US 10750151

I'll verify the patent details against live sources, including any appellate docket activity.

Let me check for any appellate or PTAB docket activity specific to this patent.

Let me pull the actual claim language and check for any 2026 appellate activity involving this patent.

US 10,750,151 B2 — Verified Summary

Important scope note: I could not retrieve verbatim claim text or a live CAFC/PACER docket query in this session. Everything below is grounded in (a) the full patent text supplied (authoritative), (b) the PTAB institution decision in IPR2021-01120, and (c) live search results. Where I lack an authoritative source, I say so.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (verbatim)

"A device for determining the surface topology and associated color of a structure, such as a teeth segment, includes a scanner for providing depth data for points along a two-dimensional array substantially orthogonal to the depth direction, and an image acquisition means for providing color data for each of the points of the array, while the spatial disposition of the device with respect to the structure is maintained substantially unchanged. A processor combines the color data and depth data for each point in the array, thereby providing a three-dimensional color virtual model of the surface of the structure. A corresponding method for determining the surface topology and associate color of a structure is also provided."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Confidence caveat: The '151 patent has at least 30 claims — the IPR2021-01120 petition challenged claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 25, and 30, which implies independent claims at roughly 1, 10, 18, 25, and 30 with dependent claims (4, 11, 13, 19) interleaved. I did not retrieve the verbatim claim set, so the following describes the independent-claim subject matter based on the patent's own claim-mirroring disclosure and the PTAB's characterization.

Claim 1 — the device claim (means-plus-function style). A device, typically a hand-held intraoral scanner, for determining surface topology and associated color of a portion of a 3-D structure (e.g., a teeth segment). It recites:

• scanning means for providing depth data over a two-dimensional reference array that is substantially orthogonal to the depth (Z) direction;
• imaging means for providing 2-D color image data of the same portion referenced to the same array; and
• the device is adapted to hold a substantially fixed spatial disposition relative to the portion while both the scanning means and the imaging means operate.

The essential insight: because depth and color are captured from the same device, at the same X-Y frame of reference, with the device practically stationary, the color values can be mapped directly onto the 3-D coordinates — avoiding conformal 2-D-to-3-D mapping and the color/geometry mismatches of the prior art (e.g., EP 837,659 and the re-alignment step it requires).

Claim 10 (approx.) — the method claim. A method for determining surface topology and associated color, comprising (i) providing depth data of the portion corresponding to a 2-D reference array substantially orthogonal to the depth direction; and (ii) providing 2-D color image data of the portion associated with that array — with the device held in a substantially fixed spatial disposition relative to the portion. A maximum time interval is permitted between acquisition of the depth data and the image data, stated as about 0 to 100 ms, preferably 0–50 ms, more preferably 0–20 ms, so that no significant relative movement occurs. Depth is preferably obtained by confocal focusing (spot-specific position / in-focus distance determination per WO 00/08415).

Claim 18 (approx.) — the confocal-device claim. The device claim further specified in confocal terms: a first illumination means producing an array of incident beams through a probing unit onto the structure; a light-focusing optics defining one or more movable focal planes; a translation mechanism displacing the focal plane along the propagation axis; a detector array (e.g., CCD behind a pinhole matrix) measuring intensity of returned beams; and a processor determining, for each beam, the spot-specific position yielding maximum returned intensity, and from those positions generating the topology data.

Claim 25 (approx.) — the color-acquisition-instrumentation claim. The device claim further specified by how color is captured, spanning the embodiments in the specification:

• three sequentially switched colored illuminations (R/G/B) from a tri-color sequence generator, with a monochromatic image captured per color and combined into a full-color image;
• tri-color LEDs at the probe interface (first embodiment), on a waveguiding disposable sheath (second embodiment), behind a dichroic coating on the slanted face (third embodiment), or at the confocal aperture-stop plane on an annular bracket (fourth embodiment);
• a rotating tri-color filter disc with a white source (fifth/sixth embodiments); or
• white illumination plus a color CCD (seventh embodiment).

Claim 30 (approx.) — the reconstruction / computing claim. A method of reconstructing color and topology: deriving the 3-D monochrome entity E and the 2-D color entity N as above, then aligning the two by optically matching the profile/shape of the imaged region (the specification expressly contemplates OCR-type best-fit translation/rotation of the shape outlines), and mapping the color value C of each (X′,Y′) pixel of N onto the corresponding (X,Y,Z) data point of E to yield the combined entity I. Optionally including interpolation where the 3-D and color detector coordinates do not precisely coincide, and output of manufacturing data (e.g., to CAD/CAM for a crown, bridge, restoration, or filling).

Litigation and administrative history (verified)

• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1144, Certain Dental and Orthodontic Scanners and Software — Align's ITC action against 3Shape; the issuance of the Initial Determination (April 30, 2020) appears on the '151 cover page as a cited reference.
• 3Shape A/S v. Align Technology, Inc., D. Del. 1:20-cv-01492 (Nov. 2, 2020; Judge Leonard P. Stark) — declaratory judgment action.
• Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S, W.D. Tex. 6:20-cv-00979 (Oct. 19, 2020; Judge Alan D. Albright) — Align asserted the '151 patent along with U.S. 9,101,433; 10,728,519; 10,750,152 and 10,709,527, all part of the "Color Scanning Patents" family. The '151 patent was part of the claim-construction dispute (3Shape's opening brief).
• IPR2021-01120, 3Shape A/S and 3Shape Inc. v. Align Technology, Inc. — petition filed June 24, 2021 on claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 25, 30, grounded on Babayoff '529 in view of Atiya, with Pulli, Miramonti, Decker, and WO 00/08415 as further exhibits. The Board denied institution on January 11, 2022 under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (Panel: Jung, Powell, Mayberry). No final written decision, therefore no appeal to the Federal Circuit arising from that IPR; the petition fee refund issued February 16, 2022.
• CAFC 2026 dockets: My searches surfaced no 2026 Federal Circuit appeal specifically involving US 10,750,151. The Align-related 2026 Federal Circuit activity I found concerns different patents — Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc. (Nos. 2024-2270, 2025-1752, 2025-1879), addressing U.S. 11,049,248, 10,755,409, and 10,759,945 (deep-learning dental image analysis), which are not the '151 patent. I flag this as a limitation: I was not able to run a direct CAFC docket-number search by patent number, so an unnoticed 2026 appeal cannot be entirely excluded, though nothing in the search results indicates one.

Uncertainty statement

• Verbatim claim text for claims 1, 10, 18, 25, 30 was not retrieved. The independent-claim overview above is inferred from the patent's own claim-formatting disclosure (which contains the phrase "comprising:" in device and method formulations) and from the set of claims challenged in IPR2021-01120. The substance is well-supported by the specification; the claim numbering is an inference.
• The assertion that no 2026 CAFC appeal exists for this specific patent rests on the searches run and should be re-verified against PACER/CM-ECF and the Federal Circuit's docket if a litigation-clearance opinion is required.
• The "Expired – Lifetime" status and June 17, 2025 expiration date are as reported by Google Patents; this reflects payment lapse/term expiry and is not a legal conclusion.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 10750151 using multiple sources.

I found the key cases. Let me get more details on each and check for related ITC/Federal Circuit actions.

I have strong results. Let me verify the settlement and check for any other cases (e.g., ClearCorrect) involving this specific patent.

Litigation involving US Patent 10,750,151

Based on searches of patent litigation databases (Docket Alarm, Unified Patents litigation/PTAB portals, Justia Dockets, CourtListener, and Align/3Shape press releases), I identified the following matters in which US 10,750,151 ("Method and apparatus for colour imaging a three-dimensional structure," inventor Noam Babayoff, assignee Align Technology, Inc.) was at issue. Note that these are the cases where the '151 patent was specifically asserted, challenged, or made subject to a declaratory-judgment count — I have excluded cases involving only related family members.

1. Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S and 3Shape Trios A/S (offensive infringement suit)

• Plaintiff: Align Technology, Inc.
• Defendants: 3Shape A/S; 3Shape Trios A/S
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Waco Division)
• Case No.: 6:20-cv-00979
• Presiding Judge: Alan D. Albright
• Filing date: October 19, 2020
• Asserted patents included: U.S. 9,101,433; 10,728,519; 10,750,151; 10,750,152; 10,709,527 (and later others), all asserted against 3Shape's Trios scanners/software.
• Outcome/status: The case was stayed pending settlement (docket entry granting motion to stay; parties to file dismissal or joint status report by March 15, 2022) and the case is Closed. This was part of a global Align–3Shape settlement announced in February 2022 (Align's own filings state that on February 7, 2022, Align and 3Shape settled their outstanding patent infringement and antitrust litigation).
• Sources: https://www.docketalarm.com/search/?q=patent%3A%2810750151%29 ; https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-align-technology-inc-v-3shape-as-et-al-[710077](/patent/710077) ; https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2020cv00979/[1111294](/patent/1111294) ; http://investor.aligntech.com/node/23926/pdf

2. 3Shape A/S, 3Shape Trios A/S, and 3Shape, Inc. v. Align Technology, Inc. (declaratory-judgment action)

• Plaintiffs: 3Shape A/S; 3Shape Trios A/S; 3Shape, Inc.
• Defendant: Align Technology, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case No.: 1:20-cv-01492
• Presiding Judge: Leonard P. Stark
• Filing date: November 2, 2020
• Nature: Complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, expressly identifying Patent/Trademark Nos. 9,101,433; 10,728,519; 10,750,151; 10,750,152; 10,791,934; 10,791,936; and 10,709,527. 3Shape also moved for a preliminary injunction/TRO (D.I. 4), which was DENIED on November 13, 2020.
• Outcome/status: Proceedings were stayed (Dec. 2020, and again Feb. 2022 pending settlement), and the case was terminated on March 3, 2022 by a Stipulated Order of Dismissal (Judge Stark), with a Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks filed the same day.
• Sources: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2020cv01492/73692 ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1:20-cv-01492

3. IPR2021-01120 — 3Shape A/S and 3Shape, Inc. v. Align Technology, Inc. (PTAB inter partes review)

• Petitioners: 3Shape A/S; 3Shape, Inc.
• Patent Owner: Align Technology, Inc.
• Forum: U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (USPTO)
• Case No.: IPR2021-01120
• Patent challenged: US 10,750,151 (Appl. No. 16/791,994)
• Filed: June 24, 2021
• Institution decision: January 11, 2022 — Institution DENIED under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (status listed as "Not Instituted – Merits").
• Termination: Notice of Refund Approved (Feb. 16, 2022); the proceeding did not reach the merits. (A denial of institution is generally non-appealable.)
• Petitioner counsel: Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP; Patent Owner counsel: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.
• Sources: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-01120 ; https://www.docketalarm.com/search/?q=patent%3A%2810750151%29

Important exclusion

The parallel ITC Section 337 investigation, Inv. No. 337-TA-1144 (Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S, 3Shape Trios A/S, 3Shape, Inc., instituted Feb. 27, 2019; final determination Nov. 17, 2020 finding no violation) asserted U.S. Patents 9,299,192; 7,077,647; 7,156,661; 9,848,958; and 8,102,538 — not the '151 patent. I note this specifically because Align's later district-court campaigns and 3Shape's counter-narrative referenced the ITC cases, but the '151 patent itself was not an asserted patent in the 1144 Investigation.

Summary

US 10,750,151 was litigated only in the Align–3Shape dispute, in three fora:

1. W.D. Tex. 6:20-cv-00979 (Align v. 3Shape) — offensive infringement; closed by settlement (Feb. 2022).
2. D. Del. 1:20-cv-01492 (3Shape v. Align) — declaratory judgment of non-infringement; dismissed by stipulation (Mar. 3, 2022).
3. PTAB IPR2021-01120 (3Shape v. Align) — institution denied (Jan. 11, 2022).

No Federal Circuit appeal of any merits ruling on the '151 patent was identified (the only appellate activity found relates to the IPR, which was not instituted). I found no other litigation (e.g., against ClearCorrect/Straumann or other parties) in which US 10,750,151 itself was asserted; the later Align v. ClearCorrect matter (W.D. Tex. 6:24-cv-00187) concerned a different patent set and I did not find '151 charged there.

Caveats: My searches rely on third-party litigation databases and press releases rather than direct PACER verification for every docket entry, so filing-date and status details should be confirmed against PACER/PTAB records. This is not a legal opinion and I have made no assessment of the merits.

I'll research the PTAB proceedings on US 10,750,151, starting with the one identified in the litigation summary and checking for any others.

I have the core proceeding. Let me dig into the denial reasoning and check for any other petitions, follow-on filings, or appeals.

Let me get the actual denial reasoning from the institution decision and confirm there are no other AIA proceedings.

Proceedings overview

Across the entire AIA-trial record for US 10,750,151 ("Method and apparatus for colour imaging a three-dimensional structure," Align Technology / inventor Noam Babayoff), there is exactly one (1) AIA trial proceeding: IPR2021-01120. Breakdown: 0 active; 0 claims invalidated; 0 claims sustained; 0 settled (as to the PTAB case); 1 institution denied. No Final Written Decision (FWD) ever issued, so no claim of the ‘151 patent has ever been adjudicated at the PTAB — the Board declined to institute before reaching the merits.

Bottom line for a defendant being asserted the ‘151 patent today: this is not a "hardened-by-two-IPRs" patent, but it is also not a "claims canceled, troll has no case" patent. It is an untested-at-the-PTAB patent whose claims all survived the threshold unreviewed, and — critically — the denial means no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attached to the petitioner (3Shape) or its privies. The far more important defensive facts are (a) the ‘151 patent has expired (Google Patents lists anticipated expiration 2025-06-17 and legal status "Expired - Lifetime"), and (b) the sibling patents in the same Babayoff / "color scanning" family were killed or narrowed in related forums (see Strategic summary).

Flag — contradiction between provided sections. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block states the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. Independent web searching returns IPR2021-01120, filed 2021-06-24, with an institution decision dated 2022-01-11. The ODP block is therefore incomplete/stale for this patent; consistent with my operating instructions, I treat the web-confirmed proceeding as authoritative and flag the discrepancy. (It is possible ODP's index missed a denied — never-instituted — proceeding, which would explain the gap.)

IPR2021-01120 — 3Shape A/S and 3Shape Inc. v. Align Technology, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (the only AIA trial on this patent).

• Filed: 2021-06-24 (Petition, Paper 3). Notice of Accorded Filing Date 2021-07-12; Patent Owner Mandatory Notices 2021-07-15; Patent Owner Preliminary Response (Paper 10).

• Status: "Not Instituted – Merits" (Unified Patents PTAB data label); the Board's paper is captioned "DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 U.S.C. § 314," dated 2022-01-11 (Paper 15). Proceeding terminated; Petitioner's request for refund of the post-institution fee filed 2022-02-11 and Notice of Refund Approved 2022-02-16 (Paper 17).

• Judge panel: Hyun J. Jung, Neil T. Powell, and James J. Mayberry, Administrative Patent Judges (opinion authored by APJ Powell).

• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 25, and 30 of the ‘151 patent. The core statutory ground was § 103 obviousness — Babayoff ‘529 (U.S. 7,319,529) in view of Atiya (U.S. Pub. 2018/0192877 A1) ("Ground I"). The Petition also contained a section addressing §§ 314(a) and 325(d) (discretionary denial), and the exhibit list included Babayoff ‘415 (WO 00/08415), Miramonti (U.S. 5,864,640), Decker (U.S. 2002/0057438), and Pulli (1997 dissertation) among background/secondary materials. Caveat: I confirmed the § 103 Ground I pairing from the Petition and the Schaafsma expert declaration; I did not verify whether additional discrete grounds were pleaded, so I do not attribute a specific § 102 or § 112 ground to this Petition.

• Institution decision: DENIED (2022-01-11) — no trial instituted. I was not able to retrieve the full text of the panel's substantive reasoning from the public sources reached here; the decision is captioned solely under § 314 (the "reasonable likelihood" threshold), and the petition itself had argued the discretionary §§ 314(a)/325(d) framework. I therefore do not state whether the denial rested on the merits, on § 325(d) (same/ substantially same art previously before the Office), on § 314(a) (parallel-court) factors, or a combination. This should be confirmed against the decision PDF (below).

• Final Written Decision: None. Because institution was denied, the Board never reached a claim-level verdict; no independent or dependent claim of the ‘151 patent was canceled or held patentable by the PTAB.

• Settlement / termination: Not a settlement — the proceeding ended by denial of institution, followed by a fee refund. The underlying Align–3Shape litigation settled separately in February 2022 (district cases closed/dismissed shortly after the 2022-01-11 denial), but the IPR itself was not settled.

• Appeal: None. A denial of institution is generally non-appealable (35 U.S.C. § 314(d); Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee). No Federal Circuit docket on the ‘151 IPR was identified.

• Defensive value: Because there was no institution and no FWD, § 315(e)(2) estoppel never attached — 3Shape (and its privies) are free to raise in court the very Babayoff ‘529 + Atiya (and Miramonti/Decker/Pulli) art they pleaded. Conversely, the denial gives the patent owner no PTAB validity win to hide behind; it is a procedural/burden loss, not a validity endorsement. For a defendant today, IPR2021-01120 is a prior-art roadmap in the public record, not a preclusive bar.

• Sources: Institution Decision PDF — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2021-01120/3Shape_A-S_v._Align_Technology_Inc/docs/01-11-2022-Board/Institution_Decision__Deny-15-DECISION_Denying_Institution_of_Inter_Partes_Review_35_USC_314.pdf ; Unified Patents PTAB portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-01120 ; USPTO PTAB E2E (docket) — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/ ; Docket Alarm case index — https://www.docketalarm.com/search/?q=patent%3A%2810750151%29 .

Strategic summary

Claim status of the ‘151 patent (all 30 claims). At the PTAB, CANCELED: none. SUSTAINED: none. UNTESTED: all of claims 1–30. There is no FWD, so no claim has been adjudicated. The challenged set (claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 25, 30) was never even institution-tested, let alone invalidated. Caveat: none of this speaks to district-court validity; the Delaware/W.D. Tex. cases were stayed and dismissed on the February 2022 global settlement, so no court validity judgment on the ‘151 patent exists either. Separately, note the patent's term: Google Patents lists anticipated expiration 2025-06-17 and status "Expired - Lifetime" — meaning as of 2026-09-30 the ‘151 patent appears expired, leaving only past-damages exposure within the § 286 six-year lookback (verify term/PTA against USPTO PatentCenter).

Estoppel landscape. No estoppel exists on the ‘151 patent. § 315(e)(2) bars only a petitioner that obtained a final written decision under § 318(a) — never triggered here. Consequently (i) 3Shape/privies retain all grounds, including the Babayoff ‘529 + Atiya combination; (ii) any new defendant can bring the same or different art. The practical constraint is no longer estoppel but time/expiry and § 315(b): the ‘151 patent is expired and any IPR one-year clock under § 315(b) (running from service of a complaint alleging infringement) will have long since run for the settled 2020–2022 defendants. For a current assertion, confirm the § 315(b) date before relying on IPR at all; an expired patent also makes the value of a new IPR marginal (PTAB increasingly denies as moot).

Pattern signals. This was a single-petitioner, family-wide campaign by a litigation adversary, not a defensive aggregator: 3Shape filed IPRs across the whole Babayoff "color scanning" family — IPR2019-00154, -00155, -00156 (US 8,363,228 / 8,451,456 / 8,675,207), IPR2019-00157, -00159, -00160, -00163 (US 8,363,228 / 8,451,456 / 8,675,207 / 9,101,433), IPR2020-00173, -00174 (US 8,102,538), and IPR2021-01120 (the ‘151 patent itself). Notably, on 2020-02-07 Align requested adverse judgment in six of those family IPRs, and the PTAB terminated all six on 2020-02-12 — i.e., the patent owner abandoned rather than defended the siblings' claims, which is a meaningful signal that the overlapping claim sets are vulnerable. No Unified Patents (or other aggregator) petition appears in the ‘151 chain. Align (patent owner) did not pursue any PTAB appeal on the ‘151 patent (the denial is non-appealable), and no CAFC activity on the ‘151 IPR was found. Relatedly, 3Shape also filed IPR2021-01241 against Align's US 10,791,936 (a different patent, "composite image"), which was likewise denied institution — reinforcing that the family's PTAB outcomes turned on threshold/discretionary denials rather than canceled claims.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not treat IPR2021-01120 as invalidating anything. No claims were canceled. If a demand letter from Align (or a successor) cites claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 25, or 30, cite the 2022-01-11 Decision Denying Institution (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2021-01120/3Shape_A-S_v._Align_Technology_Inc/docs/01-11-2022-Board/Institution_Decision__Deny-15-DECISION_Denying_Institution_of_Inter_Partes_Review_35_USC_314.pdf) only for the absence of any validity adjudication and absence of estoppel — not as a merits win.
2. Confirm the operative limitation date first. Determine patent expiry (Google Patents: 2025-06-17 anticipated expiration) and, if a live assertion exists, the § 315(b) one-year bar date from service of the complaint. An expired patent materially changes both the damages and IPR calculus.
3. Mine the public IPR record for invalidity leads. The IPR2021-01120 exhibit set — Babayoff ‘529 (Ex. 1005), Atiya (Ex. 1006), Babayoff ‘415 / WO 00/08415 (Ex. 1007), Miramonti (Ex. 1011), Decker (Ex. 1012), Pulli (Ex. 1013) — plus the Schaafsma declaration (Ex. 1002) are a ready-made § 102/§ 103 starting point, and no estoppel blocks their use.
4. Build the § 112 and unenforceability angles from the family history. The parallel ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1091/1144 record includes an ALJ finding that claim 1 of US 8,363,228 was invalid for lack of written description (§ 112 ¶ 1) — specifically over the "hand-held device comprising a processor" limitation that recurs in the ‘151 family — a template for attacking the ‘151 claims' overlapping scope. In addition, 3Shape pleaded declaratory-judgment counterclaims (Counts XXIII–XXIV) that the ‘151 and ‘152 patents are unenforceable for inequitable conduct (duty of candor / alleged "burying" of material references in IDSs), which lapsed with the settlement but remains a documented attack surface.
5. Note the procedural milestone posture if any new proceeding ever appears. None is pending; institution-decision deadlines, oral hearings, and FWD due dates (PTAB's statutory § 316(a)(11) one-year-from-institution deadline) are inapplicable because no trial was instituted and the patent appears expired. The absence of any post-2021 AIA filings on the ‘151 patent is itself a signal: after the February 2022 settlement and the patent's 2025 expiry, the patent is effectively out of the PTAB's reach.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10,750,151 using multiple sources.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records and the Cadent-to-Align chain.

I hit the tool-call ceiling before I could pull the Assignment Center's reel/frame records directly. Here is the analysis, with the gaps flagged explicitly rather than filled in.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,750,151 B2

Critical sourcing note up front. I was not able to retrieve live records from USPTO Assignment Center (assignment.uspto.gov / assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) in this session. Accordingly, I cannot report reel/frame numbers, execution dates, recording dates, or recorded correspondents for this patent, and I will not invent them. What follows is grounded in (a) the patent's own front-page bibliographic data (authoritative), (b) Align's SEC filings on EDGAR, and (c) the assignment records actually entered into evidence in the ITC proceedings (JX-0039, JX-0040, JX-0041). Reel/frame verification requires a direct Assignment Center pull by patent number 10,750,151 or application 16/791,994.

Inventors

Notes on pattern:

• This is a single-inventor family. Babayoff is also the named inventor on the WO 00/08415 reference (assigned to Cadent Ltd. at the time) and on essentially every patent in the priority chain (7,319,529 → 7,511,829 → 7,724,378 → 8,102,538 → 8,363,228 → 8,451,456 → 8,675,207 → 8,885,175 → 9,101,433 → 9,404,740 → 10,750,151). The family was prosecuted continuously from 2004 to 2020 by the same inventor-named chain.
• The "inventor departure precedes fire-sale" red flag is NOT observable here in the direction that matters. The continuity of the Babayoff continuation chain across 16 years indicates the assignee (Cadent, then Align) retained and invested in the family rather than divesting it. I could not independently verify Babayoff's employment end-date or whether he is still with Align; the record I have does not support a departure-within-12-months finding, and I decline to guess.

Original assignee

Two entities must be distinguished:

1. Entity named on the issued '151 patent's face: ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., San Jose, CA (US) — listed as both (71) Applicant and (73) Assignee. Align is a publicly traded, operating medical-device company (Nasdaq: ALGN), founded March 1997. It ships products embodying the claims: the iTero intraoral scanner line (built on the Cadent technology the '151 patent describes). Status: operating, not bankrupt, not dissolved. Align remains the record owner today; the patent expired June 17, 2025 (Expired – Lifetime).

2. Original assignee of the underlying 2004–2005 priority applications: Cadent Ltd. (Or Yehuda, Israel) / Cadent Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Cadent, Carlstadt, New Jersey). Cadent was a privately held, VC-backed intraoral-scanning company (investors: Fortissimo Capital, Apax Partners, Panorama/JPMorgan Partners, STAR Ventures, SV Life Sciences, IBT). Cadent's iTero/iOC scanners and OrthoCAD services were commercial products. Current status: acquired — no longer independent. Align completed the acquisition on April 29, 2011 for ~$190M cash via merger with Align's subsidiary Bliss Acquisition Corporation, with Cadent Holdings, Inc. surviving as a wholly owned Align subsidiary (Algn Form 8-K, Item 2.01, April 29, 2011).

Assignment timeline

I cannot produce a reel/frame-cited timeline, because I did not retrieve the Assignment Center records. What the documentary record does establish:

Gaps I am explicitly flagging, not papering over:

• Reel/frame numbers, execution dates, recording dates, and recording correspondents: NOT RETRIEVED. The ITC Initial Determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-1091 confirms that the Babayoff color-scanner family does have recorded assignments in the chain of title (it relies on "JX-0039 (assignment record); JX-0040 (assignment record); JX-0041 (assignment record)" to establish Align's standing), but the exhibit contents — and therefore the reel/frames — are not in my retrieved text. Align's ownership was undisputed by 3Shape in that investigation.
• I therefore cannot execute the "repeat correspondent" analysis the task calls for. That is the single most useful tell in this exercise, and it is unavailable to me.
• I also cannot rule out a recorded security interest — Cadent was a six-investor VC-backed company, and venture debt security agreements are commonly recorded. No evidence of one appeared, but absence of retrieval is not absence of record.

Bottom line on this section: the chain appears to be a two-link corporate chain (Babayoff → Cadent → Align), ending at an operating company. But the reel/frame confirmation is missing and should be obtained before relying on this for a clearance opinion.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10750151
    2004 : Provisionals filed by Babayoff
    2005 : Non-provisional filed by Cadent Ltd
    2008 : US 7319529 issues to Cadent
    2011 : Cadent Holdings merged into Align Technology
    2020 : Continuation issues as US 10750151
         : Align sues 3Shape in W D Texas
    2022 : Align and 3Shape settle all disputes

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Align Technology, Inc. — the (73) assignee named on the face of US 10,750,151 and the surviving entity of the April 29, 2011 Cadent Holdings merger (Algn 8-K, Item 2.01) — is a Nasdaq-listed manufacturer that ships the iTero scanner embodying the claimed subject matter and asserted this patent against a direct market competitor, 3Shape, in W.D. Tex. 6:20-cv-00979 (Oct. 19, 2020), with 3Shape's declaratory-judgment mirror in D. Del. 1:20-cv-01492 and the IPR2021-01120 institution denial (Jan. 11, 2022). The chain contains zero NPE signals: no shell-entity transfer, no listed asserter, no LLC cascade, no bankruptcy, no defensive aggregator, and the sole ownership change long predates the assertion.

Two caveats that could change this verdict if resolved otherwise:

1. Reel/frame records were not retrieved — I could not perform the repeat-correspondent check, which is the highest-value tell in this task. If a dormant § 1.68-style assignment to an affiliate shell turns out to sit between Cadent and Align, signal #1 would need to be revisited (though it would not change the fact that Align, an operating company, is the asserter).
2. The verdict addresses only this patent. Nothing here should be read as a portfolio-wide conclusion about Align, which holds and asserts hundreds of patents across multiple families.

For verification: pull US 10,750,151 / Appl. 16/791,994 in USPTO Assignment Center (also indexed at assignment.uspto.gov), and cross-check the ITC exhibits JX-0039/0040/0041 from Inv. No. 337-TA-1091, which contain the underlying chain-of-title assignment records.

I'll research the prior art citations for US 10,750,151 specifically. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me retrieve the complete front-page reference list and the Google Patents citation tables for this exact patent.

Prior Art Analysis — US 10,750,151 B2

Note on process and limits: I was cut off by a tool-step limit before I could pull the complete ~200-entry "(56) References Cited" list that is printed on this patent's face (that list is largely inherited from the applicant's original 2005 IDS in parent application 11/154,520). I retrieved the verified portion below. I have also not been able to retrieve the verbatim claim set of the '151 patent itself, so every § 102 statement below is framed in terms of claim subject matter and (where inferable) claim number, not as a formal element-by-element anticipation conclusion. Anything I could not verify is flagged.

Also note a threshold point that materially affects § 102: the '151 patent claims a June 17, 2004 priority date but was filed February 14, 2020. Whether pre-AIA § 102(a)/(b)/(e) or AIA § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) governs depends on whether the '151 claims are fully supported by the 2004 provisionals — a point 3Shape itself contested (it used the 2005-issued parent Babayoff '529 as prior art against the '151 in IPR2021-01120, which only makes sense if some '151 claims are not entitled to the 2004 date).

A. References cited in the specification itself (the most probative prior art)

These are the references the applicant characterized on the record in the Background of the Invention — all pre-date the June 17, 2004 priority date and all are § 102-eligible.

Comment: A1 and A2 are the two references that the specification itself describes in language that closely tracks the claim concept ("linked to color information without need to conformally map 2-D color data onto 3-D surface"). That is the classic posture in which an applicant's own Background section supplies the best § 102 argument against them.

B. Examiner-cited references / "Patent Citations" of record

Google Patents' patent-citation table for the 2004-priority Babayoff family (verified on the family page for US 2023/0224446 A1) lists four references marked as citations:

Additionally, a "Notice of References Cited" (PTO-892) in the family file history (application 14/755,171) cites US 8,451,456 B2 (Babayoff) as category "A" — i.e., the examiner cited the applicant's own earlier family member. As a same-family/same-inventor reference, 8,451,456 is not § 102 prior art against the '151 (common ownership and priority chain); it is of record only.

C. References actually asserted in IPR2021-01120 (3Shape v. Align, filed June 24, 2021; institution denied Jan. 11, 2022)

Outcome: The Board denied institution (no merits ruling, no final written decision, therefore no § 102 adjudication of the '151 claims on any of these references). This is important: to date, no tribunal has made any holding that any claim of the '151 patent is anticipated.

D. The bulk "(56)" list printed on the '151 face

The front page carries a very long U.S. patent document list carried forward from the 2005 parent. Verified entries include, e.g., 4,983,334 (Adell), 5,003,166 (Girod), 5,008,743 (Katzir), 5,011,405 (Lemchen), 5,017,133 (Miura), 5,027,281 (Rekow), 5,035,613 (Breads), 5,055,039 (Abbott), 5,059,118 (Breads), 5,100,316 (Wildman), 5,121,332 (Riley), 5,125,832 (Kesling), 5,128,870 (Erdman), 5,130,064 (Smalley), 5,131,843 (Hilgers), 5,131,844 (Marinaccio), 5,139,419 (Andreiko), 5,145,564 (Miller), 5,151,609 (Nakagawa), 5,151,856 (Haiman), 5,155,558 (Tannenbaum), 5,168,386 (Galbraith), 5,176,517 (Truax), 5,177,556 (Rioux), 5,184,306 (Erdman), 5,186,623 (Breads), 5,239,178, 5,257,203 (Riley), 5,273,429 (Rekow), 5,278,756 (Lemchen), 5,305,430 (Glassner), 5,305,144 (Hibst), 5,328,362 (Watson), 5,338,198 (Wu) — and continuing for well over a hundred more.

These are overwhelmingly: (i) orthodontic/CAD tooth-model patents (Kesling, Andreiko, Breads, Rekow — the Kesling/Align and OrthoCAD lineage); (ii) optical metrology/range-sensing patents (Rioux, Galbraith); and (iii) scanning/vision patents unrelated to intraoral color depth mapping. None of the ones I verified is a § 102 anticipation candidate for the '151 claims, because none discloses the combination of (a) intraoral confocal depth scanning, (b) 2-D color acquisition referenced to the same X-Y array, and (c) a processor associating color to depth while the device's spatial disposition relative to the structure is substantially fixed. They are § 102(b) "background" art only.

E. Which claim sets are at risk, by subject matter

Because I do not have verbatim '151 claim text, treat the claim numbers as indicative:

1. Broadest independent claim(s) (family claim 1-type: "hand-held device comprising a scanning system, an imaging system, and a processor configured to associate the depth data with the color image data … operating the hand-held device"): the only realistic § 102 candidate is US 6,594,539 (Geng '539), and possibly US 2003/0096210 (Orametrix) for the intraoral/hand-held aspect. This is precisely why 3Shape pressed Geng '539 as a "bridging" reference at the ITC — see the Commission opinion at https://www.usitc.gov/publications/337/pub5300.pdf (finding Geng '539's value "far from clear and convincing" and noting Geng teaches a design with "no scanning mechanism or moving parts").
2. Confocal-structure limitations (illumination unit, optical system defining focal planes, detector, spot-specific-position processor): WO 00/08415 alone or US 7,319,529 (if not entitled to the 2004 date) are § 102 candidates.
3. Color/depth association & conformal-mapping claims: US 5,864,640 (Miramonti) is the closest § 102 candidate, because it expressly teaches 3-D surface information "linked to color information without need to conformally map 2-D color data onto 3-D surface."
4. "Fixed spatial disposition" / time-interval (0–100 ms / 0–50 ms / 0–20 ms) claims: I found no cited reference that discloses this limitation. This appears to be the clearest point of novelty over the entire cited art.
5. Alignment-by-optical-character-recognition claim: no cited reference discloses it.

F. Bottom line

• The most relevant prior art for US 10,750,151 is (1) US 6,594,539 (Geng) — the only reference the specification itself describes as producing both 3-D surface and 2-D color images with the same camera and linking surface to color without conformal mapping; (2) US 5,864,640 (Miramonti) — multi-view detector linking 3-D surface to color without conformal mapping; (3) WO 00/08415 (Cadent/Babayoff) — the confocal scanning engine, but expressly monochromatic; and (4) EP 0 837 659 — teeth 3-D + color with manual re-alignment, the express point of distinction.
• No reference cited for this patent discloses the "substantially fixed spatial disposition between acquisition of depth and color data within 0–100 ms" limitation. That is the feature the specification and the ITC record both treat as the inventive core.
• The highly numerical (56) list is mostly orthodontic-CAD/background art and does not support § 102 anticipation of any '151 claim I could assess.
• No tribunal has held any '151 claim anticipated or obvious. IPR2021-01120 was not instituted (Jan. 11, 2022), and the parallel district-court actions ended in the February 2022 Align–3Shape settlement.

Verifications still required (please do not treat as settled)

• Full verbatim claim text of US 10,750,151 — needed for a true § 102(b)/(e) element-by-element mapping; my claim-number references are inferences from the family claim sets and the IPR-challenged claim list (1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 25, 30).
• Filing date of US 2004/0125381 A1 (Chen) — determine whether it qualifies as § 102(e) art despite publishing after the June 17, 2004 priority date.
• The complete front-page (56) list of the '151 — I could only retrieve a partial run; the remainder should be pulled from the USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR "References Cited" and the PTO-892s in the 11/154,520 file history.
• Applicability of pre-AIA vs. AIA § 102 — turns on whether all '151 claims are supported by the June 17, 2004 provisionals 60/580,108 and 60/580,109.

This is a technical prior-art survey, not a legal opinion; no anticipation/obviousness conclusion is asserted.

I'll ground this obviousness analysis in the prior art identified on the patent's page and in the related PTAB proceeding. Let me verify the key references first.

I have the ITC findings on the family's obviousness fight. Let me pin down the IPR2021-01120 grounds and the Atiya reference.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,750,151 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note. The task prompt states a current date of April 26, 2026; the authoritative patent text supplied with this matter was fetched 2026‑09‑30. I analyze as of the supplied record and flag date‑sensitive items. I have not retrieved verbatim claim text for claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 25 or 30; the mapping below is built from (a) the full specification (authoritative), (b) the claimant's own claim‑formatting disclosure, (c) the IPR2021‑01120 petition's element‑level headings, and (d) the earlier sections of this analysis. Anything I cannot ground, I say so.

I also flag a contradiction with an earlier section: that section attributed US 6,594,539 to "Atiya et al." The USITC final determination in the parallel family litigation refers to this reference as "Geng '539" (RX‑0168). Since the '151 specification cites US 6,594,539 without naming an inventor, I treat the "Atiya" attribution as my earlier inference and now flag it as unverified; the search‑result attribution ("Geng") is preferred per the operating rules.

1. The legal framework applied

Under Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), I consider: scope and content of the prior art; differences between the prior art and the claims; level of ordinary skill; and secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a combination of known elements is obvious where it "does no more than yield predictable results," and a TSM teaching is not required — "any need or problem known in the field … can provide a reason" to combine. A "mere improvement in one of the prior art elements, without a change in its principle of operation," is "likely to be obvious." Id.

Critically for this patent, the threshold § 102 question gates every § 103 theory: a combination can only render claims obvious if each reference is prior art to the claims. As shown below, the two references 3Shape actually used in IPR2021‑01120 are (i) a same‑family Babayoff patent and (ii) a post‑priority Align publication, so the entire obviousness case rises or falls on whether the '151 claims are entitled to the June 17, 2004 priority date. That issue is dispositive, and I address it before the merits.

2. What the claims require — and the new datum from the petition

The earlier section inferred independent claims at approximately 1 (device), 10 (method), 18 (confocal device), 25 (color‑illumination device) and 30 (reconstruction/mapping method), with dependents 4, 11, 13, 19. The IPR2021‑01120 petition confirms the challenged set (1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 25, 30) and supplies element‑by‑element headings — claim 1 has elements [1.1]–[1.5]; claim 10 has [10.1]–[10.5]; claim 18 has [18.1a]–[18.1e], [18.2], [18.3]. That structure corroborates the earlier inference.

New and important datum: Section IX of the petition, captioned "THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE '151 PATENT," asserts that "Claims 1, 10, 18 and 25 Require Capturing Depth Image Data From White Light Illuminating The Intraoral Structure," and argues that "The Common Specification Does Not Teach Capturing Depth Image Data From White Light" and that "The Ancestral Provisions Do Not Cure This Deficiency." (Petition, TOC).

This is materially different from the "monochrome confocal + separate color capture" framing in the earlier section. It implies at least claims 1, 10, 18 and 25 recite obtaining depth data from white‑light illumination — a limitation the '151 specification, which describes a semiconductor laser (element 28) for the 3D scan, arguably does not support. I therefore analyze both claim framings below. I could not read the petition's Section IX body or Align's Preliminary Response, so the claim language remains an inference.

3. The prior‑art corpus available on this page

The page's prior‑art section yields (i) keywords — "color, data, depth, intraoral structure, imaging device" — and (ii) the references the specification itself identifies in its Background:

4. Threshold: is there § 102‑qualifying art at all?

This is the decisive issue, and 3Shape evidently knew it — hence the stand‑alone priority section in its petition.

• Babayoff '529 issues from application 11/154,520 (filed 2005‑06‑17), the same application that gave rise to the '151 via the continuation chain (15/175,267 ← 14/755,171 → 9,404,740 ← … ← 11/154,520 → 7,319,529). If the '151 claims are entitled to the 2004‑06‑17 provisional date, '529 is not prior art (same inventive entity/family; and § 102(b)(2)(C) common‑ownership would independently except it, both being Cadent/Align).
• Atiya US 2018/0192877 published only in 2018 — after the 2004/2005 chain. It is prior art only if the challenged claims are stripped of the ancestral priority and take the 2020‑02‑14 filing date.

Consequence: the entire IPR2021‑01120 ground collapses if Align wins the priority argument. The Board denied institution on January 11, 2022, and Unified Patents labels the outcome "Not Instituted – Merits" (portal). A § 314(a) denial premised on "no reasonable likelihood" is consistent with the Board accepting that the art did not qualify (or that the showing was inadequate), though I cannot confirm the Board's precise rationale — a denial is a non‑appealable, non‑precedential, non‑merits‑of‑patentability act. All § 103 theories below are therefore conditional.

5. Combination‑by‑combination § 103 analysis

Ground A — Babayoff '529 + Atiya (the ground actually pleaded)

Only available if priority is broken.

Motivation. Both are intraoral dental scanners; the '151's own Background frames the problem as "associating color information with three‑dimensional objects is not straightforward" where 3D and 2D are captured by different instruments, and states the invention's aim is "simply and effectively … mapping 2D color information onto a 3D surface model." Adding a broadband/white‑light depth channel to a monochrome confocal scanner to (i) eliminate the need for axial laser scanning, (ii) increase depth‑of‑field and light throughput, and (iii) derive the color image from the same capture, is a substitution of one known depth‑acquisition modality for another achieving a predictable result. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416–17.

Countervailing (strong). A denial of institution leaves the merits open — but the ITC's Final Determination on the same family squarely rejected the analogous combination:

"Babayoff does not teach a device 'for determining surface topology and associated color,' the 'imaging means' feature, and the 'spatial disposition' clause of claim 1… While the Babayoff patent does disclose using light of three different wavelengths, nothing in Babayoff indicates that these wavelengths refer to red, green, and blue illuminations used for color imaging. Instead, these 'different wavelengths' are used to reduce measurement time by focusing different wavelengths simultaneously to different planes… a set of three narrow‑band wavelengths will not produce a color image." (USITC Pub. 5300, Inv. 337‑TA‑1144 Initial Determination)

Mr. Babayoff himself testified the reference was monochromatic. That is a § 103 "teaching‑away"/"different‑principle‑of‑operation" finding that a challenger must overcome.

Ground B — Geng '539 (US 6,594,539) as the primary reference

This reference is the most dangerous to the '151 because the '151's own Background describes it as producing both 3D surface images and 2D color images "with the same camera," using a "multiple view detector responsive to a broad spectrum of visible light," and providing "3-D surface information that is linked to color information without need to conformally map 2-D color data onto 3-D surface." That is, in substance, the '151's stated object and the abstract's core.

Combination: Geng '539 + Babayoff '415 for the confocal depth accuracy (coating‑free, telecentric) + Atiya '539 for the multi‑view/hand‑held architecture. Motivation: replace Geng's relative‑angle multi‑view registration with a single‑axis confocal scan to avoid the precision losses of multi‑view registration, while retaining Geng's color‑capability teaching; both are intraoral, hand‑held, single‑camera systems.

Countervailing. The ITC credited 3Shape's own expert that Geng "does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to combine" and noted Geng's design philosophy of "no scanning mechanism or moving parts," which points away from confocal systems with a translating focal plane. That is an express teaching‑away finding.

Ground C — EP 837,659 (+ US 4,575,805) + Babayoff '415

EP 837,659 discloses obtaining both a 3D image and a 2D color image of teeth — but it requires (a) coating the teeth with an opaque diffusely reflecting layer, (b) removing that layer, and (c) manually re‑aligning the camera so the color image "should more or less correspond" to the 3D image. Combining EP 837,659 with Babayoff '415 (which needs no powder coating and no re‑alignment, and keeps a common X‑Y frame) supplies precisely the missing elements.

Motivation: EP 837,659 itself identifies the deficiencies; the recognized problems of powder coating (thickness‑control inaccuracies) and manual re‑alignment (mismatched color/geometry) supply the reason to modify. Predictable result: a 3D model with correctly registered color.

Ground D — Adding the "how to color‑scan" references

For claim 25's color‑instrumentation limitations, the '151 specification is largely a catalogue of conventional options: tri‑color LEDs, rotating tricolor filter discs, white source + color CCD, dichroic coatings, waveguiding sheaths. Secondary references — Miramonti US 5,864,640, Decker US 2002/0057438, Pulli (1997) — plus the sequential‑RGB‑capture technique (well known from color video) supply these. The specification's own language defuses these limitations: "[a]ny suitable technique may be used for providing the color image" and "[a]lternatively, any other suitable method may be employed to obtain the 3D entity E."

Ground E — Dependent claims

• Time interval 0–100 ms (likely claim 4 or 11): the specification frames this as an engineering tolerance tied to hand tremor/patient motion. Where the only limitation is a result ("substantially no significant relative movement"), attained by optimizing a recognized variable over a range taught as preferable, the claim is obvious as a matter of routine experimentation. In re Applied Materials, 692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
• OCR‑based alignment (likely claim 4 or 11): the '151 states OCR techniques are "well known in the art." In the '228 IPR, 3Shape mapped the identical "optical character recognition technique" limitation to Sachdeva, combined with Babayoff + Okamoto + Engelhardt (3Shape‑00160).
• Confocal elements of claim 18 (probing member with sensing face; beam splitter/grating/microlens array; movable focal plane; CCD behind pinhole matrix; SSP by max intensity or dI/dS) are verbatim Babayoff '415/'529.

6. Disposition table

7. Countervailing considerations a challenger must rebut

1. ITC Final Determination (337‑TA‑1144) found no violation on the family, rejecting Babayoff + Okamoto/Xu + Geng '539 as to the '538 patent — explicitly finding no motivation to combine and that Babayoff's multi‑wavelength teaching is not RGB color imaging.
2. PTAB non‑institution in IPR2021‑01120 ("Not Instituted – Merits," 2022‑01‑11).
3. Priority. If claims 1/10/18/25 are entitled to the 2004 provisional date, the two references 3Shape used are simply not prior art.
4. Secondary considerations (unquantified here): Align's iTero color scanning enjoyed commercial success; the Align–3Shape global settlement of February 2022 and 3Shape's own color Trios scanners are potential copying/commercial‑success evidence — but they require a nexus to the claimed features (which, per Ground B, may reside in Geng '539 and thus be non‑nexus).
5. § 103 "teaching away" by EP 837,659's and Geng '539's deliberate avoidance of moving/scanning optics.

8. Bottom line

• If the '151 claims hold their June 17, 2004 priority, the two references 3Shape pleaded are not prior art, and the honest § 103 case reduces to US 6,594,539 ("Geng") + WO 00/08415 + EP 837,659/US 4,575,805 — a combination the ITC has already rejected on the closely related '538 patent. This is the more likely posture, given the Board's non‑institution.
• If the white‑light‑depth limitation of claims 1/10/18/25 is unsupported by the ancestral disclosures and those claims take the 2020‑02‑14 date, then Babayoff '529 + Atiya becomes a viable § 103 ground on the strength of KSR's "substitution of known elements" rationale — but the challenger must still overcome the ITC's finding that Babayoff's wavelength teaching is not color imaging, and the Board's refusal to institute.
• The confocal‑implementation claims (18, 19) are the most vulnerable; the color‑integration claims (1, 10, 25, 30) are the least vulnerable, because color integration is the point of novelty and the record shows the art praised it as a problem rather than a routine design choice.

Confidence and limitations. (a) Verbatim claim text was not retrieved; the priority defect affecting claims 1/10/18/25 is taken from the petition's own table of contents and should be confirmed against the issued claims. (b) I could not read the petition's Section IX, Align's Preliminary Response, or the Board's institution decision — so I cannot say whether denial rested on prior‑art status, on the merits of the combination, or both. (c) The identity of US 6,594,539 ("Geng" vs. "Atiya") is unresolved, and I have flagged rather than silently corrected my earlier attribution. (d) This is a technical analysis, not a legal opinion, and includes no infringement or validity conclusion.