US 10750152

I'll research this patent across USPTO records and litigation dockets.

Let me get the actual claim language and check for CAFC 2026 activity.

I have strong bibliographic data. Now let me locate the exact independent claim language and confirm litigation/CAFC status.

US Patent 10,750,152 B2 — Summary

Scope note up front: I was able to verify the bibliographic data, abstract, continuity chain, and docket history below from multiple sources (Google Patents, Justia, Unified Patents). I was not able to retrieve the verbatim granted claim set of US 10,750,152 in this session — the claims portion of the Google Patents page was not returned by my fetches. So the claim overview below is a plain-language reconstruction grounded in the patent's own abstract and specification, and is flagged as such. I did not fabricate claim numbers or wording.

Bibliographic data

(Identifier note: I've kept these exactly as returned, including the small day-level discrepancies between Google Patents and Unified Patents — e.g., filing 4/3 vs. 4/2 and grant 8/18 vs. 8/17 — rather than silently normalizing them.)

Abstract (as granted)

"A system for determining the surface topology and associated color of at least a portion of a three-dimensional structure includes a hand-held device. A scanning system may be configured to provide depth data of the portion. An imaging system may be configured to provide two-dimensional color image data of the portion associated with the plurality of data points. A processor may be operably coupled to the hand-held device and configured to associate the depth data with the color image data."

Continuity / family

This is a long continuation-chain patent. Per its own Cross-Reference section, app. 16/840,267 is a continuation of 15/175,267 (filed 6/7/2016), which chains back through 14/755,171 (now US 9,404,740), 14/511,091 (US 9,101,433), 14/150,505 (US 8,885,175), 13/868,926 (US 8,675,207), 13/620,159 (US 8,451,456), 13/333,351 (US 8,363,228), 12/770,379 (US 8,102,538), 12/379,343 (US 7,724,378), 11/889,112 (US 7,511,829), and 11/154,520 (US 7,319,529, filed 6/17/2005), which claims §119(e) benefit of provisionals 60/580,109 and 60/580,108 (both filed 6/17/2004). The EPO lists an equivalent family (EP 1607064, "Method and apparatus for colour imaging a three-dimensional structure") sharing priority on the two 2004 provisionals, alongside sibling US grants including 10,728,519, 10,750,151, 10,764,557, 10,812,773, 10,924,722, 10,944,953, 11,418,770 and 11,528,468.

Plain-language overview of the independent claim(s)

Flagged as unverified reconstruction. Based on the granted abstract and the specification's summary, the independent claim(s) most likely cover a system (an apparatus claim) that combines:

1. a hand-held device;
2. a scanning system configured to produce depth data (3-D topology) for a portion of the structure (the spec describes this as confocal scanning, with a focal plane scanned in Z and spot-specific positions determined from peak returned intensity);
3. an imaging system configured to produce two-dimensional color image data for the same portion/data points; and
4. a processor operably coupled to the hand-held device and configured to associate the depth data with the color image data (the spec explains this is done by keeping the device spatially fixed so the 2-D color image and 3-D scan share the same X-Y frame of reference, enabling direct mapping rather than conformal mapping).

I cannot state the exact number of independent claims, their precise transitional language ("comprising"), or any narrower limitations (e.g., confocal optics, LED color illumination, dichroic coatings) without the granted claim text. Treat the above as a characterization, not a quotation.

Litigation / PTAB posture (as listed on Google Patents)

• US District Court, District of Delaware — case 1:20-cv-01492 (2020).
• US District Court, Western District of Texas — case 6:20-cv-00979.
• PTAB — IPR2021-01323, filed 2021, resolved by settlement (petitioner shown as Unified Patents via its litigation-data feed).
• Related family patents were also the subject of PTAB challenges by 3Shape A/S (e.g., IPR2021-01120), based on the family file history cited in that proceeding.

CAFC 2026 docket check

I searched for Federal Circuit activity in 2026 involving US 10,750,152 and found no CAFC 2026 docket naming this patent. The 2026 Federal Circuit Align-related activity I surfaced concerns different patents — e.g., Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology (Nos. 2024-2270 and the 2025-1879 appeals) addressing the '248 and '945 patents and IPRs, not the '152 patent. Given the '152 patent's anticipated expiration on June 17, 2025 and its "Expired – Lifetime" status, an active 2026 CAFC appeal over its claims would be unusual. If a 2026 CAFC docket for 10,750,152 exists, I could not confirm it and would need a targeted Docket Alarm / CourtListener / CAFC CM/ECF query to verify.

Uncertainty summary

• High confidence: number, title, inventor, assignee, application number, filing date, issue date, abstract, priority chain, expiration/status, and the listed Delaware/Texas/IPR dockets.
• Lower confidence / unverified: the exact granted claim language, number of independent claims, and any claim-specific limitations. My independent-claim overview is an inference from the abstract and specification, not a reproduction of the claims.
• No authoritative 2026 CAFC docket for this specific patent number was found.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 10750152. Let me start with searches across patent litigation databases.

Let me dig deeper into the specific cases and the PTAB proceeding.

Let me confirm the outcome of the Texas case and verify the IPR details.

Litigation involving US Patent No. 10,750,152

Patent under review: US 10,750,152 B2 ("Method and apparatus for structure imaging a three-dimensional structure"), inventor Noam Babayoff, current assignee Align Technology, Inc. Application No. 16/840,267, filed 2020-04-03, granted 2020-08-18, priority date 2004-06-17 (the Babayoff "color scanning" family; provisionals 60/580,108 and 60/580,109). It is one of Align's so‑called "Color Scanning Patents" (alongside e.g. 9,101,433; 10,728,519; 10,750,151).

I identified two district‑court cases and one PTAB proceeding in which this specific patent (not a sibling) is documented. Note: I have deliberately excluded look‑alike numbers such as 10,750,151, 10,750,150, 10,750,144, 10,728,519, 10,709,527 and 10,791,934/936, which appear in the same campaign but are different patents.

Summary table

Case details

1. Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S and 3Shape Trios A/S, No. 6:20-cv-00979-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

• Align filed this action on October 19, 2020, asserting seven patents, expressly including U.S. 10,750,152. See Align's press release: https://aligntech.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/align-technology-sues-3shape-texas-federal-court-infringement-7
• The other six patents asserted were 9,101,433; 10,728,519; 10,750,151; 10,791,934; 10,791,936; and 10,709,527.
• Accused products: 3Shape's TRIOS, TRIOS 3 and TRIOS 4 intraoral scanners and associated software (per Align's complaint, Dkt. 1, and 3Shape's claim‑construction briefs). The '152 patent is part of the "Color Scanning Patents" group in the case (see 3Shape's opening claim‑construction brief, Dkt. 120, and Align's reply, Dkt. 130).
• Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18549350/align-technology-inc-v-3shape-as/
• 3Shape filed counterclaims, including a Count IV seeking a declaratory judgment of non‑infringement of the '152 patent (see the DJ allegations reproduced at https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13997828).
• Outcome caveat: The retrieved records for the Texas docket document the case through the 2021 claim‑construction phase (Judge Albright). The parallel Delaware declaratory‑judgment action was dismissed on March 3, 2022 after the parties reached a settlement, and Align/3Shape's related disputes appear to have been resolved by that settlement. I could not confirm from the sources I retrieved the precise termination entry on the W.D. Tex. docket, so I flag the Texas outcome as "resolved by the parties' settlement" rather than a confirmed judgment.

2. 3Shape A/S, 3Shape Trios A/S, 3Shape, Inc. v. Align Technology, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-01492-LPS (D. Del.)

• Filed November 2, 2020 as a declaratory‑judgment action of non‑infringement, promptly after Align's Texas suit. The patents in suit (per the AO‑120 report, Dkt. 3) were 9,101,433; 10,728,519; 10,750,151; 10,750,152; 10,791,934; 10,791,936; and 10,709,527.
• Docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2020cv01492/73692 ; docket text also at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Delaware_District_Court/1--20-cv-01492/3Shape_A-S_et_al_v._Align_Technology_Inc/
• Procedural history: case stayed (Dec. 9, 2020); partial‑dismissal stipulation (May 10, 2021); further stay "pending settlement" (Feb. 14, 2022); Stipulated Order of Dismissal entered March 3, 2022 — civil case terminated (Judge Stark).
• Outcome: Dismissed (settlement), no merits judgment on the '152 patent.

3. 3Shape A/S v. Align Technology, Inc., IPR2021-01323 (PTAB)

• Filed August 10, 2021; institution decision January 31, 2022; decision February 25, 2022; panel led by APJ Elizabeth M. Roesel; status "Terminated – Settled." See https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/3Shape-A-S-v-Align-Technology-Inc-id-[153971](/patent/153971)
• Google Patents lists IPR2021-01323 (settled) as litigation associated with US 10,750,152: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10750152B2](/patent/US10750152B2)
• Caveat: Google Patents presents this under "Family has litigation" (Darts‑IP family 34937520), i.e., it is family‑level data. Although the challenged claim set (claims 1–4, 7, 9–11, 14, 16–20, 23–27) is consistent with the '152 patent's claim structure (independent claims 1, 9, 16, 23), I could not independently confirm from the retrieved records that IPR2021-01323 named the '152 patent itself rather than a family sibling (e.g., the '151 patent). Treat this entry as "associated with the '152 patent family" rather than confirmed patent‑specific.

Things that are not '152 litigation (to avoid confusion)

• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1091 (Certain Color Intraoral Scanners) involved the '228, '456, '207, '433, '931 and '470 patents — not the '152 patent, which did not issue until August 2020 (the ITC complaint was filed Nov. 14, 2017). See the ALJ's Initial Determination at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2021-01120/3Shape_A-S/docs/06-24-2021-Petitioner/Exhibit-1043-55-EX1043_Initial_Determination_ITC_337_TA_1091_PUBLIC.pdf
• The earlier Delaware suits (1:17-cv-1646 through 1:17-cv-1649; 1:18-cv-1949; 1:18-cv-1950; 1:19-cv-2098) and the 2018/2019 PTAB IPRs (e.g., IPR2019-00154/00159/00163, IPR2020-00173/00174) concern other patents in the family, not 10,750,152.
• The 2024 Align v. ClearCorrect/Straumann case (6:24-cv-187, W.D. Tex.) concerns aligner‑feature patents, not the '152 patent.

Bottom line

US 10,750,152 was asserted by Align Technology against 3Shape A/S and 3Shape Trios A/S in W.D. Tex. No. 6:20-cv-00979-ADA (filed Oct. 19, 2020); it was the subject of a declaratory‑judgment of non‑infringement count in D. Del. No. 1:20-cv-01492 (filed Nov. 2, 2020, dismissed March 3, 2022 on settlement); and a related IPR (IPR2021-01323, 3Shape v. Align, filed Aug. 10, 2021) was terminated as settled. I found no judgment on the merits (no invalidity or infringement ruling) specific to the '152 patent, and I found no other litigation naming this patent.

If you need certainty beyond what the retrieved sources show, the specific items to confirm directly on PACER/PTAB are: (a) the termination entry on the W.D. Tex. 6:20-cv-00979 docket, and (b) the exact patent number challenged in IPR2021-01323. I have flagged both rather than overstate them.

I'll start by researching the one PTAB proceeding flagged in the patent record itself, plus any litigation-driven filings.

Let me dig into the specific proceeding flagged in the patent record and the related family.

Good — the proceeding flagged in the patent record is confirmed. Let me get the details and check for any other filings.

I have enough to answer, though with important gaps I'll flag rather than fill. Note one threshold discrepancy up front: the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt reports no AIA trial proceedings from the USPTO ODP API, but the patent's own Google Patents record and my web search both surface one proceeding — IPR2021-01323 — so I report that and flag the ODP gap.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has ever been filed against US 10,750,152: IPR2021-01323 (3Shape A/S v. Align Technology, Inc.), filed 2021-08-10, which terminated by settlement on or about 2022-02-25 without any Final Written Decision — so the tally is 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 1 settled, 0 institution denials, and 0 active proceedings. The bottom line for a defendant today is unconventional and much stronger than the settlement alone suggests: no claim of the '152 patent has ever been adjudicated on the merits at the PTAB, no FWD exists to cite, no § 315(e) estoppel attached to anyone, and the patent itself has expired (anticipated expiration 2025-06-17 per the patent record; status "Expired - Lifetime"). Your defense is therefore not "the claims are canceled" but "the patent is dead, only a backward-looking § 286 damages window remains, and there is no PTAB road map either way."

IPR2021-01323 — 3Shape A/S v. Align Technology, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-08-10
• Status: Terminated-Settled (verbatim from the structured docket data). Plain English: the trial ended by party settlement, not by a merits decision — there is no Final Written Decision.
• Judge panel: Elizabeth M. Roesel (Administrative Patent Judge; identified in the structured docket as the APJ and as "Judge Writing the Final Decision" — a field that is populated by docket convention even though no FWD ever issued here). A Board order entered 2021-11-16 in the companion case IPR2021-01120 that expressly covers IPR2021-01323 conditionally granted Petitioner's motion for pro hac vice admission of Andrew P. Zappia as back-up counsel (lead counsel was required to be a registered practitioner). The full three-judge panel composition is not confirmed in the sources I could reach.
• Petition grounds: Petition challenged claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 (19 claims; the claim set runs at least through claim 27). I could not retrieve the petition itself or the Board's papers, so I cannot state the specific references, the § 102/§ 103 basis, or the claim-construction positions with confidence — do not rely on any art identification for this proceeding from me. What I can say structurally: the '152 patent is a Babayoff continuation in the same family as the '538 patent (US 8,102,538), and 3Shape's parallel 2021 petitions against sibling Align patents (e.g., IPR2021-01240 on US 10,709,527) used § 102(b) anticipation and § 103(a) obviousness grounds with intervening-reference combinations — a similar posture is plausible here, but that is inference, not record.
• Institution decision: The structured docket records an institution decision date of 2022-01-31, followed by a termination decision on 2022-02-25. My reading is that the Board instituted and then terminated on the parties' joint motion (or terminated contemporaneously with settlement) — but the "Claims Instituted" field is blank in the source and I could not retrieve the underlying paper, so I am not asserting that institution was granted, or on which claims. Treat "was it instituted, and on what scope" as an open item to verify on PTAB E2E before relying on it.
• Final Written Decision: None. No FWD was ever issued. Consequently no claim was canceled, no claim was held patentable, and there is no claim-level validity holding to quote. Any assertion that a particular claim of the '152 patent survived or fell at the PTAB would be fabricated.
• Settlement / termination: The parties settled. The termination followed the broader Align–3Shape global settlement of their outstanding US patent infringement and antitrust litigation, which Align's investor filings date to 2022-02-07. The terms of the PTAB settlement (and any license/payment) are not public — settlement agreements filed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b) are routinely requested to be treated as business confidential and kept separate from the patent file, and I found no public disclosure of terms. Because termination occurred before any merits decision, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) estoppel does not attach to 3Shape, its real parties in interest, or privies.
• Appeal: None. There was no FWD, so there was nothing appealable to the Federal Circuit, and I found no CAFC docket for this patent.
• Defensive value: IPR2021-01323 is a null set as a merits precedent — it gives a defendant neither a cancelation to cite nor an adverse validity finding to overcome. Its practical value is two-fold: (1) it confirms 3Shape (a sophisticated, well-funded competitor) believed it had a colorable § 102/§ 103 attack on claims 1–4, 7, 9–11, 14, and 16–20 and 23–27, which is a useful starting point for your own invalidity search; and (2) the absence of any estoppel means that prior art, if you can obtain it, is unencumbered by § 315(e) as against 3Shape and its privies. But note the dominant fact: the patent expired 2025-06-17.

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. Because IPR2021-01323 settled before a Final Written Decision, the PTAB has never ruled on any claim of US 10,750,152. There are no canceled claims and no sustained claims. The status of claims 1–27 (the petition's challenge ran through claim 27) is entirely unadjudicated at the Board. If a demand letter or complaint asserts the '152 patent, you cannot defeat it by pointing to a cancelation — and the patent owner cannot harden it by pointing to a PTAB win, because there wasn't one. There is also no IPR-based prosecution-history narrowing to exploit or to fear.

Estoppel landscape. Two points matter, and they cut in different directions. First, no § 315(e) estoppel attached to 3Shape or its privies, since estoppel under that section is triggered by a final written decision and none issued; § 317(a) termination before a merits decision expressly leaves the petitioner free. So a pending defendant who is a 3Shape privy (or its successor/vendor) retains the full universe of § 102/§ 103 grounds. Second, however, note the flip side of the same rule: you also cannot inherit any favorable claim construction or invalidity findings from IPR2021-01323, because there are none. Separately, if you are not a 3Shape privy, § 315(e) is irrelevant to you entirely — but so is the estoppel-immunity benefit. The real constraint on your prior-art case is not estoppel; it is 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (IPR grounds limited to patents and printed publications) and the patent's expired term, which means an IPR filed now would be of little practical value — a district court (or the Board, exercising § 314(a) discretion) would likely view an expired patent as a poor use of AIA trial resources, and the only live question is past damages.

Pattern signals. 3Shape was a serial PTAB petitioner against Align — its 2021 filings included IPR2021-01120, IPR2021-01240 (US 10,709,527), IPR2021-01241 (US 10,791,936), and IPR2021-01323 (this patent), alongside Align's own ITC action 337-TA-1091 against 3Shape over older family members ('228, '456, '207, '433, '931, '470) and the parallel Delaware and W.D. Tex. suits (1:20-cv-01492; 6:20-cv-00979). No defensive aggregator was involved in IPR2021-01323 — the petitioner was 3Shape itself, an operating competitor defending against Align's assertions, not Unified Patents. Unified Patents appears in this record only as the data source (its PTAB litigation tracker is what Google Patents cites for the case), not as a filer. The pattern is a two-way standards-essential-style scanner war that was resolved globally in 2022, not a troll-assertion pattern. Align has not had to litigate a PTAB appeal on this patent, because no FWD ever issued on it.

Two caveats on my sourcing. (1) The USPTO ODP "PTAB proceedings on file" block supplied in this prompt returns zero proceedings, which conflicts with the patent record and my search results; I flagged the one proceeding I could corroborate rather than deferring to the empty ODP result. (2) I was unable to retrieve the IPR2021-01323 petition, Preliminary Response, or the 2022-01-31/2022-02-25 Board papers within my research budget, so grounds, art, and the institution outcome are not verified.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant being asserted against today (after 2026-09-30): lead with expiration. The patent record shows anticipated expiration 2025-06-17 and legal status "Expired - Lifetime." That eliminates injunctive relief and confines exposure to past damages — and under 35 U.S.C. § 286, the lookback is capped at six years before the complaint (subject to § 287 notice/ marking limits). An IPR would be a poor investment now.
• Verify the institution outcome before citing it. Pull the papers from USPTO PTAB E2E (Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End, https://ptab.uspto.gov/) and the public docket mirror at https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-01323. Specifically confirm (a) whether the 2022-01-31 paper was an institution decision or a denial, and (b) the scope of any institution, since the "Claims Instituted" field is blank in the source I used. The 2021-11-16 pro hac vice order (Paper 11 in IPR2021-01120, which by its footnote 1 also governs IPR2021-01323) is a useful public anchor for the petitioner's counsel of record.
• If you are a 3Shape privy or licensee: you are not estopped under § 315(e). Nothing from IPR2021-01323 constrains you, and nothing from it helps you.
• If you need invalidity art: 3Shape's 2021 petition (claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27) is the best free head start on claim scope and prior-art framing — request it through PTAB E2E or the Unified Patents portal link above rather than reconstructing it.
• If no assertion is pending: the practical answer is that the '152 patent is expired and untested, its sole IPR settled globally in the Align–3Shape resolution, and it should not be a major risk item. The residual risk is a § 286 backward-looking damages claim by Align (or a successor) covering alleged past use; that risk is about the pre-2025 conduct, not about PTAB outcomes.
• Do not represent that any claim of US 10,750,152 has been canceled or sustained by the PTAB. Neither has happened.

I'll research this systematically — starting with the patent's ownership records, then the litigation that flags assertion activity.

This is clearly an operating-company patent (Align v. 3Shape). Now let me check the inventor's original employer and whether the patent was transferred from Cadent Ltd. to Align.

Now let me pin down the recorded assignments and the PTAB proceeding.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,750,152 B2

Verification caveat up front (important): I was unable to retrieve the live Assignment Center / assignment.uspto.gov records for this patent in this session — both portals are JavaScript-driven and did not return machine-readable reel/frame data to my tools. I have therefore not invented any reel or frame numbers. Below I give the ownership chain that is confirmed by primary documents I could retrieve (SEC filings, an ITC Initial Determination that discusses the assignment records as trial exhibits, and foreign counterparts), and I explicitly label every element as verified, corroborated, or inferred. Where the record is unverified, I say so rather than filling the gap.

Inventors

• Sole named inventor. The identity and Cadent affiliation are corroborated by the European counterparts of the same 2005 filing, which claim priority to the identical two US provisionals (60/580,109 and 60/580,108, both filed 2004‑06‑17) and list "Applicant: Cadent Ltd., Or Yehuda (IL) / Inventor: Babayoff, Noam":
  • EP 1 607 041 B1 — Method for providing data associated with the intraoral cavity (app. 05013110.1, filed 2005‑06‑17)
  • EP 1 607 064 — Method and apparatus for colour imaging a three-dimensional structure (the direct EP counterpart of the US 11/154,520 filing)
  • EP 1 849 411 — same family
• No unusual inventor pattern. Babayoff is a long-tenured Cadent/Align inventor, appearing on other Cadent Ltd. filings spanning 2002–2011 (e.g., US 7,255,558 Dental imaging instrument having air stream auxiliary, Cadent Ltd.; US 2011/0105894 System and method for scanning an intraoral cavity, Cadent Ltd.). There is no evidence of inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, and no pre-fire-sale exodus signal.

Original assignee

• Entity on the face of the issued patent / current assignee: Align Technology, Inc. (San Jose / Tempe, AZ; Nasdaq: ALGN).
• True original owner of the 2005 priority filing: Cadent Ltd., Or Yehuda, Israel (the R&D subsidiary of Cadent Holdings, Inc., Carlstadt, NJ). Align's own ITC briefing states ownership arrived "by assignment", and the 2020 litigation confirms the patent "on its face, is also assigned to Align Technology, Inc." Verdict: Align is the assignee of record today; Cadent Ltd. was the originating owner.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes. The claims cover simultaneous monochrome confocal 3D depth capture plus 2D color capture through a common hand-held intraoral probe. That is the Cadent iTero intraoral scanner line — the exact product Align accused 3Shape's TRIOS scanners of copying (ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1091). Align still sells iTero today.
• Primary line of business: medical devices — clear aligners (Invisalign) plus the Scanners and CAD/CAM Services reporting segment (iTero, iOC, OrthoCAD). Cadent contributed ~$11.8M of scanner/CAD-CAM revenue in Q1 2012 alone.
• Current status: Operating, public, solvent. Align is a multi-billion-dollar Nasdaq company (revenue ~$3.7B in 2022). The patent itself is marked "Expired – Lifetime" on Google Patents with anticipated expiration 2025‑06‑17 (20 years from the 2005‑06‑17 non-provisional).

Assignment timeline

Disclosure: I could not read the Assignment Center reel/frame entries directly. The entries below are the chain reconstructible from primary sources. Reel/frame numbers are given only where a source actually recited them; those recitations are for a sibling Cadent patent (US 7,488,174) surfaced via Espacenet INPADOC, and are not confirmed against US 10,750,152. Treat them as pattern evidence, not as this patent's record.

• 2005‑06‑17 (executed, approximate — same date as the 11/154,520 non-provisional filing) / recording date not verified — Reel not verified

  • Conveyance: Assignment of inventors' rights
  • Assignor: Noam Babayoff
  • Assignee: Cadent Ltd. (Or Yehuda, Israel)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Standard employee/inventor assignment into the originating operating company. Inferred from the EP counterparts' applicant field; the US-recorded instrument was not retrieved.

• 2008‑11‑24 (recorded) — Reel 021912 / 0948

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement (grant of security interest, not a title transfer)
  • Assignor: Cadent Ltd.
  • Assignee: lender of record (name not verified)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization / venture-debt collateral. ⚠️ This reel/frame is documented on the sibling Cadent patent US 7,488,174, not confirmed on US 10,750,152. A companion 2008‑11‑24 filing at Reel 021883 / 0996 was a Change of Assignee's Address for Cadent Ltd. Both indicate Cadent was pledging its portfolio to a lender pre-acquisition — a financial-distress-adjacent detail, not an NPE signal.

• 2011‑04‑29 (executed) / recording date not verified — Reel not verified (ITC exhibit nos. JX‑0039, JX‑0040, JX‑0041 are the recorded instruments cited at trial)

  • Conveyance: Merger / acquisition (Agreement and Plan of Merger announced 2011‑03‑29; closed 2011‑04‑29)
  • Assignor: Cadent Holdings, Inc. and the Cadent group (Cadent Ltd.)
  • Assignee: Align Technology, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Acquisition of a solvent operating company for ~$187.6M cash (of a $190M headline price), with $26.5M held in escrow. Cadent became a wholly owned Align subsidiary. This is a strategic operating-company buy — the opposite of a fire-sale.
  • Pattern note: on the sibling Cadent patent US 7,488,174, a further Cadent Ltd. → Align assignment of interest was recorded at Reel 034483 / 0901 (reel series consistent with a post-2011 cleanup years after the merger closed, not the 2011 closing date itself). If the same delayed-recordation pattern applies here, it means the legal transfer occurred in 2011 while the recorded paper trail was not perfected for several years. Unverified for this patent.

• 2020‑04‑03 — filing of the continuation (app. 16/840,267)

  • Not an assignment. Recorded here because it is the event that created the asserted asset. No new assignment was recorded on filing — continuations ride on the original chain.

• Post‑issuance: No assignment recorded. The chain terminates at Align Technology, Inc. Google Patents and Unified Patents both show Align Technology Inc as the sole current assignee, and Align filed its 2020 suits in its own name as patent owner.

If Assignment Center in fact returns nothing beyond the 2005 and 2011 instruments, that is the expected and correct result — the original (acquired) assignee still owns the patent, and it is being asserted by that owner, not by a licensee or assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10750152
    2004 : Provisionals filed by Babayoff
    2005 : Non-provisional filed by Cadent Ltd
    2008 : Cadent grants security interest to lender
    2011 : Align acquires Cadent in cash merger
    2020 : Continuation filed and patent granted
         : Align sues 3Shape in West Texas
         : 3Shape files Delaware DJ action
    2021 : IPRs filed at PTAB then settled
    2022 : Delaware action dismissed after settlement

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The chain runs inventor → Cadent Ltd. → Align Technology, Inc., a Nasdaq-listed operating company. There is no "IP / Holdings / Ventures" capping entity, no registered-agent address, no single-purpose LLC anywhere in the title chain. The only entities named are two operating dental-scanning businesses.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. Align Technology does not appear on any NPE roster (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, MPHJ et al.). The '152 patent's assertion posture — a $3.7B-revenue medical device maker suing a direct scanner competitor — is the classic operating-company configuration.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT VERIFIABLE. I could not retrieve the correspondent of record on any recording, so I cannot test recurrence. For corroboration only: Align's recurring patent-prosecution correspondent of record is Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (WSGR), 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, which appears as the prosecution correspondence address on a separate Align/WSGR filing (PTAB petition doc, serial 17/902,445). WSGR is a large general-practice firm that does both operating-company and NPE-adjacent work; a single or even repeated appearance by WSGR is not an NPE finding. No NPE-listed attorney appears anywhere in what I could retrieve.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. One transfer of substance in ~15 years (Cadent → Align, 2011), plus a pre-acquisition security interest in 2008. No chained LLCs, no sub-24-month sequence, no shared-correspondent clustering.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The Cadent→Align transfer closed 2011‑04‑29. The first suit naming this patent is roughly nine years later (Align v. 3Shape, W.D. Tex. 6:20‑cv‑00979, filed October 2020). There is no six-month pre-suit assignment; Align asserted a patent it had owned for ~9 years, on a priority date 16 years old.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. Cadent was acquired in an all-cash, ~$190M merger of a going concern (announced 2011‑03‑29, closed 2011‑04‑29, per Align's Form 8‑K). No Chapter 7/11 of Cadent or Align appears in the record.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. Align is the plaintiff in its own name and has not assigned the patent to a third party to assert on its behalf. (Align's enforcement is aggressive and multi-front — D. Del. 1:17‑cv‑01646/47/48/49, the ITC § 337 action, and W.D. Tex. 6:20‑cv‑00979 — but aggressive enforcement by a product company is not privateering.)

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. Note a confusing but non-ownership data point: Unified Patents maintains a defensive-challenge page for this patent, and the page is captioned with the name "Dental Imaging Technologies Corp" — an entity that does not appear anywhere in the ownership chain I could verify. I could not confirm whether this is a Unified Patents standing/challenge vehicle, a co-filed IPR petitioner name, or a portal artifact. I am flagging it as an unresolved anomaly rather than a finding; it does not evidence an assignment to that entity. Related: PTAB IPR2021‑01323 shows on Google Patents with an empty "Petitioner:" field and status Settlement; I could not complete verification of the petitioner (3Shape is the petitioner on the sister proceedings IPR2021‑01240 and IPR2021‑01120). Mark unclear.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The title chain is inventor Noam Babayoff → Cadent Ltd. (2005) → Align Technology, Inc. (merger closed 2011‑04‑29, cash consideration ≈$187.6M per Align's Form 8‑K), with no assignment recorded after Align's acquisition and no assignment at all in the post-issuance period — the patent's owner is a public, cash-generative medical-device manufacturer. Align asserts the '152 patent in its own name against a direct scanner competitor, 3Shape, in Align Tech. v. 3Shape, No. 6:20‑cv‑00979 (W.D. Tex.) and via 3Shape's mirror-image declaratory-judgment action 3Shape A/S v. Align Technology, Inc., No. 1:20‑cv‑01492 (D. Del., filed 2020‑11‑02), where US 10,750,152 is listed among the patents in suit; the dispute resolved by stipulated dismissal on 2022‑03‑03 following settlement. Not one of the eight NPE signals is present on verified evidence — the two gaps (correspondent recurrence, and the unexplained "Dental Imaging Technologies Corp" caption on the Unified Patents portal) are unverified, not adverse.

Primary-source links for independent verification:

• USPTO Assignment Center (search by patent number 10750152): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Legacy assignment search: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events for US 10,750,152: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10750152/en
• Unified Patents patent page (flagged anomaly): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/10750152
• Align Form 8-K on Cadent completion: https://investor.aligntech.com/static-files/56cb649e-38ac-4f07-b68c-e7b603e9e91d
• ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1091 Initial Determination (recites Align's standing "by assignment," exhibits JX‑0039/40/41): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-00173/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8102538/docs/03-17-2020-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2001-71-EX2001___Investigation_No_337_TA_1091,_Initial_Determination.pdf

What I could not do, stated plainly: retrieve the actual reel/frame numbers or the correspondent of record from the Assignment Center. If you need the literal reel/frame strings and attorney names, the three documents worth pulling are the ITC trial exhibits JX‑0039, JX‑0040 and JX‑0041 — those are copies of the actual recorded assignment instruments that established Align's chain of title, and they will carry the reel/frame stamps and correspondents you're after.

I'll research US patent 10750152 and its citations. Let me gather information from multiple sources.

Let me get the detailed citation lists from Justia and other sources.

I have useful data. Let me retrieve the actual front-page "References Cited" list for US10750152 from the patent PDF/text sources.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,750,152 B2

Note on scope: This analysis is limited to US 10,750,152 B2 (application 16/840,267). I have not substituted results for similar numbers such as US 10,750,151 (sibling continuation), US 10,728,519, or US 10,764,557; those appear below only where they are expressly identified as separate family members sharing the same disclosure.

One important limitation up front: the authoritative full text supplied to me was truncated in the "Description" (it cuts off in the Background at "…using an external rad…") and does not include the verbatim claim set or the complete front-page "(56) References Cited" block. The § 102 mappings below are therefore keyed to the claim structure recoverable from the Abstract and the common family claims, not to claim language I was able to read verbatim. Treat the claim numbers as indicative and verify against the granted claims before relying on them.

1. Verified bibliographic data (from the supplied text + Google Patents)

Because the effective priority date is 2004-06-17, only art publicly available before that date can be § 102 prior art. Several items on the patent's own face are later and cannot anticipate (flagged below).

2. Claim structure used as the § 102 template

From the Abstract and the shared family claims, the independent claims of US 10,750,152 are directed to a system for determining the surface topology and associated color of at least a portion of a three-dimensional structure, comprising:

• a hand-held device;
• a scanning system configured to provide depth data of the portion (typically confocal, array-of-beams);
• an imaging system configured to provide two-dimensional color image data of the portion associated with the plurality of data points; and
• a processor operably coupled to the hand-held device and configured to associate the depth data with the color image data.

The design-around difficulty is the combination (co-registered depth + 2D color in one hand-held unit, same frame of reference), not any single element. That is material to the § 102 conclusions below.

3. Patent citations of US 10,750,152 and their § 102 potential

3a. U.S. patents (front-page/IDS references common to the Babayoff family)

U.S. Publications cited (IDS):

3b. Foreign patent documents cited

3c. Non-patent literature (References Cited / IDS)

The Justia record for US 10,750,152 lists a substantial NPL block. Representative entries and their bearing:

• Paulus et al., "Three-dimensional computer vision for tooth restoration," Medical Image Analysis 3(1):1-19 (1999). → 3-D tooth vision; no color-co-acquisition.
• Pulli et al., "Acquisition and Visualization of Colored 3D Objects," Proc. ICPR (1998) and "Surface Reconstruction and Display from Range and Color Data," Graphical Models 62:165-201 (2000). → Registration of range + color data — the closest NPL to the "associate depth data with color data" limitation. Potentially § 103; marginally § 102 only if it discloses a hand-held intraoral implementation (it does not).
• Noguchi & Nayar, "Microscopic Shape from Focus…" (1994/1996); Subbarao (1988/1996); Watanabe et al. (1995/1997); Tyan (1997); Willson (1991); Wilson et al. (CMU-RI-TR-91-26, 1991) → depth-from-focus/defocus theory; § 103 background only.
• Nivet et al., "Depth-scanning fringe projection technique (DSFP)…," SPIE 5144:443-450 (2003) → depth-scanning profiling.
• Schick et al., SPIE 5457:115-125 (2004) and Watson, Scanning 16:168-173 (1994), Watson et al., J. Dent. 20:352-358 (1992) → confocal scanning / dental application.
• Noack et al., SPIE 3564:132-137 (1999); Sheppard (1994); Xiao et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 53(8):716-18 (1988) → confocal microscopy general art.
• Litigation/administrative documents (337-TA-1091 and -1144 decisions; PTAB decisions) → not printed publications of technical prior art.

None of the NPL items, standing alone, discloses the full combination (hand-held unit + confocal depth array + co-acquired 2-D color + processor association). Their proper role is § 103.

4. Bottom line — the references that actually matter

1. WO 00/08415 A1 (Cadent, 2000-02-17) — the dominant § 102 reference for the depth/confocal half of the independent claims; cannot reach the color-association limitation.
2. US 6,594,539 B1 (Geng, 2003-07-15) — the dominant § 102 reference for the combination of 3-D scanning and 2-D color imaging in one intraoral camera; the closest thing to a single-reference anticipation, contingent on hand-held + processor-association disclosure.
3. EP 0 837 659 A1 (1998-04-22) — 3-D teeth + separately acquired color, but with manual re-alignment; § 102 fails on the fixed-spatial-disposition/association limitation.
4. US 2003/0096210 A1 (Orametrix, 2003) — intra-oral scanning for orthodontics; no color-depth association.
5. Pulli et al. (1998/2000 NPL) — range+color registration; the best § 103 support for the "associate" step.

Caveats I am flagging rather than papering over:

• I could not read the granted claims verbatim (the fetched text truncated before the claims), so per-claim § 102 designations are provisional.
• US 7,098,435, US 7,511,829, US 7,698,068, US 2004/0125381, and other 2004+ items post-date the 2004-06-17 priority date and cannot be § 102(a)/(b) art; they are relevant only via § 102(e)/§ 103 if their underlying filings predate priority.
• The applicant's own family patents (US 6,697,164; US 7,511,829; US 7,698,068) are not independent § 102 art absent an inventorship difference.
• Several DE/EP identifiers retrieved from the sibling front page appear malformed in the source; I have reproduced them as-found and flagged them rather than "correcting" them.

I'll gather the claim language and prior-art details before analyzing. Let me run several searches.

I have the key claims. Let me pull the remaining claim text and the specific prior-art references.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,750,152 B2 (Babayoff / Align Technology)

0. Important scope caveats up front

• The text of US 10,750,152 supplied on the page is the description and abstract; the claim set was not reproduced in full in the provided material. I retrieved the operative claim text for claims 1, 8, 9, 16 and 23 from the Google Patents record, and my analysis is pinned to those. The patent has 29 claims; I do not have verbatim text for claims 2–7, 10–15, 17–22 and 24–29, so any conclusion on those is expressly conditional.
• Effective filing date for §103 purposes is the 17 June 2004 priority date (Provisionals 60/580,109 and 60/580,108), which the page confirms. This is a pre-AIA analysis (§102(b)/(e), §103(a), with §103(c) common-ownership implications discussed below).
• The page's litigation entries (D. Del. 1:20-cv-01492; W.D. Tex. 6:20-cv-00979; IPR2021-01323, listed as "filed (Settlement)") are noted. No final written decision appears on the page, so I draw no conclusion from those proceedings.

1. What the independent claims actually require

The crucially narrowing limitation relative to the earlier patents in this family (e.g., US 8,363,228 / 8,451,456, whose claims recited separate "scanning means" and "imaging means") is that the '152 claims require the same sensor and the same image data to yield both depth and color — one confocal acquisition channel, not a 3D channel plus a separate colour channel.

2. Prior art of record on the page

The page's "Prior art keywords" are: light; color; data; intraoral structure; wavelength. The references expressly discussed in the patent's own Background (i.e., the applicant's characterization of the art) are:

1. WO 00/08415 (published 17 Feb 2000; assignee's own confocal work) — array of light beams, focusing optics with a focal plane scanned over depth, CCD + pinhole array, spot-specific-position determination → monochrome XYZ entity. This maps essentially element-for-element onto the "hand-held device / probe / focusing optics scanning a focal plane / image sensor" portion of claim 1 and steps of claims 9 and 16.
2. EP 837 659 — 3D image of teeth via an opaque, diffusely reflecting coating plus monochromatic illumination; the coating must be removed and the camera manually re-aligned to take a 2D color image that is then superimposed.
3. US 4,575,805 (Moermann) — intensity-pattern (structured-light) surface measurement used in the EP 837 659 process.
4. US 6,594,539 — intraoral imaging system producing 3D surface images and 2D color images with the same camera (the page states this in terms).
5. US 5,440,393 — mouth-cavity scanning with an external radiation source, triangulation/holographic processing.
6. US 5,864,640 — "scanner having a multiple view detector responsive to a broad spectrum of visible light," developing 3D coordinate positions and related image information, providing "3-D surface information that is linked to color information without need to conformally map 2-D color data onto 3-D surface."
7. Color-of-teeth measurement devices: US 4,836,674, US 5,690,486, US 6,525,819, EP 0367647, US 5,766,006.
8. WO 03/105289 (laser structured-light depth extraction with a broadband detector for color) appears in the citation graph of the page and is a pre-2004 publication.

All eight categories predate 17 June 2004 and are available as §102(b) art (WO 00/08415, being published >1 year before priority, is §102(b) art, so the §103(c) common-ownership shield for §102(e)/(f)/(g) art does not remove it from the obviousness analysis even though it is the assignee's own work).

3. PHOSITA and general level of skill

A person of ordinary skill at the 2004 priority date would have an advanced degree or several years of experience in optical metrology / dental imaging, familiarity with confocal and structured-light scanners, CCD/CMOS sensor design, color image capture and dental CAD/CAM workflows. Critically, that person would know that (i) intraoral scanners were used to drive CAD/CAM crown/bridge fabrication, (ii) prostheses must match tooth shade (hence the long history of tooth-color measurement references on the page), and (iii) registration of separately acquired 2D color onto 3D surface models is error-prone.

4. Ground 1 — WO 00/08415 in view of US 6,594,539

Elements met by WO 00/08415 (as described in the '152 Background and as reproduced in the '152 specification, which incorporates it): hand-held probe; illuminator; focusing optics defining a plane whose position is changed by the optics; array of spots; CCD with pinhole array; processor determining the spot-specific position (max intensity / derivative max) to yield (X,Y,Z) depth data. This supplies every depth-acquisition element of claims 1, 9, 16 and 23.

What US 6,594,539 supplies: the same-camera capability for 3D surface images and 2D color images of a dental surface. This supplies the "generate color data using the first image data"/"same image data is also used for the color data" limitation (claim 23 in particular) and the color-data step of claim 16.

Rationale for combining (KSR / MPEP 2143):

• Same field, same problem, same art: both are intraoral scanners whose output feeds dental CAD/CAM; both are cited side-by-side in the '152 Background as addressing the same intraoral measurement problem.
• Known technique, predictable result: substituting a sensor/illumination scheme capable of color capture for the monochrome detection train of WO 00/08415 is a substitution of one known imaging element for another in the same device to obtain the known benefit (color values collocated with depth values).
• Explicit motivation in the references themselves: US 6,594,539 is directed to using one camera for both, i.e., its raison d'être is eliminating a second camera and its alignment; the '152 Background itself admits the art recognized that "the problem of conformally mapping the two dimensional color information onto the three dimensional surface model is difficult."
• Design incentives: reducing probe diameter/component count for intraoral use; eliminating parallax and registration error between a depth channel and a separate color channel; enabling a color viewfinder.

Anticipation of dependent claim 8: claim 8's "second image data" (e.g., a differently-illuminated or differently-colored frame) is met by US 6,594,539's and WO 03/105289's use of separate broadband/structured/color frames acquired in sequence and combined — the '152 specification itself concedes that "if a monochromatic CCD is used, the 2D color image obtained is a composite created from three separate monochromatic images."

5. Ground 2 — WO 00/08415 in view of US 5,864,640

US 5,864,640 is the strongest single secondary reference on the page for the color-plus-depth-from-related-image-information concept, because it expressly links 3D surface information to color information without the need to conformally map 2D color data onto the 3D surface — precisely the problem the '152 Background identifies and the result claim 23 achieves. A multiple-view detector "responsive to a broad spectrum of visible light" is, functionally, a sensor capturing polychromatic image data from which both geometric and color information are derivedly obtained. Motivation: same field (dental/3D object scanning), same stated advantage (avoiding conformal mapping), and the ordinary incentive to simplify the optical train of a hand-held intraoral probe.

6. Ground 3 — WO 00/08415 + EP 837 659 + US 4,575,805

EP 837 659 / Moermann discloses obtaining a 3D image of teeth by monochromatic illumination plus a removable opaque coating, then acquiring a 2D color image of the same region with the same camera and superimposing it on the 3D image displayed on screen. Combined with WO 00/08415's confocal depth engine, this renders obvious the result (color-rendered 3D representation of teeth) — but this combination is weaker for the '152 claims, because EP 837 659 requires removing the coating, re-aligning the camera, and separately acquiring the color image, i.e., it teaches exactly the two-step paradigm that the '152 claims exclude. It is better used as background showing the long-recognized need, not as the primary §103 combination. US 5,440/393 (triangulation/hologram scanning) is likewise background-level.

7. Ground 4 — Adding the tooth-color measurement art

The page's keyword "color" plus the color-of-teeth references (US 4,836,674; US 5,690,486; US 6,525,819; US 5,766,006; EP 0367647) supply the motivation to capture true color with the scanner at all: the intraoral scanning workflow exists to design and mill crowns, bridges and restorations, which must match shade. This converts the color-capture element from an optional elaboration into an expected design goal, and it supplies, for dependent claims reciting color calibration/filtering (if any), well-known color-measurement technique.

8. Motivation to combine — consolidated

For any of Grounds 1, 2 or 4, the following motivations apply and are grounded in the references themselves:

1. Avoiding conformal mapping / registration error — explicitly identified as the problem in the '152 Background and expressly solved in US 5,864,640.
2. Single-camera economy — US 6,594,539's stated approach.
3. Motion/vibration immunity — because the same sensor and (in claim 1) the same image data serve both purposes, the acquisition interval issue that the '152 specification discusses (0–100 ms) is obviated; a POSITA would recognize that using one sensor makes the two datasets inherently co-registered.
4. Shade matching for prosthetics — a longstanding dental need evidenced by the tooth-color measurement references.
5. Viewfinder/aiming — the '152 specification's own stated benefit ("an improved viewfinder is automatically provided") is a routine design objective for hand-held intraoral probes, and pre-filing color viewfinders in dental cameras were known.
6. Size/power constraints of a hand-held intraoral wand — one sensor and one optical train is a predictable mechanical/optical simplification (KSR: "use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way").

9. Where the §103 record is weakest — genuine non-obviousness arguments

These are the points on which an owner would likely rely, and they deserve to be stated honestly:

• Confocal response vs. broadband color. The '152 confocal engine uses a laser, a polarizer, and a pinhole array, and its depth resolution depends on a narrowband, high-NA focus. Using broadband/white light or multiple color illuminations in the same confocal path trades depth precision for color information. The '152 specification addresses this by putting the color sources at the aperture stop, at low NA, and by exploiting chromatic dispersion so that each color focuses at a different depth (the blue/aqua/green/amber/red viewfinder scheme). A POSITA could argue that the prior art does not teach how to obtain both on one channel without degrading depth accuracy — i.e., the combination is not merely substitution of known elements but requires an architectural insight (illumination injected at the aperture stop without disturbing the main confocal path).
• EP 837 659 arguably teaches away from the claimed solution, since it requires removing the measurement coating and manually re-aligning the camera between the 3D and the color acquisition — i.e., the opposite of "the image data used for generating the depth data is also used for the color data."
• US 6,594,539 and US 5,864,640 are multi-view/computational-reconstruction scanners, not confocal focal-plane-scanned scanners. Whether their color techniques translate to a confocal axial-scan architecture is a factual question that the page's materials do not resolve; a genuine "different principle of operation" argument is available.
• No reference on the page expressly discloses a color value assigned to a depth value derived from the same confocal image frame. Ground 1 comes closest but still relies on using the same camera, not necessarily the same image data, for both outputs.

10. Bottom line

• Claims 1, 16 and 23 are, on the face of the page's prior-art record, strongly vulnerable to a §103 challenge built on WO 00/08415 as the primary reference in view of US 6,594,539, and alternatively in view of US 5,864,640, with the tooth-color references supplying motivation. The stated problem (misregistration of 2D color with 3D surface) and the stated benefit (avoiding conformal mapping) are legacies of the references themselves, and the "same sensor / same image data" limitation rests on a well-recognized single-camera design choice.
• Claim 9 (two light sources, one through the focusing optics, capturing depth and color image data over a range of focal lengths) is also likely obvious over the same combination plus, e.g., WO 03/105289 or US 6,594,539's sequential-illumination approach.
• The most defensible features are the specific hardware placements that the claims' dependents may capture — illumination injected at the confocal aperture stop, low-NA color illumination, the chromatic-dispersion depth-coverage scheme, the rotating tri-color filter / fiber bundle at the aperture-stop plane, and the crossed-polarizer/quarter-wave ghost-suppression arrangement. Those are the features for which I would expect the §103 fight to be won or lost, and they cannot be evaluated from the page because I do not have verbatim dependent-claim text for claims 2–7, 10–15, 17–22 or 24–29.
• Note also that the family contains many continuation patents (US 7,319,529; 7,511,829; 7,724,378; 8,102,538; 8,363,228; 8,451,456; 8,675,207; 8,885,175; 9,101,433; 9,404,740; 10,728,519; 10,750,151; 10,764,557; 10,812,773; 10,924,720; 10,944,953; and later), which raises obviousness-type double patenting exposure independent of §103 — worth screening before relying on any single one of these claims.

Recommended next steps to complete the analysis: obtain the verbatim text of the non-retrieved dependent claims; obtain the full claim charts from IPR2021-01323 (the page lists it as filed, not decided); confirm the exact disclosure dates and content of US 6,594,539 and US 5,864,640 (I have only the applicant's characterization of them from the page, which is not evidence of what they actually teach); and check whether any of the cited color-of-teeth references are §102(b) art as of 17 June 2004.