US 5683243

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number, including any current litigation.

Let me verify the full claim set and check for any current (2026) litigation activity.

US Patent 5,683,243 — Summary

Source of record: Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5683243](/patent/US5683243)/en), FreePatentsOnline (https://www.freepatentsonline.com/5683243.html), EveryPatent (http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat5683243.html). The full text you supplied is treated as authoritative.

Domestic priority / family. The application is a divisional of four co-filed Nov. 9, 1992 applications, each cross-referenced to the others:

• 07/973,973 → US 5,431,562 ("Method of Forming Custom Orthodontic Appliance")
• 07/973,965 → US 5,454,717 ("Custom Orthodontic Brackets and Bracket forming Method and Apparatus")
• 07/973,947 → US 5,447,432 ("Custom Orthodontic Archwire forming Method and Apparatus")
• 07/973,844 → US 5,368,478 ("Method and Apparatus for Forming Jigs for Custom Placement of Orthodontic Appliances on Teeth…")

It is itself the parent of continuations US 6,015,289 (filed 10/30/1997) and US 6,244,861 (filed 11/01/1999), which continue into US 6,616,444 ("Custom orthodontic appliance forming method and apparatus"). Note the near-identical titles — some search hits display the "…method and apparatus" title for the family, but 5,683,243 itself is titled "…forming apparatus."

Abstract (as printed). "An apparatus for automatically designing and manufacturing a custom orthodontic appliance from anatomical shape data preferably of the lower jaw and teeth of a patient includes a scanner to produce images in three dimensions, a computer that constructs archforms and calculates finish tooth positions, then automatically designs an appliance, preferably including archwires and brackets, to move the teeth to the calculated positions and jigs to place the brackets on the teeth of the patient, and program controlled machines for making the brackets, wires and jigs to the appliance design driven by commands derived from digitized tooth and jaw shape data."

Independent claims (plain language)

The claim set runs at least 1–21, with three independent claims:

Claim 1 — whole-appliance manufacturing apparatus. A system with three cooperating parts: (a) a scanner that produces data signals of the individual patient's oral anatomy; (b) a programmed computer that automatically (i) derives a dental archform for that patient, (ii) calculates finish tooth positions relative to that archform, (iii) calculates a custom appliance design that would move the teeth to those finish positions, and (iv) writes machine-readable records of that design; and (c) an automated fabricating machine that responds to those records to actually build the custom appliance. Claim 2 adds that the scanner captures both tooth shape and lower-jaw shape, and that the archform is derived from the lower jaw shape.

Claim 3 — custom bracket manufacturing apparatus. A machine for making a custom bracket (one having a base with a tooth-mounting surface and an archwire support with a slot). It includes: a holder for a bracket blank; means for recording digital anatomy/positioning data; means for calculating the bracket geometry — specifically the geometric relationship between the archwire slot and the bracket base's mounting surface; a forming means (e.g., a cutter); and means for generating and sending a machine control signal so the blank is shaped into a bracket whose slot has the calculated relationship to its mounting surface. Dependent claims 4–12 add slot inclination/slot position parameters, slot-bottom curvature matching the custom archwire, an "archwire plane" the cutter follows, angular orienting/translating of the holder, and automatic comparison/selection of the best bracket blank.

Claim 13 — custom archwire manufacturing apparatus. An archwire former that shapes wire in response to a wire-shape control signal; means for producing a digitized record of the patient's oral anatomy; and a digital computer whose program derives archwire shape data from that record and generates the control signal, so the former produces an archwire conforming to the individual patient's anatomy. Dependent claims 14–21 add: separate feed (length) and bend (curvature) control signals; representation as a series of segments each with length and curvature components; constant-radius circular arc segments fed tangentially; closed-loop feedback via a transverse position sensor; material-property (elasticity) compensation data; and span measurement/comparison against design span.

Litigation / docket check

• No 2026 CAFC docket activity found. I could not locate any Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket in 2026 involving US 5,683,243. This is consistent with the patent's expired-lifetime status (expiration 2014-11-04).
• Google Patents lists the family as having litigation, citing CAFC case 05-1426 (a 2005 appeal), plus a Darts-IP "first worldwide family litigation" entry.
• The substantive family litigation is Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc.: Fed. Cir. 463 F.3d 1299 (Aug. 30, 2006) and Fed. Cir. 498 F.3d 1307 (2007) (C.D. Cal. origin). Key holdings in that dispute were that most asserted Ormco claims are limited to "automatic computer determination of the finish positions of teeth" (narrowing the claims), and that summary judgment of nonenablement had been entered against Ormco on that basis. Align's counter-asserted '548 patent claims 1–3 and 11–13 were held invalid.
• Related USPTO activity: US 5,683,243 appears as a cited reference in numerous later Align/3Shape/Ormco patents and in PTAB/IPR papers, but I found no IPR/PGR petition naming 5,683,243 itself as the challenged patent.

Uncertainties / caveats

• Claim count: The claim text I could retrieve runs to at least claim 21, with all of claims 14–21 depending from claim 13. I do not have an authoritative total claim count for the patent, and the printed text in the provided materials truncates at claim 21. Treat "independent claims = 1, 3, 13" as reliable; the exact final claim number is not confirmed.
• Examiner discrepancy: FreePatentsOnline lists the primary examiner as "WEHNER, Cary Ellen," while EveryPatent lists "O'Connor, Cary E." I am not resolving this — reporting both literally.
• Database scope: I do not have a direct, authenticated query interface to USPTO PatentCenter/PTAB or to the CAFC docket. The above reflects web-searchable records (Google Patents, FPO, EveryPatent, CourtListener, PTAB/USPTO-hosted documents). An authoritative current-docket confirmation would require direct PACER/PTAB lookups, which I could not perform here.

I did not auto-correct any identifier; all numbers above are reproduced exactly as they appear in the sources.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 5683243.

Let me dig into the litigation records, including the CAFC case referenced in the patent data.

Let me check dedicated litigation databases and verify the case docket details.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 5,683,243

Bottom line: I found one litigation matter asserting U.S. Patent No. 5,683,243 ("the '243 patent" — Custom orthodontic appliance forming apparatus, Andreiko & Payne, Ormco Corp., issued Nov. 4, 1997). It was Ormco Corporation v. Align Technology, Inc., filed in the Central District of California in 2003. The '243 patent was held not infringed and invalid (not enabled), and that judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in 2007. I found no other suit, ITC action, or PTAB proceeding specifically involving the '243 patent.

Case summary

Procedural history (as it relates to the '243 patent)

1. District court, C.D. Cal. (No. 03-cv-00016)

• Jan. 6, 2003 — Ormco filed suit alleging Align's Invisalign® process infringed the '432, '243, and '861 patents; the '444 patent was added later. The asserted '243 claims were claims 1 and 2.
• May 13, 2004 — The court granted Align's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, construing the Ormco-family claims (including the '243 claims) to require automatic determination of finish tooth positions. Because Align's process used "skilled operators" rather than an automatic computer determination, there was no infringement.
• Aug. 20, 2004 — The court granted Align's motion for summary judgment of non-enablement (invalidity) of the Ormco patents, relying on its prior claim construction and on inventor testimony that Ormco's software had never automatically determined tooth positions without human intervention.
• Feb. 25, 2005 — Summary judgment of invalidity of certain claims of Align's '548 patent in favor of Ormco/AOA (the Align counterclaim side of the case).
• Feb. 1, 2006 — Ormco and AOA settled the damages/willfulness/attorney-fee issues on Align's '548 and '611 patents (relating to Ormco's "Red, White & Blue" appliance), agreeing to pay Align $884,000 into escrow pending appeal (per Align's SEC disclosures).

2. First Federal Circuit appeal — Ormco I

• Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2006) (Schall, Gajarsa, Dyk, JJ.), appeal cited as No. 05-1426.
• This decision addressed Align's '611 and '548 patents (the cross-appeal/injunction side), finding certain claims obvious — it did not decide the '243 patent.
• Note: Google Patents lists a "family has litigation" link to this CAFC case (Darts-IP family 27506046 / Unified Patents): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/05-1426

3. Second Federal Circuit appeal — Ormco II (the '243 decision)

• Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 24, 2007) (Lourie and Dyk, JJ., and O'Malley, D.J.), Nos. 2006-1240, 2006-1274.
• The court affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement and non-enablement as to claims 1 and 2 of the '243 patent (along with claims 1, 9, 10 of the '432; claims 1, 3, 4, 9–12, 16–18 of the '861; and most claims of the '444).
• The court reversed in part and remanded only as to claims 37–40, 45, and 69 of the '444 patent — i.e., no '243 claims survived.
• Judge O'Malley concurred in part and dissented in part, disagreeing with the majority's affirmance of noninfringement/non-enablement.

4. Post-remand proceedings (the '243 patent plays no further role)

• On remand only the six '444 patent claims remained at issue. After a Markman order (Oct. 3, 2008) and cross-motions for summary judgment (Jan.–Feb. 2009), the case was tried to a jury June 9–25, 2009.
• June 25, 2009 — Jury found Align infringed the '444 patent and that claims 37, 38, 40, 45, 69 were not anticipated or obvious; advisory verdict for Ormco on prosecution laches/unclean hands.
• 2009–2010 — Post-trial motions (including Align's JMOL motion) and further appeal followed (e.g., Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1057 and 653 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (C.D. Cal. 2009)). These later rulings concern the '444 patent only, not the '243 patent.

Key holdings affecting the '243 patent

• Claim construction: The asserted Ormco claims, including the '243 claims, were construed to require "automatic determination of finish tooth positions" — a limitation drawn from the common specification and the prosecution history of the parent '562 patent. 498 F.3d at 1313–17.
• Non-infringement: Align's Invisalign® process relied on human operators (the "ToothShaper"/"Treat" workflow), so it did not practise the automatic-determination limitation. Affirmed.
• Invalidity / non-enablement: The inventors' testimony that Ormco's own software (Elan, and later Insignia — with manual override used in all ~40 test cases) never automatically determined tooth positions without human intervention was held to be strong evidence that the specification did not enable the full scope of the claims. Affirmed. (Fed. Cir. emphasized: "If an inventor attempts but fails to enable his invention in a commercial product that purports to be an embodiment of the patented invention, that is strong evidence that the patent specification lacks enablement.")

Related family context (not separate '243 litigation)

• The '243 patent is a divisional/continuation family member sharing a common specification with U.S. 5,431,562; 5,447,432; 5,454,717; 5,368,478; 6,244,861; 6,616,444; 6,015,289; and related foreign filings (EP 0667753B1, WO 94/10935, AU 5598894, DE 69327661T2, JP H08508174).
• The '243 patent was cited as prior art / background in numerous later patent filings and PTAB/IPR papers (e.g., IPR2020-00223 re U.S. 7,156,661; IPR2016-00270 re U.S. 6,699,037), but those are invalidity proceedings against other patents, not litigation involving the '243 patent.
• The '243 patent's "family has litigation" flag on Google Patents traces to the Ormco/Align litigation and the CAFC case 05-1426 noted above.

Caveats and verification notes

1. Scope of search. I searched Google Patents, CourtListener, Justia, FindLaw, FreePatentsOnline, Docket Alarm, PTAB/USPTO document repositories, and secondary sources (law-firm updates, Align SEC filings, IP-news summaries). I did not complete a direct PACER/docket-by-docket run or a full Unified Patents caselist sweep in this session (the search tool hit its step limit), so I cannot state with certainty that no other, smaller suit (e.g., a declaratory judgment action or a short-lived 1990s enforcement case) exists. Based on the sources reviewed, the Ormco v. Align matter appears to be the only litigation asserting the '243 patent.
2. Case-number forms. The same case appears variously as "SA CV 03-16-GLT," "03-cv-00016," and "8:2003cv00016." These are the same C.D. Cal. action, not separate cases. I have reported them literally as cited rather than normalizing them.
3. Two different Federal Circuit decisions are sometimes both called "Ormco v. Align." Do not conflate them:
   • 463 F.3d 1299 (Aug. 30, 2006; No. 05-1426) — Align's '611/'548 patents; does not involve the '243 patent.
   • 498 F.3d 1307 (Aug. 24, 2007; Nos. 2006-1240, 2006-1274) — Ormco's '432/'243/'861/'444 patents; this is the decision that affirmed invalidity and non-infringement of the '243 claims 1 and 2.
4. Outcome characterization. The '243 patent was not held unenforceable; the adverse rulings were non-infringement and non-enablement (invalidity). I found no judgment of anticipation or obviousness against the '243 claims.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 5,683,243: zero. The canonical source for this prompt — the USPTO Open Data Portal "PTAB proceedings on file" block — returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding naming 5,683,243 as the challenged patent, and my independent web searches (PTAB decisions/exhibits, CourtListener, litigation aggregators, petitioner filings) surfaced no petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal on this particular patent number.

Bottom line for a defendant: there is no IPR record to point at — the patent is neither "hardened by surviving IPRs" nor "already invalidated at the PTAB." All claim-level validity work on this family was done in district court and the Federal Circuit, not the Board, and the one ground on which the district court invalidated this patent — nonenablement under § 112 — is outside IPR's statutory scope (35 U.S.C. § 311(b) limits IPR to §§ 102/103 on patents and printed publications). Anyone telling you "we'll just IPR it" is proposing a tool that, as to the strongest historical attack on this patent, cannot reach the issue.

Proceedings on file: none

There are no per-proceeding entries to report. Per the operating constraints, I will not invent proceeding numbers.

Why there are none (structural, not just incidental):

• PGR was never available. Post-grant review is confined to a 9-month window after issuance (35 U.S.C. § 321(c)). 5,683,243 issued 1997-11-04 — fifteen years before the AIA trial regime took effect on 2012-09-16. The window closed before the statute existed.
• CBM was never available. Covered Business Method review required a claim directed to a financial product or service and excluded "technological inventions" (AIA § 18(d)). A custom orthodontic bracket/archwire CAD-CAM apparatus is the paradigm of a technological invention. CBM was also sunset on 2020-09-16.
• IPR was available in principle from 2012-09-16, but the patent expired 2014-11-04 (anticipated expiration per Google Patents). The practical window in which a rational petitioner would fund an IPR was roughly two years, on a patent whose asserted family litigation (Ormco v. Align, C.D. Cal. No. 03-cv-00016) had already been resolved.
• The decisive invalidity holding was a § 112 holding. On 2004-08-26 the C.D. Cal. granted Align's motion for summary judgment of invalidity of Ormco's Patents 5,447,432, 5,683,243, 6,244,861, and 6,616,444 (per Align's 2004-08-26 press release and Form 8-K). That nonenablement theory — premised on the construction limiting the claims to "automatic computer determination of the finish positions of teeth," with inventor testimony that the Elan software was never used without human intervention — has no IPR analogue.

Search artifacts I checked and discarded (so you don't chase them): PTACTS petition documents containing the strings "5683243" or OR US-5683243-(DID are prior-art search histories quoted inside unrelated IPRs and prosecution exhibits (e.g., the '661 file history in IPR2020-00223; a 2020 search string in a 2025 petition). Likewise, hits for IPR2017-00864 (U.S. 7,523,243), IPR2014-00076 line (NuVasive), and U.S. 9,361,243 concern different patents that merely share the digits "243." None is a proceeding on 5,683,243.

Strategic summary

Claim status against the PTAB record. No claim of 5,683,243 — independent claims 1, 3, and 13, or any of their dependents (the prior section traced the set to at least claim 21, with the total count not authoritatively confirmed) — has ever been canceled, confirmed, or even challenged in an AIA trial. At the PTAB, the entire patent is UNTESTED. Contrast that with the district court record, where the patent was held invalid on summary judgment in 2004 and where, on the second appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the narrowing construction of the shared specification (limiting most claims to automatic computer determination of finish tooth positions) while carving out the six method claims of the '444 patent (claims 37–40, 45, 69) as directed only to "the preliminary gathering and organization of tooth data" (Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2007), https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[210412](/patent/210412)/ormco-corp-v-align-technology-inc/). The nonenablement ruling that invalidated the '243 patent went up in the companion appeal at 463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006); I could not retrieve that opinion directly in this session, so treat any characterization of its precise disposition as needing verification against the opinion text rather than my summary.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) IPR estoppel on this patent, because there has been no IPR. No petitioner, real party in interest, or privy is barred by statute from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground. That cuts both ways: a defendant today has a fully open prior-art field (subject to § 315(b)'s one-year bar running from service of a complaint, and § 325(d)/General Plastic discretion if the same art was before the examiner), but also has no roadmap, no FWD findings, and no free "canceled claim" argument to bring to the district court. The estate-style limit on defense is not estoppel — it is § 311(b) subject-matter scope (no § 112 grounds, no public-use/on-sale/system art) and the patent's expiry, which eliminates any injunctive leverage and caps damages to pre-2014-11-04 conduct (plus the six-year § 286 lookback for any suit filed after 2011).

Pattern signals. There is no serial-petitioner pattern, no defensive aggregator, and no PTAB-appeal pattern on this patent. No Unified Patents-style entity appears in the chain for 5,683,243. The only "aggressive appellant" history is Ormco's own appeals in the district court litigation (Fed. Cir. 05-1426 is the 2005 appeal Google Patents flags; the substantive merits opinions are the 2006 and 2007 decisions discussed above). The 2025–2026 PTO policy shift toward denying IPRs on old patents under the "settled expectations" rubric (described in Unified Patents' amicus brief in Sup. Ct. No. 25-1230, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-1230/[412129](/patent/412129)/20260529145347123_Unified%20Amicus%20Brief%2025-1230.pdf) is, for this 1997 patent, an additional practical headwind to any hypothetical future institution — but it is academic, since the patent is expired.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant being asserted (or demanded against) on 5,683,243: there is nothing to link to at the PTAB — say so affirmatively and early, then pivot to the district-court record. The operative documents are the C.D. Cal. summary judgment orders of 2004-05-13 (non-infringement), 2004-08-20 (nonenablement) and 2004-08-26 (invalidity of the '432/'243/'861/'444 family), the 2009 summary judgment order quoting the Federal Circuit's narrowing construction (https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/8:2003cv00016/[142599/1075](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=142599-1075)/0.pdf), and 498 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Build the § 112/nonenablement and disavowal arguments there; do not assume an IPR forum exists for them.
• Confirm the negative directly before you rely on it. The ODP ingest is a snapshot. Run the patent number through PTAB E2E / PTAB Center (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and through the USPTO Patent Center "Proceedings" tab for the '243 patent, and check CourtListener's docket search for "5,683,243." If you find a proceeding the ODP block lacks, flag it and re-run this analysis — the disposition structure above collapses the moment a real FWD exists.
• Watch for proceedings on the family, not this patent. The '243 patent's continuation, US 6,616,444 ("…forming method and apparatus"), and the sibling 5,431,562 / 5,447,432 / 5,454,717 / 5,368,478, plus US 6,244,861 and US 6,015,289, are the numbers that actually appear in later PTAB papers and district-court dockets. If you are mapping exposure across an Ormco/Align-era digital-orthodontics portfolio, the AIA-trial activity lives on those, not here.
• If a demand letter cites claims 1, 3, or 13 of 5,683,243: note that no PTAB panel has ever construed or canceled them — but that the asserted scope was narrowed in litigation to "automatic computer determination of the finish positions of teeth," and that the patent expired 2014-11-04. Any infringement theory must therefore be built on pre-expiration, automatically-computed-finish-position conduct, which is a very small target.

Caveat on sourcing. I did not have authenticated query access to PTAB E2E, PACER, or the CAFC docket in this session. The "zero proceedings" finding rests on the ODP-derived block plus consistent negative results across the searches above; it is a high-confidence negative, not a certified one. No proceeding numbers have been invented, and I have flagged the one Federal Circuit opinion (463 F.3d 1299) whose text I could not retrieve directly.

I'll research the assignment record for US 5,683,243, starting with the USPTO Assignment Center and cross-referencing legal events already surfaced.

Scope limitation — read first

I do not have authenticated access to USPTO Assignment Center / assignment.uspto.gov, and none of my searches returned the underlying reel/frame images or the recorded assignment metadata (execution dates as recorded, correspondent of record). What follows is built from the Google Patents legal-events feed for US 5,683,243 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5683243/en — the "reassignment" entries reproduced in the supplied patent text) plus the printed front page of the patent and public corporate records. I am not supplying reel/frame numbers, because I could not verify any. Providing plausible-looking reel/frame pairs would be fabrication. Treat the reel/frame column below as unverified/blank and confirm at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ before relying on it.

One genuine discrepancy surfaced that the Assignment Center would resolve: Unified Patents' database lists US‑5683243‑A (and its JP/WO family members) with assignee "Dental Imaging Technologies Corp," while Google Patents lists the current assignee as Ormco Corp. Dental Imaging Technologies Corp is a Danaher dental-imaging entity. I could not find a recorded assignment on this patent supporting a transfer to it. Flagging as unresolved — do not treat as a confirmed ownership link.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check. No departure pattern is determinable from the records I could reach. Both inventors are named on all four co-filed Nov. 9, 1992 parents and on the continuations, so there is no evidence of inventors leaving the original assignee within 12 months of filing. I found no evidence of an inventor-side assignment to a third party, and no inventor-held (non-assigned) interest recorded. Caveat: I did not locate employment agreements or departure dates; "no pattern" here means "not evidenced," not "confirmed absent."

Original assignee

Ormco Corporation, Glendora, California at issuance (later Orange, California).

• Line of business: orthodontic appliances — brackets, archwires, placement jigs, and related lab/digital services. Founded 1960 by Frank Miller.
• Product embodying the claims: yes. Ormco's Insignia Advanced Smile Design is a custom bracket + custom archwire + placement-tray system produced from a digital scan of the patient's dentition — i.e., the scanner → computer-derived finish positions → machine-fabricated custom appliance pipeline of independent claims 1, 3 and 13. Ormco's own materials describe Insignia as "an all-inclusive solution with customized brackets, wires and placement trays." This is the strongest single fact in the ownership analysis: the original assignee commercialized the claimed subject matter.
• Current status: operating. Ormco is an Envista Holdings Corporation (NYSE: NVST) operating company. Ownership history: Ormco → Sybron Dental Specialties (part of Sybron International) → Danaher Corporation acquired Sybron Dental Specialties in 2006 → Danaher separated its dental platform and Envista completed its spin-off on 2019‑12‑18. Ormco remains a going concern with >1,000 employees.

Assignment timeline

Recorded events as surfaced by the Google Patents legal-event feed. Reel/frame not verifiable in this session — left blank deliberately.

1. 1995‑06‑02 (application filed) / 1995‑06‑02 — Reel / (unverified)

   • Conveyance: (application filing event — not an assignment)
   • Assignor: n/a
   • Assignee: Ormco Corporation (applicant)
   • Correspondent: unknown
   • Context: Divisional of the four Nov. 9, 1992 Andreiko/Payne applications; not an assignment.

2. 1995‑07‑27 (recorded) — Reel / (unverified)

   • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST — SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS")
   • Assignor: Andreiko, Craig A.; Payne, Mark A.
   • Assignee: ORMCO CORPORATION
   • Correspondent: not retrieved. The patent's attorney/agent of record on its face is Wood, Herron & Evans, L.L.P. (Cincinnati, OH), which is the likely recording correspondent for this 1995 assignment — but I could not confirm that the firm's name appears as correspondent on the reel/frame. (Note for verification: this firm appears as counsel of record across the entire Ormco '243 family, so if it recurs on later reels it is a prosecution/recording relationship, not an NPE tell.)
   • Context: Original inventor-to-employer assignment. The patent was already commonly assigned; this perfects the record.

3. 2000‑12‑22 (recorded) — Reel / (unverified)

   • Conveyance: Security Interest ("SECURITY INTEREST — SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS")
   • Assignor: ORMCO CORPORATION
   • Assignee: ABN AMRO BANK N.V.
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Securitization / credit-facility collateral. Ormco pledges the portfolio as collateral; no change in beneficial ownership.

4. 2002‑06‑13 (recorded) — Reel / (unverified)

   • Conveyance: Security Interest (recorded as "SECURITY INTEREST — SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS")
   • Assignor: ABN MARO BANK N.V. (reproduced literally from the Google Patents feed; almost certainly "ABN AMRO," but I am not auto-correcting an identifier)
   • Assignee: ORMCO CORPORATION
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Unwind / release of the ABN AMRO security interest back to Ormco. Internal credit rearrangement, not a title transfer.

5. 2002‑06‑13 (recorded) — Reel / (unverified)

   • Conveyance: Security Agreement
   • Assignor: ORMCO CORPORATION
   • Assignee: CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Securitization. Replacement secured-party collateral filing tied to the same-day ABN AMRO release; the portfolio is re-pledged to a new lender. Still no change in ownership.

6. 2006‑04‑25 (recorded) — Reel / (unverified)

   • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
   • Assignor: CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON (N/K/A CREDIT SUISSE, CAYMAN ISLANDS BRANCH)
   • Assignee: ORMCO CORPORATION
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Release of the Credit Suisse security interest. Collateral restriction lifted. Coincides with the 2006 Danaher acquisition of Sybron Dental Specialties.

7. 2014‑11‑04 — no reel/frame (not an assignment)

   • Legal status: Anticipated expiration; Expired – Lifetime. No post-2014 assignment recorded in the feeds I could reach.

Bottom line on the record: every recorded conveyance on this patent is either (a) the founding inventor→employer assignment, or (b) a bank security interest and its later release. There is no recorded transfer of title away from Ormco Corporation. If the Assignment Center contains a transfer I could not see, it is most likely an internal Danaher/Envista intra-group realignment rather than a third-party sale — but I could not verify that.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership and Events for US 5683243
    1992 : Priority applications filed by Ormco
    1995 : Divisional application filed
         : Inventors assign rights to Ormco
    1997 : Patent issued Nov 4
    2000 : Security interest to ABN AMRO
    2002 : ABN AMRO interest released
         : Security agreement with Credit Suisse
    2006 : Credit Suisse security interest released
         : Danaher acquires Sybron Dental
    2009 : Ormco and Align settle litigation
    2014 : Patent expires
    2019 : Ormco spun out into Envista

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. No assignee in the chain bears an "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix. The only non-operating names are ABN AMRO BANK N.V. (recorded 2000‑12‑22) and CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON (recorded 2002‑06‑13), and both took security interests, not title — textually conveyed as "SECURITY INTEREST" and "SECURITY AGREEMENT," with Ormco as assignor. A secured lender is not a shell-entity transferee.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. No assignee matches any published NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Erich Spangenberg entities). Ormco is a manufacturing operating company within Envista Holdings (NYSE: NVST). Unclear sub-point: the Unified Patents listing of "Dental Imaging Technologies Corp" as assignee for this family member — that entity is a Danaher dental-imaging affiliate, also operating, and I could not verify any recorded transfer. Not a finding; flagged for Assignment Center verification.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — INSUFFICIENT DATA. I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for any of the six recorded events, so I cannot test for recurrence. The prosecution correspondent on the patent's face is Wood, Herron & Evans, L.L.P., Cincinnati, OH — but seeing a patent-prosecution firm on the face of the patent is expected and is not evidence of an NPE recording pattern. I explicitly decline to treat this as a signal without the reel/frame correspondent fields.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. The chain contains no LLC-to-LLC sequence and no cluster of transfers inside 24 months. The two 2002 recordings are same-day (2002‑06‑13) and are a release-and-replace secured financing pair, with Ormco on both sides; that is a lender swap, not cascading assignment.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. Ormco asserted against Align Technology as a plaintiff holding title, not as an assignee of a recently acquired patent. The substantive suit (C.D. Cal., appealed as Fed. Cir. 05‑1426 → 463 F.3d 1299 (2006) and 498 F.3d 1307 (2007)) was filed with Ormco as owner of record throughout; the security interests were all released by 2006‑04‑25 and the 2009 settlement was between the two operating competitors.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving Ormco or Sybron appears in the record. The 2006 Danaher acquisition of Sybron Dental Specialties and the 2019 Danaher→Envista spin-off are M&A / corporate separations, not distressed sales.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. This is the inverse case: the operating company asserted in its own name against a direct competitor (Ormco v. Align). There is no NPE interposed between Ormco and the defendant, and the 2009 resolution was an operating-company settlement that included a cross-equity stake (Align issued Danaher ~10% of Align common stock) — a strategic collaboration, not an NPE license campaign.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents or OIN. (The broad Unified Patents citation index pages that mention '243 are third-party prior-art/continuation listing pages, not evidence of a Unified assignment.)

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Every recorded conveyance on US 5,683,243 is either the founding inventor→Ormco assignment (recorded 1995‑07‑27) or a bank security interest and its release (ABN AMRO 2000‑12‑22; Credit Suisse 2002‑06‑13; Credit Suisse release 2006‑04‑25); title never left Ormco, and the patent's commercial embodiment — Ormco's Insignia custom bracket/archwire/placement-jig system — practices independent claims 1, 3 and 13. Ormco then asserted the family against a competitor, Align Technology, in its own name (Fed. Cir. 05‑1426; 463 F.3d 1299; settled 2009), which is the defining signature of operating-company rather than NPE assertion. The only loose thread is the Unified Patents "Dental Imaging Technologies Corp" assignee listing, which I could not corroborate with a recorded assignment and which, if real, would be an intra-Danaher realignment rather than an NPE transfer.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 5683243) and the legal-events tab at https://patents.google.com/patent/US5683243/en — pull the reel/frame for recordings 2–6 above, since I could not retrieve them and they are the evidentiary core of this analysis.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 5,683,243 — both the references cited in the patent (its "References Cited" section, i.e., the examiner's prior art) and the citations that matter for § 102 analysis.

Let me pull the actual "References Cited" listing for the '243 patent from patent databases.

I have the full examiner-cited reference list for the '243 patent. Now let me verify key references' content and dates.

Prior Art for U.S. Patent No. 5,683,243

Scope note. I searched the USPTO-record mirrors for the specific number 5,683,243 (Google Patents https://patents.google.com/patent/US5683243/en; FreePatentsOnline https://www.freepatentsonline.com/5683243.html; uspto.report https://uspto.report/patent/grant/5683243). All references below are the ones that appear on the face of the '243 patent itself in its "(56) References Cited" section, i.e., the prior art the examiner actually applied/cited. Per the operating rules I have not auto-corrected any identifier.

Two identifier cautions up front:

1. In one third-party document's reference list I encountered the string "5,663,243 A 11/1997 Andreiko et al." That is a different number from 5,683,243. I am not treating it as the same patent. The patent under analysis here is 5,683,243.
2. The last U.S. reference on the '243 face, "5,518,397 — May 1996 — Andreiko et al.," is reported literally as retrieved; I could not independently verify its title in this session and its May-1996 issue date postdates the '243 filing. I flag it below rather than characterize it.

Sources for the reference list: uspto.report/patent/grant/5683243 (U.S. Patents + Foreign + Other References) and freepatentsonline.com/5683243.html (Other References); both reproduce the printed "(56) References Cited."

1. Legal framework (pre-AIA, which controls here)

The '243 patent has a priority date of November 9, 1992 (divisional of the four co-filed 07/973,xxx applications) and a filing date of June 2, 1995. Because the application was filed before the AIA's March 16, 2013 change, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 governs. The critical dates are therefore:

Consequence: every U.S. patent on the '243 face except 5,518,397 (May 1996) issued before the '243 priority date and is at minimum § 102(a)/(e) art; most predate Nov. 9, 1991 and are also § 102(b) art. That makes nearly the entire cited list "ironclad" prior art as to date. The real question is what each reference discloses — i.e., whether any single reference discloses every element of a given claim (true § 102 anticipation) or only supplies pieces (best used under § 103).

2. U.S. patent references cited on the '243 face

Descriptions are brief characterizations of the subject matter; where I could not verify a title directly in this session I say so.

A. Bracket-placement / indirect-bonding art (most relevant to claims 24–28, the jig-forming apparatus)

§ 102 point: US 4,014,096 and the Dellinger/Frazier indirect-bonding line disclose making a fixture conforming to a patient's tooth/arch that locates an appliance (bracket) at a predetermined connection point. That is the core of claim 24's "jig locating surface that conforms to a unique portion of the external surface of the crown" + "appliance engaging surface having the same location relative to the jig locating surface as the unique portion has to the connection point." The gap is claim 24's digitized tooth-shape record and its machine control signal to a jig former — the pre-1980s references are physical/mechanical, not digitized/NC.

B. CAD/CAM digitizing + automated fabrication art (most relevant to claims 1, 3, 13)

§ 102 point: Rekow is the closest single reference to the architecture of claim 1 (scanner → computer modeling → machine-readable output → machine tool). But Rekow is directed to dental prostheses/crowns, not to deriving a dental archform and calculating orthodontic finish tooth positions and then fabricating an orthodontic appliance. So Rekow is powerful § 103 art against claim 1 but is not a clean single-reference § 102 anticipation of claim 1's archform/finish-position limitations. The same is true of the Duret family.

C. Orthodontic-specific computer/bracket-placement art

§ 102 point: US 5,139,419 is the strongest anticipatory-style candidate for claim 1 because it is the same inventive entity's own earlier Ormco work combining digitized tooth anatomy, computer design, and machine forming of a custom orthodontic appliance. Two caveats: (i) because it shares inventors with the '243, it is not "by another" for § 102(e) purposes and its use against the '243 is more properly a § 102(a)-as-prior-work / obviousness-type double patenting / § 103 question than a clean § 102(a) "by others" anticipation; (ii) it discloses forming a brace, and whether it discloses the full claim-1 sequence (derive archform → calculate finish positions → calculate appliance design → machine-readable records → automated fabricator) is a claim-charting question I cannot resolve without its full text.

D. Wire-bending art (most relevant to claim 13's archwire former)

§ 102 point: Orthuber is the most relevant cited reference for the archwire former claims. Claim 14 (separate feed vs. bend control signals), claim 15 (connected series of segments with length + curvature components), and claim 16 (constant-radius circular arc segments fed tangentially) map onto controlled wire-bending art. A § 102 anticipation of claim 13 would additionally require Orthuber to derive the wire shape from a digitized record of the patient's oral anatomy — likely a gap that pushes this to § 103.

E. Remaining U.S. references (background/bracket structure)

3. Foreign patent documents cited

Both predate the Nov. 9, 1991 § 102(b) date and are therefore § 102(b) art as to the '243.

4. Non-patent literature ("Other References")

Both are more than one year before the operative filing and are therefore unambiguous § 102(b) art.

5. Claim-by-claim § 102 mapping (most relevant art)

6. Bottom line — ranking of the most relevant prior art

1. US 5,139,419 (Andreiko et al., Aug. 18, 1992) — closest single reference; same Ormco inventive family; combines digitized tooth data → computer design → machine-formed custom orthodontic appliance. Best candidate for claims 1 and 3; but "same-inventor" status weakens its use as § 102(a) "by another" art.
2. US 5,027,281 (Rekow et al., Jun. 25, 1991) — the canonical scanner → 3-D computer model → generic-form matching → NC machine-tool reference; strongest § 103 art against claims 1, 3, 13, 24, and the hardware elements of 6–12 and 28.
3. US 4,611,288 / 4,663,720 / 4,742,464 (Duret et al., 1986–1988) — electro-optical digitizing of the mouth plus CAD/CAM fabrication; supplies the "digitized record + automatic design + machine" architecture for claims 1, 3, 13, 24.
4. US 4,656,860 (Orthuber et al., Apr. 1987) — most relevant to claims 13–16 (programmed wire bending; feed vs. bend segments; constant-radius arcs).
5. US 4,014,096 (Dellinger, Mar. 1977) and the Dellinger/Frazier/Cohen/Sutter/Daisley indirect-bonding line — most relevant to claims 24–28 (patient-conforming jig that holds a bracket at a predetermined position; guide member engaging the bracket slot).
6. US 5,011,405 (Lemchen, Apr. 30, 1991) and US 5,131,843 (Hilgers et al., Jul. 1992) — computer-assisted orthodontic bracket placement; relevant to claims 3–5.
7. Rekow 1987 and Leinfelder 1989 (NPL) — § 102(b) printed publications; general CAD/CAM-in-dentistry art for claims 1, 3, 13.

References for which no § 102 art appears on the face of the '243: claims 17, 18, and 19 (closed-loop bending feedback, material-property/elasticity compensation, and archwire-span measurement/comparison) are not met by any cited reference individually — they are the most robustly "novel over the cited art" limitations.

7. Contradictions / corrections to flag against the earlier sections

• Independent-claim count (contradiction). The earlier "Patent summary" stated the claim set "runs at least 1–21, with three independent claims (1, 3, 13)" and expressly flagged it lacked an authoritative total. The full claim text I retrieved shows a fourth independent claim — claim 24 (apparatus for forming a bracket-placement jig) — with dependent claims through at least claim 28. The earlier statement should therefore be corrected to: independent claims 1, 3, 13, and 24; dependent claims to at least 28.
• Examiner identity. The earlier summary flagged FreePatentsOnline's "WEHNER, Cary Ellen" vs. EveryPatent's "O'Connor, Cary E." The uspto.report record for 5,683,243 lists the primary examiner as "O'Connor; Cary E." I continue to report both literally rather than resolve them.
• The '243's "family has litigation" flag traces to Ormco v. Align and CAFC 05-1426, as established in the litigation section; the validity ruling that actually mattered for 5,683,243 claims 1 and 2 was the non-enablement/non-infringement affirmance in 498 F.3d 1307 (2007) — not the 2006 "05-1426" decision. Nothing in the prior-art record above changes that.
• Status. Per the earlier sections, the '243 patent is expired (anticipated expiration 2014-11-04). The § 102 analysis above is therefore retrospective/archival, not a live validity dispute.

Caveats on this section. (1) The reference list is the examiner-cited list; it is not a complete landscape of all art a defendant could raise (e.g., non-cited art such as the Duret/Rekow NPL, the earlier Ormco siblings US 5,447,432 / 5,431,562 / 5,454,717 / 5,368,478, and ORTHO-VISION/"Treat" type public uses are not on the face). (2) I did not complete a direct authenticated USPTO PatentCenter / Patent Public Search full-text run in this session; the list above is drawn from the USPTO-record mirrors cited in § 0. (3) Where I state that a limitation is "not met" by the cited art, that reflects the face of the reference list, not an exhaustive claim chart of every reference's full text. (4) I did not auto-correct any patent number, class, or date; the "5,663,243" anomaly described at the top is reported as found.

I'll gather the prior art of record for US 5,683,243 and the key field references before building the § 103 analysis.

Let me pull the cited U.S. patent references from the '243 front page and the closest field art.

I have the NPL of record. Now let me pin down the U.S. patent references cited on the '243 face and the key orthodontic-CAD prior art.

§ 103 Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 5,683,243

"Custom orthodontic appliance forming apparatus" (Andreiko & Payne, Ormco Corp.; filed 06/02/1995; priority 11/09/1992; issued 11/04/1997; expired 11/04/2014)

0. Evidence base, and an important disclosure about scope

Strict-rule compliance note first. The task instructs me to work from "the results from the Prior Art section of this page." That section was not included in the materials handed to me (I received only the Patent summary and Litigation summary), and my attempt to reconstruct the complete face-of-patent citation list was cut off by the tool step limit. Rather than paper over that, I separate my evidence into tiers below. I did not auto-correct any identifier.

Tier 1 — Verified as "of record" (the only prior art I could confirm was actually cited against the '243):

These two references are the only items I can place on the '243 record with certainty. They are also, conveniently, the two references that matter most for elements (a) and (e) of claim 1.

Tier 2 — Verified to exist and contemporaneous with the field, but NOT confirmed as being on the '243 face:

• US 5,011,405 (Lemchen, issued Apr. 30, 1991) — "Method for determining orthodontic bracket placement." Verified in the reference networks of later patents (e.g., https://patents.justia.com/patent/[10881489](/patent/10881489) lists "5011405 | April 30, 1991 | Lemchen"; https://patents.justia.com/patent/[9844427](/patent/9844427) lists the same) and in the '243-family search string reproduced in the IPR2020-00223 file history — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/[PTAB](/ptab)/IPR2020-00223/.../Exhibit-1002-2-...(the string ("5011405" | "5395238" | ... | "5683243" | "5879158" | "Re35169").PN.).
• Re.35,169 E (Lemchen et al., Mar. 1996) — reissue counterpart; same field listing.
• US 5,139,419 (Andreiko et al., issued Aug. 18, 1992) — same-inventor art; see § 2 below, it is largely disqualified from a § 103 combination.
• US 5,278,756 (Lemchen et al., Jan. 11, 1994) — issued after the Nov. 9, 1992 priority date; potentially § 102(e) art only. Because it post-dates priority, I treat it as usable only if its filing date predates Nov. 9, 1992 — which I could not verify.

Tier 3 — General orthodontic/dental-CAD field knowledge I am relying on as background, flagged as such (not represented as "of record"):

• Nahoum, New York State Dental Journal, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 385–390 (Nov. 1964) — plaster-model sawing/waxing and vacuum-forming of tooth-movement appliances. Verified as real via IPR2016-00270, Ex. 2005 (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2016-00270/.../Exhibit-2005.pdf).
• Andrews' straight-wire appliance concept (1970s) — the six keys and the principle that placing a bracket at a prescribed position on the tooth allows a unbent archwire to drive the tooth to a finished position.
• Thomas indirect-bonding technique (1979) — a laboratory jig/tray that conforms to the tooth surface to carry a bracket to a predetermined position.
• Archform equations (Bonwill–Hawley, catenary, beta-function) as routine orthodontic computation.

Claim-count update (correcting an earlier caveat). The previously generated Patent summary flagged "the exact final claim number is not confirmed." The RPX Insight record resolves this: 28 claims, with independent claims 1, 3, 13, and 24; claims 14–23 depend from 13, and claim 24 is an independent jig-forming apparatus claim ("An apparatus for forming a jig for positioning a bracket of a custom orthodontic appliance on a tooth of a patient…"). See https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/[US5683243A](/patent/US5683243A). This is a genuine correction to the earlier uncertainty, not a contradiction.

1. Governing framework

Time bar: pre-AIA law controls. Priority is Nov. 9, 1992; the application was filed June 2, 1995. So this is § 103(a) as it read before the AIA: the Graham v. John Deere factors, applied with KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (550 U.S. 398 (2007)) as the modern gloss on motivation-to-combine. Note the asymmetry: KSR post-dates the patent, but it informs how a modern analyst (or the PTAB) evaluates the same prior art. Because the patent expired Nov. 4, 2014, any § 103 challenge today is a validity-only exercise (or a damages-era exercise for pre-expiration conduct).

Claim construction is the whole ballgame here. The Federal Circuit in Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Nos. 2006-1240, 2006-1274), construing the common Ormco specification, read the asserted claims of the family — expressly including claims 1 and 2 of the '243 — to require "automatic determination of the finish positions of teeth." That construction was drawn from the specification and the parent '562 prosecution history. Any § 103 analysis must therefore be run against the narrowed claims, or it will be attacked as using an overbroad reading the Federal Circuit rejected.

PHOSITA (as of Nov. 1992). Best-supported formulation: a person holding a bachelor's degree in mechanical, electrical, or biomedical engineering or in computer science, with 2–3 years of experience in computer-aided design and manufacturing, working in a team with an orthodontist; or, alternatively, an orthodontist with equivalent CAD/CAM experience. The '243's own specification supports this team-based definition — the disclosed system pairs an orthodontist/technician (operator 28) with a programmer.

The pivotal drafting fact. All four independent claims of '243 are apparatus claims — "An apparatus for manufacturing…", "the apparatus comprising…", "a holder having means thereon…", "a computer programmed to…". They claim machines and programmed computers, not methods of orthodontic treatment. Apparatus claims of this kind are materially easier to invalidate under § 103 than the sibling method claims in US 5,431,562 / 5,447,432, because the "means for…" limitations (pre-AIA § 112 ¶ 6) are met by any structure performing the recited function. The asserted claims of '243 were narrowed and lost on enablement; but the apparatus framing is a § 103 vulnerability, not a § 103 shield.

2. Threshold filter: most of the '243 "citation neighborhood" is unavailable under § 103(c)

This is the most important structural point in the whole analysis, and it is easy to miss.

The '243 is a divisional of four co-filed Nov. 9, 1992 applications, and its citation network is saturated with Ormco's own family:

• 5,431,562; 5,447,432; 5,454,717; 5,368,478; 5,395,238; 5,456,600; 5,474,448; 5,518,397; 5,533,895; 5,542,842; 5,139,419; 5,618,716 — all Andreiko et al., all Ormco.
• 6,015,289; 6,244,861; 6,616,444 — the '243's own continuations.

Pre-AIA § 103(c) provides that subject matter developed by another, which qualifies as prior art only under § 102(e), (f), or (g), shall not preclude patentability where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. Every Andreiko/Ormco family member above is therefore excluded from any § 103 combination against '243 (unless it independently qualifies under § 102(a) or (b), which for the co-pending, commonly-owned filings it generally does not).

Practical consequence: most of what a naive citation-network search surfaces around '243 cannot be used to invalidate it. The usable § 103 arsenal is:

1. the two verified NPL references (Rekow; Leinfelder);
2. third-party orthodontic art — chiefly the Lemchen line (US 5,011,405 / Re.35,169), whose ownership chain I could not fully verify (Lemchen art is commonly associated with different assignees than Ormco, which would make it usable);
3. general knowledge of ordinary skill — which here is unusually strong, because the '243 specification itself admits the hardware and software are commercial off-the-shelf products (see § 4).

A necessary caveat: if Lemchen '405 turns out to be commonly owned with Ormco, or if it qualifies only under § 102(e), it too drops out of the § 103 mix, and the analysis collapses back onto Rekow + Leinfelder + admitted prior art. I flag this as the single largest verification gap.

3. Element-by-element mapping — independent claims

Claim 1 — whole-appliance manufacturing system

Combination A (claim 1): Lemchen '405 + Rekow '87 + Leinfelder '89 (+ the off-the-shelf scanner art admitted in the '243 spec).

Motivation, articulated for an obviousness pleading:

1. Identical field and problem — all three address fabricating a custom dental object from digitized patient anatomy.
2. Recognized design need — the '243 background itself recites the unmet need: orthodontists manually re-bend archwires, treatments run long, chair time is wasted, and results are "less than ideal." The straight-wire movement's entire premise was to eliminate wire bending by getting the bracket right per tooth. Automating that with a proven CAD/CAM loop is the natural, predicted-next step.
3. Predictable result, finite solution set — to move a tooth to a computed finish position, the practical options are (i) custom bracket + standard wire, (ii) standard bracket + custom wire, (iii) custom aligner. A small, identified, predictable set → KSR "obvious to try."
4. Reasonable expectation of success — the components were commercially available and already used chairside in dentistry.

Claim 3 — custom bracket manufacturing apparatus

Combination B (claim 3, plus 4–12): Lemchen '405 + Rekow '87/Leinfelder '89 + ordinary skill in NC machine tools.

Claim-by-claim note on the dependents:

• Claim 4 (slot inclination + slot position relative to the mounting surface): these are precisely the standard orthodontic bracket prescription parameters (torque and in-out). Obvious over Andrews' straight-wire teachings + Lemchen.
• Claim 5 (slot-bottom curvature conforming to the custom archwire's curvature): a slot cut straight cannot seat a curved wire; curving the slot base to match is a mechanical design consequence, not an invention. Under KSR, "a simple change in shape" with a predictable functional benefit is obvious. Note the tension: this was an Ormco-differentiating feature in the market, yet it is under-protected here because the claim recites it as a geometry rather than as a method of achieving a particular force system.
• Claims 6–7 (defining an "archwire plane" intersecting the bracket; angularly orienting and translating the holder so the cutter cuts along the intersection of the archwire plane with the bracket): this is a literal description of 5-axis NC toolpath generation. The "archwire plane" is the straight-wire "archwire plane." Obvious.
• Claim 8–10 (cutter that cuts the slot; mechanical slot-cutting element): a saw blade. The '243 spec describes a circular slot cutter blade (77c) of wire-slot thickness in the horizontal X-Y plane — an off-the-shelf saw.
• Claim 11 (holder and forming means mounted on a stand; means for angularly orienting the holder and translating the former relative to each other in response to the control signal): this is the definition of a multi-axis CNC mill. Any 4- or 5-axis machine reads on it. Strongest single obviousness position in the patent.
• Claim 12 ("means for comparing the geometry of each of the brackets to bracket blank criteria and for selecting therefrom an optimum one of a plurality of bracket blanks"): selection/optimization from a finite library of pre-existing blanks. This is the '243 spec's "selection of appropriate bracket blanks for the optimized appliance design." Automating a selection among a known set of alternatives → KSR "obvious to try."

Claim 13 — custom archwire manufacturing apparatus (and 14–23)

Dependents 14–23 map almost entirely onto conventional NC motion control, which is decisive because the specification admits the components are catalogue items:

• Claim 14 (separate feed/length control signal and bend/curvature control signal): decoupling axial feed from tool deflection is standard in any continuous wire/roll forming line.
• Claim 15 (wire shape represented as a series of segments each having length and curvature components): this is G-code with G02/G03 circular interpolation — a decades-old standard. Segment-wise toolpath representation was not novel in 1992.
• Claim 16 (segments of constant radius fed tangentially, adjacent segments tangent at their junction): this is exactly what a post-processor does when it converts a spline to tangential arc segments. The '243 spec frames this conversion as a straightforward mathematical step ("converted … to a series of segments of tangent circle equations"). An admitted conventional technique cannot support patentability — In re Nomiya; KSR ("a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions").
• Claims 17–18 (closed-loop feedback via a position sensor; material-property compensation data / look-up table): closed-loop control and springback compensation are the two textbook problems in metal bending. Look-up tables keyed to material and cross-section (which the '243 spec expressly describes) are a routine engineering implementation. KSR: "obvious to try," design choice.
• Claims 19–21 (span measurement and comparison against the design span; accepting/over-bending/under-bending determination; incremental correction of successive archwires): routine automatic quality control and iterative error correction — exactly the kind of "ordinary innovation" KSR holds insufficient for patentability.

Combination C (claims 13–23): Rekow '87 and/or Leinfelder '89 (digitize → compute → machine) + conventional NC wire-forming machinery + known orthodontic archform equations.

Claim 24–28 — jig-forming apparatus

Claim 24 (as retrieved, truncated): "An apparatus for forming a jig for positioning a bracket of a custom orthodontic appliance on a tooth of a patient comprising: a jig former including means for shaping the contours of a surface of blank of jig forming material in response to a control signal … means for providing a digitized record of the shapes of the teeth of a patient and of the locations relative to the tooth shape record of appliance connection points on surfaces of the teeth; means for calculating, from the digitized tooth shape and connection point record, jig geometry defining a jig locating surface that conforms to a unique portion of the external surface of the crown of a tooth…"

Combination D: Rekow '87 / Leinfelder '89 + the well-known indirect-bonding jig/tray of the orthodontic art (Thomas technique, 1979) + routine NC milling of a contoured surface.

Motivation: indirect bonding exists precisely to move bracket placement out of the mouth into a controlled, predetermined position — the exact function claim 24 recites. Given a digitized tooth surface (Rekow/Leinfelder) and a pre-established jig concept (Thomas), machining a jig whose locating surface conforms to the digitized crown is the predictable automation of a known manual laboratory step. The '243 spec supports this: it describes the jig as an ABS plastic blank cut on a "standard NC mill" with a small carbide endmill.

4. The strongest § 103 evidence is inside the '243 specification

This deserves its own section, because it is the most robust part of any obviousness case and it does not depend on my Tier-2/3 uncertainty.

The '243 specification repeatedly identifies its own constituent technology as commercially available, off-the-shelf equipment:

• Scanner: "Equipment for producing images using laser technology in this manner is commercially available … the Cyber Scan™ Measurement System manufactured by Cyber Optics Corporation of Minneapolis, Minn." Data is written in "standard ASCII files."
• Software: profile curves generated by "any one of a number of commercially available off-the-shelf CAD/CAM or illustration software packages, such as VERSACAD™ available from Prime Computers, Inc. of Bedford, Mass." The programs are "written for use with VERSACAD™ in CPL™."
• Controller: "an MC300 Motion controller 3-axis card manufactured by Motion Engineering, Inc."
• Drives/motors: Compumotor S-Drive stepper power supplies, Compumotor motor #S/SX 57-102, Industrial Devices Corp. electric cylinder #X995A-2-M56-MT1-200-PS, Dynapar/Veeder Root encoder #E1000A76500.
• Jig fabrication: "a standard NC mill"; blanks are "circular ABS plastic jig blanks."
• Processor: "IBM PC clones, with Intel 80386 or 80486 microprocessors and equipped with 80387 or 80487 math coprocessors."

Under KSR and In re Nomiya, an applicant's own admissions that the claimed elements are commercially available are usable as evidence of the scope and content of the prior art. A specification that concedes its scanner, its CAD software, its motion controller, its stepper drives, its encoder, and its mill are all catalogue items has effectively stipulated the obviousness of the hardware architecture of claims 1(c), 3, 11, 13, and 24. That is why I rate claims 11, 15, 16, 17–21, and 24 as the most vulnerable, and claims 1 and 2 as the least.

5. Secondary considerations

Weighing for obviousness (i.e., against the patentee):

• Admitted long-felt need in the patent's own background. The specification recites that treatment "has become a manual feedback system," that patients are treated "over a period that is longer than would be necessary," and that "the time required of the orthodontist … may be several times greater." A long-felt need recited in the specification and addressed by a predictable combination of known elements strengthens rather than rebuts the obviousness case.
• No demonstrated unexpected results. The Federal Circuit's enablement affirmance in Ormco v. Align found that the inventors' own commercial software (Elan, and later Insignia) never automatically determined tooth positions without human intervention in any of the test cases reviewed. If the asserted advantage was never actually achieved, the patentee cannot show "unexpected results" attributable to the claimed apparatus.
• Industry-wide contemporaneous convergence. Multiple independent parties were filing in this exact space around 1990–1994 (Lemchen; the Ormco family; Chishti/Align's later work), which supports "recognition of the same problem by others" and a predictable solution space.

Weighing against obviousness (Ormco's best arguments):

• The "automatically" limitation. This is the real battleground. The Federal Circuit in 498 F.3d 1307 held that the family claims require automatic determination of finish tooth positions. Lemchen '405, Rekow, and Leinfelder all contemplate human judgment somewhere in the loop. Ormco will argue the combination lacks any teaching or suggestion of automatic finish-position determination, and that the prior art instead teaches away from removing the clinician.
• Different fields within dentistry. Leinfelder and Rekow are prosthodontic/restorative CAD-CAM, not orthodontic appliance fabrication. Ormco will argue non-analogous art.
• Teaching away / failure of others. The bracket-placement art (Lemchen) and the restorative CAD/CAM art never converged in a single commercial system before Ormco.

How these fare: the non-analogous-art argument is weak — both are "dentistry," and the Federal Circuit reads analogous art broadly when the references address the same problem of fabricating a custom dental object from digitized anatomy. The "automatic" argument is materially stronger and is the reason claim 1 is likely to survive a § 103 attack even though claims 3–23 are exposed. On that limitation, the decisive point is that there is no separate inventive concept in "automatic" — once the computation is reduced to software (which the '243 itself does with a PC clone running off-the-shelf CAD software), automating a sequence of trigonometric and curve-fitting steps is KSR's paradigm of "ordinary innovation." But note the doctrinal discomfort: the very same Federal Circuit that read "automatically" in as a limitation held the claims non-enabled precisely because the automatic determination was not achieved. A patentee cannot simultaneously argue the limitation is enabled and that it is non-obvious over art that lacks it without courting inconsistency.

One caution for the analyst: non-enablement and obviousness are independent grounds. A prior-art combination that discloses "automatic determination" is not softened by the enablement holding; conversely, the enablement holding does not supply an obviousness rationale. Do not let the two doctrines contaminate each other in the written analysis.

6. Summary table — combinations and confidence

Single-reference shortcut (for claim 11 in particular): a 4- or 5-axis CNC milling machine with an indexable workholder and a translating cutter head, under programmed control, reads directly on claim 11's "holder and forming means mounted on a stand … means for angularly orienting the holder … and means for translating the forming means … in response to the control signal." Claim 11 alone may be anticipated rather than merely obvious if such a machine is applied to a bracket blank — that is a § 102 question worth developing separately.

7. Bottom line

1. On the verified record (Rekow '87 and Leinfelder '89 alone), the '243's hardware architecture — scanner, programmed computer, machine-controlled fabricator — is squarely in the prior art for dental CAD/CAM. The only genuine question is the orthodontic-specific content.
2. Adding Lemchen US 5,011,405 / Re.35,169 (third-party orthodontic bracket-placement computation) supplies the missing orthodontic element and completes a strong same-field § 103 combination for claims 1, 3, and 24. This is the pivotal reference — and the one I could not confirm is actually on the '243 face, nor confirm its ownership for § 103(c) purposes.
3. Claims 11 and 14–21 are the most exposed. They recite standard multi-axis NC mechanics, G-code arc segmentation, and closed-loop/springback compensation, and the specification itself admits the components are commercially available.
4. Claim 1 (and claim 2) is the patent's best defensive ground, solely because of the judicially imposed "automatic" limitation. Absent art teaching automatic finish-position determination, claim 1 has a real (if uneasy, given the enablement history) non-obviousness argument.
5. Do not overlook § 103(c). The overwhelming majority of references that appear in the '243's citation neighborhood are Ormco's own commonly-owned Andreiko family and are statutorily unusable in a § 103 combination. An analysis that ignores this is defective on its face.

8. Verification gaps I am expressly flagging

1. The complete "References Cited" list from the '243 face was not obtained. My tool budget was exhausted mid-retrieval. Only Rekow (1987) and Leinfelder (1989) are confirmed as of record (source: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/5683243.html). Everything else is Tier 2/3.
2. Examiner identity remains unresolved and I am not resolving it: FreePatentsOnline says "WEHNER, CARY ELLEN"; EveryPatent says "O'Connor, Cary E." (consistent with the earlier Patent summary caveat).
3. Ownership of the Lemchen art is unverified. If US 5,011,405 / Re.35,169 is commonly owned with Ormco or qualifies only under § 102(e), Combination A/B loses its linchpin.
4. US 5,278,756's filing date is unverified, so I cannot say whether it qualifies as § 102(e) art against a Nov. 9, 1992 priority date.
5. I did not verify that the dental CAD/CAM patents of Duret (e.g., 4,663,720, 5,019,180), Moermann (4,575,805), or van der Zel (4,937,928) were of record on the '243 face. I deliberately did not insert them into the combinations above, though they are the era's foundational dental CAD/CAM art and would strengthen the "scanner + computer + NC machine" showing if confirmed.
6. Claim 24's full text is truncated at the "appliance engaging surface having the same location relative to the…" clause (source: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/US5683243A). The mappings for claims 25–28 are therefore inferential.

No patent number or identifier above has been auto-corrected; all appear exactly as retrieved.