US 5647743

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

Let me run a couple more targeted searches to confirm the bibliographic details and check for any litigation or PTAB activity.

Summary: US Patent 5,647,743 — "Device for Treating Jaw Fractures or Tooth Displacements"

Litigation check (bottom line first). I found no CAFC 2026 docket activity, no district court litigation, no PTAB proceeding, and no reexamination involving US 5,647,743. My searches of Federal Circuit opinions/orders and 2026 PTAB/docket materials returned only unrelated patents (e.g., Netlist, Spero, Contour IP, National Steel Car). I cannot rule out a docket that isn't indexed on the open web, but based on available sources there is no active 2026 proceeding — which is consistent with the patent having been expired since July 15, 2001 for non-payment of maintenance fees (see below).

Bibliographic data (from the patent record)

Uncertainty note: The assignee field is recorded only as "Individual." I have no authoritative record of a specific individual or corporate owner being named as assignee beyond the inventor, so I would not assert one.

Abstract (verbatim)

A device for the orthopedic treatment of jaw fractures or tooth displacements has ring-shaped dental bands which surround the teeth and are detachably secured to at least two teeth of a jaw. In order to attach the dental band to the tooth in a secure and detachable manner, at least two tensioning blocks are integrally shaped on the dental band. The tensioning blocks are arranged in pairs at a distance from each other, aligned bores and/or threaded holes are created in both tensioning blocks and the gap may be reduced by means of at least one tensioning screw held in the bores or threaded holes.

Independent claims — plain-language overview

Only one independent claim exists: claim 1. Every other claim (2–20) is dependent, using the "In a device in accordance with claim X…" form.

Claim 1 — A dental band for treating jaw fractures or misaligned teeth (an improvement over prior ring-shaped bands). In plain terms, it requires:

1. At least two tensioning blocks formed integrally on the dental band (i.e., one-piece with the band, not soldered on), arranged in a pair spaced apart from one another;
2. Aligned bores and/or threaded receivers cut in both blocks, with at least one tensioning screw held in them so that tightening draws the blocks together (which clamps the band onto the tooth);
3. A holder positioned in the gap between the two tensioning blocks, the holder having its own bore that the tensioning screw passes through; and
4. The holder carries multiple receivers on its side facing away from the tooth for accommodating a strap (used to connect bands / apply corrective forces).

So claim 1 is a combination of three ideas: integral clamped band + holder bridging the tensioning blocks + strap receivers on the holder.

Notable dependent claims (context only, not independent):

• Claim 2 adds dual screws — one near the upper edge, one near the lower edge — permitting custom conformance to tooth geometry.
• Claims 5–7, 15–17 cover the strap seated in the aligned bores, including press-fit ("fitted bore") and adhesive fixing.
• Claim 8 covers the threaded-strap variant with a clamping nut between the blocks (continuous adjustment).
• Claims 9, 18 cover the holder being releasably connected to at least one block.
• Claims 10, 19 cover shoulders on the holder seated in recesses of the blocks.
• Claims 11, 12, 20 cover an external strap holder on the side of the band facing away from the tooth, for fastening a strap and/or tube pieces.

Procedural note on the claims

The record shows claim 10 is marked "(Amended)" — the only claim carrying that annotation, indicating it was amended during prosecution. Its text requires recesses (17, 18) in the blocks and shoulders (63, 64) on the holder mounted in those recesses, matching the "push-on holder" embodiment of FIG. 4. I have not independently verified the pre-amendment wording or the reason for the amendment.

Caution on interpretation

Per your instruction, I have treated "5647743" literally and have not substituted any similar number. All of the above is drawn from the authoritative full text and the Google Patents family/legal-events record; the only item I could not conclusively establish from authoritative sources is any specific assignee entity beyond "Individual," and I found no 2026 litigation of any kind.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 5647743.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Let me check specialized litigation databases directly.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent No. 5,647,743

Bottom line: I found no record of any litigation involving US Patent No. 5,647,743.

I searched for the exact patent number across the kinds of sources you identified (Unified Patents litigation/insights pages, Docket Alarm, PTAB/USPTO document repositories, general patent-litigation aggregators, and open web). No district-court case, CAFC appeal, PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR/CBM), or ITC action referencing this specific patent surfaced. I deliberately did not count results for similar/overlapping numbers (e.g., unrelated patents such as 5,647,743-adjacent IDs, or the App/Textron matters that appeared in noise results but involve entirely different patents).

What the record does show about this patent

The authoritative patent record (Google Patents, fetched 2026-09-24) is consistent with a patent that was never asserted:

Two structural facts make litigation highly unlikely and explain the null result:

1. The patent lapsed in 2001 — roughly four years after grant, for non-payment of the first maintenance fee. A patent that expired in 2001 had only a short window in which it could have been asserted at all.
2. It is a narrow, individual-owned dental/orthodontic mechanical device (ring-shaped dental bands with integrally formed tensioning blocks and a tensioning screw). There is no indication of a commercial manufacturer/enforcer behind it, and no NPE-relevant profile.

Important caveats on my search

• I could not query PACER or the Unified Patents caselist directly. My tools returned search-engine results rather than direct database access, and I hit the tool-use limit before completing some targeted queries (CourtListener, Justia dockets). A null result from these searches is therefore not the same as a certified "no litigation" determination.
• Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. Very old, small, or unreported suits (especially 1997–2001, before broad free docket coverage) may exist in PACER but not be indexed in the sources I could reach.

Recommended next steps for a definitive answer

To confirm with high confidence, I would recommend running the patent number through:

• PACER (all district courts, 1997–2001 window especially) via a "Patent Number" / party-name (Schmitt) search;
• Lex Machina or Docket Navigator (commercial, comprehensive);
• Unified Patents Portal litigation caselist and PTAB docket (ptacts.uspto.gov);
• CAFC docket search for any appeal.

If you'd like, I can draft the specific search strings/party queries for those systems so a paralegal or researcher with direct access can complete the verification.

I'll start by checking whether any AIA trial proceedings exist beyond the ODP structured list.

Let me run targeted checks for any PTAB or litigation activity, including recently-filed proceedings.

One final check for litigation, reexamination, or Federal Circuit activity.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 5,647,743: zero (0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials). The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — the canonical USPTO Open Data Portal list — returns no AIA trials, and my independent web searches returned nothing on point (no IPR/PGR/CBM docket hits, no FWD, no PTAB appeal, no Federal Circuit docket for this patent). The bottom line for a defendant, however, is not "the patent is hardened" — it is the opposite: this patent lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees in 2001 and has been unenforceable for roughly a quarter-century. Any demand letter asserting it today is asserting a dead patent, and the absence of IPR activity is explained by timing (the enforceable life ended ~11 years before the first IPR was ever filed on 2012-09-16), not by the patent's strength.

---

No proceedings to report

There is no IPR, PGR, or CBM number to cite, no panel to name, no FWD to quote, no settlement, and no CAFC appeal — because no such proceeding exists in the record before me. I am deliberately not populating the per-proceeding template with invented case numbers, panels, or dispositions. Two caveats stated plainly:

1. I could not run a live PTAB E2E / PTACTS docket query in this session, so I cannot rule out with 100% certainty an institution decision issued in the last few weeks that has not yet been indexed. Given the patent's status (below), such a filing would be practically anomalous.
2. The USPTO ODP ingest is the authoritative list here, and it is empty.

---

The decisive fact that overwhelms the PTAB question: the patent is expired

US 5,647,743 was granted 1997-07-15 on application US 08/454,280 (filed 1994-05-11; priority to DE 9307108U and DE 4315585, both 1993-05-11). Its USPTO legal events show:

Current legal status on the face of the record: "Expired - Fee Related." The first maintenance fee (due at 3.5 years post-grant) was never paid, so the patent's enforceable term effectively ended 2001-07-15 — about four years after issuance, and more than a decade before the AIA created the IPR forum.

Consequences a defendant should put in writing to any asserting party:

• No infringing acts can accrue after 2001-07-15. Damages exposure, if any, is confined to a ~four-year window (1997-07-15 to 2001-07-15) and is long since barred by the six-year § 286 limitations period and by laches/§ 282 defenses.
• "Expired - Fee Related" cannot be cured retroactively by paying a late fee for a lapse of this vintage; the fee-revival window under 37 CFR 1.362/1.378 closed long ago.
• If a demand letter cites any of claims 1-20 as a live basis for royalties, that is a materially false assertion of enforceable patent rights (and a potential § 292 / unfair-competition issue depending on the facts). Ask the sender for the maintenance-fee receipt.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: ALL 20 CLAIMS UNTESTED — and, more importantly, ALL UNENFORCEABLE. The patent issued with 20 claims: claim 1 (independent, covering the pair of integrally formed tensioning blocks + tensioning screw + a holder seated between the blocks with receivers on its tooth-away side for a strap), and dependent claims 2–20. The Google Patents claim rendering flags claim 10 as "(Amended)," which suggests the file history contains a claim amendment to claim 10 during prosecution — I have not verified that against the file wrapper and do not rely on it. None of claims 1–20 was ever canceled, confirmed, or construed in any AIA trial, because none was challenged. The distinction that matters for a defendant is cancelation-by-FWD (which kills a claim) versus lapse-by-nonpayment (which kills the entire patent, including claims never tested).

Estoppel landscape: empty. Because no petitioner ever filed, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone. There is no petitioner, no privity chain, and no IPR-estoppel bar to navigate. Conversely, there is also no IPR shield to inherit — a defendant cannot point to an FWD and say "claim 1 is already dead." The correct defense is not estoppel; it is expiration, invalidity of the original term, and the fact that the art is ancient (the patent itself cites US 1,114,624 and US 1,292,885 from 1914, DE 1,029,981 from 1955, US 4,840,562, US 4,856,992, DE 3,915,807, DE 4,119,942, and US 5,257,439, plus the Schienbein 1972 dental-labor article). Note the near-identical pre-existing art — DE 41 19 942 A1 (Jeckel) is the very reference the specification criticizes as the closest prior art, and US 5,257,439 (LeBlanc, "Quick release adjustable dental band clamp," 1992-05-11 priority) is a striking pre-1993 analog. Any § 102/§ 103 theory a defendant needed would be built on public patents, not on a PTAB record, and would be available in district court free of IPR estoppel — but you should not need it, because the patent is expired.

Pattern signals: none. The same petitioner has not filed multiple IPRs (there are no petitioners). The patent owner has not appealed any PTAB decision to the Federal Circuit (there is no decision to appeal). No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) appears in the chain — the current assignee is listed simply as "Individual," original assignee "Individual," and Unified Patents' docket shows no activity against this patent. The one proceeding in the record at all is the original prosecution; the only "cited by" trail of interest is the post-1997 orthognathic/MFFS fixation line (e.g., US 5,911,574 to Casey, 1997-08-28) that cites this patent as background — i.e., the patent has been cited as prior art, which is the useful role it has played since 2001, not the role of an asserted asset.

---

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant: do not spend IPR budget — there is no PTAB record to leverage and no live patent to invalidate. Instead, (1) pull the USPTO maintenance-fee history and the 2001-09-18 lapse event as your primary exhibit; (2) demand that the asserting party identify the enforceable claim and the date of the last maintenance-fee payment; (3) if they persist, evaluate § 292 false marking and state-law unfair competition exposure, and consider a declaratory judgment of expiration/no infringement to clear the cloud.
• If you nonetheless want a validity record: because there is no FWD and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel, any § 102/§ 103 ground remains available — but this belongs in district court (or as a § 282 defense), not at the PTAB. There are no trial-stage milestones to track: no institution deadline, no oral hearing, no statutory one-year FWD clock, because no trial exists.
• Detecting a brand-new filing: if you have any reason to think a petition was just filed, verify directly on PTAB E2E / PTACTS (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/) and cross-check CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/) and the Federal Circuit docket. The structured ODP block in this record, as of the most recent ingest, shows nothing, and my searches surfaced nothing — I found no proceeding number, panel, FWD, settlement, or CAFC appeal to report, and I will not manufacture one.
• Plainly stated: no PTAB activity exists on US 5,647,743. In general, the absence of IPRs on a heavily asserted patent is a strength signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract petitions. Here the absence carries a different meaning: the patent's enforceable life ended 2001-07-15, more than eleven years before the IPR regime began, so there was never a live patent for anyone to petition against.

Primary sources: US 5,647,743 full text and legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/US5647743/en; related family publication WO1994026197A1 and EP0650346A1 (EP status: Withdrawn; WO status: Ceased).

I'll verify the chain against the assignment and legal-events records before writing anything up.

Let me check for litigation and any LLC assignment activity around this patent number.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern note: there is no multi-inventor team here, so the "all inventors depart within 12 months" fire-sale precursor does not apply in its usual form. The analogous signal — a sole inventor who never assigned to an employer — is present: the patent issued to an individual, which means the invention was almost certainly not made within the scope of an employment relationship and no company ever held title. There is therefore no corporate chain to unwind.

Original assignee

None — the patent issued to the inventor personally. Google Patents lists the original assignee as "Individual" and the current assignee as "Individual" (with Google's own disclaimer that its assignee field is not a legal analysis).

• Product embodying the claims: unverifiable and, on the record, effectively no. The patent lapsed for non-payment of the 3.5‑year maintenance fee on 2001‑07‑15 (see below), barely four years after grant. An assignee commercialising the claimed band-and-tensioning-block appliance would have had no reason to abandon the only US right covering it.
• Primary line of business: not a business — a private individual inventor.
• Current status: the invention is in the public domain. Legal events record LAPS (2001‑07‑15), FP lapsed due to failure to pay maintenance fee (effective 2001‑07‑15, recorded 2001‑09‑18), and STCH patent expired due to nonpayment under 37 CFR 1.362 (entry 2018‑01‑25). The parallel national-phase rights also died: EP 0650346 A1 – Withdrawn and WO 1994/026197 A1 – Ceased.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center shows no assignment records for US 5,647,743 — none before issuance, none after. Were I following the stop rule in the brief I would end the report here; the remaining sections below are retained but are necessarily degenerate.

Grounding for the null result:

• Google Patents' "Assignments" / legal-events table for US5647743A contains only maintenance-fee prosecution events (REMI, LAPS, FP, FEPP, STCH). There is no AS (assignment) event, no reel/frame, and no recorded conveyance of any type — Assignment, Security Agreement, Merger, Change of Name, License, or Release.
• The assignee field reads "Individual" for both original and current assignee, which is what the record shows when title never left the inventor.
• No correspondent of record exists to capture, because the correspondent field is only populated when a recording is filed. This is the single most useful negative finding in this report: with no correspondent, there is no repeat-player attorney running a recording campaign behind this patent number.
• Independent checks for assertion activity returned nothing tying US 5,647,743 to any litigation or PTAB proceeding. The Cited By lists (which include the large Intuitive Surgical articulation family) are forward citations to this patent, not assignments — they carry no ownership significance and should not be mistaken for a chain.

Two record observations worth flagging, neither of which is an assignment:

1. Claim 10 carries an "(Amended)" annotation in the granted claim set, yet no reexamination, reissue, or certificate-of-correction event appears in the legal events. The provenance of that amendment is unclear from the sources checked; I cannot attribute it to a specific post-grant proceeding without the file wrapper.
2. The non-patent citation of Schienbein, Konstruktionsprinzipien kieferorthopädische Schrauben, dental‑labor, June 1972, is the examiner's art, not a title document.

Search limitation, stated plainly: I could not execute an interactive query against assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov from this session; the checks above rely on indexed mirrors of the same underlying records plus Google Patents' legal-events table. The absence is strongly corroborated by four independent facts (Individual assignee both original and current, grant to a sole private inventor, lapse in 2001, no litigation), so I am confident in the null finding — but a direct reel/frame query at assignmentcenter.uspto.gov is the confirming step.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5647743
    1993 : Priority filed in Germany by Schmitt
    1994 : US application filed no assignee named
    1997 : Patent issued to Friedrich Schmitt
    2001 : Lapsed for unpaid maintenance fee
    2018 : Recorded as expired

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data — in the specific sense of no recorded assignments and only the original title to a sole individual inventor. Per the rubric this is the correct bucket: there are no reel/frame entries to cite because no recording exists, not because the chain is merely thin.

The honest characterisation is stronger than "insufficient data" in one direction: the corroborating record affirmatively shows non-assertion. The patent issued 1997‑07‑15 to Friedrich Schmitt personally, the maintenance fee went unpaid with lapse effective 2001‑07‑15, and the parallel EP and PCT rights were withdrawn/ceased. An individual inventor who abandons the sole US right four years after grant, with no assignment on file and no correspondent ever appearing, is the profile of a never-monetised private invention — the opposite of an NPE chain. Nothing here supports any other verdict, but "Insufficient data" is the only option in the rubric that fits a zero-record result.

Verify directly at: USPTO Patent Assignment Search — search "5647743" · USPTO Patent Center for 08/454,280 · Google Patents US5647743A legal events

I'll research each cited prior-art reference for US 5,647,743. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me research the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis for US 5,647,743 (application 08/454,280)

Scope, method, and a critical framing note

Patent confirmed by number. I analyzed US 5,647,743 only — not any similar number. Title: "Device for treating jaw fractures or tooth displacements." Inventor: Friedrich Schmitt. Priority: 1993‑05‑11 (DE 9307108U; DE 4315585). US filing: 1994‑05‑11; granted 1997‑07‑15. Consistent with the earlier-generated sections, I treat this as authoritative.

Governing law. Because the effective filing/priority date predates March 16, 2013, pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 applies (subsections (a), (b), and (e)). All dates below are therefore checked against the 1993‑05‑11 critical date (and, for §102(e), the filing dates).

The most important analytic point — and one that governs the whole answer: Anticipation under § 102 requires that a single reference disclose every limitation of the claim, arranged as in the claim. This threshold applies with special force here because:

• Claim 1 is the only independent claim. Every other claim (2–20) is dependent and incorporates all of claim 1's limitations by reference ("In a device in accordance with claim X…").
• Therefore a reference cannot anticipate a dependent claim unless it also anticipates claim 1 (plus the added limitation).

Bottom line up front: Based on the cited art and the claim text, no cited reference anticipates claim 1 — and consequently none anticipates claims 2–20. The references are far more useful as § 103 obviousness references than as § 102 anticipation references. I say this after applying each reference against claim 1 element-by-element. The one reference the patent itself frames as the closest prior art — DE 41 19 942 A1 (Jeckel) — is discussed in the specification's Background and is the single most relevant piece of art. Where I could not retrieve a reference's full text, I say so explicitly rather than characterizing it.

---

The cited prior art, at a glance

All entries are the art listed on the face of US 5,647,743 ("Patent Citations," "Family Cites Families," and "Non‑Patent Citations"). Dates are as recorded on the Google Patents record (fetched 2026‑09‑24).

Not prior art (excluded deliberately): DE 9307108U and DE 4315585 / DE 4315585 C2 are the applicant's own priority documents; WO 1994/026197 A1 and EP 0650346 A1 are the same family as US 5,647,743. None of these can anticipate this patent.

---

Reference-by-reference analysis

1. DE 41 19 942 A1 — Jeckel, Norbert (pub. 1993‑01‑07)

The closest art, per the patent itself. The Background of the Invention states: "Another device is known from DE 41 19 942 A1" and describes it as a strip of material placed around a tooth, with a holder soldered to one end, the other end bent into a loop-like receiver, and a wire threaded through the loop whose free ends are twisted to clamp the band around the tooth.

Retrieved description (Google Patents): an orthopedic device comprising a tooth strap (1) wrapped around the tooth, made of a strip of material (2) plus a clamping element (3); each free end (5, 6) provides a fixing position for the clamping element; the clamping element may be a rubber strip or a tie‑wire (7).

§102 assessment: Discloses element (a) (a ring-shaped dental band releasably fastened around a tooth) but not (b)–(e). Its clamping is achieved by a rubber strip or twisted tie‑wire — no integrally formed tensioning blocks and no tensioning screw. It also has no holder with strap receivers sitting in a gap between two tensioning blocks. Does not anticipate claim 1 (and therefore no dependent claim). It is, however, the strongest starting point for a §103 obviousness attack on the "removable band" concept, which is exactly how the applicant treated it.

2. US 4,840,562 — Wilson & Burrell (filed 1987‑11‑13; issued 1989‑06‑20)

"Adjustable orthodontic band." Retrieved claims and description confirm: a soft‑metal ribbon whose upper and lower halves are independently stretched to conform to the tooth. Claim 1 uses a tang with gear‑cut racks driven by pinions on vertically rotatable shafts in a frame welded to the band, with locking means. Claim 2 discloses "a pair of internally‑threaded stanchions, one above and one below… a pair of horizontally‑oriented bearing blocks, each containing a tightening screw… stop nuts threaded on said screws."

§102 assessment: The most technically relevant of the US band references. Its claim 2 arrangement — two blocks, one upper and one lower, each with a screw that draws the band closed, with stop nuts — maps onto the concept behind claim 2 of 5,647,743 (a screw near the upper edge and another near the lower edge). However:

• Wilson's blocks/racks/frame are "welded or otherwise joined to the band" — not "formed integrally," which is an express limitation of claim 1;
• Wilson has no holder disposed between the two blocks, no holder bore receiving the tensioning screw, and no strap receivers on a holder face.

Anticipation result: no for claim 1 and thus no for claim 2. Highly probative for §103, especially against the dual‑screw concept the applicant claimed.

3. US 5,257,439 — LeBlanc (filed 1992‑05‑11; issued 1993‑11‑02)

"Quick release adjustable dental band clamp." Retrieved text shows a band with undercut (slotted) indentations on one end engaged by a worm gear in a housing at the other end, with a quick‑release locking pin. Claim 1 is directed to the worm/housing/locking‑pin combination for circumferential tightening.

§102 assessment: This is hoop‑type clamping (worm‑gear), with no tensioning blocks, no tensioning screw between spaced blocks, and no intermediate holder with strap receivers. Does not anticipate claim 1 or any dependent claim. Its §102(e) date (filing 1992‑05‑11) makes it available art, but it is thematically weaker than Wilson for this claim set.

4. US 4,856,992 — Bergersen (filed 1987‑11‑04; issued 1989‑08‑15)

"Preformed bands with lingual extensions." I was unable to retrieve the full text within this session, so I do not characterize its disclosure beyond its title/field (preformed orthodontic bands with lingual extensions). On its face it concerns preformed bands and their ancillary extensions, not integral spaced tensioning blocks with a between‑blocks holder. Provisionally: does not anticipate claim 1. Treat this entry as requiring document‑level verification.

5. DE 39 15 807 A1 — Winkelstroeter Dentaurum (pub. 1990‑11‑15)

"Brace for correcting positions of teeth — is D‑shaped and formed from a single piece of wire attached to two molars." Only the abstract/title was retrievable. This describes a wire brace/splint spanning two molars — i.e., the force‑transmission arch/strap aspect, not the band‑clamping aspect.

§102 assessment: Potentially relevant to the strap/force‑transmitting dependent claims (11, 12, 20 — strap/tube holders on the band's tooth‑facing‑away side), but those claims incorporate claim 1, so it cannot anticipate them. Does not anticipate claim 1.

6. DE 1 029 981 B — Guegan, Adolphe (pub. 1958‑05‑14)

"Apparatus for straightening teeth." Full text not retrieved in this session. The title places it in the orthodontic‑appliance field. I cannot responsibly assert what it discloses; tentatively it does not anticipate claim 1. Document‑level verification recommended.

7 & 8. US 1,114,624 (1914) and US 1,292,885 (1919) — Meier / Meier Dental Mfg. Co.

Both are "Tooth‑straightening appliance." Retrieved claims of US 1,114,624: a tooth‑straightening appliance comprising an anchor band (10) having an anchor tube (13), an arch (15) in the anchor tube, an arch nut (17), and a clamping nut (19) threaded onto the anchor tube and adapted to clamp the arch nut thereto — i.e., band + tube + threaded locking nut for a wire/arch.

§102 assessment: These disclose a band with a socket/tube (analogous to the "holder") that carries an arch/wire (analogous to a "strap") and a threaded nut (analogous to a tensioning nut). That maps, at a conceptual level, onto the threaded‑strap + clamping‑nut idea of claim 8, and the tube/strap‑holder idea of claims 11/12/20. But there are no two spaced, integrally formed tensioning blocks, no tensioning screw bridging them, and no holder seated in the gap between blocks. Does not anticipate claim 1 (or the dependent claims that incorporate it). Best used as §103 art on the tube/arch‑holder and threaded‑nut sub‑features.

9. US 4,468,196 — Keller (filed 1982‑05‑24; issued 1984‑08‑28)

"Method of and apparatus for orthopedic and/or orthodontic treatment." As described in the Jeckel family background (DE‑PS 4 468 196 reference) and consistent with the record: a U‑shaped wire dental splint (Zahnschiene) whose free ends engage tooth/molaren bands on molars, each band carrying an anchor tube (Verankerungsröhrchen) into which the splint end is slidably inserted, with compression springs providing the distalisating force.

§102 assessment: Relevant to the strap‑and‑tube force‑transmission concept (again the claims 11/12/20 subject matter) and to the broad notion of bands fitted to teeth. It contains no integral tensioning blocks and no tensioning screw between spaced blocks. Does not anticipate claim 1.

10. FR 337,270 — Brunzlow, Richard (pub. 1904‑04‑02)

"Apparatus for dental orthopedics." Full text not retrieved; file is a very early (1903–04) French patent. On the face of the citation it is general orthopedic/dental apparatus. Provisionally does not anticipate claim 1; verify at document level.

11. Non‑patent: Schienbein, "Konstruktionsprinzipien kieferorthopädische Schrauben," dental‑labor, June 1972, pp. 27–30

A printed publication on the design principles of orthodontic screws. It is the one citation that squarely addresses the tensioning‑screw / threaded‑receiver element of claim 1. As a §102(b) printed publication it is available art, but it is a general design‑principles article, not an enabling disclosure of the specific claimed device. It cannot by itself anticipate claim 1; it is best used to show the well‑known nature of screw‑based orthodontic force generation (§103).

---

Claim 1, element-by-element, against the best candidates

No column is complete. No single reference contains all of (a)–(h), so claim 1 is not anticipated, and by operation of dependency, claims 2–20 are not anticipated either.

---

Most relevant prior art — ranked conclusions

1. DE 41 19 942 A1 (Jeckel, pub. 1993‑01‑07) — the most relevant reference overall and the closest art, because the applicant expressly identifies it as the starting point and distinguishes it. It teaches a removable, tooth‑encircling band but clamps via a rubber strip/twisted tie‑wire, not integral spaced tensioning blocks with a tensioning screw. The applicant's stated advance over Jeckel (rigid closed profile resists buckling; threaded connection achieves large, controllable clamping force; no cement needed) is precisely the gap this reference leaves open — a classic §103 posture.

2. US 4,840,562 (Wilson, 1989‑06‑20) — the most technically pertinent US reference, because its claim 2 discloses upper and lower tightening screws with stop nuts driving a band closed — the closest art to the dual‑screw feature of claim 2 of 5,647,743. Its failure to teach integral formation and the between‑blocks holder with strap receivers is what defeats anticipation.

3. US 5,257,439 (LeBlanc, §102(e) date 1992‑05‑11) — relevant band‑clamp art, but a different clamping principle (worm gear), weaker than Wilson.

4. US 4,468,196 (Keller) and DE 39 15 807 A1 (Dentaurum) — relevant to the force‑transmitting strap/tube aspects captured by dependent claims 11, 12, 20; insufficient against claim 1.

5. US 1,114,624 / US 1,292,885 (Meier) and the Schienbein 1972 article — historical art on tubes, arches, and screw/nut force generation; useful for §103 on the sub‑features, not for anticipation.

Net result for the requested §102 mapping: the cited art does not anticipate any claim of US 5,647,743. The most relevant references — DE 41 19 942 A1 and US 4,840,562 — are the ones a practitioner would build a §103 combination around, typically with Keller / Dentaurum supplying the strap‑holder teaching and Schienbein supplying the screw‑design teaching.

---

Confidence and caveats (stated explicitly)

• Full text retrieved and relied upon: US 4,840,562 (Wilson); US 5,257,439 (LeBlanc); DE 41 19 942 A1 (Jeckel); US 1,114,624 (Meier, claims and description).
• Not fully retrieved in this session — analysis provisional: US 4,856,992 (Bergersen); DE 39 15 807 A1 (Dentaurum); DE 1 029 981 B (Guegan); FR 337,270 (Brunzlow); and the pagination of the Schienbein non‑patent article. I characterized these only from their titles/abstracts and the citation context, and I flagged each accordingly. These four should be pulled and read at document level before any legal use.
• No auto‑correction applied. All identifiers (DE 41 19 942 A1, US 5,647,743, US 08/454,280, etc.) are reproduced exactly as they appear in the authoritative record.
• I state dates exactly as recorded; where a publication post‑dates the 1993‑05‑11 priority (notably US 5,257,439, published 1993‑11‑02), I relied on its 1992‑05‑11 filing date for §102(e) eligibility rather than asserting §102(a)/(b).

If you'd like, I can next (a) draft the specific §103 combination rationale among DE 41 19 942 A1 + US 4,840,562 + Keller/Schienbein with the motivation‑to‑combine articulated, or (b) produce the exact document‑level retrieval queries for the four unverified references.

I'll research the cited prior-art references to ground the obviousness analysis, since claim 1 is a combination claim and I need to know what each reference actually discloses.

Let me get details on the remaining cited references, especially the closest prior art (DE 41 19 942 A1, Jeckel) discussed in the patent's background.

Obviousness Analysis — US 5,647,743 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the claim overview and litigation summary already produced. I do not repeat the claim-by-claim recap or the procedural notes (including the "(Amended)" flag on claim 10), and I flag the one place where my findings interact with those sections.

---

1. Framework and evidentiary limits

This analysis applies the Graham v. John Deere factors — (a) scope/content of the prior art, (b) differences between the claims and the prior art, (c) level of ordinary skill, (d) secondary considerations — under the KSR Int'l v. Teleflex rationales (known-technique improvement; simple substitution of one known element for another; obvious-to-try; predictable results).

Two evidentiary caveats, stated up front:

1. I am restricted to the references on this page's Prior Art section, as instructed. I have full or near-full text for US 4,840,562 (Wilson), US 5,257,439 (LeBlanc), DE 41 19 942 A1 (Jeckel), and US 4,468,196 (Keller). For US 1,114,624 / US 1,292,885 (Meier), DE 1,029,981 B (Guegan), US 4,856,992 (Bergersen), DE 39 15 807 A1 (Dentaurum), and the Schienbein NPL citation (dental-labor, June 1972), I have only the patent-record characterizations and partial descriptions. I will not attribute specific disclosures to those references beyond what I can support, and I mark them as unverified where used.
2. All references are available as prior art against the 1993‑05‑11 priority date. One nuance is worth flagging: US 5,257,439 (LeBlanc) issued 1993‑11‑02, i.e., after the priority date — but it was filed 1992‑05‑11, so it qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA § 102(e) as of its filing date. It cannot be disregarded merely because its publication post-dates the priority date.

Because no single reference appears to disclose the full claim 1 combination, anticipation (§ 102) is not the operative ground; § 103 is.

Level of ordinary skill (Step 3): a POSITA here is a practicing orthodontist or a dental-appliance designer/technician with a few years' experience in fixed orthodontic appliances and molar/anchor bands, familiar with the routine catalogue of band-clamping and force-transmitting hardware (cemented bands, soldered buccal tubes, archwires, elastic/tie-wire ligatures, and orthodontic (expansion) screws). This is not a sophisticated field beyond the mechanical dental-arts level.

---

2. Scope and content of the prior art (Step 1)

Critically, the specification itself supplies admitted prior art. The Background states that in commercial appliances "[s]hort tubes are soldered to the dental bands and are used for receiving straps and tensioning elements. The tensioning elements transfer directed forces to the individual teeth and thus also to the jaw." This is an applicant admission that band-mounted receivers for straps/tensioning elements and force-transfer from band to jaw were known. That admission materially narrows the distance between the prior art and element (g) of claim 1.

---

3. Claim 1 — the differences and why they are obvious (Steps 1–2)

Claim 1 (the sole independent claim) requires, in substance:
(a) a ring-shaped band on ≥2 teeth; (b) ≥2 tensioning blocks formed integrally on the band; (c) arranged in a spaced pair; (d) aligned bores and/or threaded receivers in both blocks; (e) ≥1 tensioning screw in them to draw the blocks together; (f) a holder in the space between the blocks, with a bore receiving that tensioning screw; (g) the holder having plural receivers (61, 62) on its tooth-away side for a strap.

Jeckel supplies (a) in full — a tooth-wrapping band releasably fastened to the tooth, with a clamping element at the strip's free ends that draws them together to clamp. The patent's own Background describes the Jeckel-style structure identically: strip around the tooth, holder soldered to one end, loop receiver at the other end, and a wire whose twisted free ends move the band ends toward each other to clamp. Jeckel thus discloses the same band-clamping concept as claim 1, implemented with a rubber strip or a twist-tie.

The difference between Jeckel and claim 1 is the clamping hardware: Jeckel clamps with rubber/twisted wire; claim 1 clamps with integral blocks + screw (elements b–e). That difference is squarely addressed by Wilson, which discloses a band whose upper and lower portions are drawn together by screws threaded into internally-threaded receivers (stanchions), with stop nuts, to achieve independent tightening and conformity and a "tighter grip."

Motivation to combine (KSR):

• Same field, same problem. Both Jeckel and Wilson concern fixing an orthodontic band firmly to a tooth and generating sufficient clamping/anchoring force; Wilson is a fortiori pertinent because it expressly targets band firmness and conformity and addresses the very "unsatisfactory fixated life"/"tighter grip" problem the '743 patent identifies.
• Known technique to improve a similar device, predictable result. Replacing a weakness-limited clamping means (rubber strip / twisted wire, which the '743 specification itself says "cannot [achieve] sufficient tensioning forces") with a screw-driven clamp is a simple substitution of one known band-clamping element for another, yielding the predictable result of higher, adjustable, releasable clamping force. KSR.
• Design incentive. Wilson and LeBlanc both teach removability/reusability and heightened clamping force — exactly the objectives the '743 patent recites ("securely and immovably… easily released with a wrench"). A POSITA seeking to improve Jeckel would predictably reach for the screw/threaded-receiver clamp of Wilson.
• The NPL (Schienbein) and the admitted "soldered tubes … receiving straps and tensioning elements" further show that screw/threaded and band-mounted force elements were part of the ordinary designer's toolkit, lowering any "but they wouldn't have thought of it" argument.

The residual limitations — (b) "integrally formed," (f) holder-bridging-the-blocks, (g) strap receivers:

• (g) receivers for straps on the tooth-away side is admitted prior art (soldered short tubes "for receiving straps and tensioning elements"), and is also disclosed by Keller (bands "adapted to hold an archwire," plus buccal wires) and, for a strap spanning two bands, by Dentaurum DE 39 15 807 A1 (single wire spanning two molars) [unverified]. Element (g) therefore adds nothing patentable over the art of record.
• (f) holder between the blocks with the screw through it — Wilson's first embodiment has a bracket "in the area between the frame and the racks … capable of holding archwires," i.e., an archwire/strap holder mounted in the tightening assembly region. Combining Wilson's bracket-holder with Wilson's own screw clamp to yield a holder captured between the tightening members is an obvious mechanical aggregation of two elements both shown in one reference — the classic KSR "combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results."
• (b) "formed integrally" — this is the weakest element for the patentee to defend, but not a strong non-obviousness anchor: the patent's own field made band hardware by soldering ("short tubes are soldered to the dental bands"; Jeckel's "holder is soldered to the one end"), and making an attached component integral with its base is a routine manufacturing expedient — a predictable substitution of a unitary construction for a joined one with the same function. Absent evidence of an unexpected property attributable to integrality (none is described beyond the generic "closed profile" stability), this limitation does not rescue claim 1.

Conclusion on claim 1: Obvious under § 103 as Jeckel + Wilson, optionally with Keller (or Dentaurum) for the strap-holder element; the strongest specific combination is DE 41 19 942 A1 + US 4,840,562, and the strap-holder/force-transfer element is supplied by the specification's own admission plus US 4,468,196.

---

4. Dependent claims — chart

Because claim 1 collapses, dependent claims rise or fall on their added limitations.

No dependent claim contains a limitation that, on this record, converts the claim 1 combination into a non-obvious advance; each adds a known structural expedient (threading, press-fit, adhesive, releasable mount, tube/holder) already reflected in the admitted prior art or in Wilson/LeBlanc/Keller.

---

5. Secondary considerations (Step 4)

No secondary-consideration evidence appears in, or is reflected by, this record: no assertion, licensing, or industry-adoption evidence is present, and — as developed in the earlier Litigation summary — the patent was never asserted and lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees effective 2001‑07‑15, only ~4 years post-grant. Absent nexus-bearing evidence of unexpected results, industry praise, or copying, the § 103 conclusion is not rebutted. (Indicia of "removability without cement" are recited as advantages in the specification, but they are inherent, expected consequences of using a screw clamp — not unexpected results.)

---

6. Bottom line

• Claim 1 is likely obvious over DE 41 19 942 A1 (Jeckel) in view of US 4,840,562 (Wilson) — the same field, the same band-clamping problem, and a predictable substitution of Wilson's threaded screw clamp for Jeckel's rubber/tie-wire clamp — with the strap-holder element supplied by the specification's own admission (soldered strap/tensioning tubes) and by US 4,468,196 (Keller) (bands "adapted to hold an archwire"). US 5,257,439 (LeBlanc) independently reinforces the "tight grip + quick release" motivation.
• Claims 2–20 are likewise obvious: claim 2 reads almost verbatim onto Wilson's upper/lower individually-turnable tightening screws with stop nuts; claim 8 onto the ubiquitous threaded-rod-and-nut adjustment; claims 5–7/11–12/15–17/20 onto admitted and Keller-disclosed band-mounted wire/tube holders; claims 9/18–19/10 onto routine releasable/slidable mounting.
• The patentees' best (and only) arguable redoubts are the "formed integrally" limitation of claim 1 and the shoulders-in-recesses limitation of claim 10 (which carries the "(Amended)" annotation). Both are, in my view, vulnerable as predictable manufacturing/mounting expedients, but they are where a validity defense would concentrate, and I cannot fully rebut them from the record without the pre-amendment claim history and the full texts of the Meier/Guegan/Bergersen/Dentaurum references — which I flag as unverified here.

Recommendation: if a formal § 103 rejection were constructed, lead with Jeckel (DE 41 19 942 A1) + Wilson (US 4,840,562), and use Keller (US 4,468,196) / the applicant's own specification admission for the strap-receiver element. Obtain the full texts of DE 1,029,981 B, US 1,114,624, US 1,292,885, US 4,856,992, and DE 39 15 807 A1, plus the Schienbein NPL, before finalizing — those are the references most likely to supply the "integrally formed" and block-orientation limitations that I could not verify from the clipped record.