US 10791934

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent number, including any CAFC 2026 activity.

Let me search for CAFC 2026 docket activity and the actual claim text.

Let me retrieve the actual claim language and check for CAFC 2026 docket entries involving this patent.

US 10,791,934 — Analyst Summary

Caveat first: I was unable to retrieve the verbatim granted claim text of US 10,791,934 from an authoritative source within this session (my retrievals returned the specification/summary text, not the patent's numbered claims column). Everything below marked as "claims" is derived from the patent's own Summary-of-the-Invention structure; treat the exact claim wording as unverified. I also found no CAFC 2026 docket or appeal involving US 10,791,934 — the 2026 Align-related Federal Circuit activity concerns different patent numbers (see "Litigation" below).

Bibliographic data (as printed on the patent and in Google Patents)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10791934/en and the patent copy filed as an exhibit in Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S et al., No. 6:20-cv-00979 (W.D. Tex.), D.I. 1-5 (filed Oct. 19, 2020), https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Western_District_Court/6--20-cv-00979/ (this copy confirms the "(10) Patent No.: US 10,791,934 B2 / (45) Date of Patent: Oct. 6, 2020 / 22 Claims, 8 Drawing Sheets" front page).

Abstract (verbatim)

"Systems and methods are provided for modifying a virtual model of a physical structure with additional 3D data obtained from the physical structure to provide a modified virtual model."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The '934 specification is organized around three "aspects" (method, method, method) plus a computer-system aspect and a computer-readable-medium (program) aspect. On that basis the independent claims are best understood as follows (again — wording inferred from the specification, not confirmed claim language):

1. First aspect / method: A computer-based method of modifying a 3D virtual model of a physical structure by (A) displaying an image of the virtual model on a display of a computer system; (B) identifying, by interacting with the displayed image, at least a portion of the model to be modified; and (C) modifying the model by replacing that portion, in the computer, with additional 3D data obtained from the physical structure, to produce a modified virtual model. In the dental context the physical structure is an intra-oral cavity or a physical dental model, and the "portion" is typically a poorly-scanned or obscured region (e.g., a finish line hidden by saliva, blood, debris, or by the gum).

2. Second aspect / method: A related method framed around data handling: (A) providing the virtual model obtained from the physical structure; (B) providing additional 3D data obtained from at least a part of the physical structure; (C) identifying at least one portion of the model to be modified using that additional data; and (D) modifying the model by replacing the identified portion with the additional 3D data.

3. Third aspect / method: A method in which the interaction itself does the replacement — (A) displaying the virtual model; (B) identifying the corresponding portion on the display; and (C) interacting with the display image to replace that portion with the additional 3D data (a "delete/replace" cursor or wand/touch gesture applied to a screen region, where each pixel maps to a set of 3D data points).

4. Computer system / computer-readable medium claims: A system (display + processor interaction) and a tangible program product (optical disc, magnetic disc, tape, or solid-state memory) configured to carry out the corresponding steps above — i.e., display the model, accept user interaction to identify a portion, and replace that portion with the re-acquired 3D data.

Recurring limitations across aspects, per the summary: the second physical part at least partially overlaps the first so registration is possible; the replacement region spatially corresponds to but is topographically different from the deleted region; the first model part fails a predetermined requirement (insufficient surface definition, obscured finish line, or a preparation inadequate to seat a prosthesis); and downstream steps of designing an orthodontic treatment plan or manufacturing a physical dental model, aligner, orthodontic appliance, or prosthesis from the modified model.

Litigation / docket status

• Delaware DJ action (the "family has litigation" flag on Google Patents): 3Shape A/S, 3Shape Trios A/S and 3Shape, Inc. v. Align Technology, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-01492-LPS (D. Del., filed Nov. 2, 2020). The Rule 3 report to the Commissioner lists 10,791,934 among the patents at issue (with 9,101,433; 10,728,519; 10,750,151; 10,750,152; 10,791,936; 10,709,527). Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Delaware_District_Court/1--20-cv-01492/3Shape_A-S_et_al_v._Align_Technology_Inc/5/11/ and related D.I. entries. Google Patents also links a Unified Patents docket entry for the same Delaware case: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A20-cv-01492
• WDTX action: Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S et al., No. 6:20-cv-00979 (W.D. Tex.). The '934 patent copy appears as an exhibit to the complaint (D.I. 1-5). I did not confirm from the sources retrieved that '934 was among the claims finally asserted there — the asserted-patent appendix in the parallel filings lists the '192 parent, not the '934. Treat assertion status in WDTX as unverified.
• CAFC 2026 — no '934 docket found. The 2026 Federal Circuit decisions involving Align that surfaced all concern other patent numbers, and should not be attributed to 10,791,934:
  • Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc., No. 2024-2270 (Fed. Cir. July 7, 2026) — §101 ineligibility of claims of US 11,049,248 and US 10,755,409.
  • Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc., No. 25-1879 (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2026, nonprecedential) — obviousness affirmance on the '248 and '945 patents.
  • Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc., No. 2025-1752 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2026, precedential) — provisional-application priority / AIA §102(d)(2) holding, vacating IPR on US 10,755,409.
  • PTAB: ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. Align Technology, Inc., IPR2025-00820 on US 11,648,090.
  • Align's 10-Q disclosure notes a JMOL of non-infringement against US 10,791,936 (a sibling of the '934, easily confused) in the Zendura FLX/ClearQuartz case.

Explicit uncertainties

1. Independent-claim identification is inferred, not verified. I mapped the independent claims from the specification's three aspects + system + CRM aspects. I could not verify how many independent claims the 22 granted claims contain or their exact numbering/wording.
2. No CAFC 2026 docket for 10,791,934 was found. This is a negative finding from limited searching; it is not proof of absence of such a docket.
3. Numbers that are NOT this patent (do not conflate): US 10,791,936, US 11,049,248, US 10,755,409, US 11,648,090, US 10,610,107, US 10,945,609, US 11,147,458, US 11,284,802 — all appear in the '934 family or in Align litigation but are distinct documents.
4. Priority/expiry dates carry the source's own disclaimer that they are assumptions, not legal conclusions.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 10791934 across patent litigation sources.

Let me search more specifically for the case identified in the patent's litigation records.

I found key litigation records. Let me verify the details and check for additional cases (ITC, IPRs, and other defendants).

Summary

Based on searches of patent-litigation sources (Unified Patents litigation portal, Docket Alarm/PACER dockets, CourtListener, and Align Technology's own press releases and SEC filings), US Patent No. 10,791,934 ("the '934 patent," titled "Methods and Systems for Creating and Interacting With Three Dimensional Virtual Models," assigned to Align Technology, Inc.) has been involved in two federal district-court matters — both part of the Align Technology ↔ 3Shape patent dispute. In both, the '934 patent was asserted and then dropped by stipulation in April 2021. No other litigation (ITC, SDC, other defendants) involving the '934 patent specifically was found.

---

Case 1 — Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S and 3Shape Trios A/S

The '934 patent was (along with its sibling '936) directed to "selective rescanning" functionality. Align's own motion for leave to amend described the case as concerning "methods and systems for selective rescanning … U.S. Patent Nos. 10,791,934 and 10,791,936."

Sources:

• Align press release (Oct. 19, 2020): https://aligntech.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/align-technology-sues-3shape-texas-federal-court-infringement-7
• Joint Stipulation, W.D. Tex. 6:20-cv-00979 (Dkt. 102, filed 04/02/21): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/[PTAB](/ptab)/IPR2021-01240/3Shape_A-S_v._Align_Technology_Inc/07-19-2021-Petitioner/Exhibit-1025-EX1025_Joint_Stipulation_WDTX_20cv979/
• Align motion for leave to amend (Dkt. 97): https://dn721909.ca.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.txwd.[1111294](/patent/1111294)/gov.uscourts.txwd.1111294.97.0.pdf

---

Case 2 — 3Shape A/S, 3Shape Trios A/S, and 3Shape, Inc. v. Align Technology, Inc.

This is the case linked from the patent's Google Patents "litigation" record.

Sources:

• D. Del. Docket 1:20-cv-01492-LPS: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Delaware_District_Court/1--20-cv-01492/3Shape_A-S_et_al_v._Align_Technology_Inc/
• Unified Patents litigation portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1:20-cv-01492
• Complaint (Dkt. 1) & Report to Commissioner listing 10,791,934: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Delaware_District_Court/1--20-cv-01492/3Shape_A-S_et_al_v._Align_Technology_Inc/docs/1.pdf

---

Related proceeding (flagged — not confirmed to target the '934 patent)

• IPR2021-01240, 3Shape A/S v. Align Technology, Inc. (PTAB) — 3Shape filed an inter partes review against an Align patent in 2021; the April 2021 joint stipulation described above was filed as an exhibit (EX1025) in this IPR. I could not confirm from the available results that IPR2021-01240 itself challenged the '934 patent (it may have targeted a sibling patent, e.g., the '936). Treat this as a related Align–3Shape PTAB proceeding, not a confirmed '934 challenge.

---

What was NOT found

• No ITC (Section 337) investigation appears to have asserted the '934 patent specifically. Align's late-2020 ITC actions against 3Shape (e.g., Inv. Nos. 337-TA-1091, 337-TA-1144) centered on the color-scanner and gingival-deformation patents, not the '934 selective-rescanning patent.
• No litigation involving the '934 patent against SmileDirectClub, Densys, Medit, or any other defendant was found. (Align's other disputes — SDC arbitrations/antitrust, Densys v. Align, the Snow/Invisalign antitrust class action, etc. — concern different patents or are not patent-assertion suits on the '934.)
• Note the '934 patent is in the same family as U.S. Pat. No. 9,299,192 (the parent, asserted in Align v. 3Shape, C.A. No. 17-cv-01646, D. Del.) and U.S. Pat. No. 10,945,609 (a continuation later added to the W.D. Tex. case). Those are different patents and are not reported here as '934 litigation.

---

Caveats

• Case-status information reflects court dockets and Align's public disclosures as reflected in the search results; it is not a legal opinion, and dockets can change. Patent ownership/status statements are based on public records.
• I have not located a single, definitive "final judgment on the merits" specifically adjudicating the '934 patent — in both matters the '934 patent was voluntarily removed from the case by stipulation (without prejudice) before any substantive ruling.

PTAB Proceedings Report — U.S. Patent No. 10,791,934

"Methods and Systems for Creating and Interacting with Three Dimensional Virtual Models"
Patent Owner: Align Technology, Inc. | Priority date: 2010-07-19 | Granted: 2020-10-06

---

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on file against U.S. Patent No. 10,791,934. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition naming this patent, and my independent web search surfaced no petition, institution decision, or Final Written Decision directed at the '934 patent's claims. Status breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials.

The defensive posture this gives a defendant is neither "hardened" nor "gutted" — it is untested. The patent has never been through an AIA validity trial, so every claim that issued (including independent claim 1) remains presumptively valid and stands exactly as granted. The correct read is not "the patent survived IPRs" (it never faced one) and certainly not "its claims are canceled" (none are). It is: this is an unexamined-at-PTAB patent whose entire claim set is still live, but which is also exposed to a first-challenge because no petitioner has yet burned any art on it. Note the related sibling patents have drawn IPRs (see context section), which tells you the family is being actively contested while the '934 itself sits untouched.

---

Proceedings

None. No proceedings to list.

I will not manufacture proceeding numbers to fill this section. No AIA trial has been filed against US 10,791,934 as of the ODP ingest underlying this report.

---

Related proceedings involving sibling patents (context only — NOT on this patent's file)

These do not name the '934 patent and must not be represented as challenges to it; they are included because they show how Align's "Selective Rescanning" family is being litigated.

• U.S. Patent No. 10,791,936 — a sibling of the '934 (both were pleaded together by Align as the "Selective Rescanning Patents"). ClearCorrect Operating, LLC filed IPR2025-00817 (filed 2025-04-10; panel of APJs including Cynthia Hardman, Kevin Turner, Neil Powell), Exhibit 1001 of which is US 10,791,936, and it has been instituted ("Trial Instituted"). A companion ClearCorrect filing, IPR2025-00816, was instituted 2025-10-27. Source: Docket Alarm — IPR2025-00817.

• Separate ClearCorrect IPRs against other Align patents — In the same January 2025 wave, petitioner challenged U.S. Patent Nos. 9,523,826; 10,313,024; 10,788,690; 10,042,116; and 11,648,301 (IPR2025-00434 series), with no identified petition on the '934.

• District court / ITC litigation touching the '934 (relevant to § 315(b) timing and real-party-in-interest analysis, not PTAB activity): Align asserted the '934 against 3Shape A/S and 3Shape Trios A/S in Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S, No. 6:20-cv-00979 (W.D. Tex.), filed 2020-10-19 (Align press release: investor.aligntech.com). 3Shape responded with a declaratory-judgment action in D. Del., No. 1:20-cv-01492 (the "Family has litigation" entry on the Google Patents page). Align later asserted the '934/'936 family against ClearCorrect in W.D. Tex., No. 6:24-cv-00187.

Caveat / confidence: I confirmed the ClearCorrect IPRs target the '936 sibling, not the '934. I did not find any petition, institution decision, or FWD naming the '934, and I am reporting that as the finding rather than inferring an unindexed proceeding. If a just-filed petition exists beyond the most recent ODP/serp index, it would not appear here.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. Because there has never been an AIA trial, no claim of the '934 is canceled, and no claim has been held patentable over an IPR petitioner's art. The full issued claim set — including independent claim 1 and its dependents, and any independent method/system/CRM claims — is UNTESTED at the PTAB and carries the ordinary statutory presumption of validity. There is no FWD to cite, and any defendant who tells a court "these claims were invalidated" would be misrepresenting the record.

Estoppel landscape. With no petitioner, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against anyone on this patent. That cuts both ways: a defendant today faces no estoppel bar of its own, but also enjoys no shortcut from a prior petitioner's win — there is no prior institution record to lean on for claim-construction positions or admitted art. Note the practical interaction with the sibling '936 IPRs (ClearCorrect, IPR2025-00816/-00817): a defendant in privity with ClearCorrect could be estopped as to the '936, but that estoppel does not extend to the '934, which is a distinct patent with distinct claims. A defendant should independently evaluate § 315(b) — the one-year bar runs from service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent, and the 2020 3Shape action/2024 ClearCorrect action are the relevant service dates for those parties, not for a newly sued defendant.

Pattern signals. (1) No repeat petitioner on the '934 — because there has been no first petitioner at all. (2) The family, however, is a magnet for IPRs: Align's intraoral-scanning portfolio has been repeatedly challenged (3Shape's IPR2019/2020 wave; ClearCorrect's 2025 wave), and Align litigates hard and appeals — see the Federal Circuit's Dental Monitoring v. Align line on the '248/'945 patents. (3) I found no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain for this patent; the litigation history is commercial-competitor driven (3Shape, ClearCorrect/Straumann), not troll-driven. (4) The patent's Google Patents entry is flagged "Active, expires 2032-05-08," giving a long runway before natural expiration — a first IPR is worth more here than on a near-expiry patent.

---

Recommended next steps

• No PTAB activity exists — say so plainly. Do not build a defense narrative on a nonexistent IPR. The absence is itself a signal: the '934 has been asserted since 2020 without drawing a petition, which may mean (a) competitors chose to fight it in district court rather than at the PTAB, (b) the prior art positioned against it is thin, or (c) assertion targets settled or disengaged. Investigate which before assuming the claims are weak or strong.
• Screen the sibling '936 IPRs for usable art. ClearCorrect's IPR2025-00817 petition (Exhibit 1001 = the '936) and its institution decision are public on the PTAB E2E docket; because the '934 and '936 share a specification and priority lineage, the art and claim-construction positions developed there are the best available starting point for scoping a first IPR against the '934. Link: PTAB E2E / Docket Alarm — IPR2025-00817.
• If you intend to file a first IPR, calendar the clocks. For any new petition: § 315(b) one-year bar from service of an infringement complaint on you; a Patent Owner Preliminary Response window; the Board's § 314(b) three-month institution-decision deadline; and the § 316(a)(11) statutory one-year trial deadline from institution for the FWD. Confirm these against the current scheduling order in Align v. ClearCorrect (No. 6:24-cv-00187, W.D. Tex.), which Align has already used to press discretionary-denial arguments citing the district court's trial date.
• Verify against the live docket before relying on this. This report's finding is "no proceedings on file" as of the source ingest (2026-09-30). Re-run the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board E2E docket and the ODP API for US 10,791,934 immediately before any filing or invalidity-contentions deadline, because a first petition in this untested patent would change the entire defensive picture.

---

Sourcing note: The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP) is treated as canonical and reports none for US 10,791,934. Web search confirmed the litigation and sibling-patent IPR context above but surfaced no proceeding naming the '934. No proceeding numbers, judges, or dispositions have been invented; where I could not confirm a fact, I have said so rather than supplying it.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10,791,934. Let me search authoritative sources.

Let me search more specifically for assignment records and legal events.

Let me check Google Patents legal events and the assignment center directly.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,791,934 B2

Verification caveat up front. I attempted to query the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov, mirrored at assignment.uspto.gov) and Google Patents' legal‑events/assignment view for this patent number. The retrievals in this session returned no machine‑readable assignment records (no reel/frame, no assignor/assignee, no correspondent data) for US 10,791,934. I therefore cannot state a reel/frame number or a recorded‑assignment chain, and I will not fabricate one. What follows distinguishes (a) what I verified, from (b) what is inferred from the assignee-of-record fields, and (c) what is unknown.

---

Inventors

• Residence as printed on the '934 front page: "Tenaify, NJ" (a typographical rendering; the sibling US 10,791,936 front page lists Kopelman at "Palo Alto, CA"). Treat the NJ/Palo Alto discrepancy as a printing artifact, not a substantive ownership fact.
• Pattern note (no adverse finding): A single inventor — the same person — is named across the enumerated family (see below). There is no evidence of all inventors departing the assignee within 12 months of filing. Kopelman appears as a repeat Align inventor across other Align filings (e.g., EP3119347, EP3319544), indicating a continuing employee‑inventor relationship, which is the opposite of a portfolio‑fire‑sale precursor. This is a negative finding.

Family of continuations linked to the same priority (from the Google Patents family timeline on the '934 record). These are separate documents and should not be conflated with '934 itself: US 10,610,107; US 10,791,936; US 10,945,609; US 11,147,458; US 11,284,802; US 11,426,077; US 11,690,517; US 12,048,512; US 2024/0350017 A1. Every one of these is listed to Align Technology, Inc. as assignee, which is consistent with the entire family remaining in Align's hands.

---

Original assignee

• Entity named on the issued patent (73): Align Technology, Inc., San Jose, CA (Delaware corporation). Confirmed on the granted front page and by the Google Patents "Original Assignee" field.
• Products embodying the claims: Yes. Align is the maker of Invisalign clear aligners and the iTero intraoral scanner line; the '934 claims are directed to intraoral‑scan data capture/registration and 3D‑model editing — i.e., the scanner/software workflow, which Align ships commercially. The asserted family (including US 10,791,936) is described in the same scanning pipeline.
• Primary line of business: Medical devices — orthodontic aligners, intraoral scanners, and CAD/CAM digital dentistry; a publicly traded operating company (NASDAQ: ALGN).
• Current status: Operating; no bankruptcy, no dissolution, no acquisition. Its 10‑Qs/10‑Ks disclose active IP‑assertion campaigns, not asset disposals (see Litigation below).

---

Assignment timeline

Plainly stated: I could not retrieve the Assignment Center record for this patent, and I found no evidence of any post‑issuance assignment away from Align Technology, Inc. The Google Patents record shows Current Assignee = Align Technology, Inc. and Original Assignee = Align Technology, Inc. — for a patent whose ownership had changed hands through a recorded assignment, the current‑assignee field would normally reflect the transferee. The absence of a new owner in that field is the best available proxy for "no assignment away from Align has been recorded," but it is a proxy, not the reel/frame itself.

Accordingly, no reel/frame entries can be listed. Do not treat the following as recorded assignments — they are continuity events, not conveyances:

If Assignment Center is in fact empty for this number, the inference is that the inventor→Align assignment and Align's internal holding are the only conveyances of record (common for large operating companies that record a single inventor assignment in the PCT/US national‑phase file rather than re‑recording per continuation). I cannot confirm the reel/frame of even that original assignment from the sources retrieved.

Correspondent of record (context, not verified for this patent's assignment reel): Align's prosecution correspondence consistently routes through Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (WSGR), 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, with docket email patentdocket@wsgr.com, as shown in Align's PTAB filings (e.g., the 13/470,681 file history in ClearCorrect v. Align, IPR2025‑00820 exhibits). This is prosecution counsel, not a recorded‑assignment correspondent, and WSGR is a mainstream full‑service firm that does both operating‑company and other patent work — so its presence is not a troll signal.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10791934
    2010 : Provisional filed by Kopelman
    2011 : PCT application filed by Align
    2013 : National phase filed as 13 574 723
    2016 : Continuation filed as 15 050 673
    2020 : Patent issued to Align Technology
    2020 : Align sues 3Shape over family patents

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Litigation cross‑reference (supports "operating‑company assertion," not NPE):

• 3Shape A/S et al. v. Align Technology, Inc., No. 1:20‑cv‑01492‑LPS (D. Del., filed Nov. 2, 2020) — the Rule 3 report lists 10,791,934 among the patents at issue. The mirror of this is Align's own WDTX case below.
• Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S et al., No. 6:20‑cv‑00979 (W.D. Tex.) — the '934 specification is D.I. 1‑5 (filed Oct. 19, 2020). Note: the previously generated section correctly flagged that WDTX asserted‑patent status for '934 specifically was unverified.
• ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. Align Technology, Inc. (PTAB) — IPR2025‑00820 is directed at US 11,648,090 (a different Align patent), not '934; do not attribute it here.
• CAFC 2026: consistent with the prior section, no 2026 Federal Circuit docket naming 10,791,934 was found; the 2026 Align/Dental Monitoring appeals concern other numbers (e.g., 11,049,248; 10,755,409).

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Align Technology, Inc. is both the original and the current assignee of record — the Google Patents assignee fields show no transferee, and no shell‑LLC, known‑asserter, cascading‑transfer, or defensive‑aggregator link appears anywhere in the retrievable record. Align ships products embodying the claims (iTero intraoral scanners / Invisalign digital‑dentistry workflow) and asserts the family in its own name against actual competitors (3Shape, D. Del. 1:20‑cv‑01492 and W.D. Tex. 6:20‑cv‑00979; ClearCorrect/Dental Monitoring at the PTAB and CAFC). All eight NPE‑pattern signals are not present or, for the correspondent signal, unverifiable rather than adverse.

Residual uncertainty (stated plainly): because I could not pull the actual Assignment Center reel/frame for this number, I cannot exclude an unrecorded or recently recorded transfer; my "no transfer" conclusion rests on the assignee‑of‑record fields, not on a reel/frame confirmation. If you need the definitive answer, verify directly at the USPTO Assignment Center:

• Search by patent number: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (enter "10791934")
• Legacy mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html

A single inventor→"Align Technology, Inc." assignment (and, if applicable, a security‑interest recording tied to Align's credit facilities) is the expected — but unconfirmed — content of that record.

I'll search for the specific patent and its cited references.

Let me try to retrieve the specific "References Cited" section for this patent from other patent databases.

The Docket Alarm copy of the patent's front page surfaced the "References Cited" section. Let me retrieve the complete list and corroborate from other databases.

Important scoping notes before the substance

1. Source limitation. I could not open a USPTO-hosted record (PatentCenter/PatFT) directly — my tooling returns search results, not database records. The best authoritative artifact I retrieved is a copy of the printed USPTO patent as filed in litigation — Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S et al., No. 6:20-cv-00979 (W.D. Tex.), D.I. 1-5 — whose front page matches US 10,791,934 exactly ((72) Inventor: Avi Kopelman; (71) Applicant: ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.; (63) Continuation of application No. 13/574,723 … PCT/IL2011/000574 … now Pat. No. 9,299,192). Google Patents corroborates the same bibliographic record.

2. The "(56) References Cited" list did not come from the patent text block quoted in this session. The full-text block provided to me is the specification only — it contains no front-page citations column. The list below comes from the OCR text of the D.I. 1-5 exhibit, which I could only read through a search snippet, not a clean PDF.

3. Therefore: treat the reference numbers/dates below as OCR-quality. The snippet was (a) truncated mid-list (e.g., an entry beginning 2003/021576…), (b) jumbled in reading order (mid-list US patent numbers appeared after the "OTHER PUBLICATIONS" heading), and (c) contained at least two garbled spellings of inventor names (Kesting for the orthodontist Kesling; Chishit for Align inventor Chishti). I flag which entries I am confident about vs. not. Do not rely on these digits without verifying against the printed patent PDF. Per your rule, I have not silently "corrected" any numbers — where I believe the OCR is wrong I say so explicitly rather than editing it.

4. Contradiction to flag. The prior section's baseline says today's date is 2026-09-30 (system) and the present task header says 2026-04-26. The prior section also cites Federal Circuit decisions dated July 7, 2026 and Aug. 10, 2026 — dates after the April 26, 2026 header. These are inconsistent; I flag it and note it does not affect the prior-art analysis below.

---

A. Key threshold point for § 102 in this patent

US 10,791,934 issued Oct. 6, 2020 from an application filed Feb. 23, 2016 — i.e., a post-AIA application — but it claims a benefit chain: continuation of 13/574,723 → U.S. national phase of PCT/IL2011/000574 (filed 2011-07-19) → US provisional 61/365,556 (filed 2010-07-19). Its effective filing date is therefore 2010-07-19 (as Google Patents prints). That date drives everything:

• § 102(a)(1) prior art = anything publicly available before 2010-07-19.
• § 102(a)(2) prior art = U.S. patents/published applications effectively filed before 2010-07-19.

Consequently, almost every reference on the front page predates the critical date and is facially available as § 102 art — except US 9,299,192 (3/2016), which is the parent of the same family and is cited as a related application, not as prior art.

Also: anticipation under § 102 requires a single reference disclosing every limitation as arranged in the claim. As flagged in the earlier section, I do not have the verbatim granted claim text of the '934, so I cannot responsibly assign anticipation to a specific numbered claim. Below I map each reference to the claim concepts the specification organizes around — explicitly labeled as inference, not verified claim language.

---

B. The references cited (as recovered)

Source: Docket Alarm copy of US 10,791,934 (D.I. 1-5, WDTX 6:20-cv-00979), https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Western_District_Court/6--20-cv-00979/Align_Technology_Inc._v._3Shape_A-S_et_al/docs/1/5.pdf; bibliographic cross-check at https://patents.google.com/patent/US10791934/en.

U.S. Patent Documents (56)

U.S. Patent Application Publications (56)

Foreign Patent Documents (56)

Other Publications (56)

• AADR — American Association for Dental Research, Summary of Activities, Mar. 20–23, 1980, Los Angeles, CA, p. 195. (Non-patent literature; not § 102 art for the core claims — it is an abstract volume, pre-dating digital intra-oral scanning.)

---

C. Documents incorporated by reference in the specification (distinct from the (56) list)

The '934 specification expressly incorporates these; several are also § 102/§ 103-relevant background:

---

D. Bottom line on "which claims it potentially anticipates"

No reference recovered from the (56) list is, on its face, a § 102 anticipation of the '934's independent claims. The independent claims (per the specification's aspects, inferred — see the prior section's caveat that the verbatim claim text was not verified) require the combination of:

1. displaying the virtual model,
2. interactively identifying/deleting a region of that model, and
3. substituting newly acquired 3D data of the same physical region (from a re-scan after the obstruction/defect is removed or the tooth is re-worked), registered via overlapping unchanged data.

The cited references individually supply pieces of this — digital model manipulation (Phan), interactive intra-oral-scanning workflow (Rubbert '275 / 2002/0006217), occlusion analysis (Zachariasen '853), and downstream manufacture (Chishti '611, Taub '869) — but none was shown in my retrieval to teach the delete-defective-region-and-replace-with-rescanned-data step. The honest classification is therefore:

• § 102 anticipation: none identified from this list (with the caveat in the box below).
• § 103 obviousness combinations: US 7,020,275 (or 2002/0006217) + US 6,309,215 / 6,524,101 (model manipulation) + US 6,334,853 (occlusion/inadequacy analysis) is the combination an Examiner or challenger would most plausibly assemble.

Critical caveat — I cannot do the anticipation call properly. Anticipation is claim-by-claim against verbatim claim language, and (a) the full-text block supplied in this session contains no claims column, and (b) I could not retrieve the granted claims from USPTO in this session. This is the same limitation the earlier section flagged, and it remains unresolved. Any "reference X anticipates claim Y" statement from me would be fabrication, so I am not making one.

Additional caveats:

1. The (56) list is incomplete and OCR-degraded (truncated foreign list; an unrecoverable 2003/021576… entry; garbled inventor names). It should be re-verified against the printed patent at https://patents.google.com/patent/US10791934/en or the USPTO PatentCenter record.
2. Direction of citation. "(56) References Cited" = art cited against/in the '934 during prosecution. If what you actually need is forward citations (later patents citing '934) or the prosecution history of the '934 and its parent US 9,299,192, those are different datasets; I did not retrieve them. The parent's file wrapper would likely contain the most probative prior-art record for this family.
3. Do not conflate with US 10,791,936 (the sibling flagged in the prior section) or US 9,299,192 (the parent). Search hits returning "10,791,93_6_" are a different document.
4. Public PAIR / PatentCenter was not directly reachable in this session, so I cannot represent that the above is the complete official record — only that it is the set I could recover and corroborate between the litigation exhibit and Google Patents.

I'll corroborate the key references from the prior-art section before building the § 103 combinations, since obviousness grounds must rest on what each reference actually discloses.

§ 103 Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,791,934

Building on the Prior Art section above. I do not re-list the full (56) set; I use it, plus the additional references my verification searches surfaced. The claim-text caveat from the Patent Summary section still governs, so this analysis is written at the level of claim concepts (labeled as constructed), not verified verbatim claim language.

---

0. Threshold notes, and one flagged contradiction

(a) Claim text is still unverified. As the summary section said, the full-text block I was given contains the specification/summary only. So every "element" below is my decomposition of the specification's three aspects + system + CRM aspects. Treat the mapping as inferred claim scope, not literal claim construction.

(b) Flagged contradiction — AIA vs. pre-AIA framing. The Prior Art section framed the analysis under AIA § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2). I believe that framing is incorrect, and I flag it explicitly per the operating rules:

• The '934 issued 2020 from an application filed 2016, but it claims benefit (continuation → national phase → PCT → provisional) back to an effective filing date of 2010-07-19.
• Under AIA § 3(n)(1), the first-inventor-to-file provisions apply only to applications containing a claim with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Because every claim here traces to a 2010 priority date, this is a pre-AIA application, and the analysis should run under pre-AIA § 102(a)/(b)/(e) and pre-AIA § 103(a) — including the § 103(c) common-ownership disqualifier for 102(e)-type art.
• Practical effect on this § 103 analysis: none for the core references. Every reference I rely on as primary (Rubbert '275, the "Manipulating a digital dentition model" family, Zachariasen '853, the 2006 feedback-data publication) is a printed publication or patent published/issued more than one year before 2010-07-19, i.e., pre-AIA § 102(b) statutory-bar art. § 103(c) cannot disqualify § 102(b) art. The AIA/pre-AIA difference matters only at the margins (e.g., if one wanted to use a post-2009, pre-critical-date Align application as 102(e) art, § 103(c) common ownership could knock it out). So the conclusion below survives either framing.

(c) Flagged discrepancy — attribution of US 6,309,215. The Prior Art section listed US 6,309,215 as "Phan et al. — Manipulating a digital dentition model." My search results indicate US 6,309,215 is titled "Attachment devices and method for a dental appliance." The "Manipulating a digital dentition model to form models of individual dentition components" patent family is WO 00/19935 / US 6,409,504 B1 / US 2003/0039389 A1 / EP 1119312 A1 / CA 2346256 A1 (inventors Jones, Chishti, Wen, Bala; assignee Align). Per your rule I am not silently correcting the prior section's number, but the substantive disclosure I need for the "delete/remove" element lives in the Jones/Chishti "Manipulating…" family, and I cite that family specifically.
Sources: US 6,309,215 listing (Unified Patents, "Attachment Devices and Method for a Dental Appliance"); CA 2346256 A1 — Manipulating a digital dentition model; US 2003/0039389 A1; EP 1119312 A1.

(d) Minor date inconsistency. The task header says "Current Date: April 26, 2026"; the prior sections were dated 2026-09-30 and cite July/August 2026 Federal Circuit decisions. Immaterial to § 103; flagged only for the record.

(e) Newly surfaced reference used below (not in the recovered (56) list). My verification search returned US 2006/0115793 A1 / EP 1662414 A2, "Method and system for providing feedback data useful in prosthodontic procedures associated with the intra oral cavity" (published 2006-06-01). It is highly relevant and I use it as the key secondary reference. Caveat: it appears to be an Align-family document and may be one of the applications the '934 specification incorporates by reference (the spec cites "U.S. Ser. No. 11/046,709" and "U.S. Provisional 60/632,350"). Verify its exact identity and family relationship before relying on it; a common-priority/common-disclosure relationship would raise § 102/§ 112 issues distinct from § 103.
Sources: US 2006/0115793 A1 (freepatentsonline); EP 1662414 A2.

---

1. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

For a 2010 priority date, the POSITA is a person with a bachelor's degree in computer science, electrical/mechanical engineering, or a related field, plus 2–3 years' experience in 3D surface acquisition and modeling (or, alternatively, a dental degree/certification plus several years' experience with digital impression and CAD/CAM dental systems), or equivalent. This person is familiar with: intraoral scanning devices; registration/alignment of overlapping 3D data sets ("stitching"); interactive graphical editing of 3D mesh/point-cloud models; and dental CAD/CAM workflows for aligners, models, and prosthetics. This mirrors the skill level contemporaneously applied in the digital-dentistry art (Rubbert, Phan/Jones, Sachdeva, Kopelman).

---

2. Claim-concept decomposition (constructed)

---

3. Element → reference matrix (what actually discloses each concept)

Key observations from the matrix:

1. E4 (interactively erasing 3D data of the displayed model) is squarely disclosed by the Jones/Chishti "Manipulating…" eraser tool — it is the closest disclosure of "delete/remove by interacting with the displayed image."
2. E5–E7 (rescan a deficient region; register via overlap; stitch into a combined model) are squarely disclosed by the feedback-data reference and by Rubbert's frame registration.
3. E8 is disclosed by the feedback-data reference (definition sufficiency / deficient model / inadequate preparation) and by Zachariasen '853 (occlusion/thickness).
4. The combination of "erase accepted model data" + "replace it with a fresh, overlapping re-scan" is the only step not literally spelled out in a single one of these references — and it is precisely the point a KSR combination is designed to reach.

---

4. Obviousness grounds

Ground 1 (flagship) — Rubbert + "Manipulating a digital dentition model" + feedback-data reference

Proposed combination: US 7,020,275 (Rubbert) in view of US 6,409,504 / WO 00/19935 (Jones, Chishti et al., "Manipulating a digital dentition model to form models of individual dentition components") in further view of US 2006/0115793 / EP 1662414 ("Method and system for providing feedback data useful in prosthodontic procedures").

Claim chart (constructed scope):

Motivation to combine (why a POSITA would):

1. Same field, same problem. All three references are in computer-assisted dentistry and address the same workflow: generating an accurate 3D digital model of the dentition from intraoral scans. Rubbert expressly frames its invention as solving the "art has lacked… tools" problem for interactive, chairside digital dentistry.
2. The references already point in the same direction — selective correction instead of full re-scan. The feedback-data reference explicitly recognizes the failure mode addressed by the '934: the scanned "numerical entity" can be deficient/undefined, and when it is, "the model is rejected and the dental practitioner must rescan the dental site, or must rework the preparation." That is the exact problem statement of the '934. A POSITA reading it is directly motivated to make the rescan selective rather than full — for the well-known reasons of chair time, cost, and patient discomfort (the '934 itself lists these).
3. The tools to do it are already disclosed. Jones/Chishti supplies the GUI "eraser/cutting" mechanism for removing a selected region of the digital model; Rubbert and the feedback-data reference supply registration and stitching of overlapping scans — the standard way to merge a new, partial scan into an existing model.
4. Combining them is a mechanical/architectural assembly of known elements with a predictable result: mark the bad region → erase its 3D data → rescan only that region → register on the unchanged overlapping data → stitch. Nothing unpredictable occurs.

KSR rationales (KSR Int'l v. Teleflex):

• (A) Known elements combined according to known methods → predictable result. Scan/display (Rubbert) + interactive region-erase (Jones/Chishti) + rescan/register/stitch (feedback-data ref) assemble to the claimed method with the expected outcome.
• (B) Simple substitution of one known technique for another. Substituting a selective re-scan + stitch for the art's full re-scan yields a predictable improvement (less scanning) — the very substitution the reference's "reject and rescan" passage invites.
• (C) "Ready for improvement" / design incentive. The feedback-data reference explicitly identifies the deficiency-containing model as a problem; a POSITA has the incentive to fix it.
• (D) Obvious to try. Only a finite number of predictable options exist once you have a GUI that erases model regions and a scanner that produces overlapping data sets (re-scan the whole arch vs. re-scan the region and merge). The finite-options/obvious-to-try rationale applies.
• (E) Known work in one field prompting variations. Registration/stitching of overlapping 3D scans was ubiquitous in the 3D-scanning literature and in the intraoral-scanner art (Rubbert itself), so the "merge the new partial scan" step is a known technique applied in a known way.
• (F) Market forces. Reduced chair time and patient comfort were recognized marketplace drivers of digital-dentistry R&D; Align/OraMetrix/3Shape were in direct competition on exactly this point.

Reasonable expectation of success: High. Each sub-technique was independently known and reduced to practice in the prior art; the combined workflow introduces no new physics.

---

Ground 2 — Preparation-inadequacy variant (add Zachariasen '853)

Combination: Ground 1, plus US 6,334,853 (Zachariasen et al.) — the occlusion-map patent that the '934 specification itself incorporates by reference and that computes distances between opposite teeth to derive nominal prosthesis thickness.

Coverage of the E8 second branch: Where the "predetermined requirement" is that the preparation be adequate to seat a prosthesis, Zachariasen '853 supplies the quantitative test (occlusion distances ⇒ crown thickness ⇒ inadequate prep). The feedback-data reference independently contemplates "the preparation is not optimal for receiving the prosthesis" and "suggested changes… required in… said preparation."

Motivation: Once the POSITA has a computed measure of required crown thickness, it is a direct and obvious next step to (i) flag a too-thin/too-short preparation, (ii) physically rework it (material removal), (iii) rescan the reworked area, and (iv) replace the old model region — exactly the '934's third embodiment. All four references share the same assignee-and-art field, and the '934 spec's own incorporation of Zachariasen '853 confirms they were understood as combinable.

KSR rationale: (A) predictable combination; (D) obvious to try — checking prep adequacy before finalizing a prosthesis is a well-understood workflow step the art identified.

---

Ground 3 — Artifact / impression-abutment variant (partial ground; noted weakness)

The '934's second embodiment concerns a removable artifact (a scanning body / impression abutment on a dental implant) obscuring the dental surfaces; the artifact is removed, the previously obscured area rescanned, and the model updated.

Combination: Ground 1, plus the general dental-implant/impression-body art (scan bodies that project into the intraoral cavity to locate implants). The '934 specification itself treats "impression abutment / scanning body" as a known device, which is an admission of the general knowledge in the art.

Honest assessment: the recovered (56) list did not include a clean implant-scan-body reference, and I did not retrieve one in verification search. So Ground 3 rests on Ground 1 plus judicially-noticed general knowledge (a weaker footing). A challenger should locate a specific pre-2010 implant/scan-body patent before pressing this branch; I will not fabricate one.

---

Ground 4 — Non-dental analogous art backbone (for E5–E7)

Registration/stitching of partially overlapping 3D scans of a physical object, and iterative-closest-point style alignment, were mature general 3D-scanning techniques by 2010. This is where a challenger could supplement Ground 1 with non-analogous-art references — analogous art because the problem (merging overlapping 3D data of a physical object) is the same and the field of endeavor (3D scanning/computer graphics) is reasonably pertinent.

Caveat: the current (56) list is thin on general 3D-scanning art (it is almost entirely dental). A robust § 103 petition against the '934 would need to pull dedicated 3D-scan-registration art (e.g., point-cloud registration and "rescan-and-merge" techniques from metrology/reverse-engineering). I did not retrieve specific pre-2010 examples in this session, so I flag this as an open avenue rather than a completed ground.

---

Ground 5 — Downstream manufacture (E9)

Combination: Any of Grounds 1–3 in further view of US 6,554,611 (Chishti — "incrementally moving teeth"/aligner manufacture), US 6,739,869 (virtual orthodontic treatment), US 6,244,861 (Andreiko — custom appliance forming), and WO 2004/087000 (coping manufacture). These are the same-assignee, same-field references the '934 itself incorporates by reference for its downstream steps, which strongly supports combinability. Motivation: once a corrected digital model exists, using it to drive known CAM processes for aligners, appliances, models, and prostheses is routine and expected in every one of those references.

---

Ground 6 — System (E10) and CRM (E11) claims

• E10 (system): Rubbert '275 literally discloses a "workstation having a processing unit and a display, a memory storing a complete three-dimensional model…, and software executable by the processing unit that accesses the model and displays the model… [with] navigation tools… that enable a user to manipulate the model." Add the Jones/Chishti eraser function and the feedback-data rescan/stitch. The system claim is thus an obvious assembly (arguably even close to anticipated by Rubbert alone as to the display/interaction hardware).
• E11 (CRM): Programming a general-purpose computer to perform a claimed method is an obvious implementation where the method is obvious; the storage-medium recitation (optical/magnetic disc, tape, solid-state memory) is conventional. (This is a § 103 point, distinct from the Beauregard/Alappat § 101 question of whether such a claim is eligible at all.)

---

5. Synthesis — why a POSITA would have combined these (one paragraph)

Every primary reference is drawn from the same technical community and the same commercial problem — producing an accurate, complete 3D digital model of the dentition at chairside. Rubbert teaches the scan→display→interact pipeline and the registration of multiple 3D frames; the Jones/Chishti family teaches the interactive eraser/cutting tool that removes a user-selected region of the displayed 3D model; and the feedback-data reference teaches that a scan can be deficient/undefined, that the deficiency arises from missing or obscured data, and that the practical responses are to re-scan and stitch overlapping data or to rework the preparation. A POSITA aiming to correct a defective region without the full re-scan's time, cost, and discomfort would combine these elements as a matter of routine engineering: mark the bad region, erase its 3D data, rescan only that region, register on the unchanged overlap, and stitch. No reference teaches away; all point toward the same efficiency-oriented result.

---

6. Align's best nonobviousness counterarguments (balanced view)

To be fair to the patent, a strong Patent Owner would argue:

1. The references accumulate; they do not replace. Rubbert and the feedback-data reference assemble multiple scans into one model, and the feedback-data reference adds missing data. Neither teaches deleting previously-accepted-but-wrong model data and substituting fresh data of the same physical region. The '934's asserted insight — that a region that was captured may be wrong (e.g., a finish line hidden under gum that looked fine in the earlier scan), and that you delete the accepted data and replace it — is arguably not disclosed or suggested.
2. "Different topography" limitation. The claims' requirement that the replacement region "spatially corresponds to but is topographically different from" the deleted region implies a physical change to the structure (obscuring material removed, or the tooth reworked). Align would argue the art teaches re-scanning for completeness, not for changed geometry.
3. The eraser tool is a segmentation tool. Jones/Chishti's eraser is used to segment a model into component tooth models — a different purpose from curing a scan defect. Align would argue no reasonable expectation that a segmentation eraser would be repurposed to delete-and-rescan.
4. Family/timing caveats on the feedback-data reference (see § 0(e)): if it shares the '934's priority/inventive entity, it may not be prior art "by another," and its status must be verified before use.

My assessment: argument (1) is Align's strongest and is genuinely debatable; arguments (2)–(3) are weaker (the "different topography" is a natural result of the art's own "deficient model → rescan/rework" teaching, and the eraser's GUI—remove 3D data by pointing at screen pixels—is functionally identical to the claimed "delete" function regardless of why it was used). Ground 1 therefore presents a legitimate but not a slam-dunk § 103 challenge, and its strength will turn on the exact claim language (which I could not verify).

---

7. Secondary considerations (objective indicia)

• Commercial success (Align): Align ships the accused-adjacent iTero/Invisalign ecosystem, so the product has succeeded — but there is no established nexus between that success and the specific delete-and-rescan claims; the platform's success is attributable to many other features. Weak-to-neutral without evidence.
• No litigation judgment and no IPR (per prior sections): the '934 was pleaded by Align and then dropped by stipulation in April 2021; it has never faced an AIA trial and was never adjudicated. There is therefore no record of competitor copying, licensing, or commercial acquiescence tied to these claims. This cuts against strong secondary-consideration arguments and leaves the § 103 analysis on the primary-art footing.
• Long-felt need / industry movement toward selective rescanning: the art itself (feedback-data reference; later Align filings) evidences the need — but a recognized need that the prior art already addresses is not a strong secondary consideration; if anything, it supports obviousness (the motivation existed).

---

8. Bottom line, confidence, and caveats

• Strongest ground: Ground 1 — US 7,020,275 (Rubbert) + the Jones/Chishti "Manipulating a digital dentition model" family + US 2006/0115793 / EP 1662414 (feedback data). This combination discloses (or suggests) every claim concept — scan, display, interactively mark, erase 3D data via the display, rescan the deficient region, register on overlap, and stitch the replacement into a modified model — with a clear, documented motivation to move from full re-scan to selective re-scan-and-replace.
• Supporting grounds: Ground 2 (add Zachariasen '853 for the prep-inadequacy branch), Ground 5 (downstream manufacture), Ground 6 (system/CRM).
• Weakest spots: (i) the "replace accepted data with re-scanned data of the same changed region" step is only implicitly suggested, not literally disclosed; (ii) Ground 3 (artifact/scan-body) lacks a specific recovered reference; (iii) Ground 4 needs dedicated 3D-scan-registration art.
• Confidence: moderate. The art supplies a plausible, well-motivated § 103 case, but I cannot rate it higher because I never obtained the verbatim granted claims — and § 103 conclusions are only as good as the exact limitations. The same caveat the prior sections flagged remains the binding limitation on this analysis.
• Do not rely on: the AIA framing of the prior-art section (it should be pre-AIA — see § 0(b)); the attribution of "Manipulating a digital dentition model" to US 6,309,215 (see § 0(c)); or the feedback-data reference being prior art "by another" until its family relationship to the '934 is confirmed (§ 0(e)).

No patent numbers, claim limitations, or reference disclosures have been invented. Where a reference could not be recovered or verified (the specific implant scan-body art; the complete foreign (56) list; the verbatim claims), I have said so rather than filling the gap.