throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 23
`Entered: January 13, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FUZZYSHARP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00001
`Patent 6,618,047 B1
`_______________
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`DAVID C. MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00001
`Patent 6,618,047 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`Intel Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to
`institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 8, 11–13, 46, 57, 64, 65, and 67
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,618,047 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’047 patent”). FuzzySharp
`Technologies, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6,
`“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, in our Decision to Institute
`(Paper 7, “Dec.”), we instituted this proceeding as to all of the challenged
`claims of the ’047 patent.
`During this trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
`(Paper 15, “PO Resp.”) and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 19, “Reply”). An oral hearing in this matter and IPR2014-
`00002 (argued together) was held on October 28, 2014 (Paper 22, “Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This decision is a final
`written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of the
`challenged claims. Based on the record before us, Petitioner has
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 8, 11–13,
`46, 57, 64, 65, and 67 are unpatentable.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`According to Petitioner, Patent Owner has asserted the ’047 patent
`against Petitioner in Case No. 4:12-cv-04413-YGR (N.D. Cal.) (“Intel
`action”), which is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
`Federal Circuit. Pet. 2; Paper 18.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00001
`Patent 6,618,047 B1
`
`According to Patent Owner, the only matter pending that may be
`affected by a decision in this proceeding is FuzzySharp Technologies, Inc. v.
`Nvidia Corp., Case No. 12-cv-6375-JST (N.D. Cal.). Paper 5, at 2.
`Petitioner also filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,172,679 B1 (“the ’679 patent”). See Intel Corp. v. FuzzySharp
`Technologies, Inc., Case IPR2014-00002 (PTAB). The ’047 patent is a
`continuation of the ’679 patent. See Ex. 1001, at [63]. The ’679 patent also
`is asserted by Patent Owner in the Intel action. See, e.g., Ex. 1009.
`
`C. References Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`David Salesin & Jorge Stolfi, The ZZ-Buffer: A Simple and Efficient
`Rendering Algorithm with Reliable Antialiasing (1989)
`(Ex. 1002, “Salesin”);
`JAMES D. FOLEY ET AL., COMPUTER GRAPHICS, PRINCIPLES AND
`PRACTICE 340–41, 521–22, 665, 799 (2d ed. 1990) (Ex. 1003,
`“Foley”).
`
`
`D. Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted this proceeding based on the grounds of unpatentability
`set forth in the table below. Dec. 36–37.
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`Claim(s) Challenged
`Salesin
`§ 102(b)
`1, 8, 12, 13, 46, 57, 64, 65, and 67
`
`Salesin and Foley
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`11
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR22014-000001
`
`
`Patennt 6,618,0447 B1
`
`
`
`E. The ’’047 Patennt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(“3-DD”) compuuter graphics visibilitty calculatiions. Ex. 11001, 1:13
`–16. A
`
`
`be viewedd from mulltiple viewwpoints. Idd. at 4:14–
`image can
`
`poinnt in a 3-D
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24. This is illuustrated in Figures 2 aand 3, reprroduced beelow:
`
`The ’0477 patent deescribes tecchniques fofor improviing three-ddimensionaal
`
`
`
`
`arbitrary vieoint at an arons of a pots projectioFiguure 2 depict
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ewpoint. IId. at 3:13..
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR22014-000001
`
`
`Patennt 6,618,0447 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figuure 3 depictts the relattionship beetween projjection boxxes and a ffuzzy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`projeection box. Id. at 3:114–15.
`
`be
`
`
`
`
`
`A groupp of viewpooints (e.g., the three VVPs of Figgure 3) can
`bounding
`
`
`
`
`
`
`associated withh a coordinnate systemm and grouuped in a “vviewpoint b
`
`
`
`
`box”” (e.g., BB of Figure 3), which the patent
`describes
`
`as the smaallest right
`
`
`quaddrangular pprism encloosing the vviewpoints.. Id. at 4:335–40. Th
`e point to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be obbserved caan be said tto be totally visible frfrom the boounding boox if it is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`alwaays visible from everyy possible viewpointt in the bouunding boxx and
`
`
`totallly invisible if it is hiddden from every suchh viewpoinnt. Id. at 44:46–50.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The group of vviewpoints may contaain only a ssingle viewwpoint; in tthat case,
`
`
`the bbounding bbox degeneerates into the viewpooint. Id. att 4:58–63.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As showwn in Figurre 2, the pooint to be oobserved (PPO) can bee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`repreesented byy the interseection of aa projectionn plane (PPP) and a veector (VV)
`
`. Id. at 5:33–16;
`
`
`
`fromm the point to be obseerved (PO)
`
`to a viewppoint (VP)
`2. As sho
`Fig.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be diivided intoo rectangullar cells or elements ((fuzzy arraay FA). Idd. at 6:27–
`
`
`
`
`
`
`wn in Figuure 3, to facilitate sammpling, thee projectionn plane cann
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00001
`Patent 6,618,047 B1
`
`36. As shown in Figure 2, the point may be included in a visible patch (PT)
`that occludes an invisible point (IP). Id. at 5:18–20. Surfaces can be
`approximated by meshes of patches and also by hierarchies that represent
`meshes of patches at different levels of detail. Id. at 6:43–46. The smallest
`right quadrangular prism that encloses a patch and whose edges are parallel
`to the coordinate system is termed a “bounding volume” of the patch. Id. at
`6:54–57.
`The ’047 patent describes detecting patches that are invisible to all
`viewpoints in a bounding box. Id. at 8:42–10:21. Similarly, it describes
`detecting patches that are totally visible to all viewpoints in the bounding
`box. Id. at 10:22–11:16. Overlapping patches can be stored in a linked list
`called a projection patch list. Id. at 11:20–25. The ’047 patent describes
`calculating a list of the totally visible and totally invisible patches for a
`viewpoint group. Id. at 11:20–12:57. The patches identified as totally
`visible and totally invisible can be ignored in subsequent visibility
`computations. Id. at 12:57–67. For example, they need not be compared
`with other patches to determine their visibility. Id. at 12:62–64.
`Claims 11 and 67, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed
`subject matter:
`11. A method of reducing a step of visibility
`computations in 3-D computer graphics from a perspective of a
`viewpoint, the method comprising:
`computing, before said step and from said perspective,
`the visibility of at least one entity selected from 3-
`D surfaces and sub-elements of said 3-D surfaces,
`wherein said computing step comprises at least a
`comparison between a pair of depth-related
`numbers to determine which of the surfaces or the
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00001
`Patent 6,618,047 B1
`
`
`sub-elements of the surfaces associated with said
`numbers is closer to said viewpoint and said 3-D
`surfaces are arranged in a hierarchy represented by
`patches in varying levels of details; and
`skipping, at said step, at least an occlusion relationship
`calculation for at least one entity that has been
`determined to be invisible in said computing step.
`
`
`
`67. A method in 3-D computer graphics for processing
`the visibility of 3-D surfaces before a subsequent step of
`visibility computations, said method comprising:
`for each selected 3-D surface or sub-element of a 3-D
`surface, identifying grid cells on a projection plane
`which are under or related
`to a projection
`associated with the bounding volume of said
`selected 3-D
`surface or
`sub-element,
`said
`projection and said subsequent step of visibility
`computations are from the perspective of a same
`viewpoint;
`for each of said grid cells, accessing the corresponding z-
`buffer element; and
`computing the visibility of the part of the bounding
`volume that projects onto said each of said grid
`cells by comparing the depth-related data stored in
`said corresponding z-buffer element with the
`depth-related value associated with said part.
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`The ’047 patent is expired. “[T]he Board’s review of the claims of an
`expired patent is similar to that of a district court’s review.” In re Rambus
`Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted). Thus, we
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00001
`Patent 6,618,047 B1
`
`construe the claims in accordance with their ordinary and customary
`meanings, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in
`the context of the specification. See generally Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`In the Petition, Petitioner asserted that the parties had stipulated to the
`constructions of several claim terms in the Intel action. Pet. 14–17. Patent
`Owner did not propose a construction for any claim term in the Preliminary
`Response. For several claim terms, we preliminarily determined that the
`purportedly stipulated constructions proposed by Petitioner represented the
`ordinary and customary meaning of those terms, as would be understood by
`a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the specification.
`Dec. 9–11. For other claim terms, we determined the purportedly stipulated
`constructions proposed by Petitioner were too narrow. Id. at 11–13.
`Additionally, Petitioner proposed a construction for “determining
`which of said at least one of 3-D surfaces or their sub-elements is always
`invisible or always visible,” as recited in claims 1 and 8, that would require
`determining which of the at least one of 3-D surfaces is either always
`invisible or always visible. Pet. 12–14; Dec. 15. We declined to adopt this
`construction and preliminarily determined that the term requires determining
`which of the at least one of the 3-D surfaces or their sub-elements is always
`invisible or determining which of the at least one of the 3-D surfaces or their
`sub-elements is always visible. Dec. 16.
`In sum, we preliminarily construed the claim terms of the ’047 patent
`as follows:
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Construction
`prior art types of rendering
`computations that determine which
`pixels or groups of pixels of 3-D
`surface(s) are visible, which include
`z-buffering and other visibility tests
`performed during rendering
`
`decreasing the number of
`computational operations to perform
`visibility computations
`surfaces (i.e., the exterior) of 3-D
`objects that are part of a scene
`
`dividing a projection plane into an
`imaginary lattice structure, where a
`“grid” is an “imaginary lattice
`structure”
`
`identical rectangular grid cells
`representation(s) of a 3-D object’s
`surfaces upon an imaginary plane
`
`the spatial position and orientation
`of a viewer
`
`IPR2014-00001
`Patent 6,618,047 B1
`
`Claim Term
`“visibility related computations”
`(claims 1, 8, 64)
`“visibility computation(s)” (all
`challenged claims)
`“occlusion relationship calculation”
`(claims 11–13, 46)
`“reducing the visibility related
`computations” (claims 1, 8, 64)
`
`“3-D surfaces” (all challenged
`claims)
`“surfaces” (all challenged claims)
`“sub-elements” (all challenged
`claims)
`“identifying grid cells” (claims 1, 8,
`64, 65, 67)
`“identifying, from said perspective,
`grid cells” (claim 57)
`“regular” grid cells (claim 57)
`“projection(s)” (all challenged claims
`except claim 11)
`“extent(s) of projection(s)/projection
`region(s)” (claims 64, 65)
`“projection plane” (claims 8, 12, 13,
`46, 57, 65, 67)
`“projections or extents” (claims 1, 8,
`56, 64)
`“viewpoint” (all challenged claims)
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00001
`Patent 6,618,047 B1
`
`Claim Term
`“always invisible” (claims 1, 8)
`“always visible” (claims 1, 8)
`“invisible” (claims 11, 12, 57, 64)
`“visible” (claim 46)
`“z-buffer” (claims 57, 65, 67)
`
`“bounding volume” (claims 12, 13,
`46, 57, 64, 67)
`
`“identifying regions on . . . projection
`plane(s)” (claims 8, 12, 13, 46)
`“largest depths of said 3-D surfaces
`or their sub-elements” (claim 8)
`
`“depth-related” (claims 11, 65, 67)
`
`“projection based computations”
`(claim 1)
`
`“determining which of said at least
`one of 3-D surfaces or their sub-
`elements is always invisible or
`always visible” (claims 1, 8)
`
`Construction
`totally invisible/visible from a single
`viewpoint (if a single viewpoint) or
`totally invisible/visible from every
`viewpoint (if from a group of
`viewpoints)
`
`a data structure in memory that is
`used to store depth data
`the smallest imaginary right
`quadrangular prism just enclosing
`the 3-D object’s surfaces and whose
`edges are parallel to the axes of the
`group coordinate system that
`approximates the 3-D object’s
`surfaces
`(does not require express
`construction)
`largest distances from a viewpoint to
`the 3-D surfaces or their sub-
`elements along the z-axis
`
`related to the distance from a
`viewpoint to a 3-D surface along the
`z-axis
`computations that are based on
`representation(s) of a 3-D object’s
`surfaces upon an imaginary plane or
`planes
`determining which of the at least one
`of the 3-D surfaces or their sub-
`elements is always invisible or
`determining which of the at least one
`of the 3-D surfaces or their sub-
`elements is always visible
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00001
`Patent 6,618,047 B1
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner do not dispute these constructions. We
`see no reason to change these constructions based on the complete record
`developed during this trial and, thus, maintain them for purposes of this
`Decision. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner identifies any additional
`terms requiring construction. We also do not identify any other terms that
`require express construction for purposes of this Decision.
`
`B. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`1. Anticipation by Salesin
`a. Salesin
`Salesin describes an improved algorithm for rendering 3-D images.
`Ex. 1002, p. 1, cols. 1–2.1 According to this algorithm, a screen plane is
`divided into a two-dimensional array of rectangular cells (in “x” and “y”
`directions of a coordinate system), each of which covers a fixed-sized block
`of pixels. Id. at p. 2, col. 1. This array is represented in memory by a “ZZ-
`buffer,” which is a two-dimensional array. Id. Figure 1, reproduced below,
`illustrates an example:
`
`
`1 Citations to Exhibit 1002 are in the form of page number of the article and
`column number on the page (p. x, col. y).
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR22014-000001
`
`
`Patennt 6,618,0447 B1
`
`
`
`entry incluudes a
`
`ZZ-buffer fer. Each Z illustratess a ZZ-buff
`
`
`
`Figure 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`poinnter to a “tilelist,” or llinked list of tiles, annd each tilee describess an object
`
`
` Id. at p. 22, col. 2. FFigure 2,
`
`
`
`
`that may be vissible withinn the ZZ-bbuffer cell.
`
`
`
`
`reprooduced bellow, illustrrates Salesiin’s tiles:
`
`incluudes minimmum and mmaximum ddepths (Zmmin and Zmmax, respecctively, in aa
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 22 illustratess the repressentation oof a tile in aa tilelist. EEach tile
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“z” ddirection oof the coorddinate systeem) spannned by the oobject in thhe tile
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`its obbject is opaque and ccovers the ccell entirelly. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`relattive to the sscreen planne. Id. Eaach tile alsoo has a fielld indicatinng whetherr
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00001
`Patent 6,618,047 B1
`
`During a “scan conversion” phase, tiles can be added to the tilelists of
`the cells. Id. at p. 3, col. 1. During the tile adding procedure, a quick
`visibility test is performed on a new tile based on its depth and opacity
`information, and the tile is thrown away if it is obscured completely by other
`tiles already in the tilelist. Id. at p. 2, col. 2–p. 3, col. 1. Similarly, if the
`new tile completely obscures other tiles in the tilelist, those other tiles are
`discarded. Id. at p. 3, col. 1.
`Salesin describes a “rendering” phase, performed after the scan
`conversion phase, during which the visibility of objects is further calculated,
`and visible objects are shaded. Id. at p. 3, cols. 1–2. According to Salesin, if
`the first object in a tilelist is opaque and covers the entire cell, then no
`visibility tests are performed for that cell. Id. at p. 12, cols. 1–2.
`
`
`b. Claims 1, 8, 12, 13, 46, 57, 64, and 65
`Petitioner introduced, in the Petition, evidence that claims 1, 8, 12, 13,
`46, 57, 64, and 65 are anticipated by Salesin. Pet. 23–35. Petitioner’s
`evidence included the declaration testimony of Dr. Seth Teller, a professor in
`the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science department of the
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology. See id. (citing Ex. 1013 (“Teller
`Decl.”) ¶¶ 56, 102, 109, 110, 114–116).2 Based on the evidence presented in
`the Petition, we preliminarily determined that Petitioner established a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1, 8, 12, 13, 46,
`57, 64, and 65 are anticipated by Salesin. Dec. 17–29.
`
`
`2 The Petition cites to Exhibit 1008. Petitioner, however, filed Exhibit 1013
`correcting Exhibit 1008. See Paper 9, at 2–3; Paper 11, at 1–2.
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00001
`Patent 6,618,047 B1
`
`The PO Response is silent as to these claims and does not present any
`argument or evidence to show that they are patentable. Patent Owner also
`did not present any argument or evidence as to the patentability of these
`claims in its Preliminary Response. We have reviewed the Petition (at 23–
`27, 31–35) and evidence cited therein (including Teller Decl., Ex. 1013
`¶¶ 56, 102, 109, 110, 114–16), and are persuaded, by a preponderance of the
`evidence, that claims 1, 8, 12, 13, 46, 57, 64, and 65 are unpatentable based
`on anticipation by Salesin. Cf. Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., Case
`IPR2013-00046, slip op. at 4–5 (PTAB May 1, 2014) (Paper 81, Final
`Written Decision) (concluding that the challenged claims were unpatentable
`where the patent owner provided no additional substantive arguments in its
`patent owner response).
`
`
`c. Claim 67
`Petitioner contends that Salesin anticipates claim 67. Pet. 35.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner dispute whether Salesin discloses the “bounding
`volume” recited in claim 67. We are persuaded that a preponderance of the
`evidence shows that Salesin does disclose the recited bounding volume, as
`well as the remaining limitations of claim 67.
`Independent claim 67 (emphases added) recites, inter alia:
`for each selected 3-D surface or sub-element of a 3-D surface,
`identifying grid cells on a projection plane which are
`under or related to a projection associated with the
`bounding volume of said selected 3-D surface or sub-
`element . . . [and]
`computing the visibility of the part of the bounding volume that
`projects onto said each of said grid cells by comparing
`the depth-related data stored in said corresponding z-
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00001
`Patent 6,618,047 B1
`
`
`buffer element with the depth-related value associated
`with said part.
`Petitioner contends that Salesin meets these claim limitations because
`Salesin describes performing its pre-rendering scan conversion phase on
`what amounts to a bounding volume. Pet. 32–33.3 Per our construction in
`Section II.A above, a “bounding volume” for a 3-D object is the smallest
`imaginary right quadrangular prism just enclosing the 3-D object’s surfaces
`and whose edges are parallel to the axes of the group coordinate system that
`approximates the 3-D object’s surfaces.
`
`As explained above, Salesin describes a ZZ-buffer that includes a
`two-dimensional array of rectangular cells (represented in x and y directions
`of a coordinate system), each of which contains a field pointing to a linked
`list of tiles that are defined, in part, with zmin and zmax fields (which
`delineate boundaries in a z direction of the coordinate system). Ex. 1002,
`p. 2, cols. 1–2. Petitioner contends that Salesin discloses a bounding volume
`consisting of a number of cells in the xy plane along with depth dimensions
`of the tiles for those cells. Specifically, Petitioner points to Salesin’s
`description of classifying polygons to be rendered, where Salesin explains
`that it “consider[s] a polygon small if its xy-bounding box does not span
`more than a few cells (say, 5 or 6) in each dimension.” Ex. 1002, p. 4,
`col. 1. According to Petitioner, the xy extent of the polygon’s bounding box,
`along with the zmin and zmax fields for the cells of the bounding box,
`
`3 As explained in the Decision to Institute, at 23, claim 12 recites a bounding
`volume in the alternative and, thus, does not require a bounding volume.
`Petitioner, however, provides its analysis of bounding volumes in
`conjunction with claim 12 and incorporates its analysis of claim 12 for
`claim 67. Pet. 35.
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00001
`Patent 6,618,047 B1
`
`constitutes a bounding volume. Pet. 32. Petitioner contends that Salesin
`describes performing its pre-rendering scan conversion phase on this 3-D
`volume bounded by zmin, zmax, and the xy extent of the cells of the
`polygon. Id. at 32–33. Petitioner supports its arguments with the testimony
`of Dr. Teller. Ex. 1013 ¶ 114.
`
`Patent Owner responds that the cells of Salesin’s ZZ-buffer are
`described specifically as two-dimensional cells in a screen plane and, thus,
`cannot constitute three-dimensional volumes. PO Resp. 2. As explained
`above, however, Petitioner is not relying on the xy extent of a polygon in
`grid cells alone. Rather, as Petitioner points out, Salesin describes
`performing scan conversion on volumes that also include zmin and zmax
`dimensions. For example, Salesin explains that, during scan conversion,
`“we take each object, compute a rough [zmin, zmax] interval for every cell
`that may contain some part of the object, and store the resulting tiles into the
`ZZ-buffer.” Ex. 1002, p. 3, col. 1. Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent
`Owner’s argument.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that, assuming Salesin shows 3-D volumes,
`Salesin’s cells are defined arbitrarily as having the same dimensions and,
`thus, do not constitute the smallest imaginary right quadrangular prism that
`encompasses an object. PO Resp. 2. Patent Owner, however, does not
`explain why a bounding volume must be evaluated at a level of granularity
`finer than Salesin’s grid cell. Indeed, claim 67 recites “identifying grid cells
`on a projection plane which are under or related to a projection associated
`with the bounding volume of said selected 3-D surface or sub-element”
`(emphasis added). This suggests that a bounding volume can be evaluated in
`terms of a number of grid cells. In any case, each of Salesin’s grid cells
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00001
`Patent 6,618,047 B1
`
`“covers a fixed-size rectangular block of pixels (or possibly a single pixel)
`of the final image.” Ex. 1002, p. 2, col. 1. Thus, Salesin’s cells may be
`defined as finely as a single pixel.
`As to the z-direction, the zmin and zmax values “need not represent
`
`the smallest such interval”; however, “the programmer might code a very
`precise scan-conversion procedure that computes the tightest z range
`possible for each tile,” depending on the programmer’s tolerance for
`inefficiency. Id. at p. 3, col. 2. We find that, in the case of a small xy
`bounding box, with cells at a pixel level of granularity, for example, and the
`tightest possible z range for each tile in the bounding box, a 3-D surface will
`be enclosed in the smallest imaginary right quadrangular prism whose edges
`are parallel to the axes of the group coordinate system.
`As to Salesin’s disclosure that computing the tightest z range possible
`for each tile “may also be inefficient since it means wasting a lot of
`computation on objects that may become obscured later on,” Ex. 1002, p. 3,
`col. 2, Patent Owner argued at the oral hearing that Salesin teaches away
`from a bounding volume. Tr. 31:23–32:15. Petitioner’s contention,
`however, is that Salesin anticipates claim 67, not that it renders claim 67
`obvious. “Although [an] alleged teaching away would be relevant to an
`obviousness analysis, ‘whether a reference “teaches away” from [an]
`invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis.’” ClearValue, Inc. v.
`Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting
`Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361
`(Fed. Cir. 1998)). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.
`
`Patent Owner further argues that Salesin does not describe evaluating
`a bounding volume as to visibility. PO Resp. 2. Rather, Patent Owner
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00001
`Patent 6,618,047 B1
`
`contends, Salesin discloses evaluating the contents in a ZZ-buffer one cell at
`a time. Id. However, as explained above, during its scan conversion phase,
`Salesin “take[s] each object [and] compute[s] a rough [zmin, zmax] interval
`for every cell that may contain some part of the object.” Ex. 1002, p. 3,
`col. 1. Moreover, Salesin discloses that, “[i]n the scan conversion phase, we
`estimate the set of cells that each object covers, either totally or partially.”
`Id. at p. 3, col. 2. Thus, Salesin does not limit evaluating the contents of a
`ZZ-buffer to one cell at a time.
`Also, as Petitioner points out (Pet. 32–33), Salesin discloses “scan
`convert[ing] an enlarged three-dimensional bounding box of [an] object.”
`Id. at p. 8, col. 1. This is another example of evaluating a bounding volume
`as to visibility. At the oral hearing, Patent Owner argued that this
`description in Salesin was “completely unrelated” because, here, Salesin is
`“not taking about objects” and instead is “talking about shadows.” Tr. 35:3–
`16. We are not persuaded. Although Salesin’s discussion is in the context
`of producing penumbrae (soft shadow edges) when rendering objects, it
`nevertheless describes rendering objects, including computing the visibility
`of a part of a “three-dimensional bounding box of [an] object” onto grid
`cells. Ex. 1002, p. 8, cols. 1–2; Ex. 1013 ¶ 114. Thus, Petitioner has shown
`that Salesin discloses evaluating a bounding volume as to visibility.
`
`Patent Owner does not present any evidence or argument contesting
`Petitioner’s showing that Salesin discloses the remaining limitations of claim
`67. In any case, Salesin describes a two-phase process for generating 3-D
`images: scan conversion, during which a ZZ-buffer is created, and rendering,
`where visibility is determined. Ex. 1002, p. 3, cols. 1–2, p. 5, col. 1. Thus,
`Salesin discloses a “method in 3-D computer graphics for processing the
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00001
`Patent 6,618,047 B1
`
`visibility of 3-D surfaces before a subsequent step of visibility
`computations,” as recited in claim 67.
`We also find that the cells of the two-dimensional array shown in
`Salesin’s Figure 1 are grid cells that are related to representations of objects
`stored in the cells’ tilelists upon an imaginary plane formed by the two-
`dimensional array. Ex. 1002, p. 2, cols. 1–2. Moreover, as construed in
`Section II.A, a “z-buffer” is “a data structure in memory that is used to store
`depth data.” Salesin’s ZZ-buffer is a data structure that represents cells
`based on a z-buffer. Ex. 1002, p. 2, col. 2. Specifically, Salesin discloses
`“perform[ing] a quick visibility test, based on the zmin, zmax, and opaque
`attributes of the new tile and of the ZZ-buffer entry.” Ex. 1002, p. 2, col. 2.
`Thus, Salesin discloses “for each of said grid cells, accessing the
`corresponding z-buffer element,” as recited in claim 67.
`In sum, we conclude that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of
`the evidence that claim 67 is anticipated by Salesin.
`
`
`2. Obviousness of Claim 11 over Salesin and Foley
`Petitioner contends that Salesin teaches each limitation of claim 11
`except “said 3-D surfaces are arranged in a hierarchy represented by patches
`in varying levels of details.” Pet. 27–29. Petitioner argues that Foley
`teaches the missing limitation and that it would have been obvious to
`combine the teachings of Salesin and Foley. Id. at 29–31. The parties
`dispute whether a skilled artisan would have combined Salesin and Foley.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00001
`Patent 6,618,047 B1
`
`
`a. Salesin’s Teachings
`Salesin describes a two-phase process for generating 3-D images: scan
`conversion, during which a ZZ-buffer is created, and rendering, where
`visibility is determined. Ex. 1002, p. 3, cols. 1–2, p. 5, col. 1. The rendering
`phase relies on the depth and opacity information determined in the scan
`conversion phase. Id. at p. 5, col. 1. Thus, Salesin discloses a “method of
`reducing a step of visibility computations in 3-D computer graphics from a
`perspective of a viewpoint,” as recited in claim 11.
`Salesin teaches “computing, before said step and from said
`perspective, the visibility of at least one entity selected from 3-D surfaces
`and sub-elements of said 3-D surfaces, wherein said computing step
`comprises at least a comparison between a pair of depth-related numbers to
`determine which of the surfaces or the sub-elements of the surfaces
`associated with said numbers is closer to said viewpoint,” as recited in
`claim 11. In particular, Salesin teaches discarding tiles if their minimum
`depths (zmin fields), from the perspective of a viewpoint, are greater than the
`maximum depths (zmax fields) of other tiles in the cell. Ex. 1002, p. 2,
`col. 2–p. 3, col. 1. As detailed above, Salesin discloses that the visibility of
`at least one tile is computed during this scan conversion step, which occurs
`prior to a rendering step. Ex. 1002, p. 2, col. 2–p. 3, col. 1.
`Salesin also teaches “skipping, at said step, at least an occlusion
`relationship calculation for at least one entity that has been determined to be
`invisible in said computing step,” as recited in claim 11. For example,
`Salesin describes throwing away tiles that are obscured completely by other
`tiles. Ex. 1002, p. 2, col. 2–p. 3, col. 1. No visibility computations,
`including occlusion relationship calculations, are performed in Salesin’s
`
`20
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00001
`Patent 6,618,047 B1
`
`rendering phase on tiles discarded during the scan conversion phase. Id. at
`p. 3, cols. 1–2.
`Patent Owner does not introduce evidence or argument disputing
`Petitioner’s showing that Salesin teaches these aspects of claim 11.
`In a “Further Work” section, Salesin states that “[i]t seems it would be
`easy to extend the ZZ-buffer algorithm to directly handle objects that are
`defined recursively, such as fractal terrains or Bézier patches.” Ex. 1002,
`p. 14, col. 1 (internal citations omitted).
`
`
`b. Foley’s Teachings
`According to Dr. Teller, Foley is a standard textbook in the field of
`computer graphics that would have been familiar to a person of ordinary
`skill in the art. Ex. 1013 ¶ 111.
`In separate sections of the textbook, Foley describes “level-of-detail
`elision” in which “successively more detail appear[s] as the user
`dynamically zoom[s] in on” an object, Ex. 1003, at 3, and Bézier patches,
`id. at 5–6. According to Dr. Teller, Foley describes Bézier patches as
`“smooth three-dimensional surfaces that are defined through repeated
`subdivision and blending of a set of vertices of the patch being represented.”
`Ex. 1013 ¶ 111 (citing Ex. 1003, at 5–6).
`
`
`c. A Skilled Artisan Would Have Combined Salesin and
`Foley to Arrive at Claim 11
`Petitioner contends that the combination of Salesin and Foley teaches
`“said 3-D surfaces are arranged in a hierarchy represented by patches in
`varying levels of details,” as recited in claim 11. Specifically, Petitioner
`
`21
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00001
`Patent 6,618,047 B1
`
`argues that Salesin explicitly states that its technique could be extended to
`handle recursively defined surfaces such as Bézier patches, and that Foley
`describes the characteristics of Bézier patches as well as other recursively
`defined surfaces such as level-of-detail elision. Pet. 29–30. According to
`Petitioner, Foley describes Bézier patches as surfaces that are arranged in a
`hierarchy of patches in varying levels of detail. Id. at 29–30. Relying on
`Dr. Teller, Petitioner argues that the overlapping discussions of Bézier
`patches in Salesin and Foley, Foley’s status as a standard reference in the art,
`and the similarity of the problems addressed by Salesin and Foley w

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket