US 10791934

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

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

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

US 10,791,934 — Analyst Summary

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

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

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

Abstract (verbatim)

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

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

Litigation / docket status

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

Explicit uncertainties

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

What was NOT found

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

Caveats

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

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

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

Proceedings overview

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

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

Proceedings

None. No proceedings to list.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic summary

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

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

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

Recommended next steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inventors

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

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

Original assignee

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

Assignment timeline

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

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

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

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

Timeline diagram

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

NPE / troll-pattern signals

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

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

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important scoping notes before the substance

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

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

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

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

A. Key threshold point for § 102 in this patent

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

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

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

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

B. The references cited (as recovered)

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

U.S. Patent Documents (56)

U.S. Patent Application Publications (56)

Foreign Patent Documents (56)

Other Publications (56)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional caveats:

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