of IGBT/FET for spark gaps/thyratrons; US 4,910,438 expressly shows FET switching in a flashlamp supply).

4. Claims 23–34 are likely obvious over US 5,540,676 / US 5,331,649 / WO 1993/021843 in view of US 5,375,132 A and the Cynosure treatment-method patents. Claim 32, lacking the wavelength-difference and sub-pulse limitations, is the broadest and weakest independent claim.

5. Claim 35 (and its dependents) is the least clearly obvious on the record I was given, because the express oxy-hemoglobin → met-hemoglobin conversion limitation is not squarely matched by any reference in the '289 citation list that I retrieved or verified. This is where a validity challenge would focus, and where the claim's fate turns on claim construction (express process step vs. inherent mechanism). I recommend a dedicated search of the met-hemoglobin/"blood priming"/photo-conversion art before reaching a firm conclusion.

---

8. Explicit information gaps and caveats

• I verified the substance of US 3,651,425, US 4,910,438, US 5,241,922, and US 5,331,649 via retrieved text. For US 4,488,104, US 3,243,650, US 3,284,665, US 4,037,136, US 5,540,676, WO 1990/012548, WO 1993/021843, US 5,375,132 A, US 6,398,801, US 6,077,294, US 5,843,072, US 5,871,479, US 6,273,883, US 6,613,040/042, and US 2004/0225339 A1, I relied on the identifying data in the '289 record and standard knowledge of the field; I did not retrieve their full texts, so specific paragraph-level attributions for those references should be confirmed before any formal rejection is drafted.
• I could not retrieve US 5,540,676, WO 1990/012548, and US 5,375,132 A due to a tool step limit; their characterizations above are grounded in the titles/assignees as listed in the record plus general art knowledge, and should be spot-checked.
• No litigation, PTAB proceeding, or reexamination appears in the record (consistent with the previously generated litigation section); this is a validity analysis of an expired patent (anticipated expiration 2025-01-14), so the practical significance of any § 103 conclusion today is retrospective (e.g., for a prior-art/validity dispute arising in a look-back damages period).
• Cross-reference check: the previously generated sections state "Claims 38 total; independent claims 1, 23, 32, 35" and flag the claim 13→9 dependency anomaly. Both are consistent with the granted text I analyzed; no contradiction found. The previously noted priority-date discrepancy (2005-01-14 vs. 2005-01-13) does not affect this § 103 analysis, because all cited references predate either date.

Bottom line: On the record provided, the apparatus independent claim 1 and its architecture claims are the most vulnerable, with US 3,651,425 (shared single energy source simultaneously energizing multiple pre-ionized flashlamp-pumped lasers) as the anchor. The dual-wavelength Nd:YAG resonator claims are vulnerable to US 5,241,922/US 5,331,649 as mechanical/optical substitutions. Claim 35's met-hemoglobin conversion limitation is the one element not clearly met by the cited art and warrants a targeted prior-art search before concluding on validity.