Dental Monitoring Sas v. Align Technology, Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DENTAL MONITORING SAS,
Appellant
v.
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Appellee
______________________
2025-1879, 2025-1881
______________________
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2024-
00052, IPR2024-00110.
______________________
Decided: July 21, 2026
______________________
MICHAEL P. SANDONATO, Venable LLP, Los Angeles,
CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by J OSHUA
D ANIEL CALABRO, New York, NY.
N ATHAN K. K ELLEY , Ashurst Perkins Coie US LLP,
Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by
D AN L. BAGATELL , Hanover, NH; HARI SANTHANAM , T ARA
L AUREN K URTIS , Chicago, IL.
______________________
Case: 25-1879 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 07/21/2026

-- 1 of 10 --

DENTAL MONITORING SAS v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY , INC. 2
Before L OURIE, SCHALL , and T ARANTO, Circuit Judges.
L OURIE, Circuit Judge.
Dental Monitoring SAS (“Dental Monitoring”) appeals
from two inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decisions
of the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the
Board”) determining that claims 1, 2, 4, 7–8, and 13–16 of
U.S. Patent 11,049,248 (“the ’248 patent”) and claims 1, 2,
and 4–6 of U.S. Patent 11,109,945 (“the ’945 patent”) had
been shown to be unpatentable as obvious. Align Tech.,
Inc. v. Dental Monitoring SAS, IPR2024-00052, 2025 WL
1129266 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2025), J.A. 52–129 (“’248 patent
IPR”); Align Tech., Inc. v. Dental Monitoring SAS,
IPR2024-00110, 2025 WL 1129290 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16,
2025), J.A. 1–51 (“’945 patent IPR”). For the following
reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Dental Monitoring owns the ’248 and ’945 patents,
which are directed to methods for evaluating and assessing
the shape of an orthodontic aligner. See ’248 pat., Abstract;
’945 pat., Abstract. The ’248 patent claims a method for
assessing the shape of an orthodontic aligner by measuring
the separation between a tooth and aligner by (1) acquiring
an image of an aligner on the teeth; and (2) analyzing the
image using a “deep learning device. ” ’248 pat., col. 32 ll.
6–23. A “deep learning device” is a device that uses deep
learning to “progressively learn[] to recognize patterns on
an image.” ’248 pat., col. 16 ll. 40–41. The ’945 patent
claims a method for “evaluating the shape of an orthodontic
aligner worn by a patient,” where the steps of the method
comprise (1) acquiring an image of teeth and an image of
the aligner on the teeth; (2) comparing the two images;
(3) determining teeth outlines on the images using image
processing software; and (4) comparing the tooth outlines
to compute a score which may indicate separation between
the tooth and the aligner. ’945 pat., col. 13 l. 59–col. 14 l.
17; id. col. 11. l. 63–col. 12 l. 5.
Case: 25-1879 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 07/21/2026

-- 2 of 10 --

DENTAL MONITORING SAS v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY , INC. 3
Align Technology, Inc. (“Align”) filed two petitions for
IPR with the Board, challenging claims 1, 2, and 4–6 of the
’945 patent and claims 1, 2, 4, 7–8, and 13–16 of the ’248
patent. See ’945 patent IPR, 2025 WL 1129266, at *1; ’248
patent IPR, 2025 WL 1129266, at *1. The Board instituted
both IPRs. See ’945 patent IPR, 2025 WL 1129266, at *1;
’248 patent IPR, 2025 WL 1129266, at *1.
Claim 1 of each patent, representative of the claims for
their respective IPRs, is reproduced below. Claim 1 of the
’248 patent reads as follows:
A method for assessing the shape of an orthodontic
aligner, said method comprising the following
steps:
a) more than 1 week after the start of the
treatment with the aligner, acquisition of
at least one image at least partially repre-
senting the aligner in a service position in
which it is worn by a patient, called “anal-
ysis image”, the analysis image being a
photograph, or an image extracted from a
film;
b) analysis of the analysis image by means
of a deep learning device, trained by means
of a learning base, so as to determine a
value for at least one tooth attribute of an
“analysis tooth zone” representing, at least
partially, a tooth on said analysis image,
the tooth attribute relating to a separation
between the tooth represented by the analy-
sis tooth zone, and the aligner represented
on the analysis image,
in the step a), a cellphone is used to acquire the
analysis image.
’248 pat., col. 32 ll. 6–23 (emphases added).
Case: 25-1879 Document: 43 Page: 3 Filed: 07/21/2026

-- 3 of 10 --

DENTAL MONITORING SAS v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY , INC. 4
Claim 1 of the ’945 patent reads as follows:
A method for evaluating the shape of an orthodon-
tic aligner worn by a patient, said method compris-
ing the following steps:
1) acquisition of at least one two-dimen-
sional image of teeth of said patient, re-
ferred to as “updated image”, under actual
acquisition conditions;
at least one updated image referred to as
“aligner image”, at least partially repre-
senting the aligner in a service position in
which it is worn by said teeth; and at least
one updated image referred to as “dentition
image”, identical to or different from the
aligner image, representing said teeth,
2) if the dentition image is different from
the aligner image, conversion of the denti-
tion image so that it represents said teeth
as seen under the acquisition conditions
used during the acquisition of the aligner
image in step 1);
3) determination, by means of image pro-
cessing software, for each of a plurality of
teeth represented on the dentition and
aligner images, of interior and exterior
tooth outlines representing the outline of the
free end of said tooth on the dentition and
aligner images, respectively;
4) comparison of the interior and exterior
tooth outlines, so as to determine at least
one score according to said comparison.
’409 pat., col. 13 l. 59–col. 14 l. 17 (emphases added).
In the ’248 patent IPR, the Board determined that
claim 1 of the ’248 patent was unpatentable as obvious over
Case: 25-1879 Document: 43 Page: 4 Filed: 07/21/2026

-- 4 of 10 --

DENTAL MONITORING SAS v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY , INC. 5
the combination of four prior art references: (1) U.S. patent
application 2017/0281313 (“Kim”), J.A. 6274; (2) a clinic
monitoring guide published by Align for its Invisalign prod-
ucts (“Invisalign”), J.A. 6308; (3) WO 2016/066651 (“Sa-
lah”), J.A. 6373; and (4) a published paper on convolutional
neural networks (“Maninis”), J.A. 6359. ’248 patent IPR,
2025 WL 1129266, at *30. In the ’945 patent IPR, the
Board determined that claim 1 of the ’945 patent was un-
patentable as obvious over Kim, Invisalign, and Salah.
’945 patent IPR, 2025 WL 1129266, at *21.
In deciding both IPRs, the Board relied on testimony
from Align’s expert, Dr. Hassan Foroosh, who it deter-
mined qualified as a skilled artisan due to his advanced
degrees in computer science and his work experience with,
inter alia, deep learning. ’248 patent IPR, 2025 WL
1129266, at *5–6; ’945 patent IPR, 2025 WL 1129266, at
*5–6.
Dental Monitoring timely appealed. We have jurisdic-
tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
D ISCUSSION
Dental Monitoring makes two main arguments chal-
lenging the Board’s obviousness determinations: (1) the
prior art does not disclose the relevant limitations of the
challenged claims of each patent; and (2) even if the prior
art made such disclosures, the challenged claims would not
have been obvious. Open. Br. 36–37. We address each in
turn. But before we do, we note that claims 1 and 14 of the
’248 patent have already been determined to be directed to
ineligible subject matter. Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align
Tech., Inc., No. 2024-2270, 2026 WL 1959297, at *6
(Fed. Cir. July 7, 2026). We therefore exclude those claims
from our analysis here as they are already invalid. Id.
I
We review the Board’s determinations as to what the
prior art discloses for substantial evidence. See HD Silicon
Case: 25-1879 Document: 43 Page: 5 Filed: 07/21/2026

-- 5 of 10 --

DENTAL MONITORING SAS v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY , INC. 6
Sols. LLC v. Microchip Tech. Inc., 127 F.4th 919, 923
(Fed. Cir. 2025). Substantial evidence is “such relevant ev-
idence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB,
305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
The Board determined that (1) Salah and Maninis
taught a “deep learning device, trained by means of a learn-
ing base, so as to determine a . . . tooth attribute relating
to a separation between the tooth . . . and the aligner” (“the
‘deep learning device’ limitation”), see ’248 patent IPR,
2025 WL 1129266, at *23–25; (2) Kim––or in the alterna-
tive, the combination of Kim, Invisalign, and Salah––
taught the limitation of requiring an image of an aligner in
the service position for analysis by a computer (“the service
position limitation”), see id. at *17–20; and (3) Kim, In-
visalign, and Salah taught “determination, by means of im-
age processing software, for each of a plurality of teeth
represented on the dentition and aligner images, of interior
and exterior tooth outlines representing the outline of the
free end of said tooth on the dentition and aligner images,
respectively,” (“the determination limitation”) and “com-
parison of the interior and exterior tooth outlines, so as to
determine at least one score according to said comparison,”
(“the comparison limitation), see ’945 patent IPR, 2025 WL
1129266, at *13–16. We conclude that each determination
is supported by substantial evidence.
First, substantial evidence supports the Board’s deter-
mination that Salah and Maninis teach the “deep learning
device” limitation. See ’248 patent IPR, 2025 WL 1129266,
at *23–25. Maninis discloses a deep learning architecture
in the form of a “convolutional neural network.” J.A. 6359
(citation modified). The ’248 patent provides a non-limit-
ing list of neural networks which could be the deep learning
device, including “networks specializing in the classifica-
tion of images, called . . . ‘convolutional neural networks.’”
’248 pat., col. 16 ll. 5–11. Maninis further teaches using
neural networks to classify objects. See J.A. 6359 (stating
Case: 25-1879 Document: 43 Page: 6 Filed: 07/21/2026

-- 6 of 10 --

DENTAL MONITORING SAS v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY , INC. 7
that convolutional neural networks “fostered the appear-
ance of systems . . . for image classification”). When com-
bined with Salah’s teaching of using deep learning to
determine “[d]iscriminant information” such as “contour”
or “distance information,” see J.A. 6407–09, substantial ev-
idence supports the Board’s conclusion that the references
teach the “deep learning device” limitation because the con-
volutional neural network could be used to classify teeth
and determine separation information.
Second, substantial evidence supports the Board’s de-
termination that, at a minimum, the combination of Kim,
Salah, and Invisalign teach the service position limitation.
See ’248 pat., col. 32 ll. 9–11; ’945 pat., col. 13 ll. 65–67.
Salah teaches using a cell phone to acquire an image of a
patient’s teeth for image analysis. J.A. 6375 (stating that
its “method for checking the positioning and/or shape of
teeth . . . c[ould] also be carried out by a . . . cell phone”).
Invisalign demonstrates a photograph of teeth wearing an
aligner––i.e., the aligner in the service position––to assess
aligner fit on the teeth. See J.A. 6313 (image of aligner on
teeth). And Kim teaches imaging of a patient’s teeth re-
motely to assess aligner fit. J.A. 6274 (“a method and sys-
tem for providing remote teeth alignment services”).
Substantial evidence thus supports the Board’s determina-
tion that the combination of the three references teaches
the service position limitation.
And finally, substantial evidence supports the Board’s
determination that Kim, Invisalign, and Salah teach the
determination and comparison limitations. See ’945 patent
IPR, 2025 WL 1129266, at *13–16. Salah teaches using
image processing to detect contours of objects in the mouth.
J.A. 6391 (“Image processing enables discriminant infor-
mation to be extracted and quantified.”); J.A. 6387 (“discri-
minant information is selected from the group consisting of
contour information . . .”). That teaching, in combination
with Kim teaching remote alignment assessment,
J.A. 6274, and Invisalign teaching measurement of tooth
Case: 25-1879 Document: 43 Page: 7 Filed: 07/21/2026

-- 7 of 10 --

DENTAL MONITORING SAS v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY , INC. 8
and aligner separation, J.A. 6313, constitutes substantial
evidence supporting the Board’s determination.
Dental Monitoring’s arguments on appeal as to each
point are unavailing. Throughout its briefing, it attacks
each reference individually, instead of focusing on the com-
bination of the references. See, e.g., Open. Br. 40 (“[n]ei-
ther Salah nor Maninis even mentions any aligner”); id. at
46 (“Salah does not disclose any image of an
aligner . . . [a]nd Invisalign does not use the image for any
computer analysis”) (emphasis in original); id. at 47–48
(discussing Kim, Invisalign, and Salah individually). But
“obviousness focuses on what the combined teachings
would have suggested.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1330
(Fed. Cir. 2012). Indeed, “one cannot show non-obvious-
ness by attacking references individually where . . . the re-
jections are based on combinations of references.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). As detailed above,
the combination of the references teaches each claim limi-
tation that Dental Monitoring challenges on appeal.
II
Dental Monitoring next argues that even if the prior
art did make such disclosures, the challenged claims would
not have been obvious. Specifically, it argues that: (1) Sa-
lah teaches away from deep learning and “low contrast re-
gions” used in the claimed inventions; (2) Maninis was not
publicly accessible before the prior art date; and (3) Align’s
expert, Dr. Foroosh, was not qualified as a skilled artisan.
Open. Br. 48–54. We review the first two challenges for
substantial evidence. See HD Silicon, 127 F.4th at 923;
M&K Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 985 F.3d 1376,
1379 (Fed. Cir. 2021); ATEN Int’l Co. Ltd., v. Uniclass
Tech. Co., 932 F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019). We review
the third challenge for an abuse of discretion. See Belden
Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For the reasons below, Dental Monitoring’s arguments are
unavailing.
Case: 25-1879 Document: 43 Page: 8 Filed: 07/21/2026

-- 8 of 10 --

DENTAL MONITORING SAS v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY , INC. 9
First, substantial evidence supports the Board’s deter-
mination that Salah does not teach away from the proposed
combination of references. Although Salah states that
deep learning is “not preferred,” J.A. 6408–6409, it explic-
itly states that deep learning “c[ould] also be used,” id.
That is not the type of criticism, discreditation, or discour-
agement that constitutes a “teaching away.” See Fulton,
391 F.3d at 1201 (“[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more
than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away
from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does
not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage”). Further-
more, substantial evidence––in the form of Dr. Foroosh’s
testimony regarding Salah and examples showing suffi-
cient contrast––supports the Board’s conclusion that Salah
does not teach away from “low contrast regions.” See ’248
patent IPR, 2025 WL 1129266, at *25.
Second, substantial evidence supports the Board’s con-
clusion that Maninis was publicly accessible before the
prior art date of July 21, 2027. In reaching its conclusion,
the Board relied on archived snapshots of the website
arXIV.org, along with expert declaration and testimony.
’248 patent IPR, 2025 WL 1129266, at *13–15. The Board
did not clearly err in crediting such evidence, which rea-
sonably establishes that Maninis was submitted for publi-
cation on April 28, 2017, and that the publication timeline
was likely between one to four days. See J.A. 6803 (publi-
cation timeline of one to four days); J.A. 5040–41 (testi-
mony regarding reliability of publication timeline).
Furthermore, an archived version of arXIV.org demon-
strates that Maninis was available for download on May 3,
2017. See J.A. 6807; ’248 patent IPR, 2025 WL 1129266, at
*14. While Dental Monitoring quibbles with the indirect
nature of the evidence, see Open. Br. 51–52, the evidence
here constitutes substantial evidence to uphold the Board’s
factual finding. See In re Morsa, 713 F.3d 104, 109 (Fed.
Cir. 2013) (upholding the Board’s factual finding regarding
Case: 25-1879 Document: 43 Page: 9 Filed: 07/21/2026

-- 9 of 10 --

DENTAL MONITORING SAS v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY , INC. 10
publication date of prior art despite reasons why the date
may have been “suspect”).
And finally, the Board did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that Align’s expert, Dr. Foroosh, qualified as a
skilled artisan. The Board concluded that Dr. Foroosh
qualified as a skilled artisan because he had an advanced
degree in computer science, work experience in machine
learning and computer vision as it applied to medical fields.
’945 patent IPR, 2025 WL 1129266, at *5. And indeed, Dr.
Foorosh has such qualifications. J.A. 5115, 5120, 5125–26.
While Dental Monitoring argues he does not have experi-
ence in dentistry or orthodontics, Open. Br. 53, that is not
required––Dr. Foroosh had the requisite education and
background necessary such that the Board did not abuse
its discretion in deeming him qualified as a skilled artisan.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Dental Monitoring’s remaining ar-
guments but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing
reasons, we affirm the Board’s decisions.
AFFIRMED
Case: 25-1879 Document: 43 Page: 10 Filed: 07/21/2026

-- 10 of 10 --