Intel Corporation v. FuzzySharp Technologies, Inc.

1. Case Identification

• Patent #: 6,618,047
• Filed: September 30, 2013
• Petitioner(s): Intel Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Fuzzysharp Technologies, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 8, 11, 12, 13, 46, 57, 64, 65, and 67

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Visibility Calculations for 3D Computer Graphics
• Brief Description: The ’047 patent discloses methods for improving the efficiency of 3D computer graphics rendering. The core technology involves reducing visibility-related computations by pre-processing a 3D scene to determine which surfaces are "always visible" or "always invisible" from certain viewpoints, storing these determinations, and then ignoring those surfaces during the final rendering phase.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation and Obviousness over Salesin and Foley - Claims 1, 8, 11-13, 46, 57, 64-65, and 67 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Salesin (a 1989 conference paper titled "The ZZ Buffer: A Simple and Efficient Rendering Algorithm with Reliable Antialiasing") and Foley (a 1990 textbook titled "Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice").
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Salesin anticipated nine of the ten challenged claims. Salesin taught a "ZZ-buffer" algorithm that preprocesses visibility from a single viewpoint by dividing an image plane into grid cells and storing depth information (zmin/zmax) for surfaces within each cell. By comparing a new surface's depth data to the stored data, the algorithm categorizes the surface as completely visible, completely invisible, or potentially visible, and then omits the first two categories from subsequent rendering computations. This process was asserted to map directly to the limitations of the anticipation-challenged claims. For claim 11, which adds a limitation of surfaces "arranged in a hierarchy," Petitioner argued this was taught by the Foley textbook's discussion of level-of-detail elision.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Salesin with Foley because Salesin explicitly suggested that its ZZ-buffer algorithm could be extended to handle recursively defined objects like "Bezier patches," a hierarchical representation technique also described in Foley. The motivation was to apply Salesin's known efficiency benefits to the well-understood challenge of rendering complex, hierarchical models.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because Salesin directly stated its method was applicable to such hierarchical structures.

Ground 2: Anticipation and Obviousness over Airey - Claims 1, 8, 11-13, 46, 57, 64-65, and 67 are unpatentable under §§ 102/103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Airey (a 1990 Ph.D. dissertation on increasing graphics update rates).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Airey disclosed or rendered obvious all challenged claims. Airey taught a system for pre-computing a "potentially visible set" (PVS) of polygons for a group of viewpoints to accelerate rendering. The method determines occluded (invisible) polygons and exempts them from further processing, which involved projecting polygons, using a "hemi-cube" sampling grid, and comparing data to determine occlusion. Airey was also shown to disclose using hierarchical patches and bounding volumes, mapping to the core limitations of the challenged claims.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): For the "always visible" limitation, Petitioner argued that while Airey's primary method focused on identifying invisible surfaces, other sections of the dissertation discussed the concept of "completely visible" surfaces. A POSITA would be motivated to modify Airey's PVS method to also identify and ignore "always visible" surfaces, as this tripartite classification (visible, invisible, indeterminate) was a known technique for maximizing computational savings, a goal explicitly stated by Airey.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The reference itself suggested the combination by discussing all the necessary underlying concepts to solve the same problem of rendering efficiency.

Ground 3: Anticipation over the PCT Application - All challenged claims are anticipated under §102(b).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: PCT/AU92/00302 (the Patent Owner's own published PCT application).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: The PCT application's disclosure was asserted to be nearly identical to that of the ’047 patent, thereby teaching every limitation of the challenged claims.
  • Key Aspects: The central contention is that the PCT application qualifies as prior art. Petitioner argued the ’047 patent is not entitled to its claimed June 28, 1991 priority date because the applicant failed to enter the U.S. national stage from the PCT within the 30-month deadline. The subsequent revival of the abandoned application was argued to be improper because the examiner applied the lenient "unintentional" delay standard, whereas the governing statute, 35 U.S.C. §371(d), required a stricter showing of "unavoidable" delay. Petitioner argued the patent’s correct effective filing date is therefore its actual U.S. filing date of June 1, 1994, which is subsequent to the January 7, 1993 publication of the PCT application, making it valid §102(b) prior art.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• The petition identified one disputed claim term as critical to the patentability analysis: "determining which of said at least one of 3-D surfaces or their sub-elements is always invisible or always visible" (claims 1, 8).
  • Petitioner's Proposed Construction: "determining whether the 3-D surfaces are totally hidden or totally visible." Petitioner argued this construction requires assessing both conditions as part of a single sorting determination.
  • Patent Owner's Proposed Construction: "determining which of the 3-D surfaces are either hidden or visible..." This construction would allow the limitation to be met by assessing only one of the two conditions.
  • Argument: Petitioner asserted that its construction is supported by the plain language, specification, and prosecution history. However, Petitioner contended that the prior art meets even its narrower construction, and that anticipation is even clearer under the Patent Owner’s broader construction. Petitioner also noted that most other claim terms were stipulated by the parties in co-pending district court litigation.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 8, 11, 12, 13, 46, 57, 64, 65, and 67 of Patent 6,618,047 as unpatentable.