Paper No. ________
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT & 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.
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT & 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.
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,172,679
`
`I.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MINIMAL, UNSUPPORTED OBJECTIONS TO
`THE BOARD’S FINDINGS FAIL TO REFUTE PETITIONER’S
`SHOWING THAT CLAIMS 1, 4 AND 5 ARE UNPATENTABLE AS
`ANTICIPATED BY SALESIN
`
`In its Decision to institute trial, the Board determined that there was a
`
`reasonable likelihood that each challenged claim (claims 1, 4 and 5 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,172,679) is unpatentable over the Salesin reference. Paper 9 (“Institution
`
`Decision”); Ex. 1002 (“Salesin”). In its Response (Paper 17), Patent Owner
`
`presents only two arguments in defense of the challenged claims. Both are
`
`difficult to decipher, contain essentially no analysis, and are unsupported by
`
`citations to the evidence of record. More importantly they fail to support the
`
`patentability of the claims.
`
`Patent Owner first contends that Salesin did not teach that the result of
`
`visibility testing is to classify a surface into one of the three categories recited in
`
`claim 1: “always unoccluded,” “always hidden” or “remaining.” Response, at 2.
`
`As an initial matter, Patent Owner fails to address the Board’s determination that it
`
`is unnecessary to decide whether claim 1 requires determining both which surfaces
`
`are invisible and which surfaces are visible. Institution Decision, at 11. Petitioner
`
`argued that Salesin anticipates the claim regardless of whether both determinations
`
`are required, see id., and the Board agreed and found that Salesin disclosed every
`
`test recited in claim 1. Institution Decision, at 14 (detailing how Salesin taught
`
`each claimed comparison, namely, determining whether a surface was “(a) an
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,172,679
`
`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.”). Patent Owner also inexplicably ignores its own
`
`prior position that the claim requires determining either whether each surface is
`
`visible, or whether each surface is invisible, but not both. Petition, at 13;
`
`Institution Decision, at 11.
`
`In any event, as the Board found, Salesin disclosed the tripartite test that
`
`Patent Owner now contends is required: “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
`
`completely obscured or whether it completely obscures other tiles.” Institution
`
`Decision, at 14, citing Salesin, at p. 2, col. 2-p. 3, col. 1; Petition 27-28. “Any tiles
`
`that do not meet these conditions are added to the tilelist.” Institution Decision, at
`
`14, citing Salesin, at p. 3, col. 1; Institution Decision, at 13 (determining that
`
`Salesin disclosed that (i) tiles are thrown away, with no further visibility testing, if
`
`they are completely obscured by others (i.e., invisible), and (ii) further visibility
`
`calculations are also skipped for tiles that are totally visible (when the top object is
`
`opaque and covers the whole cell)). At the end of Salesin’s visibility precomputa-
`
`tions, each tile was placed in one of three classifications: totally invisible, totally
`
`visible, or neither.
`
`Patent Owner offers no explanation why the Board’s conclusion is wrong
`
`(nor can it); it merely makes unsupported assertions that Salesin did not disclose
`-2-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,172,679
`
`the claimed “remainder surface” [sic, “remaining surface”] as claimed, and that
`
`Salesin’s “potentially visible object” was not a “remaining surface.” Response, at
`
`2.
`
`To the contrary, as the Board expressly found, Salesin disclosed that initial
`
`visibility tests could not definitively determine whether certain tiles were hidden or
`
`unoccluded (visible). Institution Decision, at 15, citing Salesin, at p. 3 col. 2.
`
`This precisely matches claim 1’s express definition of 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.” Ex. 1001 (“‘679
`
`patent”), at 37, col. 28, lines 40-42; see Institution Decision, at 9). The Board
`
`correctly concluded that these tiles qualified as the claimed “remaining surfaces.”
`
`As the Board noted, Salesin disclosed that there may be insufficient information to
`
`determine whether certain tiles cover the cell completely or whether they are
`
`opaque, and in such cases, non-opaqueness was assumed.1 Salesin, at p. 3, col. 2;
`
`
`1 This reflects that Salesin’s is a “conservative” method of visibility determination,
`id., meaning that it never classifies a surface as invisible if there is any possibility
`that it may be visible, but may classify an invisible surface as possibly-visible,
`pending further visibility tests. Ex. 1013, at ¶39.
`-3-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,172,679
`
`see Institution Decision, at 15. Tiles not found to be either totally invisible or
`
`totally visible—i.e., tiles whose visibility could not be determined with certainty
`
`during the precomputation stage—were added to the list of “potentially visible”
`
`surfaces whose visibility had to be determined during rendering. Petition, at 23-24,
`
`citing Salesin, at 3, 12; Ex. 1013, at ¶¶85-86.
`
`In short, the unrebutted evidence confirms the correctness of the Board’s
`
`determination that Salesin disclosed “remaining surfaces.” Because Patent Owner
`
`has presented neither analysis nor record citations showing why the Board’s
`
`conclusion was incorrect, there is no reason or basis to depart from the Board’s
`
`original finding.
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, and based on the Petition, the expert declaration
`
`of Dr. Seth Teller, and all the supporting evidence of record, Petitioner submits
`
`that Patent Owner has failed to rebut the Petition’s showing that claims 1, 4 and 5
`
`are unpatentable as anticipated by the Salesin reference. All challenged claims
`
`should be cancelled.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ James F. Valentine
`James F. Valentine, Reg. No. 39,053
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`jvalentine@perkinscoie.com
`Ph. (650) 838-4469
`Fax (650) 838-4350
`
`Date: August 20, 2014
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,172,679
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY and supporting materials have been served in its
`
`entirety this 20th of August, 2014, by email on Patent Owner at the correspondence
`
`address for the attorney of record for the 6,172,679 Patent shown in USPTO PAIR
`
`and the attorneys of record for Plaintiff in the concurrent litigation matter:
`
`David Fink
`7519 Apache Plume
`Houston, TX 77071
`Phone: 713-729-4991
`Fax: 713-729-4951
`texascowboy6@gmail.com
`
`/s/ James F. Valentine
`James F. Valentine, Reg. No. 39,053
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`Intel Corporation
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
