Filed on behalf of: Gemological Institute of America, Inc.
`
`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
`
`_________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. RE44,963
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. RE44,963
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V. 
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................. 1 
`A. 
`Real Party In Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................ 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .................................... 1 
`1. 
`Related Matters Involving the ’RE963 Patent ........................... 1 
`2. 
`Related Petitions for IPR ........................................................... 1 
`Lead and Backup Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................... 2 
`C. 
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .............................. 2 
`D. 
`III.  PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15 AND 42.103 ................ 2 
`IV.  REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ........................... 2 
`A.  Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................ 2 
`B. 
`Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ........... 3 
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 3 
`A. 
`The ’RE963 Patent ............................................................................... 3 
`1. 
`Background / Admitted Prior Art .............................................. 3 
`2. 
`Summary of the Purported Invention ......................................... 5 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 8 
`A. 
`Claim Terms To Be Construed ............................................................. 9 
`1. 
`“Weight”/“Weighting” ............................................................... 9 
`2.  Means-Plus-Function Claim Terms ........................................... 9 
`VII.  DETAILED EXPLANATION OF UNPATENTABILITY ......................... 10 
`A. 
`JP57-199944 to Kojima (“Kojima”) .................................................. 10 
`B.  An Introduction to Ray Tracing (“Glassner”) .................................... 12 
`C.  A Statistical Assessment of Brilliance and Fire for the Round
`Brilliant Cut Diamond (“Dodson”) .................................................... 13 
`D.  Dispersive Refraction in Ray Tracing (“Thomas”) ............................ 13 
`E. 
`Reason to Combine the References .................................................... 14 
`
`i
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. RE44,963
`
`F. 
`
`Ground 1 – 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 ............................................................... 17 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 17 
`2. 
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 29 
`3. 
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 31 
`4. 
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... 33 
`5. 
`Claim 32 ................................................................................... 36 
`6. 
`Claim 34 ................................................................................... 37 
`7. 
`Claim 35 ................................................................................... 39 
`8. 
`Claim 53 ................................................................................... 39 
`9. 
`Claim 55 ................................................................................... 40 
`10.  Claim 76 ................................................................................... 43 
`11.  Claim 80 ................................................................................... 44 
`12.  Claim 94 ................................................................................... 46 
`13.  Claim 98 ................................................................................... 47 
`14.  Claim 114 ................................................................................. 48 
`15.  Claim 120 ................................................................................. 50 
`G.  Ground 2– A Combination of Kojima, Glassner, and Dodson
`Render Obvious Challenged Claims 83 and 85 ................................. 51 
`1. 
`Claim 83 ................................................................................... 51 
`2. 
`Claim 85 ................................................................................... 52 
`H.  Ground 3– A Combination of Kojima, Glassner, and Thomas
`Render Obvious Challenged Claims 79, 82, and 88 .......................... 53 
`1. 
`Claim 79 ................................................................................... 54 
`Claim 82 ................................................................................... 56 
`2. 
`3. 
`Claim 88 ................................................................................... 58 
`VIII.  SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................... 59 
`IX.  STATEMENT REGARDING OTHER PETITION .................................... 59 
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 60 
`X. 
`
`ii
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. RE44,963
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 14
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 8
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................ 8
`
`In re Zletz,
`13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ....................................................................... 8
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................. 10, 12, 13, 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................... 8, 10
`
`Federal Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) .................................................................................................. 60
`
`37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(3) ............................................................................................... 10
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764
`(Aug. 14, 2012) ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`iii
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. RE44,963
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. RE44,963
`1002
`JP57-199944 to Kojima (Certified English Translation)
`1003
`“An Introduction to Ray Tracing” edited by Dr. Andrew Glassner
`1004
`“A Statistical Assessment of Brilliance and Fire for the Round Brilliant
`Cut Diamond” by Dodson
`1005 Declaration of Dr. Andrew Glassner
`1006 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Andrew Glassner
`1007 DGT’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Case No. 2:14-cv-01162
`RWS-RSP
`“Dispersive Refraction in Ray Tracing” by Thomas
`1008
`1009 McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 5th Edition
`(1993)
`“Diamond Design, A Study of the Reflection and Refraction of Light in
`a Diamond” by Marcel Tolkowsky
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 5,966,673
`1012 Application No. 08/782,889
`1013 Application No. 12/961,361
`1014
`JP57-199944 to Kojima (Original Japanese Version)
`
`1010
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. RE44,963
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Gemological Institute of America Inc. (“GIA” or “Petitioner”) requests inter
`
`partes review (“IPR”) 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), assigned to Diamond Grading
`
`Technologies LLC (“DGT” or “Patent Owner”). This Petition shows that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the
`
`Challenged Claims, and thus a trial for IPR should be instituted. This Petition also
`
`establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the Challenged Claims are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and should be canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Party In Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Gemological Institute of America Inc. is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner identifies the matters below.
`
`Related Matters Involving the ’RE963 Patent
`
`1.
`On December 22, 2014, DGT initiated civil actions against: (i) Petitioner
`
`(No. 2:14-cv-01162); and (ii) American Gem Society and American Gem Society
`
`Laboratories, LLC (No. 2-14-cv-01161) for infringement of the ’RE963 Patent in
`
`the Eastern District of Texas. These actions are in their early stages.
`
`2.
`
`Related Petitions for IPR
`
`1
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. RE44,963
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing a second Petition challenging Claims 1, 14,
`
`16, 17, 32, 34, 35, 53, 55, 76, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 88, 94, 98, 114, and 120.
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner designates lead and backup counsel as noted below. A power of
`
`attorney pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) accompanies this Petition.
`
`Lead Counsel: Christopher W. Kennerly (Reg. No. 40,675),
`
`chriskennerly@paulhastings.com. Address: Paul Hastings LLP, 1117 S. California
`
`Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304. Tel: 1.650.320.1800. Fax: 1.650.320.1900.
`
`Backup Counsel: Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224),
`
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com. Timothy P. Cremen (Reg. No. 50,855),
`
`timothycremen@paulhastings.com. Address: Paul Hastings LLP, 875 15th Street,
`
`N.W., Washington, DC 20005. Tel: 1.202.551.1700. Fax: 1.202.551.1705.
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`D.
`Service information is above, and Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15 AND 42.103
`Petitioner submits the required fees herewith. Please charge any additional
`
`fees required for this proceeding to Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that: (i) the ’RE963 Patent is available for IPR; and (ii) it
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds identified.
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. RE44,963
`
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests an IPR of the Challenged Claims on the following
`
`grounds and that each Challenged Claim be found unpatentable:
`
`Ground 1: 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”).
`
`Ground 2: 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”).
`
`Ground 3: Claims 79, 82, and 88 are each obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`based on the combined teachings of Kojima, Glassner, and “Dispersive Refraction
`
`in Ray Tracing” by Thomas (“Thomas”).
`
`A detailed explanation of: (i) the disclosures and teachings of the identified
`
`prior art references; and (ii) the support for Grounds 1-3 is provided in Section
`
`VII. Petitioner also submits the Declaration of Andrew Glassner (Ex. 1005)
`
`(“Glassner Declaration”) as additional support for Grounds 1-3.
`
`V. BACKGROUND
`A. The ’RE963 Patent
`1.
`Background / Admitted Prior Art
`The “grade” of a gemstone’s “cut” indicates the quality of the stone’s
`3
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. RE44,963
`
`interaction with incident light, with higher grades equating to superior light-
`
`handling characteristics. Ex. 1005 at ¶ 38. 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). Ex. 1005 at ¶ 39. 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. Ex. 1005 at ¶ 40. Each of these reflections and refractions are governed
`
`by the laws of physics. Ex. 1005 at ¶ 41. Light that ultimately exits the gemstone
`
`can be measured to provide the “cut” grade for the stone. Ex. 1005 at ¶ 42.
`
`Mathematical representations of physical gemstone cuts started to come into
`
`play in the early 1900s, and these analyses became computer-based decades ago.
`
`Ex. 1005 at ¶ 43. 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; Ex. 1005
`
`at ¶ 44. 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. Ex. 1005 at ¶ 45.
`
`The ’RE963 Patent concedes this long history of mathematical cut analyses,
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. RE44,963
`
`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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 46. 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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 47. 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 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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 48. 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. Ex. 1005 at ¶ 49.
`
`Summary of the Purported Invention
`
`2.
`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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 50. More specifically, it
`
`aims to evaluate “properties of a gemstone using a gemstone model” (Ex. 1001 at
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. RE44,963
`
`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);
`
`Ex. 1005 at ¶ 51. 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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 52.
`
`A high-level description of the purported inventive process follows. Ex.
`
`1005 at ¶ 53.
`
`
`
`Creating a Three-Dimensional (3D) Gemstone Model: 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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 54. These “[c]ut proportion[s]
`
`can be used to determine the physical locations of the facets.” Ex. 1001 at col.
`
`7:10-11; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 55. The model is then generated using computer software.
`
`Ex. 1001 at col. 8:46-55; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 56.
`
`Illuminating the Gemstone with an Illumination Model: Second, “the
`
`gemstone model is illuminated using an illumination model.” Ex. 1001 at col. 7:34-
`
`3; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 57. 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;
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. RE44,963
`
`18-24; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 58.
`
`Tracing the Propagation of Beams of Light Through and Out of the
`
`Gemstone: 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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 59. 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; Ex.
`
`1005 at ¶ 60. 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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 61. 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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 62.
`
` Measuring the Light Exiting the Stone and Measuring the Stone’s Grade:
`
`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; Ex. 1005 at ¶
`
`63. 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
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. RE44,963
`
`refraction perceived by that camera, based on the relative orientations of the
`
`camera and facet….” Ex. 1001 at col. 14:67-15:5; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 64. 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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 65.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In IPR, the Board applies the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”)
`
`standard to construe claim terms.1 Under the BRI standard, claim terms are given
`
`their “broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification.” In re
`
`Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012). Claim terms are “generally
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning that the term
`
`would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1312, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)).
`
`1 Because the standards applied in litigation differ from PTO proceedings, any
`
`interpretation of claim terms herein is not binding upon Petitioner in any related
`
`litigation. See In re Zletz, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Petitioner
`
`reserves its right to make all arguments in the district court with respect to claim
`
`construction and on other grounds (e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 112).
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. RE44,963
`
`A. Claim Terms To Be Construed
`For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioner proposes BRI constructions
`
`for the following terms. All remaining terms should be given their plain meaning.
`
`1.
`
` “Weight”/“Weighting”
`
`Proposed BRI Construction: “to use the measured light exiting the gemstone
`
`model in a subsequent operation.”
`
`This term appears in Challenged Claims 55, 76, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 98, 114,
`
`and 120, each of which specifies that the light exiting the gemstone model is
`
`measured prior to being “weight[ed].” See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at col. 74:54-58; 77:20-
`
`25; 77:49-55; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 73. 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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 76. In view of this description, Petitioner
`
`respectfully submits that the BRI of “weight” must be “to use the measured light
`
`exiting the gemstone model in a subsequent operation.” Ex. 1005 at ¶ 75.
`
`2. Means-Plus-Function Claim Terms
`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. For
`
`purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner construes these limitations by their plain
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. RE44,963
`
`and ordinary meaning. Further, per 37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(3) and without conceding
`
`that any claim of the ’RE963 Patent is valid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Petitioner
`
`assumes the corresponding structure for each means-plus-function limitation to be
`
`software implemented on a generic computer system. See Sec. V(A)(2); Ex. 1005
`
`at ¶ 81.
`
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF UNPATENTABILITY
`A.
`JP57-199944 to Kojima (“Kojima”)
`
`Kojima discloses a computer simulation for “grading a cut of a diamond.”
`
`Ex. 1002 at 1. Kojima was published on December 8, 1982, and therefore is prior
`
`art to the ’RE963 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`Kojima Discloses a Method for Evaluating the Cut of a Gemstone: 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 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;
`
`10
`
`
`Fig. 6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. RE44,963
`
`Ex. 1005 at ¶ 84; Fig. 6. This method “can be implemented easily [on] a computer
`
`[] or a special[ly programmed] calculator[.]” Ex. 1002 at 3; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 85.
`
`Kojima Discloses a Gemstone Model: Kojima discloses generating a two-
`
`dimensional representation of a diamond’s cross-section. Ex. 1002 at 1; Ex. 1005
`
`at ¶ 86. 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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 87.
`
`Kojima Discloses Using a Computerized Illumination Model to Illuminate
`
`the Gemstone Model: 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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 88. 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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 89. Kojima discloses
`
`examples of four additional illumination models. Ex. 1002 at 3, Figs. 8, 10, 11, 12;
`
`Ex. 1005 at ¶ 90.
`
`Kojima Discloses that Light Beams are Refracted and/or Reflected Upon
`
`Interaction with the Gemstone Facets: Kojima discloses that, upon intersecting a
`
`gemstone facet, each beam is refracted and “enters the interior of the diamond.”
`
`Ex. 1002 at 2; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 91. Each beam is then either reflected or refracted
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. RE44,963
`
`based upon the angle that the beam intersects the gemstone. Ex. 1002 at 2; Ex.
`
`1005 at ¶ 92. 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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 93.
`
`Kojima Discloses Measuring Light Exiting the Gemstone Model: 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;
`
`Ex. 1005 at ¶ 94. 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;
`
`Ex. 1005 at ¶ 95. 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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 96.
`
`B. An Introduction to Ray Tracing (“Glassner”)
`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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 97. Glassner was published in January
`
`of 1989 and therefore is prior art to the ’RE963 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`(pre-AIA). As disclosed by Glassner, “many aspects of the beam tracing algorithm
`
`are very similar to those of standard ray tracing.” Ex. 1003 at 243; Ex. 1005 at ¶
`
`98. Specifically, “in this approach rays are replaced by beams which are cones with
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. RE44,963
`
`arbitrary polygonal cross section. Ex. 1005 at ¶ 99. 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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 100. 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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 101.
`
`C. A Statistical Assessment of Brilliance and Fire for the Round
`Brilliant Cut Diamond (“Dodson”)
`
`Dodson discloses the use of a computer program to assess effects of a
`
`gemstone’s cut on select grading metrics. Ex. 1004 at 683-87; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 102.
`
`Dodson was published in Optica Acta, Vol. 25, Issue 8, in 1978 and thus is prior
`
`art to the ’RE963 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 103. 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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 104.
`
`D. Dispersive Refraction in Ray Tracing (“Thomas”)
`Thomas discloses the use of a computer algorithm to model the dispersive
`
`refraction of light in a gemstone model. Ex. 1008 at 3, 7; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 105.
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. RE44,963
`
`Thomas was published in The Visual Computer, Vol. 2, Issue 1 in 1986, and
`
`therefore is prior art to the ’RE963 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).
`
`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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 106. 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;
`
`Ex. 1005 at ¶ 107.
`
`E. Reason to Combine the References
`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); Ex. 1005 at ¶ 108. Here, such a reason or “plausible rationale” is
`
`straightforward. Ex. 1005 at ¶ 109.
`
`Each of Kojima, Glassner, and Dodson describe a computer program used to
`
`14
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. RE44,963
`
`model and evaluate simulated light as it passes through a computerized optical
`
`system. Ex. 1005 at ¶ 110. 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. Ex.1005 at ¶ 111.
`
`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. Ex.
`
`1005 at ¶ 112. 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). Ex. 1005 at ¶ 113.
`
`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; Ex.
`
`15
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. RE44,963
`
`1005 at ¶ 114. 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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 115. 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; Ex. 1005 at ¶ 116.
`
`Thus, recognizing that gemstones can be accurately modeled to have planar
`
`polygonal sides, one of skill