Intel Corporationv.FuzzySharp Technologies Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 13, 2015

08935150 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 23
Tel: 571-272-7822 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 IPR2014-00002
Patent 6,172,679 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

IPR2014-00002
Patent 6,172,679 B1

2

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Intel Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Substitute Petition (Paper 4,
“Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 4, and 5 of U.S. Patent
No. 6,172,679 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’679 patent”). FuzzySharp Technologies,
Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim.
Resp.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, in our Decision to Institute (Paper 9,
“Dec.”), we instituted this proceeding as to all of the challenged claims of
the ’679 patent.
During this trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
(Paper 16, “PO Resp.”) and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner
Response (Paper 19, “Reply”). An oral hearing in this matter and IPR2014-
00001 (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, 4, and 5 are
unpatentable.

B. Related Proceedings
According to Petitioner, Patent Owner has asserted the ’679 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.
IPR2014-00002
Patent 6,172,679 B1

3

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., Civil Action No. 12-cv-6375-JST (N.D. Cal.), filed on
December 17, 2012. Paper 6, at 2.
Petitioner also filed a petition for inter partes review of Patent
6,618,047 B1 (“the ’047 patent”). See Intel Corp. v. FuzzySharp
Technologies, Inc., Case IPR2014-00001 (PTAB Sept. 30, 2013) (Paper 1).
The ’047 patent also is asserted by Patent Owner in the Intel action.
See, e.g., Ex. 1009.

C. Reference Relied Upon
Petitioner relies upon the following prior art reference: David Salesin
& Jorge Stolfi, The ZZ-Buffer: A Simple and Efficient Rendering Algorithm
with Reliable Antialiasing (1989) (Ex. 1002, “Salesin”).

D. Ground of Unpatentability
We instituted this proceeding based on the ground of anticipation of
claims 1, 4, and 5, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), by Salesin.

E. The ’679 Patent
The ’679 patent describes techniques for improving three-dimensional
(“3-D”) computer graphics visibility calculations. Ex. 1001, 1:9–12. A
point in a 3-D image can be viewed from multiple viewpoints. Id. at 4:44–
54. This is illustrated in Figures 2 and 3, reproduced below:
IPR2
Paten
Figu
Figu
proje
014-0000
t 6,172,67

re 2 depict
re 3 depict
ction box
2
9 B1
s projectio
s the relat
. Id. at 3:4
ns of a po
ionship be
3–44.

4
int at an ar
tween proj
bitrary vie
ection box

wpoint. I
es and a f
d. at 3:42.

uzzy

IPR2014-00002
Patent 6,172,679 B1

5

A group of viewpoints (e.g., the three VPs of Figure 3) can be
associated with a coordinate system and grouped in a “viewpoint bounding
box” (e.g., BB of Figure 3), which the patent describes as the smallest right
quadrangular prism enclosing the viewpoints. Id. at 4:63–5:1. The point to
be observed can be said to be totally visible from the bounding box if it is
always visible from every possible viewpoint in the bounding box and
totally invisible if it is hidden from every such viewpoint. Id. at 5:7–11.
The group of viewpoints may contain only a single viewpoint; in that case,
the bounding box degenerates into the viewpoint. Id. at 5:18–22.
As shown in Figure 2, the point to be observed (PO) can be
represented by the intersection of a projection plane (PP) and a vector (VV)
from the point to be observed (PO) to a viewpoint (VP). Id. at 5:31–43. As
shown in Figure 3, to facilitate sampling, the projection plane can be divided
into rectangular cells or elements (fuzzy array FA). Id. at 6:58–67; Fig. 2.
As shown in Figure 2, the point may be included in a visible patch (PT) that
occludes an invisible point (IP). Id. at 5:48–50.
The ’679 patent describes detecting patches that are invisible to all
viewpoints in a bounding box. Id. at 9:8–10:55. Similarly, it describes
detecting patches that are totally visible to all viewpoints in the bounding
box. Id. at 10:56–11:52. Overlapping patches can be stored in a linked list
called a projection patch list. Id. at 11:56–61. The ’679 patent describes
calculating a list of the totally visible and totally invisible patches for a
viewpoint group. Id. at 11:56–13:26. The patches identified as totally
visible and totally invisible can be ignored in subsequent visibility
computations. Id. at 13:26–35. For example, they need not be compared
with other patches to determine their visibility. Id. at 13:31–33.
IPR2014-00002
Patent 6,172,679 B1

6

Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of reducing the complexity of visibility
calculations required for the production of multidimensional
computer generated images, said method performed on a
computer, said method comprising the steps of:
prior to an occlusion or invisibility relationship
computation (known per se) being carried out on a
plurality of surfaces from each viewpoint to be
calculated:
for selected ones of said surfaces, determining for said
viewpoint whether each said selected surface is
(a) an always unoccluded surface, an always
hidden surface, or a remaining surface; or
(b) an always unoccluded surface, or a remaining
surface; or
(c) an always hidden surface, or a remaining
surface;
wherein said remaining surface is a surface which is
unable to be determined with certainty as to
whether it is either unoccluded or hidden;
exempting from said occlusion or invisibility relationship
computation those surfaces which are either
always unoccluded or always hidden;
maintaining a record of said remaining surface; and
carrying out occlusion or invisibility relationship
computations on said remaining surfaces.

IPR2014-00002
Patent 6,172,679 B1

7

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
The ’679 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
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. 11–12, 16–18.
Patent Owner did not propose a construction for any claim term in the
Preliminary Response. For these 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. 9–10.
Additionally, Petitioner proposed a construction of “determining for
said viewpoint whether each . . . surface is (a) an always unoccluded surface,
an always hidden surface, or a remaining surface, or (b) an always
unoccluded surface or a remaining surface; or (c) an always hidden surface,
or a remaining surface,” as recited in claim 1. Petitioner contended that, in
the Intel action, the parties disputed “whether this step is satisfied by
determining both which surfaces are invisible and which surfaces are visible
(Intel’s position) or whether it requires merely making one or the other of
those determinations (the Patent Owner’s position).” Pet. 13. We
IPR2014-00002
Patent 6,172,679 B1

8

preliminarily determined that Salesin anticipates claims 1, 4, and 5 under
either interpretation and, thus, declined to construe the term expressly.
Dec. 10–11.
In sum, we preliminarily construed the claim terms of the ’679 patent
as follows:
Claim Term Construction
“visibility calculations”
(claims 1, 4, 5)
“occlusion or invisibility relationship
computation (known per se)”
(claims 1, 4, 5)
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
“reducing the complexity of visibility
calculations” (claims 1, 4, 5)
“reduction in the number and/or
duration of visibility calculations”
(claim 5)
decreasing the number of
computational operations to perform
visibility computations
“surfaces” (claims 1, 4, 5) surfaces (i.e., the exterior) of 3-D
objects that are part of a scene
“viewpoint” (claims 1, 4, 5) the spatial position and orientation
of a viewer
“always unoccluded” (claims 1, 4, 5)
“always hidden” (claims 1, 4, 5)
totally invisible/visible from a single
viewpoint (if a single viewpoint) or
totally invisible/visible from every
viewpoint (if from a group of
viewpoints)
“graphic images” (claim 4) an image
“computer vision data” (claim 4) data representing images
“abstract data” (claim 4) data derived from physical data
IPR2014-00002
Patent 6,172,679 B1

9

Claim Term Construction
“determining for said viewpoint
whether each . . . surface is (a) an
always unoccluded surface, an
always hidden surface, or a remaining
surface, or (b) an always unoccluded
surface or a remaining surface; or (c)
an always hidden surface, or a
remaining surface” (claims 1, 4, 5)
(does not require express
construction)

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 of Claims 1, 4, and 5 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, 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).
IPR2
Paten
poin
that
repro
inclu
the “
relat
its ob
014-0000
t 6,172,67

Figure 1
ter to a “ti
may be vis
duced bel
Figure 2
des minim
z” directio
ive to the s
ject is op
2
9 B1
illustrates
lelist,” or l
ible within
ow, illustr
illustrates
um and m
n of a coo
creen plan
aque and c
a ZZ-buff
inked list
the ZZ-b
ates Salesi
the repres
aximum d
rdinate sy
e. Id. Ea
overs the c

10
er. Each Z
of tiles, an
uffer cell.
n’s tiles:
entation o
epths (Zm
stem) span
ch tile also
ell entirel
Z-buffer
d each tile
Id. at p. 2
f a tile in a
in and Zm
ned by the
has a fiel
y. Id.

entry inclu
describes
, col. 2. F

tilelist. E
ax, respec
object in
d indicatin
des a
an object
igure 2,
ach tile
tively, in
the tile
g whether
IPR2014-00002
Patent 6,172,679 B1

11

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 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 in the tilelist
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,
col. 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. Claim 1
We have considered the evidence and argument presented in the
Petition (at 20–30), including the testimony of Dr. Seth Teller (Ex. 1013,
“Teller Decl.”)2, a professor in the Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the
PO Response; and Petitioner’s Reply, and conclude that Salesin discloses
each limitation of claims 1, 4, and 5.
We find that Salesin discloses a “method of reducing the complexity
of visibility calculations required for the production of multidimensional
computer generated images, said method performed on a computer,” as

2 The Petition cites to Exhibit 1008. Petitioner, however, filed Exhibit 1013
correcting Exhibit 1008. See Paper 11, at 2–3; Paper 13, at 1–2.
IPR2014-00002
Patent 6,172,679 B1

12

recited in claim 1. Specifically, Salesin describes a two-phase process for
generating 3-D images: scan conversion, during which a ZZ-buffer is
created, and rendering, where visibility ultimately is determined. Ex. 1002,
p. 3, cols. 1–2, p. 5, col. 1. During the rendering phase, the visibility of an
object in the ZZ-buffer is further refined “if it has not already been resolved
by the ZZ-buffer.” Id. at p. 3, cols. 1–2. Salesin’s scan conversion step
reduces the number of visibility calculations performed during the rendering
phase. Ex. 1013 ¶ 90.
Salesin’s “scan conversion” phase is performed prior to the
“rendering” phase, in which “the visibility of the objects within each pixel is
further refined (if it has not already been resolved by the ZZ buffer), visible
objects are shaded, and the shades are blended to produce the final pixel
colors.” Ex. 1002, p. 3, cols. 1–2. The rendering phase relies on the depth
and opacity information determined in the scan conversion phase. Ex. 1002,
p. 5, col. 1. Thus, Salesin’s scan conversion phase is performed “prior to an
occlusion or invisibility relationship computation (known per se) being
carried out on a plurality of surfaces from each viewpoint to be calculated,”
as recited in claim 1 and construed in Section II.A, above.
We also find that Salesin discloses:
for selected ones of said surfaces, determining for said
viewpoint whether each said selected surface is
(a) an always unoccluded surface, an always hidden
surface, or a remaining surface; or
(b) an always unoccluded surface, or a remaining surface;
or
(c) an always hidden surface, or a remaining surface.
IPR2014-00002
Patent 6,172,679 B1

13

Specifically, Salesin discloses that, in its “scan conversion” phase, tiles
(stored objects to be rendered) are added to and removed from tilelists.
Ex. 1002, p. 2, col. 2–p. 3, col. 1. When a new tile is added to a tilelist for a
cell, the new tile is compared to the existing tiles to determine whether it is
obscured completely or whether it completely obscures other tiles. Id. at
p. 2, col. 2–p. 3, col. 1. The new tile is thrown away if it is completely
obscured by other tiles in the tilelist. Id. This is an example of determining
that the tile is an always hidden surface. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 91–92. If the new tile
is opaque and completely obscures the tiles already in the list, the tiles
already in the list are thrown away. Ex. 1002, p. 3, col. 1. This is an
example of determining that the tile is an always unoccluded surface.
Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 91–92.
Salesin also discloses determining for a viewpoint whether a surface is
a remaining surface. Claim 1 recites that a “remaining surface is a surface
which is unable to be determined with certainty as to whether it is either
unoccluded or hidden.” According to Salesin, during the scan conversion
phase, if a tile is not determined to be obscured completely or to obscure
completely the tiles already in the list, “then the new object is appended to
the list of potentially visible objects.” Ex. 1002, p. 3, col. 1. The visibility
or invisibility of potentially visible objects is determined later in the
rendering phase. Id. at p. 3, cols. 1–2.
Patent Owner argues that Salesin’s “quick visibility test” during the
scan conversion phase does not result in a tile being placed into one of the
categories “always unoccluded,” “always hidden,” or “remaining.”
PO Resp. 2. Rather, Patent Owner argues, Salesin discloses a new category,
“potentially visible object.” Id. Patent Owner contends that Salesin does
IPR2014-00002
Patent 6,172,679 B1

14

not disclose a “remain[ing] surface” because Salesin’s technique keeps
testing surfaces, sometimes repeatedly, to determine visibility. Id.
We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Claim 1 recites
that a “remaining surface” is “a surface which is unable to be determined
with certainty as to whether it is either unoccluded or hidden.” Salesin
describes a “potentially visible object” as a tile that is not determined to be
obscured completely by other tiles (hidden) or that is not determined to
obscure completely the other tiles in a list (unoccluded). Ex. 1002, p. 2,
col. 2–p. 3, col. 1. Patent Owner appears to be arguing that a tile, during one
iteration of Salesin’s technique, may be determined to be unoccluded and,
yet, in a later iteration, may be determined to be occluded, and, thus, the tile
is not put definitively into any category. PO Resp. 2. Salesin, however, is
clear that, if the top tile in a tilelist is opaque and completely occludes the
tiles below it, “no visibility tests are performed” during the rendering phase.
Ex. 1002, p. 12, cols. 1–2. Thus, the tile is categorized definitively.
Moreover, nothing in Salesin suggests that a tile deemed to be occluded (and
thrown away) may later be unoccluded. Id. at p. 12, col. 1. Thus, Salesin
discloses definitively categorizing tiles as unoccluded or hidden. Ex. 1013
¶ 91.
We also discern no difference between Salesin’s “potentially visible
object[]” and claim 1’s “remaining surface.” In both cases, a surface that
cannot be categorized definitively into one of the other categories
(unoccluded or hidden) is put into a category of surfaces that must be dealt
with in more detail during a rendering phase. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 92–93.
In sum, we find that this set of limitations is disclosed in Salesin. We
note that this is the case regardless of whether this set of limitations requires
IPR2014-00002
Patent 6,172,679 B1

15

determining both which surfaces are invisible and which surfaces are visible
or whether it requires merely making one or the other of those
determinations.
We also find that Salesin discloses “exempting from said occlusion or
invisibility relationship computation those surfaces which are either always
unoccluded or always hidden,” as recited in claim 1. If a tile is obscured
completely (always hidden), it is discarded. Ex. 1002, p. 2, col. 2–p. 3,
col. 1. If the tile is the first in a tilelist and completely obscures the
remaining tiles (is always unoccluded), no visibility tests are performed on
the cell. Ex. 1002, p. 12, cols. 1–2. Thus, no visibility computations are
performed in Salesin’s rendering phase on tiles discarded during the scan
conversion phase. Ex. 1013 ¶ 93.
At the oral hearing, Patent Owner argued that Salesin is inconsistent
on whether a tile is thrown away if it is obscured by other tiles in the tilelist.
Tr. 32:16–34:3. In particular, Salesin states that “the tiles already in the list
are thrown away if they are completely obscured by the new one” and later
states:
Note that this operation takes only a constant amount of time
per object and per cell, because whenever the z interval of the
new tile overlaps that of the entire list, we just append the new
tile to the list. We do not attempt to throw away the individual
tiles that are obscured by the new tile because the time spent in
this search is likely to be wasted when a subsequent tile
obscures them all.
Ex. 1002, p. 3, col. 1. Patent Owner did not state at the hearing which claim
limitation it contends is missing from Salesin due to this purported
discrepancy. Tr. 33:5–17. Patent Owner appears not to contend that this
argument applies to the ’679 patent. Id. at 34:4–10. In any case, claim 1
IPR2014-00002
Patent 6,172,679 B1

16

does not recite throwing away a surface determined to be hidden. Rather, it
recites categorizing an object as hidden and exempting the surface from later
occlusion or invisibility computations. For the reasons given above, we find
that Salesin discloses these limitations regardless of whether (or when)
hidden tiles are thrown away.
Because the tiles for the remaining surfaces are added to, or kept in,
the tilelists, Ex. 1002, p. 2, col. 2–p. 3, col. 1, Salesin discloses “maintaining
a record of said remaining surface,” as recited in claim 1.
Finally, we find that Salesin discloses “carrying out occlusion or
invisibility relationship computations on said remaining surfaces,” as recited
in claim 1 and construed in Section II.A, above. During Salesin’s rendering
phase, “the visibility of objects within each pixel is further refined (if it has
not already been resolved by the ZZ-buffer), visible objects are shaded, and
the shades are blended to produce the final pixel colors.” Ex. 1002, p. 3,
cols. 1–2.
Upon consideration of Petitioner’s evidence and arguments (including
the testimony of Dr. Teller) and Patent Owner’s arguments, we conclude that
Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is
anticipated by Salesin.

c. Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1. Petitioner contends that Salesin
anticipates claim 4. Pet. 25, 30. Patent Owner does not introduce evidence
or argument disputing Petitioner’s showing that Salesin discloses the
additional limitation of claim 4. Upon consideration of Petitioner’s evidence
and argument, we find that Salesin discloses “wherein said images are
IPR2014-00002
Patent 6,172,679 B1

17

selected from the group consisting of graphic images, computer vision data,
abstract data and physical data,” as recited in claim 4. As explained in
Section II.A, a “graphic image[]” is an image. Salesin describes a technique
for rendering “high-quality images.” Ex. 1002, p. 1, col. 1.
Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 4 is anticipated by Salesin.

d. Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1. Patent Owner does not introduce
evidence or argument disputing Petitioner’s showing that Salesin discloses
the additional limitation of claim 5. Upon consideration of Petitioner’s
evidence and argument (Pet. 25, 31), we find that Salesin discloses “wherein
the reduction in complexity involves a reduction in the number and/or
duration of visibility calculations,” as recited in claim 5. Because the
visibility of an object in Salesin’s ZZ-buffer will be refined during the
rendering phase only if the visibility of the object has not been resolved
during the scan conversion phase, the number and duration of visibility
calculations is reduced for Salesin’s rendering phase. Ex. 1002, p. 3,
cols. 1–2.
Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 5 is anticipated by Salesin.

IPR2014-00002
Patent 6,172,679 B1

18

III. CONCLUSION
Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 1, 4, and 5 of the ’679 patent are unpatentable as anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Salesin.

IV. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that, based on a preponderance of the evidence, claims 1,
4, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,172,679 B1 are held unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a final written decision,
parties to this proceeding seeking judicial review of our Decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2014-00002
Patent 6,172,679 B1

19

PETITIONER:
James F. Valentine
Rajiv P. Sarathy
PERKINS COIE LLP
3150 Porter Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94304
JValentine@perkinscoie.com
RSarathy@perkinscoie.com

PATENT OWNER:

David Fink
Timothy Johnson
FINK & JOHNSON
7519 Apache Plume
Houston, TX 77071
texascowboy6@gmail.com
federallitigationlaw@gmail.com