US 6772026

I'll search for information on US patent 6772026, including any litigation activity.

Let me search for litigation and claim details.

Let me look specifically for the claim language of this patent.

Summary: US Patent 6,772,026 B2

Sourcing note: I was able to confirm the bibliographic data and abstract against Google Patents and the patent family records. The full specification text I was given is truncated before the claims section, so I could not retrieve the verbatim claim language. My claim overviews below are an informed reconstruction — see the caveat at the end.

Bibliographic data (confirmed)

Assignment chain of record: Therics, Inc. → AFBS, Inc. (2005, change of name) → Therics, LLC (2005, assignment) → Theken Spine, LLC (2012, merger). A 2015 security interest was recorded by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. over Theken Spine, LLC and affiliated SeaSpine entities.

Abstract (per the EP/WO family record)

"A method of rapid design and manufacture of biomedical devices using electronic data and modeling transmissions, wherein such transmissions are transferred via a computer network. The method includes capturing patient-specific diagnostic imaged data, converting the data to a digital computer file, transmitting the converted data via the computer network to a remote manufacturing site, converting the computer file into a multi-dimensional model and then into machine instructions, and constructing the biomedical implant. The present invention is further directed to the preparation of rapid-prototyped pharmaceutical forms, including oral dosage pills and implantable pharmaceuticals, with transmittal of such data over computer networks being used to significantly increase the cost effectiveness and responsiveness, and is further directed to the use of a website to perform various client-interaction and follow-up tasks."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Full claim text was not available to me, so the following is reconstructed from the specification, figures, and the prosecuting-family abstract, not quoted from the granted claims. The patent's disclosure (FIGS. 1–13; method 100 at FIGS. 2A–2B; data-flow at FIGS. 3A–3B and 4) strongly indicates a small number of independent claims, roughly as follows:

1. Independent method claim — remote, network-based custom design/manufacture of a biomedical device. In plain terms: obtain patient-specific diagnostic image data (e.g., MRI/CT) at a clinical site; convert it to a digital file; transmit it over a computer network to a remote design/manufacturing site; there convert the file into a multi-dimensional (3D) digital model; convert that model into machine instructions; and build the biomedical device (e.g., via three-dimensional printing / CAM). The specification emphasizes iterative exchange between the clinical and host sites — sending the model back for review, receiving modification requests, re-sending until the physician approves, then manufacturing to the approved model — and adds security measures (encryption, password protection, digital certificates) on the transmissions.

2. Independent apparatus/system claim — the networked design-and-manufacture system. In plain terms: a client computing system at a diagnostic site coupled over a network to a host system (server plus CAD workstation, FIG. 1) configured to receive the patient data, generate and revise the digital model, obtain approval, and drive an output device such as the 3D printer 69 to produce the device.

3. Possible independent claim(s) directed to the "best-fit selection" alternative. FIGS. 3A–3B disclose an alternate branch in which the multi-dimensional digital model is compared against a library of pre-existing designs or in-stock devices, and a device is selected on a best-fit basis (steps 330–326) rather than being custom-manufactured. If claimed, this would read as a selection/comparison method or a system capable of either custom manufacture or best-fit selection.

4. Possible independent claim(s) covering the article/computer-readable medium, i.e., a stored multi-dimensional digital model or a set of machine instructions generated by the above process.

Note also the breadth of the disclosed subject matter: structural implants (cranial plugs, mandible onlays, orbital implants, spine cage inserts, croutons/wedges/sheets, etc.), implantable drug-delivery devices, "surgical leave-behinds," tissue scaffolds, and oral dosage forms — plus the FIG. 4 secure website 400 handling patient profiles, model storage, client interaction, and back-office/inventory functions.

The CAPTCHA/litigation question

I searched for Federal Circuit 2026 dockets and USPTO activity involving patent 6,772,026 specifically. I found no Federal Circuit appeal, ITC action, or 2026 docket naming US 6,772,026. Searches returned only unrelated 2026 Federal Circuit matters (e.g., Ascendis Pharma v. BioMarin, Fed. Cir. No. 2026-0327; Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., Fed. Cir. No. 2026-2012), neither of which involves this patent. This is unsurprising: the patent's term expired 2021-09-26, which makes 2026 appellate litigation on it unlikely. I want to be explicit that the absence of a hit is a negative search result, not proof of absence — I cannot rule out a 2026 proceeding that is not well indexed.

Confidence caveats

• High confidence: patent number, title, inventors, assignee/history, filing date, issue date, priority date, expiry, and abstract.
• Lower confidence: the exact number of independent claims and their precise wording. The claim text was not in the material available to me, and the identical specification was filed in multiple jurisdictions (WO 01/77988, EP 1 312 025), whose granted claims may differ from the US claims. Do not treat the numbered overviews above as verbatim claim language. If you need authoritative claim text for an infringement or validity analysis, pull the granted claims directly from USPTO Patent Center / the issued patent PDF (US 6,772,026 B2, 20+ claims area) rather than relying on this summary.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 6772026 across patent litigation databases.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Litigation Search Results — US Patent 6,772,026

Bottom line: I found no evidence of any litigation involving US Patent 6,772,026. I was unable to identify any case (district court, ITC, or CAFC appeal) in which this patent was asserted.

Searches performed

I ran multiple searches across the open web and patent-litigation aggregator surfaces, including:

• General queries for "6772026 litigation" and "6772026 patent lawsuit"
• A query aimed at the Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) and its content
• A query targeting district-court infringement complaints referencing the number
• A query for the comma-formatted serial "6,772,026"

None returned a case in which 6,772,026 appears as an asserted patent, and no case-specific docket records surfaced. The only hits for the number were citation hits — i.e., later patents (e.g., US 8,483,469 and US 10,441,298 on Justia) that list "6772026 | August 3, 2004 | Bradbury et al." in their references-cited tables, plus unrelated Therics/Theken corporate documents.

Why I am reporting "none found" rather than a confirmed "no litigation exists"

Two important caveats:

1. I could not directly load the Unified Patents caselist or a PACER/CAFC docket for this number in this session. The Unified Patents search returned an unrelated Unified Patent Court (UPC) order concerning EP 2 590 626 — a different patent and different numbering system entirely. Under the strict rule, I treat that as unrelated, not as a match for US 6,772,026.
2. Aggregator coverage (especially Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, RPX, and PACER's full-text) is not fully exposed to general web search, so an obscure or long-closed suit could be missed. This is a coverage limitation, not affirmative evidence of no suits.

Context that may explain the absence of litigation

• Status: Google Patents lists 6,772,026 as "Expired – Lifetime," with an adjusted expiration of 2021-09-26. An expired patent cannot be asserted for prospective injunctive relief, which sharply reduces litigation incentive.
• Ownership chain: Original assignee Therics, Inc. → AFBS, Inc. (2005) → Therics, LLC (2005) → Theken Spine, LLC (2012) → and a 2015 security interest granted to Wells Fargo Bank involving Theken Spine, LLC and the SeaSpine-related entities. No assignment record indicates transfer to a patent-assertion entity, which is the profile typically associated with litigation.
• I also note the parent/family matter referenced on the face of the record — priority claimed from US 09/828,504 and a related continuation published as US 2004/0243481A1 (from US 10/882,449). If you want, I can search those family members as well, since an assertion sometimes targets a sibling patent rather than the '026 itself.

Requested case table

Recommended next steps for a definitive check

If you need a certified negative, the authoritative sources to pull directly are:

1. PACER Case Locator / Docket Navigator — full-text party and patent-number search.
2. Unified Patents litigation caselist — search by patent number rather than general web query.
3. CAFC docket search — to catch any appeal that could reference the patent.
4. USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) — confirm no IPR/PGR involving the '026 (an IPR would not be "litigation" but is often a proxy and appears alongside suits).

If you'd like, tell me which of these you can access, and I'll help frame the exact search strings — or I can run additional targeted searches on the sibling patents in this family (US 2002/0059049A1, US 2004/0243481A1, and US 09/828,504).

I'll start by checking the canonical structured source against live web search, since the ODP data is the controlling list but the task asks me to flag anything it may have missed.

The first search surfaced a different '677 patent (Fractus's U.S. Patent No. 11,349,200 family) — not ours. Let me run targeted queries on our patent's identifiers and owner.

The web results consistently surface a different '677 patent (Fractus/Owens family) and unrelated Theken art — nothing tied to our patent. Let me run final confirmation queries on reexamination and any litigation/PTAB history.

I'll research the assignment record for US 6772026 using the available tools before compiling the report.

Let me dig deeper on the later chain (SeaSpine / Isotis) and try to locate reel/frame and correspondent records.

Let me check for litigation involving this patent and try to pin down reel/frame numbers and the correspondent.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 6,772,026 B2

Patent: US 6,772,026 B2 — "System and method for rapidly customizing design, manufacture and/or selection of biomedical devices"
App. No.: US 09/972,832 · Filed: 2001-10-05 · Issued: 2004-08-03 · Priority: 2000-04-05 (claimed from US 09/828,504)
Legal status: Expired – lifetime (adjusted expiration 2021-09-26)

Data provenance note (read before the findings). The authoritative patent text supplied to me contains Google Patents' "reassignment" event list for this patent but not reel/frame numbers or correspondents. I augmented it with primary documents: Tredegar Corporation's 2005 press release and the executed Intellectual Property Transfer Agreement, Unit Purchase Agreement and Payment Agreement dated June 30, 2005 (Tredegar investor site), Integra LifeSciences' Form 8-K filed 2008-07-24, and SeaSpine's Credit Agreement dated 2015-12-24. Reel/frame was recoverable for the 2015 security interest only (from sibling-patent legal events). I could not retrieve the recorded correspondent of record for any link in this chain. I did not have live query access to Assignment Center in this session, so gaps are flagged rather than filled.

Inventors

Pattern notes. All six are named as assignors on the 2002-02-20 recording assigning to THERICS, INC., which is consistent with all six being Therics personnel at filing rather than outside counsel or a separate research entity. There is no evidence of a mass inventor exodus within 12 months of filing — the fire-sale pattern you normally flag did not occur here. The opposite happened: Peter A. Materna stayed with the asset across the 2005 divestiture and surfaces again as a named inventor on a later Theken Spine, LLC patent (US 8,545,562, "Deployable member for use with an intervertebral cage," filed 2010-03-31, assignee Theken Spine, LLC, Akron, OH). That continuity (inventor tracks the technology through the divestiture) is a negative signal for NPE staging.

Original assignee

THERICS, INC., a Virginia corporation, Princeton, New Jersey. Therics was a subsidiary of Tredegar Corporation (NYSE: TG) of Richmond, Virginia. Primary line of business: developer/marketer of orthobiologic products — three-dimensional printing of biomedical devices (the patents it took as licenses include the three-dimensional printing family U.S. 5,204,055 / 5,387,380 / 5,807,437 et al., all incorporated by reference in the 6,772,026 specification).

Product embodying the claims: partial. Tredegar's own July 1, 2005 press release describes the orthobiologic line as "in the initial stages of commercialization," with no assurance products could be brought to market. So Therics was operating but commercially immature — not a mature operating company with an entrenched product line, which is exactly why it was sellable at a loss.

Current status of the original assignee: Dissolved as a name — renamed. Effective June 30, 2005, Therics, Inc. changed its corporate name to AFBS, Inc. (a Virginia corporation) and survived only as the seller entity holding the right to deferred payments on the IP, with an express contractual acknowledgement that AFBS had "no interest of any kind" in the transferred intellectual property. Therics, Inc. as such no longer exists; AFBS, Inc. is the entity that still appears in Google Patents' "current assignee" field, but only as the residual of the change-of-name record, not as an owner of the patent.

Assignment timeline

All events below are from Google Patents' recorded reassignment list for US 6,772,026, cross-checked against the underlying transaction documents. Reel/frame is stated only where I retrieved it (2015 security interest). The other recordings' reel/frame numbers could not be pulled from my sources — flagged as [not retrieved] rather than guessed.

• Executed on/about 2001-10-05 (filing) / recorded 2002-02-20 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Fairweather, James A.; Materna, Peter A.; Gaylo, Christopher M.; Bradbury, Thomas J.; Chesmel, Kathleen D.; Youssef, Adolphe (all six inventors, jointly)
  • Assignee: THERICS, INC., Princeton, NJ
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Initial assignment to the employer — normal inventor-to-company conveyance; no third-party involvement.

• Executed 2005-06-30 / recorded 2005-07-01 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Change of Name (not a transfer of ownership)
  • Assignor: THERICS, INC.
  • Assignee: AFBS, INC. (Virginia corporation, f/k/a Therics, Inc.)
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]. The change-of-name certificate was delivered "to facilitate recordation" and the recordation fees were contractually borne by Therics, LLC — i.e., the buyer paid for the seller's own name-change filing, which is the tell of a divestiture closing rather than an internal housekeeping reorg.
  • Context: Corporate renaming done as the first step of the Tredegar asset sale — the seller entity was stripped to a renamed shell (AFBS) so the operating name "Therics" could be reused by the buyer's new company.

• Executed 2005-06-30 / recorded 2005-07-07 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (IP Transfer Agreement, Section 2.1)
  • Assignor: AFBS, INC. (formerly Therics, Inc.)
  • Assignee: THERICS, LLC (Ohio limited liability company, controlled by Randall R. Theken)
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]. Transaction documents were executed at the offices of Hunton & Williams LLP, 951 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia; that is the deal-side counsel of record for the closing, not necessarily the recording correspondent.
  • Context: Fire-sale / distressed asset divestiture. Tredegar sold or assigned substantially all Therics assets to a Theken-controlled newco; Tredegar took a 17.5% equity interest in Therics, LLC and a 3.5% interest in Theken Spine, LLC, plus a deferred Payment Agreement in lieu of cash. AFBS's sole remedy on default was cash — it had no reversionary interest in the patents.

• Executed (integration effective) 2008-08-01 / merger recorded 2012-02-10 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: THERICS, LLC
  • Assignee: THEKEN SPINE, LLC (Ohio limited liability company)
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Internal reorganization. Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corporation acquired all three Theken companies — Theken Spine, LLC, Theken Disc, LLC and Therics, LLC — for $75M cash ($47M / $20M / $8M respectively) plus up to $125M earn-out, per Integra's Form 8-K of 2008-07-24. The later-recorded 2012 merger folded the Therics, LLC IP-holding subsidiary into the operating manufacturer, Theken Spine, LLC. Note the ~3.5-year lag between the acquisition (2008) and the recorded merger (2012) — a housekeeping consolidation, not a transactional transfer.

• Executed 2015-12-24 / recorded 2015-12-28 — Reel 037393/0895

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (patent security agreement securing a credit facility)
  • Assignor / Grantors: SeaSpine Holdings Corporation; SeaSpine Orthopedics Corporation; SeaSpine, Inc.; IsoTis, Inc.; SeaSpine Sales LLC; Theken Spine, LLC; IsoTis OrthoBiologics, Inc. (all as joint-and-several borrowers)
  • Assignee: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as administrative agent
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]. A SeaSpine-side assignment record in the same family carries a correspondent address in Chicago, IL 60603; I could not capture the correspondent name, so I am not treating this as a reconcilable identifier.
  • Context: Securitization / collateral filing, not an ownership change. Reel 037393/0895 is the Patent Security Agreement supporting the December 24, 2015 Credit Agreement among the seven SeaSpine/Theken/IsoTis borrowers and Wells Fargo as agent — a $30,000,000 revolver maturing December 24, 2018 with a one-year extension option. Theken Spine, LLC remained the owner; it pledged the patent as collateral. (Confirmed as the same reel on sibling family patents US 7,794,499, US 8,097,036 and US 8,506,636.)
  • Downstream, unconfirmed for this patent: Sibling SeaSpine patents also reflect a Second Amendment to Patent Security Agreement, reel 060715/0395 (2022-07-15), and a Release by Secured Party from Wells Fargo, reel 062336/0593 (2023-01-05). I did not confirm either instrument is recorded against US 6,772,026 specifically — Google Patents' legal-event list for this patent stops at the 2015-12-28 entry. Treat as unverified.

If Assignment Center's post-2015 history for this patent comes back empty, the reading is: the 2015 lien was discharged administratively, ownership never left Theken Spine, LLC, and no assignment of the patent was ever made to a third party. That is itself a finding — see the verdict.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6772026
    2001 : Filed by six Therics inventors
    2002 : Assigned to Therics Inc
    2004 : Patent issued
    2005 : Therics Inc renamed AFBS Inc
         : Assets sold to Therics LLC
    2008 : Integra buys Theken and Therics
    2012 : Merged into Theken Spine LLC
    2015 : Theken Spine joins SeaSpine
         : Wells Fargo security interest
    2021 : Patent expired
    2023 : SeaSpine merges with Orthofix

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present (with one caveat). There is a renamed shell in the chain: Therics, Inc. → AFBS, Inc. on 2005-06-30. But the tell points the wrong way for an NPE. (a) The shell never held the patent — the IP Transfer Agreement and Payment Agreement expressly state AFBS "has no interest of any kind" in the transferred IP; AFBS was a payment-stream vehicle, not a licensing vehicle. (b) The patent went to Therics, LLC, a company with a real orthobiologics product line and an actual manufacturing operation, not a Delaware/Texas licensing-only LLC. (c) There is no "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix anywhere in the chain, no registered-agent-service address, and no single-purpose entity. Caveat: I could not verify the principals' addresses or the existence of a single-member structure from any recording, so this is a "not present on the record before me," not a "proven absent."

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. The complete chain is Therics, Inc. → AFBS, Inc. → Therics, LLC → Theken Spine, LLC → (lien: Wells Fargo). None of Acacia, Marathon Patent Group, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or any Spangenberg-linked entity appears at any reel or in any transaction document. Every named assignee is a manufacturer or a bank.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / unverifiable. This is the signal I most wanted and could least support. I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for the 2002-02-20, 2005-07-01, 2005-07-07, or 2012-02-10 recordings, and I could not capture the correspondent name on the 2015 SeaSpine-side security-interest record (only its Chicago, IL 60603 address). I am recording this as unverified rather than inferring recurrence from the Chicago address, because a single address is not a recurrence finding and because SeaSpine's law firm would inevitably appear on both NPE and operating-company work. Note the structural point for whatever this is worth: on the 2005 pair of recordings the buyer (Therics, LLC) was contractually responsible for paying the recordation fees and for chasing the seller's papers, so the same filing agent plausibly handled both 2005 reel entries — explainable by the closing, not by an NPE operator.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are two recordings six days apart in July 2005 (2005-07-01 change-of-name; 2005-07-07 assignment), but that is a single closing step-sequence (a required name-change certificate followed by the assignment), not a chained-LLC hopscotch. The gaps between the remaining links are ~7 years (2005→2012) and ~3.8 years (2012→2015). No two consecutive ownership transfers occurred inside 24 months.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. I found no infringement litigation naming US 6,772,026, so there is no assignment within six months preceding a first suit, and none of the recordings cluster near any filing date of which I am aware. Reinforcing this: the patent expired 2021-09-26, so even a late-staged transfer could not support past-damages assertion now.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. The 2005 disposition was a strategic divestiture of an unprofitable subsidiary (Therics had a $9.1M trailing-12-month operating loss; Tredegar took a ~$10M charge), not a Chapter 7/11 sale. No bankruptcy proceeding appears for Therics, Inc., Tredegar, Theken Spine, Integra, or SeaSpine in any of the documents reviewed. The 2005 IP Transfer Agreement's elaborate anti-encumbrance language (Section 2.3 / Payment Agreement (b)-(d)) was drafted to keep the IP out of the seller's estate — the opposite of estate-asset distribution.

7. Privateering — not present. No evidence that an operating company retained the patent while an NPE asserted it on its behalf. The opposite structure appears: a genuine sale with deferred consideration to a competitor-adjacent operating buyer (Randall R. Theken's orthopedic group), which is what a strategic asset acquisition looks like, not privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or Open Invention Network. The 2015 Wells Fargo entry (reel 037393/0895) is a bank collateral lien, categorically not a defensive-aggregation transfer. Ownership, so far as the record shows, remains with Theken Spine, LLC, now an operating subsidiary within the Orthofix Medical / SeaSpine corporate group.

Verdict

Insufficient data.

The ownership chain itself is well documented and contains zero NPE indicators: five recorded events spanning 2002–2015, every assignee an operating medical-device manufacturer or a bank, and no recorded correspondent that I could retrieve for any link — so the single most probative forensic field requested (correspondent recurrence) is genuinely blank, and reel/frame is blank for four of the five events. The categories also do not cleanly fit: this is neither an "operating-company assertion" (I found no litigation asserting the patent, and no verified product that embodies its claims) nor "defensive / non-asserting" (the chain terminates at an operating manufacturer and a lender, not at RPX/AST/LOT/Unified). On the evidence available, this is a distressed-divestiture chain — Therics, Inc. → AFBS, Inc. change of name 2005-06-30, then assignment to Therics, LLC 2005-07-07, merger into Theken Spine, LLC recorded 2012-02-10, and a Wells Fargo security interest at reel 037393/0895 on 2015-12-28 — not a troll chain. The remaining uncertainty is evidentiary, not substantive: no correspondent data, no reel/frame for the pre-2015 links, and no confirmation whether seaSpine's 2022 amendment (reel 060715/0395) and 2023 release (reel 062336/0593) were ever recorded against this specific patent.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (legacy interface: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) — search patent 6,772,026. The entries to look for are the 2002-02-20 inventor assignment, the 2005-07-01 change of name to AFBS, Inc., the 2005-07-07 assignment to Therics, LLC, the 2012-02-10 merger into Theken Spine, LLC, and Wells Fargo reel 037393/0895; pull the correspondent of record on each and check whether a post-2015 release exists, which would close the last open question.

I'll research US patent 6772026 and its cited prior art references.

Let me get the specific prior art citations listed on the face of US6772026.

Based on my research, here is my analysis. Note: I have reached the limit of available search steps, so I'll present what I could verify from the authoritative patent text plus search results, and I will flag clearly where the record is incomplete.

Prior Art Analysis — US Patent No. 6,772,026

Part 1 — Patent Identification (interpreted literally)

The patent is a continuation-in-part of US 09/828,504 (filed Apr. 5, 2001, published as US 2002/0007294 A1) and claims priority to provisional 60/194,965 (filed Apr. 5, 2000). The PCT counterpart is WO 01/77988 A2; the EP counterpart is EP 1 312 025 A2. These are family members / related applications, not prior art against 6772026.

Part 2 — Patent Citations

⚠️ Important limitation

I was not able to retrieve the complete, authoritative face-of-patent "References Cited" (56) list for US 6,772,026 from the USPTO or Google Patents within the available searches. I will therefore (A) present the references explicitly cited inside the patent text (these are verifiable and authoritative), (B) note the family/related applications, and (C) present the front-page-style references that surfaced in search results with an explicit caveat about provenance.

A. References cited within the patent specification (authoritative — from the patent text you supplied)

These fall into two groups.

A.1 — Three-dimensional printing technique patents (cited as "all hereby incorporated by reference," column describing the 3-D printing manufacturing method):

A.2 — Telemedicine / medical-image transmission patents (cited in the "Definitions" section as teaching transmission of visual/diagnostic information to remote sites):

Caveat: I am confident these two numbers appear in the patent text, but I did not verify the exact titles/assignees of US 6,027,217 or US 5,655,084, so I am describing them only as the specification characterizes them.

B. Related applications (family — not prior art)

• US 2002/0007294 A1 (parent CIP application 09/828,504)
• US 2004/0243481 A1 (later continuation)
• WO 01/77988 A2 / EP 1 312 025 A2

C. References that appear in search results as "References Cited" — provenance uncertain

Search results surfaced a "Referenced Cited" table listing:
US 5,098,383 (Hemmy, 1992); US 5,365,996 (Crook, 1994); US 5,452,407 (Crook, 1995); US 5,768,134 (Swaelens et al., 1998); US 5,871,018 (Delp, 1999); US 5,885,296 (Masini, 1999); US 6,112,109 (D'Urso, 2000); along with later patents (6,205,411; 6,254,639; 6,295,513; 6,327,491; 6,381,029; 6,463,351; 6,503,249; 6,772,026; 6,786,930; …).

This table was retrieved from the page for a different patent (Justia 2007/7983777 and FPO 8,945,230), not from US 6,772,026 itself. The presence of many post-2000 references (including 6772026 itself) proves it cannot be the face-of-'026 list. The pre-April-2000 subset (5,098,383 → 6,112,109) plausibly overlaps with '026's examiner citations, but I could not confirm that, so I treat it as unverified.

Part 3 — § 102 Anticipation Analysis

For a reference to anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it must disclose every element of that claim in a single reference. The claims of US 6,772,026 (see e.g. claims 50–66 of US 2002/0059049 A1) generally require a combination of:

1. capturing patient-specific radiological data (MRI/CT);
2. transmitting it over a computer network (securely) to a remote host;
3. creating a multi-dimensional digital model and modifying it (adding structure not in the radiological data);
4. iterative client↔host modification/approval;
5. converting to machine instructions and manufacturing (e.g., 3-D printing); and/or best-fit selection from stock.

3.1 The 3-D printing patents (5,204,055; 5,387,380; 5,807,437; 5,340,656; 5,490,882; 5,814,161; 5,490,962; 5,518,680; 5,869,170)

• Potential § 102 relevance: These disclose the layered powder/binder manufacturing step and the generation of build instructions from a model. They could arguably anticipate the narrowest apparatus/method claims directed solely to the "creating machine instructions / constructing the biomedical device by 3-D printing" step.
• They do NOT anticipate the independent claims, because none discloses the patient-specific radiological-data capture, the remote-network transmission, the iterative modification/approval loop, or the best-fit selection features. These are more properly § 103 combination art (3-D printing + medical imaging).
• Confidence: Moderate on the manufacturing-step point; high that they do not anticipate the full workflow claims.

3.2 Telemedicine patents (6,027,217; 5,655,084)

• Potential § 102 relevance: They disclose transmission of diagnostic/visual medical information to remote sites — i.e., element (2) in isolation. They could arguably anticipate a claim drawn only to remote transmission of diagnostic data.
• They do NOT anticipate the independent claims, which require the radiological data to be converted into a multi-dimensional device model, modified collaboratively, approved, and manufactured/selected.
• Confidence: Low-to-moderate, and I did not verify these references' actual content.

3.3 The unverified front-page references (Crook 5,365,996 / 5,452,407; Swaelens 5,768,134; Hemmy 5,098,383; D'Urso 6,112,109; etc.)

If indeed these are the examiner citations on '026, they are the most relevant prior art because they concern custom orthopedic/medical devices generated from CT/image data:

• US 5,098,383 (Hemmy) — 3-D surface reconstruction from multiple planar (CT) contours → relevant to element (3). Could arguably anticipate claims limited to generating a 3-D model from scan data.
• US 5,365,996 / 5,452,407 (Crook) — making customized fixation plates/articles from image data → relevant to elements (3)–(5).
• US 5,768,134 (Swaelens et al.) — perfected medical model from digital body-image information → the strongest single-reference candidate against model-generation claims.
• US 6,112,109 (D'Urso) — image-guided surgical modeling/implants.
• Each alone still likely fails to disclose the networked, interactive, remotely-manufactured customization workflow, so these are best characterized as § 103 primary references, not clean § 102 anticipators of the independent claims.
• Confidence: Low — I could not confirm these are on '026's face, so I do not assert they anticipate any specific claim.

3.4 Provisional / parent applications

US 60/194,965 and US 09/828,504 are the patent's own priority documents. Under § 102(e)/§ 102(b) they cannot be "prior art against" the claims to the extent they support the same invention (they are the patentee's own earlier filings). Not anticipatory.

Part 4 — Bottom Line

1. No single cited reference appears to anticipate the independent claims of US 6,772,026. The patent's novelty lies in the integrated workflow (radiological capture → secure network transmission → iterative collaborative digital-model modification → approval → 3-D printing/best-fit selection → optional Website-based record-keeping). No cited reference duplicates that full combination.
2. The references split cleanly into two families that each cover only one element of the claims:

• 3-D printing art (Sachs/Cima et al. patents) → manufacturing step;
• telemedicine art (6,027,217; 5,655,084) → transmission step.

1. The (likely) front-page references — Hemmy 5,098,383, Crook 5,365,996/5,452,407, Swaelens 5,768,134, D'Urso 6,112,109 — are the best candidates for § 103 obviousness combinations (image-derived custom implants) and would be my recommended focus if challenging claims, but I could not verify their presence on the '026 face and therefore do not assert § 102 anticipation for any specific claim.

Explicit Caveats (per operating rules)

• I did not auto-correct any number. Every identifier above is reported as found.
• I could not retrieve the definitive USPTO face-of-patent citation list for US 6,772,026; the "References Cited" set I found came from other patents' pages and includes post-2000 documents inconsistent with '026's priority date. Treat items in Part 2.C as unverified.
• Web results did not contradict my prior understanding, but they also did not supply the missing front-page data; where I am unsure (titles/assignees of 6,027,217, 5,655,084, and the exact examiner citations), I say so rather than fabricate.

If you can supply the USPTO PatentCenter "References Cited" section (or the front page of the patent PDF at http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/8c/0f/14/5f85560d980c20/US6772026.pdf), I can map each cited reference element-by-element to the specific claims it potentially anticipates.

Preliminary flags (read first)

1. I do not have a "Prior Art section" for this page in my context. The only previously generated section I was given is the PTAB challenges section, which reports that no PTAB/reexam history tied to this '677 patent surfaced. Repeated searches likewise did not return the examiner's "References Cited" list for US 6,772,026 itself (search kept collapsing onto the Fractus/Owens '677, ConforMIS, and Theken assignee records). So the prior-art universe below is reconstructed from three sources I can verify:

• references cited on the face of the specification itself (US 6,772,026, Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/US6772026/en);
• the Official Gazette claim text for this patent (Indiana Virtual Disk Library mirror of OG Issue 1285-1: https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/[5628977](/patent/5628977)/FID3294/OG/html/1285-1/us06772026-20040803.html);
• the CPC/indexing codes assigned to the patent, which tell us what art area the examiners treated as pertinent.

If a true "Prior Art" section exists elsewhere in this report, the analysis below should be reconciled against it. I have not invented reference numbers to fill the gap; where I rely on memory of a reference's content rather than text I actually retrieved, I say so.

2. Claims. The OG record states 5 claims and reproduces claim 1 only. I have not retrieved the text of claims 2–5 and will not fabricate it. Claim 1 is the only claim I can analyze element-by-element:

1. A method for customized design of anatomically correct implants for a patient, comprising:
   — receiving radiological data representing a physical structure of an anatomical body part that is to be replaced, repaired or augmented;
   — creating a multi-dimensional digital model of at least a portion of the anatomical body part based on the received radiological data; and
   — modifying the multi-dimensional digital model to create at least a first successive multi-dimensional model wherein modifying the multi-dimensional digital model includes adjusting a material density gradation through at least a portion of the multi-dimensional digital model based on a representative material density gradation of similar anatomical body parts, and wherein the first successive multi-dimensional model represents at least one physical characteristic of the anatomical body part not represented in the radiological data.

The elements in bold are the only genuinely narrowing limitations, and they decide the § 103 question.

3. Date discrepancy (non-material but noted): the task header says April 26, 2026; the environment clock says 2026-10-01. Neither changes the analysis. Legal status: Expired – Lifetime, adjusted expiration 2021-09-26, so § 103 is now only relevant in a collateral validity/valuation/damages context, not infringement.

I. Governing law

• Application 09/972,832 was filed Oct. 5, 2001 as a CIP of 09/828,504 (filed Apr. 5, 2001), claiming the Apr. 5, 2000 provisional 60/194,965. That makes this a pre-AIA case: pre-AIA §§ 102/103, Graham v. John Deere, and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (2007) all apply if the patent is tested today.
• Critical-date caveat with real teeth: claim 1's distinguishing limitation is the density-gradation-based-on-a-representative-(population)-gradation step. The patent issued Aug. 3, 2004 as the CIP. If that limitation is new matter added in the 2001 CIP, its effective filing date is Oct. 5, 2001, not Apr. 5, 2000, which pulls a materially larger body of art (2000–2001) into § 102(a)/(e). Google Patents labels the "prior art date" as 2000-04-05, but that is a priority assumption. I could not retrieve the parent disclosure (US 2002/0007294 A1) to confirm support, so I flag this as the single biggest open question for a real invalidity contention: check whether the "representative material density gradation of similar anatomical body parts" language has § 112 support in 09/828,504. Notably, the spec's own enabling passage for that idea (see § III.C below) reads like late-added text.

II. Element chart — claim 1 against the reconstructed art

III. The reference universe

A. Scan-data → surface/solid-model art

Verified in the specification: the patent explains that CT/MRI slices are segmented by thresholding and geometric algorithms using the MIMICS package, that edges are fitted with curves/splines/NURBS, and that the result "essentially becomes just another data set or mathematical object capable of being further processed or manipulated by standard CAD software." In other words, the patent's own background concedes elements (a) and (b) of claim 1 as known.

Outside art I am reasonably (not fully) confident of, flagged as memory-based: US 5,768,134 (Swaelens et al., Materialise) — making bone/joint models from CT data (this number appears in the reference list of US 11,007,070, retrieved above, confirming it exists and is in this field); US 5,741,215 (D'Urso) — also appears in that same reference list; US 4,436,684 (White) — CT-based bone-structure modeling. I did not retrieve the front pages of these three, so their content is asserted from training knowledge with correspondingly lower confidence.

B. Additive manufacturing / solid free-form fabrication (SFF) of medical devices

Verified in the specification: US 5,204,055; 5,387,380; 5,807,437; 5,340,656; 5,490,882; 5,814,161; 5,490,962; 5,518,680; 5,869,170 (all incorporated by reference as 3-D printing). The last three (Cima et al.) are the family directed to preparing medical devices by solid free-form fabrication — i.e., the art of building biomedical implants by ink-jet/binder deposition. The spec also concedes that "composition variation can be implemented in three-dimensional printing… by dispensing various different binder liquids from different dispensers," and that porosity, internal architecture, surface-modifying comb polymers, growth factors and DNA can all be designed in as variables.

Why this matters: the only way to physically realize "a material density gradation through at least a portion of" an anatomical model is layer-wise local control of binder/material — precisely what Cima/Sachs teach. The patent's own § 112 disclosure of "gradation of bone density or porosity along one or more directions" is an admission that this capability existed.

C. The density-gradation limitation — the crux, and the patent's own admission

The specification states, verbatim (Google Patents text):

"Patient information such as gender, age, weight or height may be used to select certain characteristics using histographic or demographic information. For example, the patient age and/or gender may be used to select an appropriate bone density or porosity from a database of demographic bone density or porosity information. The digital model can be modified to produce an appropriate bone density or porosity, and may even reflect a gradation of bone density or porosity along one or more directions."

That single paragraph maps almost 1:1 onto the bolded claim-1 limitation: a population/representative density value ("demographic…", "similar anatomical body parts") applied as a gradation through the model. Under § 103 an applicant's own background/admission characterizes the state of the art, and it is powerful — it means the only arguable invention is the bare idea of automating a step the applicant admits was a known design practice. Contemporaneous non-patent art in this space (QCT/DEXA normative bone-density databases, cadaveric porosity studies in craniofacial and mandibular reconstruction) supplies the "representative material density gradation of similar anatomical body parts."

D. Networked/remote design-manufacture and selection

Verified in the specification: US 6,027,217 and 5,655,084 (telemedicine; cited for transmitting visual information for remote diagnosis). The assignment of CPC G05B2219/35008 "WWW CAD, world wide design and manufacturing" and G16H40/67 (remote operation), G06Q30/0601 (e-shopping) to this patent confirm the examiners treated web-based CAD/CAM and online ordering as established art areas. Claim 1, however, contains no network limitation — so this art is only needed for dependent claims (or the separate best-fit-selection and Website aspects described in the spec).

IV. Obviousness combinations

Combination 1 (primary) — renders claim 1 obvious

Swaelens '134 (CT data → three-dimensional model of a bone, for producing a physical model/prosthesis) + Cima/Sachs SFF medical-device art ('962 / '680 / '170 / '055) + demographic/normative bone-density data practice (bone-densitometry reference databases and cadaveric porosity literature; alternatively, the applicant's own admitted practice).

Mapping: '134 supplies elements (a) and (b) and the "physical characteristic not in the radiological data" (a fabricated model includes designed-in surfaces/features absent from the scan). Cima/Sachs supply the ability to deposit different binders/materials at different voxel locations, i.e., to write a density/porosity gradient into the part. The density-database practice supplies the numeric values.

Motivation to combine (four independent rationales, any one sufficient under KSR):

1. The problem was known and articulated. The patent's own background describes ill-fitting implants, intra-operative grinding, and graft resorption. "Better fit → better fixation/ingrowth" is the express design goal; population bone-density/porosity data is the natural input to that goal because the patient's own density at the defect is unavailable (the spec says so).
2. Physiological rationale. Graded porosity/density is the classic answer to the competing needs of bone ingrowth (needs porosity) and load-bearing (needs density) and to stress-shielding. One of ordinary skill designing a load-bearing mandibular or cranial implant would consult normative bone architecture.
3. Same field, same problem, predictable result. All references are in the reconstructive-implant arts; SFF was commercially tethered to exactly this application (the applicant is Therics, itself an SFF company — and the examiner's own class string couples "Tomography," "Bone prosthesis," "CAD/CAM," and "3-D printing, layer of powder, add drops of binder" in one place).
4. "Design choice" / automation. Once a digital model exists and a manufacturing process permits per-voxel material control, computing a density gradient from a stored population table and applying it in CAD is a predictable, routine engineering step — the classic KSR "known technique applied to a known method, yielding predictable results."

Combination 2 — network/remote aspects (dependent claims and spec embodiments)

Combination 1 + US 6,027,217 / 5,655,084 (or web-CAD art per G05B2219/35008): motivation is reducing turnaround time and pooling scarce CAD/manufacturing resources at a central site — precisely the problem the spec identifies ("the required software and computer facilities may be… unavailable at an individual physician's office"). Transmitting IGES/STEP models over a network was conventional by 2000.

Combination 3 — best-fit selection embodiment

Combination 1 + conventional inventory/e-commerce art (per G06Q30/0601 + the spec's own Website discussion). Comparing a patient-derived model against a catalogue of standard designs and selecting on a best-fit basis is the § 103 poster child: it is "arranging old elements" (model comparison + catalogue lookup) where each element performs the same function it always did. Note the spec itself concedes selection-from-stock "does not provide all of the advantages of manufacturing completely customized parts" — an admission of predictability.

Combination 4 — the "characteristic not in the radiological data" element, standalone

Any scan-to-model reference + routine CAD feature art. Bone-screw holes, attachment flanges, surface texture, reference markers and machining/finishing allowances are all conventional mechanical-design features; the spec lists them as if unremarkable.

V. Counter-arguments the applicant/owner would raise, and how they fare

VI. Bottom line

• Claim 1 is, on the available record, reasonably likely to be invalid under § 103 as a combination of (i) CT/MRI-to-3D-model art (e.g., Swaelens '134-class), (ii) solid-free-form-fabrication medical-device art (US 5,490,962 / 5,518,680 / 5,869,170 / 5,204,055 — all cited in this very patent), and (iii) conventional population/normative bone density–porosity data. The motivation is supplied at least four independent ways, and the applicant's own specification admissions supply two claim elements as known.
• The single strongest non-obviousness redoubt is not the SFF or imaging elements but the phrase "based on a representative material density gradation of similar anatomical body parts." A § 103 attack should be built around art that expressly derives an implant's porosity/density profile from normative or cadaveric population bone data — not merely art showing a single uniform porosity.
• Two things must be resolved before any of this is relied on professionally: (1) the effective filing date of the density-gradation limitation (CIP new-matter question — potentially moves the critical date to 2001-10-05 and expands the art); and (2) the actual text of claims 2–5 and the examiner's References Cited list, neither of which I was able to retrieve. My searches returned the OG claim-1 text and the specification, but not the front-page reference list — I am reporting that gap rather than filling it.

Primary sources used: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6772026/en (specification, CPC, bibliographic data); https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/5628977/FID3294/OG/html/1285-1/us06772026-20040803.html (OG issue 1285-1, claim 1, 5 claims, 700/98, pre-AIA dates); https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf4/K040134.pdf (Therics product characteristics); https://patents.justia.com/patent/[10441298](/patent/10441298) and https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[8945230](/patent/8945230).html (forward-citation evidence). References whose content I asserted from training memory rather than retrieved text are expressly flagged as such in § III.A.