PTAB

IPR2025-00817

ClearCorrect Operating LLC v. Align Technology Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Systems and Methods for Scanning Teeth to Create 3D Models
  • Brief Description: The ’936 patent describes systems and methods for intraoral 3D scanning for dental procedures. The core claimed process involves generating an initial 3D model of a patient's teeth, allowing a user to identify and remove a portion of that model, performing a second scan after the patient's intraoral cavity has been physically changed, and then replacing the removed portion of the model with data from the second scan to create an updated composite model.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Boerjes and Geng - Claims 1, 4-6, 8-12, and 14-16 are obvious over Boerjes, alone or in view of Geng.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Boerjes (WO 2007/084727) and Geng (Patent 7,474,932).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Boerjes discloses a system for scanning teeth that includes all core steps of the challenged claims. Boerjes teaches capturing an initial 3D model and performing a quality check where a user can identify regions requiring "additional surface preparation" (a physical modification) and then conduct a "supplemental scan" to "replace" the inadequate data. This new data is then "stitched" into the model. Petitioner contended that for limitations requiring removal of the old data prior to replacement, this step is rendered obvious by Boerjes or is explicitly taught by Geng, which discloses an editor tool for "deleting" and "eliminating undesirable areas" from a 3D dental model.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Geng's explicit editing functions with Boerjes's system to improve the efficiency and accuracy of the model replacement process. Using a known editing tool to remove unwanted data before adding new data was presented as a predictable and logical step to ensure a clean and accurate final model, a goal shared by both references.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references describe similar intraoral scanning systems with graphical user interfaces. Integrating a known software editing function (from Geng) into Boerjes’s system would involve ordinary computer programming skills to achieve the predictable result of improved model accuracy.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Boerjes and Babayoff - Claims 2-3, 7, 13, and 17-20 are obvious over Boerjes in view of Babayoff.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Boerjes (WO 2007/084727) and Babayoff (Application # US 2005/0283065).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that this combination renders obvious dependent claims reciting specific scanner hardware and data processing steps. Babayoff was argued to disclose the specific scanner hardware of claims 2 and 18, including a "probing member," "sensing face," "light focusing optics," and a "translation mechanism." For claims 7 and 13, which require discarding a remainder of the second scan data after stitching, Petitioner argued Babayoff teaches this was a well-known method to discard redundant overlapping data, reduce artifacts, and improve processing efficiency.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would be motivated to use Babayoff's more advanced scanner within the Boerjes system to gain benefits such as improved color data capture, which enhances prosthesis color matching and margin-line identification. Further, a POSITA would incorporate Babayoff's technique of discarding redundant data into Boerjes's workflow to improve the smoothness of the stitched boundary, reduce data size, and increase processing speed, all of which are desirable improvements.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in the combination. Boerjes's system is disclosed as being compatible with any suitable camera system, making the substitution of Babayoff's known scanner a straightforward implementation. Similarly, modifying software to discard repetitive data after stitching is a conventional technique in image processing.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 2-3, 7, 13, and 17-20 based on the combination of Boerjes, Geng, and Babayoff, relying on similar component-based design modification theories.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner stated that the challenged claims are unpatentable under either their plain and ordinary meaning or under the preliminary constructions from a parallel district court proceeding, which Petitioner adopted for the purposes of the IPR.
  • The construction for the term "replace [replacing] at least a portion of the [removed] surface portion of the model ... using the received second scan data ..." was proposed as "[register]/[registering] the [received] second scan data with a retained portion of the model after removing the scan data of the removed surface portion." This construction is central to Petitioner's argument that removing the old data is a key step, either inherent in the term "replace" or made obvious by the prior art.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution of the IPR. To support this, Petitioner stipulated that if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue in the parallel district court litigation any invalidity ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in the petition.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’936 patent as unpatentable.