`
`By: Christopher W. Kennerly (chriskennerly@paulhastings.com)
`Naveen Modi (naveenmodi@paulhastings.com)
`Timothy P. Cremen (timothycremen@paulhastings.com)
`Paul Hastings LLP
`
`Paper No. ___
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`_________________________
`
`GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DIAMOND GRADING TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE44,963
`
`_________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ANDREW S. GLASSNER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GIA EXHIBIT 1005
`
`Page 1 of 71
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Gemological Institute of America, Inc. as an
`
`independent expert consultant to provide expert testimony in support of
`
`Petitioner’s Petition for Inter Partes Review (the “Petition”) of Claims 1, 14, 16,
`
`17, 32, 34, 35, 53, 55, 76, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 88, 94, 98, 114, and 120 (“Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. RE44,963 (“the ’RE963 Patent;” Ex. 1001).
`
`2.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the ’RE963 Patent and its file
`
`history, which have been provided to me as Exhibits 1001 and 1013. I understand
`
`these to be exhibits to the Petition.
`
`3.
`
`I have also been provided, reviewed, and am familiar with 1002-1012,
`
`1014 which I understand to be the remaining exhibits to the Petition.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to consider, among other things, whether certain
`
`references make obvious Claims 1, 14, 16, 17, 32, 34, 35, 53, 55, 76, 79, 80, 82,
`
`83, 85, 88, 94, 98, 114, and 120 of the ’RE963 Patent. My opinions as to these
`
`issues are set forth below.
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated at my normal consulting rate for the time I
`
`spend on this matter. No part of my compensation is dependent on the outcome of
`
`this proceeding or any other proceeding involving the ’RE963 Patent. I have no
`
`other interest in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 2 of 71
`
`
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`I have over 30 years of experience in computer graphics and optical
`
`system technologies.
`
`7.
`
`I have worked as a publishing research scientist in computer graphics
`
`since the 1980s.
`
`8.
`
`I have a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Engineering from Case
`
`Western Reserve University.
`
`9.
`
`I have a M.S. and a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of
`
`North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
`
`10.
`
`I have been principally employed as a researcher at the Xerox Palo
`
`Alto Research Center (PARC), and then at Microsoft Research in Redmond, WA,
`
`and now at my own company, The Imaginary Institute in Seattle, WA.
`
`11. From the 1980s to the present, I have written hundreds of thousands
`
`of lines of computer programs in many different languages and for many different
`
`systems.
`
`12.
`
`I have published many original technical articles, written or edited
`
`over a dozen books, and have been issued eight patents involving computer
`
`graphics.
`
`13.
`
`I have served in many important technical positions in my field,
`
`including Chairman of the Special Interest Group on Graphics and Interactive
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 3 of 71
`
`
`
`Techniques (“SIGGRAPH”) 1994 Papers Committee, Editor-in-Chief of ACM
`
`Transactions on Graphics, and Founding Editor of the Journal of Graphics Tools. I
`
`have served as a technical reviewer and committee member for many international
`
`journals and graphics conferences.
`
`14.
`
`I created the popular Graphics Gems book series, and served as series
`
`editor for all five volumes. I published a regular bi-monthly technical column in
`
`IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications for almost 10 years. My two-volume
`
`textbook, “Principles of Digital Image Synthesis,” has been widely used as a
`
`university-level class text in computer graphics.
`
`15. Through my online course “2D Animation and Interaction,” I have
`
`taught computer graphics to independent students all over the world.
`
`16.
`
`I invented and published one of the first algorithms for ray tracing that
`
`allowed it to be a practical tool. I also invented and published an algorithm that
`
`made ray tracing practical for creating animation.
`
`17.
`
`I chaired and taught several courses devoted to ray tracing at annual
`
`meetings of ACM SIGGRAPH.
`
`18.
`
`I created, edited, and wrote several chapters for the book, “An
`
`Introduction to Ray Tracing,” which helped popularize the technique and has been
`
`used as a text in universities.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 4 of 71
`
`
`
`19. My Spectrum architecture was a test bed for state-of-the-art research
`
`in ray tracing and other rendering techniques. I led a group that demonstrated how
`
`to use ray tracing to produce images customized to the limited display ranges of
`
`different devices.
`
`20.
`
`I have given invited talks, guest lectures, and colloquia for institutions
`
`and companies from Toronto to New Zealand and the United States. I have
`
`consulted for a broad range of companies as a computer graphics expert, from
`
`Electronic Arts and IBM to Tableau and Microsoft Research.
`
`21. A copy of my curriculum vitae is Exhibit 1006.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS AND LEGAL BASES THEREFORE
`
`22. My opinions expressed herein are based on: (i) my education,
`
`experience, and background in the fields discussed above, along with my
`
`professional judgment; (ii) the contents of the documents I cite and discuss herein,
`
`including Exhibits 1001-1013, each of which I have reviewed and am familiar
`
`with; and (iii) my understanding of the legal bases for finding a patent claim
`
`anticipated and obvious, which I explain below.
`
`A. Legal Basis for Obviousness
`
`23.
`
`It has been explained to me that under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a claim may
`
`be found to be obvious, and therefore invalid, when the differences between the
`
`claim and the prior art reference or references would have been obvious at the time
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 5 of 71
`
`
`
`the invention was filed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the
`
`patent pertains.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that obviousness is determined based on an analysis of
`
`four factors: (i) the scope and content of the prior art; (ii) the differences between
`
`the prior art and the claims at issue; (iii) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
`
`art; and (iv) secondary considerations of nonobviousness.
`
`25. With respect to the second factor, determining the differences between
`
`the prior art and claims is a two–step analysis comprising: (i) determining the
`
`meaning of the claim elements; and (ii) comparing those terms with the prior art.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that the disclosure of a limitation in a prior art reference
`
`may be explicit or inherent. Explicit means that the limitation or feature is
`
`expressly described in the reference. Inherent means that the limitation or feature
`
`is necessarily present in the disclosure (i.e., the feature is a deliberate or necessary
`
`consequence of the reference’s disclosure) even if the reference does not expressly
`
`describe the feature. One of ordinary skill in the art must recognize that the feature
`
`is inherent to the disclosure, but inherency does not require that the person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have necessarily recognized the inherent disclosure
`
`at the time of the reference.
`
`27.
`
`It has been explained to me that the level of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`determined by analyzing such things as: (i) the prior art; (ii) the types of problems
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 6 of 71
`
`
`
`encountered in the art; (iii) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (iv) the
`
`sophistication of the technology involved; and (v) the educational background of
`
`those actively working in the field, as well as the inventors.
`
`28.
`
`I am also aware for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention to have found it obvious to combine references, there must have
`
`been some motivation to make the combination covered by the patent claims. I am
`
`told that motivation can be implicit.
`
`29.
`
`It is also my understanding that to determine whether it would have
`
`been obvious to combine known elements in a manner claimed in a patent, one
`
`may consider such things as: (i) the combination being a predictable variation; (ii)
`
`the combination having been used to improve similar devices; (iii) the combination
`
`being obvious to try; (iv) if the combination merely applying a known technique to
`
`a known device to yield predictable results; (v) a teaching or suggestion in the
`
`references themselves that the combination was possible; (vi) common sense; (vii)
`
`the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the
`
`marketplace; and (viii) the background knowledge of one with ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`B. My Opinion – A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`30.
`
`In view of the legal bases above, I have been asked to provide an
`
`opinion as to the level of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 7 of 71
`
`
`
`purported invention of the ’RE963 Patent, which I have been asked to initially
`
`assume is January 10, 1997.
`
`31. Also in view of the above, my opinions below have been guided by
`
`my appreciation of how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`the disclosure and claims of the ’RE963 Patent at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`32. Based upon the considerations described above, it is my opinion that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the technology of the ’RE963 Patent at
`
`its purported priority date of January 10, 1997 is someone who has a computer
`
`science or other related technical degree at the undergraduate level, and on the
`
`order of one to two years of experience working with and programming computer
`
`systems for creating realistic computer graphics and a general knowledge of the
`
`published literature in the field. Superior experience in one of these areas would
`
`compensate for lesser experience in the other.
`
`33.
`
`I base this opinion on my direct experience developing algorithms for
`
`ray-tracing and other computer rendering methods, my work as a public research
`
`scientist in computer graphics, as well as my knowledge and understanding of the
`
`skill levels of others working in the field.
`
`34. My opinion is further based on my knowledge of the level of
`
`education and experience of persons actively working in the field in the late-1990s
`
`to early 2000s, the types of problems encountered in the art at that time, and the
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 8 of 71
`
`
`
`prior art solutions to those problems, including such purported solutions as those
`
`recited in the claims of the ’RE963 Patent.
`
`35. My opinion as to the level of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not substantively change if the time of the purported invention of the
`
`’RE963 Patent was a few years before or after January 10, 1997. Nor do I believe
`
`that my opinions below would substantively change if the level of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art were ultimately found to be marginally different than my
`
`opinion herein, although I reserve my right to consider and respond to any other
`
`opinions or findings as to such a level.
`
`C. My Opinion – Claims 1, 14, 16, 17, 32, 34, 35, 53, 55, 76, 79, 80, 82,
`83, 85, 88, 94, 98, 114, and 120 of the ’RE963 Patent Are Not
`Patentable Over The Prior Art
`36. Based on the considerations identified above, it is my opinion that: (i)
`
`Claims 1, 14, 16, 17, 32, 34, 35, 53, 55, 76, 80, 94, 98, 114, and 120 are each
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined teachings of JP57-199944
`
`to Kojima (“Kojima”) and “An Introduction to Ray Tracing” edited by A. Glassner
`
`(“Glassner”); (ii) Claims 83, and 85 are each obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based
`
`on the combined teachings of Kojima, Glassner, and “A Statistical Assessment of
`
`Brilliance and Fire for the Round Brilliant Cut Diamond” by Dodson (“Dodson”);
`
`(iii) Claims 79, 82, and 88 are each obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 9 of 71
`
`
`
`combined teachings of Kojima, Glassner, and “Dispersive Refraction in Ray
`
`Tracing” by Thomas (“Thomas”).
`
`37. The bases for my opinion are set forth in Section VI, below.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’RE963 PATENT
`
`A. Background/Admitted Prior Art
`
`38. The “grade” of a gemstone’s “cut” indicates the quality of the stone’s
`
`interaction with incident light, with higher grades equating to superior light-
`
`handling characteristics.
`
`39. Generally, to grade a gemstone’s cut, it is illuminated by a light
`
`source. When the light strikes the gemstone—depending on the angle of incidence
`
`and other factors—some of the light will reflect off the stone’s surface and some
`
`will bend while passing through the surface (i.e., refraction).
`
`40. The light that is refracted into the stone will then reflect or refract
`
`when it strikes another surface of the gemstone (from the inside), and so on.
`
`41. Each of these reflections and refractions are governed by the laws of
`
`physics.
`
`42. Light that ultimately exits the gemstone can be measured to provide
`
`the “cut” grade for the stone.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 10 of 71
`
`
`
`43. Mathematical representations of physical gemstone cuts started to
`
`come into play in the early 1900s, and these analyses became computer-based
`
`decades ago.
`
`44. The ’RE963 Patent relates to such computer-based methods for
`
`“evaluating and grading the cut of a gemstone.” Ex. 1001 at col. 1:56-58.
`
`45. The ’RE963 Patent is the result of the December 6, 2010 reissue
`
`Application No. 12/961,361 (Ex. 1013; “the ’361 Application”), of previously
`
`granted U.S. Patent No. 5,966,673 (the “’673 Patent), which was originally filed as
`
`Application No. 08/782,889 (Ex. 1012; “the ’889 Application”) on January 10,
`
`1997 and issued on October 12, 1999.
`
`46. The ’RE963 Patent concedes this long history of mathematical cut
`
`analyses, and specifically recognizes that “the basis for conventional cut grading of
`
`gemstones was established in 1919 by Marcel Tolkowsky . . . in his mathematical
`
`dissertation entitled ‘Diamond Design, A Study of the Reflection and Refraction of
`
`Light in a Diamond[.]’” Ex. 1001 at col. 1:19-25; Ex. 1010.
`
`47. The ’RE963 Patent further concedes that that study “established
`
`mathematically an optimal brilliant cut for a diamond that is still widely used
`
`today.” Ex. 1001 at col. 1:25-27.
`
`48. While the ’RE963 Patent criticizes the Tolkowsky model as being
`
`“based upon a two-dimensional model” (Ex. 1001 at col. 1:32-35) and as using “a
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 11 of 71
`
`
`
`single incident light ray,” (Ex. 1001 at col. 1:38-40), it later makes the
`
`unremarkable observation (and important concession) that “[r]ay tracing could be
`
`used to extend the Tolkowsky technique from two dimensions to three
`
`dimensions.” Ex. 1001 at col. 21:46-47.
`
`49. The ’RE963 Patent does not provide any indication that it would not
`
`have been obvious to do so and, as discussed herein, three-dimensional ray tracing
`
`techniques have long been known in the art.
`
`B.
`
`50.
`
`Summary of the Purported Invention
`
`In its “Summary of the Invention,” the’RE963 Patent states that it is
`
`directed to the broad category of “modeling and evaluating the propagation of light
`
`through an optical system.” Ex. 1001 at col. 1:48-50.
`
`51. More specifically, it aims to evaluate “properties of a gemstone using
`
`a gemstone model” (Ex. 1001 at col. 1:50-53) where its “key feature” is providing
`
`“a computer-based system and method for evaluating and grading the cut of a
`
`gemstone which can be used for determining an ideal or near-ideal cut.” Ex. 1001
`
`at col. 1:53-56 (emphasis added).
`
`52. This “computer-based system” is disclosed as software on a generic
`
`computer with standard components (e.g., processor, memory, display, and UI).
`
`Ex. 1001 at col. 53:15-43, 54:19-25.
`
`53. A high-level description of the purported inventive process follows.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 12 of 71
`
`
`
`54. First, a 3D digital model of the gemstone to be evaluated is created
`
`based on various “parameters such as the type of cut (round, emerald, princess,
`
`etc.), the facet types (break, main, star, etc.), the number and location of the
`
`various facet types, and the dimensions of the stone.” Ex. 1001 at col. 7:7-10.
`
`55. These “[c]ut proportion[s] can be used to determine the physical
`
`locations of the facets.” Ex. 1001 at col. 7:10-11.
`
`56. The model is then generated using computer software. Ex. 1001 at col.
`
`8:46-55.
`
`57. Second, “the gemstone model is illuminated using an illumination
`
`model.” Ex. 1001 at col. 7:34-3.
`
`58. The illumination model represents a set of one or more light sources
`
`used to model an illumination of the gemstone.” Ex. 1001 at col. 7:15-17; 18-24.
`
`59. Third, “each beam of light refracted into the stone by a facet is traced
`
`as it is reflected within the stone and is refracted out of the stone by one or more
`
`facets.” Ex. 1001 at col. 10:14-18.
`
`60. The light beam is “traced through each of its subsequent reflections
`
`and refractions until the light energy in the beam is exhausted or sufficiently
`
`diminished such that it adds nothing significant to the outcome of the modeling
`
`process.” Ex. 1001 at col. 7:65-8:3.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 13 of 71
`
`
`
`61. The ’RE963 Patent further discloses that “[e]ach beam propagated
`
`within the gemstone has an associated cross-sectional intensity.” Ex. 1001 at col.
`
`14:57-58.
`
`62. When a “beam strikes a facet, the cross-sectional intensity of the
`
`resulting reflected [] beams (reflected and refracted, if any) is derived from the
`
`cross-sectional intensity of the incident beam.” Ex. 1001 at col. 14:64-67.
`
`63. Finally, the quantity of light (e.g., flux) exiting the gemstone is
`
`measured and used in determining the gemstone’s cut grade. Ex. 1001 at col.
`
`14:67-15:5.
`
`64. Specifically, when a beam refracts out of the gemstone, “[its flux] is
`
`determined by the camera capturing the refracting beam by multiplying the cross-
`
`sectional intensity of the refracted beam by the area of the facet illuminated by
`
`refraction perceived by that camera, based on the relative orientations of the
`
`camera and facet….” Ex. 1001 at col. 14:67-15:5.
`
`65. Based on measurements taken of such light beams, factors relating to
`
`a gemstone’s cut grade (i.e., brilliance, fire, scintillation) are evaluated and
`
`compared to ideal values. Ex. 1001 at col. 49:14-17.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`66. As discussed above, I understand that the first step of comparing a
`
`claim to a prior art reference is to determine the meaning of the claim elements.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 14 of 71
`
`
`
`67.
`
`I understand that in these types of proceedings before the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office, a claim receives the “broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation,” or “BRI,” in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.
`
`68.
`
`I also understand that such a “broadest reasonable interpretation” is
`
`different from, and broader than, that applied in district court litigations.
`
`69.
`
`I also understand that the meaning of claims terms is viewed through
`
`the lens of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and that
`
`specific terms of the claims are generally given the ordinary and accustomed
`
`meaning the one of skill would ascribe to them.
`
`70.
`
`I have followed these principles in my analysis below and address the
`
`scope of particular claim terms as necessary when they arise. To the extent I do
`
`not address a particular term or phrase, I have used what I consider the plain
`
`meaning of that term.
`
`71. As a general matter, I have read each claim term to have at least the
`
`scope which the Patent Owner has asserted in its Infringement Contentions against
`
`Petitioner’s products (Ex. 1007).
`
`72.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to the proper BRI
`
`constructions of the terms below.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 15 of 71
`
`
`
`a.
`
`“Weight”/“Weighting”
`
`73. The terms “weight”/“weighting” appear in the first element of each
`
`Challenged Claims 55, 76, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 98, 114, and 120.
`
`74.
`
`I understand that the Petitioner has offered that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the terms “weight/weighting” as “to use the measured
`
`light exiting the gemstone model in a subsequent operation.”
`
`75.
`
`I agree that “to use the measured light exiting the gemstone model in a
`
`subsequent operation” is the proper broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms
`
`“weight”/“weighting” for at least the following reasons, and have used this
`
`construction in my analysis below.
`
`76. There is no explicit definition (and little use of) “weight” in the
`
`specification of the ’RE963 Patent, although the patent does disclose measuring the
`
`exiting light and then using this light in a subsequent operation to evaluate a
`
`property relating to cut. Ex. 1001 at col. 2:10-17, 5:48-54, 6:5-7, 10:23-24.
`
`77. Based on all of the above, it is my opinion that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of “weight/weighting” is “to use the measured light
`
`exiting the gemstone model in a subsequent operation.”
`
`b. Means-Plus-Function Claim Terms
`
`78. Challenged Claims 32, 34-35, and 53 contain a number of means-
`
`plus-function limitations. Ex. 1001 at col. 68:46-69:12, 69:55-70:19, 73:54-74:11.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 16 of 71
`
`
`
`79.
`
`I understand that the Petitioner has offered that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the terms is their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`80.
`
`I understand that the Petitioner has offered that the corresponding
`
`structure for each means-plus-function limitation to be software implemented on a
`
`generic computer system.
`
`81.
`
`I agree that the plain and ordinary meaning is the proper broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of these limitations and the corresponding structure for
`
`each means-plus-function limitation is software implemented on a generic
`
`computer system for the reasons stated above in ¶¶ 38 - 65.
`
`82.
`
`I make my opinion without conceding that any claim of the ’RE963
`
`Patent is valid under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`VI. CLAIMS 1, 14, 16, 17, 32, 34, 35, 53, 55, 76, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 88, 94, 98,
`114, AND 120 OF THE ’RE963 PATENT ARE NOT PATENTABLE
`OVER THE PRIOR ART
`A.
`
`JP57-199944 to Kojima (“Kojima”)
`
`83. Kojima discloses a computer simulation for “grading a cut of a
`
`diamond.” Ex. 1002 at 1.
`
`84. Kojima describes “[a] method for grading a cut of a diamond wherein
`
`a simulation is performed, said simulation consisting of making simulated light
`
`beams incident on an upper portion from a girdle of a cross-sectional shape of a
`
`diamond, and after the simulated light beams are refracted by an inner portion of
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 17 of 71
`
`
`
`the diamond, simulating from which portion of the diamond the simulated light
`
`beams exit, and the cut of the diamond is graded from the results thereof.” Ex.
`
`1002 at 1; Fig. 6.
`
`85. This method “can be
`
`implemented easily [on] a computer [] or a
`
`special[ly programmed] calculator[.]” Ex.
`
`1002 at 3.
`
`86. Kojima discloses generating a
`
`two-dimensional representation of a
`
`diamond’s cross-section. Ex. 1002 at 1.
`
`Fig. 6
`
`87. Specifically, Kojima states “[t]he cross-sectional shape of the
`
`diamond is measured” and then used to create a model through which simulated
`
`rays are traced. Ex. 1002 at 1.
`
`88. Kojima describes an illumination model in which a plurality of
`
`simulated light beams are projected perpendicularly toward the diamond from
`
`above at regularly spaced intervals. Ex. 1002 at 2.
`
`89. Specifically, “simulated light beams L1, L2, ... Lq,..., LN are set above
`
`the diamond perpendicular to line segment” that is “parallel to the Y axis” so that
`
`the light beams may pass through equally-spaced points.” Ex. 1002 at 2.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 18 of 71
`
`
`
`90. Kojima discloses examples of four additional illumination models. Ex.
`
`1002 at 3, Figs. 8, 10, 11, 12.
`
`91. Kojima discloses that, upon intersecting a gemstone facet, each beam
`
`is refracted and “enters the interior of the diamond.” Ex. 1002 at 2.
`
`92. Each beam is then either reflected or refracted based upon the angle
`
`that the beam intersects the gemstone. Ex. 1002 at 2.
`
`93. Specifically, Kojima discloses the use of Snell’s law in modeling
`
`refraction events, and the “law of reflection” (angle of incidence = angle of
`
`reflection) in modeling reflection events. Ex. 1002 at 2.
`
`94. Kojima discloses that select light beams exiting from the top of the
`
`gemstone are measured and then evaluated a factor relating to the diamond’s cut
`
`grade. Ex. 1002 at 1, 3.
`
`95. As one example, Kojima discloses measuring and then evaluating
`
`certain exiting light beams to judge a diamond’s brilliance. Ex. 1002 at Fig. 14, 3.
`
`96. Kojima further discloses combining results from modeling multiple
`
`cross-sections based on a diamond’s rotational symmetry to obtain a more
`
`comprehensive result. Ex. 1002 at 3.
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 19 of 71
`
`
`
`B. An Introduction to Ray Tracing (“Glassner”)
`
`97. Glassner discloses beam tracing, a computer graphics rendering
`
`method that simulates the passage of beams (versus rays) of light through an
`
`optical system. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 at 242-46.
`
`98. As disclosed by Glassner, “many aspects of the beam tracing
`
`algorithm are very similar to those of standard ray tracing.” Ex. 1003 at 243.
`
`99. Specifically, “in this approach rays are replaced by beams which are
`
`cones with arbitrary polygonal cross section. Ex. 1003 at 243.
`
`100. That is, a beam consists of “a collection of rays which originate at a
`
`common apex and pass through some planar polygon.” Ex. 1003 at 243.
`
`101. Although using beam tracing may require certain restrictions, for
`
`example, that all objects be constructed with “planar polygonal facets,” (a
`
`condition satisfied by all the diamond models under discussion here), the algorithm
`
`allows for “faster execution, effective anti-aliasing, and even additional optical
`
`effects.” Ex. 1003 at 242-43.
`
`C. A Statistical Assessment of Brilliance and Fire for the Round
`Brilliant Cut Diamond (“Dodson”)
`
`102. Dodson discloses the use of a computer program to assess the effect of
`
`a gemstone’s cut on select grading metrics. Ex. 1004 at 683-87.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 20 of 71
`
`
`
`103. Dodson discloses a computer program written to calculate and trace
`
`light rays through and exiting a faceted 3D model using vector ray tracing
`
`equations. Ex. 1004 at 685-86.
`
`104. The resulting spot pattern of the exiting light beam is then statistically
`
`analyzed to calculate the gemstone’s brilliance, sparkliness, and fire. Ex. 1004 at
`
`686.
`
`D. Dispersive Refraction in Ray Tracing (“Thomas”)
`
`105. Thomas discloses the use of a computer algorithm to model the
`
`dispersive refraction of light in a gemstone model. Ex. 1008 at 3, 7
`
`106. Thomas discloses an algorithm to compute the dispersion wavelength
`
`vectors of light rays (i.e., the spatial and angular separation of light of different
`
`wavelengths) as light traverses a gemstone model (Ex. 1008 at 4-5), and a form of
`
`ray-tracing designed to model dispersion, in which each ray carries two new pieces
`
`of information: “the portion of the spectrum covered by the ray” and the ray’s
`
`“angular spread.” Ex. 1008 at 5.
`
`107. As disclosed by Thomas, modeling such dispersion produces a more
`
`accurate model as it avoids having to make “the simplifying assumption that the
`
`index of refraction of an object is constant over the entire wavelength range of the
`
`visible spectrum.” Ex. 1008 at 3.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Page 21 of 71
`
`
`
`E. Reason to Combine the References
`108. I understand that obviousness still requires a showing that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have thought to combine
`
`the prior art, such as “a plausible rational [sic] as to why the prior art references
`
`would have worked together.” Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325,
`
`1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`109. Here, such a reason or “plausible rationale” is straightforward.
`
`110. Each of Kojima, Glassner, and Dodson describe a computer program
`
`used to model and evaluate simulated light as it passes through a computerized
`
`optical system.
`
`111. They are therefore each directed to the same problem, which would
`
`have led one of skill in the art at the time of the purported invention of the ’RE963
`
`Patent (“one of skill”) to consult each reference and combine their teachings to
`
`provide the most efficient and capable method and system for computer modeling
`
`and grading of gemstones.
`
`112. Because Kojima, Glassner, Dodson and Thomas disclose similar steps
`
`and algorithms that are highly compatible, it would be natural for one of skill to
`
`contemplate adding to, or substituting Kojima’s algorithm with (i) the beam-
`
`tracing algorithm of Glassner; (ii) the specific metrics of brilliance, fire, and
`
`sparkliness in Dodson; and (iii) and/or the modeling of dispersion in Thomas.
`
`
`
`21
`
`Page 22 of 71
`
`
`
`113. It would have been a straightforward matter for one of skill to have
`
`combined their respective teachings to provide additional functionality and
`
`improved performance, such as by simple substitution or addition of features (e.g.,
`
`the substitution of a ray for with a beam (Glassner) or the addition of the ray’s
`
`angular spread (Thomas) in the algorithm used to model light passage through a
`
`gemstone).
`
`114. For example, Glassner states that “[t]hough the simple form of [] rays
`
`leads to easy representation, efficient intersection calculations, and great
`
`generality, some of these benefits can be traded in exchange for others.” Ex. 1003
`
`at 242.
`
`115. One way to do this is to dispense with individual rays and, instead,
`
`operate simultaneously on entire families of rays which are bundled as beams,
`
`cones, or pencils.” Ex. 1003 at 242.
`
`116. Glassner further explains: “[t]he advantages gained [by grouping rays]
`
`can include faster execution, effective anti-aliasing, and even additional optical
`
`effects” and that “[t]he restriction placed on the environment by [the beam tracing]
`
`algorithm is that all objects must be constructed with planar polygonal facets. Ex.
`
`1003 at 243.
`
`117. Thus, recognizing that gemstones can be accurately modeled to have
`
`planar polygonal sides, one of skill would have understood that substituting the ray
`
`
`
`22
`
`Page 23 of 71
`
`
`
`tracing approach from Koj ima with Glassner’s beam tracing approach could
`
`provide improved modeling efficiency and data quality.
`
`118. Further, Thomas provides a specific algorithm of modeling dispersion
`
`in a gemstone model. Ex. 1008 at 7.
`
`119. Thomas discloses the advantages of accounting for such dispersion to
`
`accurately model a gemstone’s “fire,” which avoids the “simplifying assumption
`
`that the index of refraction of an object is constant over the entire wavelength
`
`range of the visible spectrum.” Ex. 1008 at 3.
`
`120. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of skill to have
`
`combined the disclosures of the cited prior art to provide the features identified
`
`below.
`
`F.
`
`Kojima and Glassner in Combination Render Obvious
`Challenged Claims 1, 14, 16, 17, 32, 34, 35, 53, 55, 76, 80, 94, 98,
`114, and 120
`
`121.
`
`In my opinion and as shown in the charts below, a combination of
`
`Kojima and Glassner discloses each and every feature recited in Claims 1, 14, 16,
`
`17, 32, 34, 35, 53, 55, 76, 80, 94, 98, 114, and 120
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`122.
`
`I have prepared the following claim chart showing how each and
`
`every element of Claim 1 reads on the disclosure of Kojima and Glassner.
`
`1 a . A method for
`
`Ko'ima and Glassner
`To the extent that the reamble is considered a
`
`23
`
`Page 24 of 71
`
`
`
`grading the cut of a
`gemstone, comprising the
`steps of:
`
`illuminating a
`[b].
`computerized gemstone
`model using an a
`computerized
`illumination model,
`
`wherein said gemstone
`model is a full three-
`
`dimensional (3D)
`representation of said
`gemstone that defines the
`geometry and position of
`all of the gemstone facets,
`and wherein said
`
`illumination model
`
`produces a light beam;
`
`Ko'ima and Glassner
`limitation, Kojima discloses, teaches, or suggests its
`features.
`
`Kojima discloses a “method for grading a cut of a
`diamond” that “can be implemented easily [on] a
`computer [] or a special[ly programmed] calculator
`Ex. 1001 at 1, 3. In Kojima, a computer model
`simulates light beams “on an upper portion from a
`girdle of a cross sectional shape of a diamond.” Ex.
`1001 at 1.
`
`Multiple refraction and/or reflection events are
`modeled as the simulated light beams strike the
`gemstone model’s facets. Ex- 1002 at 1-2. When the
`simulated light beams exit the gemstone model, they
`are measured and used to evaluate a metric relating to
`gemstone cut, such as the diamond’s brilliance. Ex.
`10