throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________________
`
`
`ARM Ltd. and ARM, Inc.,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies ULC, Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent 7,633,506
`Issue Date: December 15, 2009
`Title: Parallel Pipeline Graphics System
`
`________________________
`
`
`CASE: IPR2018-1149
`
`
`________________________
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,633,506
`
`________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,633,506 (“the ’506 Patent”).
`
`Ex. 1002
`(Excerpts).
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,633,506. (“File History”)
`
`Ex. 1003 Declaration of Dr. Hanspeter Pfister
`
`Ex. 1004 U.S. Patent No. 7,102,646 (“Rubinstein”)
`
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,697,063 (“Zhu ’063”)
`
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,856,320 (“Zhu ’320”)
`
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0076320A1
`(“Collodi”)
`
`Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,809,732 (“Zatz”)
`
`Ex. 1009 April 26, 2000 Press release describing Nvidia GeForce 2 Graphics
`Chip
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`January 5, 2001 Article describing Nvidia GeForce 3 Graphics Chip
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Initial Determination in U.S. International Trade Commission Inv.
`No. 337-TA-1044
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND MOTION FOR JOINDER
`REFERENCE ................................................................................................. 1
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 3
`
`III.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b): MANDATORY NOTICES .......................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Party In Interest ..................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters .............................................. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Notice Of Counsel And Service
`Information .......................................................................................... 7
`
`D.
`
`Fees under 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................................ 8
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW .................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a): Ground For Standing ...................................... 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b): Identification Of Challenge ............................ 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) Challenged Claims ............................ 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art And Statutory
`Grounds. .................................................................................... 9
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................. 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(3) Claim Construction ........................10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) How the Claims are Unpatentable. .10
`
`Supporting Evidence ................................................................10
`
`V.
`
`THERE EXISTS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE. ................................11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`Technology Background ....................................................................11
`
`The Alleged Invention of the ’506 Patent. .........................................14
`
`Prosecution History of the ’506 Patent ..............................................20
`
`Proposed Claim Construction ............................................................21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Z-Buffer Logic Unit .................................................................22
`
`“Hierarchical Z-Interface” .......................................................22
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`“Early Z-interface” and “Late Z-interface” .............................23
`
`3.
`
`E.
`
`Ground 1: Obviousness by Rubinstein in view of Collodi (Claims 1-
`9) ........................................................................................................26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Rubinstein ................................................................................26
`
`Collodi .....................................................................................29
`
`3. Motivation to Combine ............................................................31
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 1 .....................................................................................38
`
`Claim 2 .....................................................................................51
`
`Claim 3 .....................................................................................53
`
`Claim 4 .....................................................................................58
`
`Claim 5 .....................................................................................61
`
`Claim 6 .....................................................................................63
`
`10. Claim 7 .....................................................................................66
`
`11. Claim 8 .....................................................................................69
`
`12. Claim 9 .....................................................................................72
`
`F.
`
`Ground 2: Obviousness by Rubinstein in view of Collodi in further
`view of Zatz (Claims 8-9) ..................................................................73
`
`1.
`
`Zatz ..........................................................................................73
`
`2. Motivation to Combine ............................................................74
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 8 .....................................................................................76
`
`Claim 9 .....................................................................................80
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................82
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND MOTION FOR JOINDER
`REFERENCE
`
`Petitioners ARM, Inc. and ARM Ltd. (“Petitioners”) respectfully request
`
`inter partes review and seek cancellation of claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,633,506 (the “’506 Patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`et seq. The Board previously instituted inter partes review of claims 1-9 of the
`
`’506 Patent in IPR2018-00102 on April 27, 2018. Petitioners seek to join
`
`IPR2018-00102 and are filing a concurrent Motion for Joinder. This Petition and
`
`the associated Motion for Joinder are timely under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and
`
`42.122(b), as they are submitted within one month of the date on which IPR2018-
`
`00102 was instituted. Petitioners have consulted with the petitioners in IPR2018-
`
`00102 and the Patent Owners. The petitioners in IPR2018-00102 do not oppose
`
`this motion for joinder. The Patent Owners did not provide a position on this
`
`joinder.
`
`Joinder is appropriate because of the substantial similarity between
`
`IPR2018-00102 and the present Petition. The present Petition is largely a verbatim
`
`copy of the Petition in IPR2018-00102 with limited changes as cited below.
`
`Petitioners have retained the same expert as the Petitioners in IPR2018-00102 and
`
`the expert’s declaration is substantively identical to that in IPR2018-00102. For
`
`the convenience of the Board and parties, Petitioners have used the same Bates
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`stamping on exhibits and the same paragraph citations to the expert reports.
`
`As noted in the Motion for Joinder, other factors relevant to joinder also
`
`favor granting this motion, including that: (i) the same schedule for various
`
`proceedings can be adopted; (ii) Petitioners are not advancing any new expert
`
`testimony, and thus, discovery will not be impacted by joinder; (iii) joinder will not
`
`materially affect the range of issues needing to be addressed by the Board and by
`
`the parties in the joined proceedings; (iv) joinder will not prejudice any party; and
`
`(v) Petitioners are willing to agree to procedural safeguards to minimize burden.
`
`See Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (Apr. 24,
`
`2013). As discussed below, Petitioners have not been served with a Complaint in
`
`any action asserting the ‘506 Patent and thus 35 U.S.C. § 315 does not bar this
`
`Petition. Even if such a Complaint had been served, section 315(b) does not apply
`
`to the co-filed motion for joinder. See Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Game and
`
`Technology Co., Ltd., IPR2018-00157, Paper 12 at 17-18 (May 3, 2018). “Because
`
`§ 315(b) expressly states that ‘[t]he time limitation set forth in the preceding
`
`sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c),’ Petitioner’s
`
`request for joinder is not time-barred.” Id. at 18.
`
`The following are the primary modifications between the current Petition
`
`and the Petition filed in IPR2018-00102. First, the explanations of the real party in
`
`interest and the related ITC Investigation below have been adapted. Second,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`Petitioners attach as Exhibit 1011 a public version of the Initial Determination in
`
`the related ITC Investigation. Third, Petitioners note that they adopt and agree
`
`with the Board’s claim construction of “unified shader” in the Institution Decision
`
`in IPR2018-00102. See IPR2018-00102, Paper 14 at 10-25 (April 27, 2018
`
`Institution Decision). Fourth, for claim constructions other than “unified shader,”
`
`Petitioners note that those claim constructions as proposed in the petition in
`
`IPR2018-00101 are correct under both a broadest reasonable interpretation and
`
`under the claim construction analysis under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc. respectfully request
`
`inter partes review and seek cancellation of claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,633,506 (the “’506 Patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`et seq.
`
`The ’506 Patent claims a graphics processing system with a purported novel
`
`pipeline comprising various features that were well-known and commonplace at
`
`the time the patent was filed. Specifically, the alleged “novel” pipeline contains a
`
`setup unit, a scan converter coupled to a z-buffer, a rasterizer, a unified shading
`
`unit performing both texturing and color operations, and a color buffer. This
`
`pipeline, however, was well-known at the time. Many of the then-existing graphics
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`processors contained identical components configured in nearly the exact same
`
`way. U.S. Patent No. 7,102,646 (Rubinstein), for example, has a priority date of
`
`November 10, 2000 and, as demonstrated below, discloses a pipeline nearly
`
`identical to the one disclosed in the ’506 Patent:
`
`
`
`The patent owner may seek to distinguish the ’506 patent from the
`
`Rubinstein system on the ground that the ’506 patent claims multiple parallel
`
`pipelines. Parallel pipelines, however, were also well-known and obvious at the
`
`time the ’506 patent was filed. At that time—and for more than a decade prior—it
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`was well known that parallel pipelines could effectively improve the efficiency of
`
`graphics processors, and they were incorporated in many different types of
`
`graphics systems. Indeed, by 2002, graphics processor manufacturers had already
`
`released multiple generations of graphics chips with parallel pipelines. See Ex.
`
`1003 (Pfister Decl.), ¶ 85, Ex. 1009, Ex. 1010 (discussing graphics chips with
`
`multiple parallel pipelines released in 2000 and 2001).
`
`Further, Rubinstein provides explicit teachings for a POSITA to incorporate
`
`parallel pipelines in Rubinstein’s system: the tiling feature of Rubinstein—which
`
`divides the screen into independent tiles that could easily be processed
`
`simultaneously—makes parallel processing an intuitive addition. Moreover,
`
`Collodi (discussed herein) discloses a shading unit that can be implemented within
`
`the pipeline of Rubinstein and expressly discloses that parallel processing has
`
`been, and could be, used to improve the efficiency of graphics chips like
`
`Rubinstein.
`
`Accordingly, the challenged claims amount to nothing more than putting
`
`multiple commonplace prior art graphics pipelines in one system. The prior art
`
`references discussed below establish that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`III.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B): MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Party In Interest
`
`Petitioners are the real parties in interest. Petitioners are not respondents in
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`the pending ITC investigation below. None of the co-respondents in the pending
`
`investigation identified below is a real party in interest to this proceeding. The co-
`
`respondents included: the Petitioners in IPR2018-00102 (MediaTek Inc and
`
`MediaTek USA Inc.), LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics, USA, Inc., and LG
`
`Electronics MobileComm USA, Inc., Sigma Designs, Inc., and VIZIO, Inc. None
`
`of these parties financed or controlled this Petition (or had the opportunity to
`
`exercise control over this Petition) or otherwise meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312(a)(2).
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters
`
`The ’506 Patent is the subject of the following actions brought by Patent
`
`Owner against other parties that may affect or be affected by a decision in this
`
`proceeding: U.S. International Trade Commission Inv. No. 337-TA-1044 and U.S.
`
`District Court for the District of Delaware Case No. 1:17-cv-00065. Other patents
`
`asserted in the related matters include U.S. Patent Nos. 7,796,133; 8,760,454; and
`
`9,582,846. A copy of the public version of the ALJ’s Initial Decision in 337-TA-
`
`1044 is attached hereto as Exhibit 1008.
`
`The ’506 Patent was also subject to a petition for inter partes review, Case
`
`No. IPR2017-01670, which was terminated on September 29, 2017.
`
` In IPR2018-00101, the Board instituted trial based upon Claims 1–9 as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the grounds that claims 1–3, 5–9 are
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of “Reality Engine
`
`Graphics” authored by K. Akeley (“Akeley”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,808,690
`
`(“Rich”) and that claim 4 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
`
`combination of Akeley, Rich, and U.S. Patent No. 6,646,639 (“Greene”). See
`
`IPR2018-00101, Paper 13 (April 27, 2018). Petitioners are concurrently filing a
`
`separate petition for inter partes review and motion for joinder seeking to join
`
`IPR2018-00101 in which, just as in the present Petition, Petitioners adopt the same
`
`arguments and include the same expert declaration as was filed by the petitioners
`
`in IPR2018-00101.
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Notice Of Counsel And Service
`Information
`
`Petitioners provide the following designation of counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`Kevin Anderson, Reg. No. 43,471
`kanderson@wileyrein.com
`Wiley Rein LLP
`1776 K. Street, N.W.
`Washington DC 20006
`Phone (202) 719-7000
`Fax (202) 719-7049
`
`Scott Felder, Reg. No. 47,558
`sfelder@wileyrein.com
`Wiley Rein LLP
`1776 K. Street, N.W.
`Washington DC 20006
`Phone (202) 719-7000
`Fax (202) 719-7049
`
`Deposit Account No. 50-1129 with
`
`Deposit Account No. 50-1129 with
`
`reference to Attorney Docket No.
`
`reference to Attorney Docket No.
`
`82819.0056
`
`82819.0056
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners submit Powers of Attorney with this Petition. Please address all
`
`correspondence to lead and backup counsel. Petitioners consent to service by email
`
`at: kanderson@wileyrein.com and sfelder@wileyrein.com.
`
`D.
`
`Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`Petitioner concurrently submits fees of $30,500. If more fees are necessary
`
`to accord this Petition a filing date, authorization is granted to charge the same to
`
`Deposit Account No. 50-1129 with reference to Attorney Docket No. 82819.0056.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`As set forth below, this Petition meets and complies with all requirements
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 for inter partes review.
`
`A.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a): Ground For Standing
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioners certify that the ’506 Patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and Petitioners are not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review challenging the claims of the ’506 Patent on the
`
`grounds identified herein.
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b): Identification Of Challenge
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioners request that the PTAB
`
`invalidate the challenged claims of the ’506 Patent.
`
`1.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioners challenge claims 1-9 of the ’506 Patent.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`2.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art And Statutory
`Grounds.
`
`The one-year time bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) is measured from
`
`the effective U.S. filing date of the ’506 Patent, which is no earlier than November
`
`27, 2002. The prior art references relied upon herein are:
`
`Patent/Publication
`
`Priority Date Publication
`Date
`
`Prior
`Art
`
`Ex.
`No.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,102,646 to
`Rubinstein (“Rubinstein”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application,
`Publication No. US
`2003/0076320 (“Collodi”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,809,732
`(“Zatz”)
`
`Nov. 10, 2000 Sep. 5, 2006
`
`102(e) 1004
`
`Oct. 18, 2001 Apr. 24, 2003 102(e) 1007
`
`Jul. 18, 2002 Oct. 26, 2004
`
`102(e) 1008
`
`Below are the specific statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
`
`(pre-AIA) on which the claims are challenged:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-9 are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) by
`
`Rubinstein in view of Collodi.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 8-9 are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by
`
`Rubinstein in view of Collodi in further view of Zatz.
`
`3.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the field, at the time the ’506 patent was
`
`effectively filed, would have had at least a four-year degree in electrical
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field and two
`
`years relevant experience in the graphics processing field including developing,
`
`designing or programming hardware for graphics processing units. Ex. 1003
`
`(Pfister Decl.), ¶ 46.
`
`4.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(3) Claim Construction
`
`Petitioners’ proposed constructions of certain terms in the challenged claims
`
`pursuant to this standard are provided in Section V.D below. Petitioners adopt the
`
`Board’s claim construction of “unified shader” in the Institution Decision of
`
`IPR2018-00102 and assert that well-reasoned construction is the proper claim
`
`construction analysis under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005).
`
`5.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) How the Claims are Unpatentable.
`
`Sections IV.E and IV.F below explain how claims 1-9 of the ’506 Patent are
`
`unpatentable, including an identification of where each element of the claims is
`
`found in the prior art.
`
`6.
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Supporting evidence relied upon includes the declaration of Dr. Hanspeter
`
`Pfister, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003) and other supporting evidence in the Exhibit List filed
`
`herewith. Dr. Pfister’s background and qualifications, and the information
`
`provided to him, are discussed in Ex. 1003.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`V.
`
`THERE EXISTS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE.
`
`A. Technology Background
`
`Graphics processing is an important part of any computer system, and has
`
`been for the past several decades. The purpose of a graphics processor is to
`
`generate complex shapes and structures to be displayed on a screen. Ex. 1003
`
`(Pfister Decl.), ¶ 29. In order to accomplish that purpose, a graphics processor
`
`converts a 3D object or scene (comprised of points in 3D space called “vertices”
`
`that make up shapes called “primitives”) into a 2D image to be displayed on a
`
`computer screen (comprised of “pixels”). Generally, 3D graphics processing starts
`
`with creating a mathematical model of each object. Id., ¶ 29. The model is then
`
`processed through a series of steps, referred to as a “graphics processing pipeline,”
`
`that render the scene as a 2D image on a display:
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`In most cases, 3D objects are conceptualized as a series of primitives
`
`(e.g., triangles) that cover the surface of an object, such as a teapot:
`
`
`
`Each point of the primitive is called a “vertex” and each vertex has certain
`
`properties, which are represented as data. Id., ¶ 31. For example, a vertex includes
`
`not just its location, but may also include other information, such as the color of
`
`the object and its material properties (e.g., whether it is reflective). A vertex
`
`processor performs the steps in the graphics pipeline that transform these vertices
`
`from 3D space into 2D space and determines how lighting and other conditions in
`
`the 3D scene impact the color of the vertices. Id., ¶ 31. The ’506 Patent refers to
`
`these operations on vertices as “front-end” operations.
`
`After the “front-end” processing, a number of steps occur to transform the
`
`2D shapes into a final image that can be displayed.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’506 Patent refers to this as “back-end” processing. The first step, called
`
`rasterization, determines what pixels on the 2D screen are covered by each
`
`primitive. At least one “fragment” is generated for each pixel on the screen (as a
`
`result, the terms “fragment” and “pixel” are sometimes used interchangeably). Id.,
`
`¶ 32. Rasterization commonly includes the step of “scan conversion,” which
`
`involves stepping through the geometry of the primitives to determine which pixels
`
`are covered. Id., ¶ 33. Subsequent operations including various forms of shading,
`
`texturing, blending, and other effects, each of which affects the final color of each
`
`pixel. These operations are commonly called “pixel shading” operations and may
`
`involve lighting, texture and bump mapping, translucency and other phenomena.
`
`The results of each operation is gathered together through merging or blending of
`
`pixels for the final image to be displayed on a screen.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Alleged Invention of the ’506 Patent.
`
`The ’506 Patent discloses and claims a graphics processing system that
`
`
`
`includes a front-end and a back-end. Ex. 1001 at Abstract and Claim 1. The front-
`
`end receives instructions (and graphics data) and outputs primitives or
`
`combinations of primitives (e.g. triangles, parallelograms, etc.) (i.e., geometry). Id.
`
`at Claim 1. The back-end receives the primitives and processes them into a final
`
`image comprised of colored pixels. Id. For various embodiments, the claimed
`
`invention also includes one or more of the following features:
`
`Back-end with Parallel Pipelines: The ’506 Patent discloses and claims a
`
`system with a back-end comprised of multiple parallel pipelines. Id. These parallel
`
`pipelines each process a different portion of the screen in parallel. Id.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 (’506 Patent) at Figure 3.
`
`Unified Shader: To help process the primitives, each pipeline contains a
`
`“unified shader.” Id. at Claim 1. The ’506 Patent defines “unified shader” to mean
`
`a shading unit that performs both pixel color shading and texture address shading.1
`
`Id. at 6:49-53. The shader is capable of, for example, performing
`
`calculations related to determining and applying a color to a fragment or pixel
`
`
`1 This is contrary to the current understanding of the term “unified shader” in the
`industry today. Pursuant to developments outside of the ’506 Patent, the term
`“unified shader” has come to commonly mean a unit that performs computations
`on both vertex (geometry) data and pixel data. Ex. 1003 (Pfister Decl.), ¶ 38. Or, as
`the ’506 Patent would put it, a shader that performs computations on both “front-
`end” and “back-end” data. Id. The ’506 Patent, however, clearly does not use the
`term in this way, and, instead, gives the term a definition unique to the patent. Id.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`(color shading), and it is also capable of calculations related to determining texture
`
`coordinates for a texture look-up (texture address shading). Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 (’506 Patent) at Figure 5 (showing various components within each of the
`
`parallel pipelines of the ’506 graphics processing system, with the Unified Shader
`
`
`
`annotated).
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`Tiling and Set-up Unit: Each pipeline in the ’506 Patent’s system processes
`
`specific portion(s) or “tile(s)” of the screen. Id. at Claims 1 and 6. To facilitate this
`
`process, the system includes a “set-up unit” that receives primitives/geometry from
`
`the front-end, determines which portion or “tile” of the screen the geometry is
`
`located in, and then directs the geometry to be processed by one of the multiple
`
`pipelines. Id. at claim 6.
`
`Ex. 1001 (’506 Patent) at Figure 5 (with Setup Unit annotated).
`
`
`
`Z-buffering: In certain embodiments, each pipeline also includes a “z-buffer
`
`logic unit” that scans the incoming primitives and determines which primitives will
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`be visible to the screen. Id. at Claims 3-5. The z-buffer logic unit may perform
`
`“early z” operations through an early z-interface, i.e., visibility testing prior to
`
`pixel shading. See e.g., claim 4. In other embodiments, it may perform “late z”
`
`operations, i.e., visibility testing after pixel shading. Id. at Claim 5. The z-buffer
`
`may also perform hierarchical z-buffering, which involves visibility testing at a
`
`coarse level, i.e. coarser than fragment-by-fragment or pixel-by-pixel. Id. at 6:1-
`
`15.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 (’506 Patent) at Figure 5 (with Z buffer logic unit annotated).
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’506 Patent
`
`The ’506 Patent’s application was filed on November 26, 2003. The
`
`application included 16 claims directed to “graphics chip[s]” comprising, among
`
`other things, the elements listed in the previous section. Ex. 1002 (’506
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`Prosecution History). After several office actions, the Examiner allowed some of
`
`the amended claims. Ex. 1002 at 39.
`
`In allowing the claims of the ’506 Patent, the examiner recognized that
`
`several prior art references (including Zhu ’063, discussed below) taught rendering
`
`pipeline systems that used screen space tiling and double z-buffering schemes
`
`claimed by the ’506 patent. Ex. 1002 at 36-41, 7/30/2009 Notice of Allowance.
`
`The examiner stated, however, that the references he reviewed did not
`
`disclose parallel pipelines with unified shaders as claimed by the ’506 Patent. Id.
`
`Nonetheless, as explained below, using parallel pipelines and “unified
`
`shaders” (as defined by the ’506 Patent) was well-known and obvious at the time
`
`the ’506 Patent was filed. Ex. 1003 (Pfister Decl.), ¶ 45.
`
`D.
`
`Proposed Claim Construction
`
`Petitioners propose construction of certain claim terms below pursuant to the
`
`Phillips standard.2 The proposed claim constructions are offered to comply with
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b) and 42.104(b)(3) and for the sole purpose of this Petition.
`
`.
`
`
`2 The Petitioners in IPR2018-00101 proposed these constructions under a
`“Broadest Reasonable Interpretation” standard. To maintain the consistency and
`identity with the petition in IPR2018-00101, this present Petition retains the
`language reciting “Broadest Reasonable Interpretation” for these constructions.
`However, the present Petitioners assert that these constructions are proper under
`both “Broadest Reasonable Interpretation” and the Phillips standard.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Z-Buffer Logic Unit
`
`Claims 3-5 require a “Z Buffer Logic Unit.” The Broadest Reasonable
`
`Interpretation of a “Z-Buffer Logic Unit” is “a logic unit that facilitates visibility
`
`testing by comparing depth values.” Ex. 1003 (Pfister Decl.), ¶¶ 47-48.
`
`As the ’506 Patent explains, a “z-buffer” is a memory space that the z-buffer
`
`logic unit uses to store the “z” or “depth” values (i.e., the distance from the screen)
`
`for primitives or portions of primitives. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 (’506 Patent) at 6:20-
`
`26; 6:64-7:3. The logic unit then compares those values to other primitives that
`
`may occupy the same screen space. Id. at 6:20-23 (“For each quad, coverage and Z
`
`(depth) information is computed…. [E]ach quad is passed to the Z buffer 555
`
`where its Z values are compared against the values stored in the Z buffer at that
`
`location.”) If the comparison reveals that the particular primitive or portion of the
`
`primitive is behind another primitive (i.e. not visible to the screen) the Z-buffer
`
`logic unit discards that primitive. Id. at 6:28-30 (“At this stage, those quads for
`
`which none of the covered pixels passed the Z compare test are discarded.”)
`
`Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a Z-buffer Logic Unit
`
`is “a logic unit that facilitates this visibility testing by comparing pertinent values.”
`
`2.
`
`“Hierarchical Z-Interface”
`
`Claim 4 requires a “Hierarchical Z-Interface.” The broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of this term is “an interface with a z-buffer logic unit that provides
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`for visibility testing at a coarse level, including, for example, for an entire tile or
`
`primitive.” Ex. 1003 (Pfister Decl.), ¶¶ 49-50.
`
`The ’506 Patent discloses that a hierarchical Z-interface is one that steps
`
`through the geometry at a coarse level (e.g., across an entire tile) to determine if
`
`the entire geometry or portion of that geometry can be discarded:
`
`A scan converter 540 works in conjunction with Hierarchical Z-
`
`interface of Z buffer logic 555 to step through the geometry (e.g.,
`
`triangle or parallelogram) within the bounds of the pipeline’s tile
`
`pattern. In one embodiment, initial stepping is performed at a coarse
`
`level. For each of the coarse level tiles, a minimum (i.e. closest) Z value
`
`is computed. This is compared with the farthest Z value for the tile
`
`stored in a hierarchical-Z buffer 550. If the compare fails, the tile is
`
`rejected.
`
`Ex. 1001 (’506 Patent) at 6:2-10 (emphasis added). The coarse level z-buffering
`
`done by the hierarchical z-interface is in contrast to the finer pixel or fragment
`
`level z-buffering done later. Id. at 6:16-18 (“The second section of the scan
`
`converter 540 works in conjunction with the Early Z-interface… to step through
`
`the coarse tile at a fine level.”) Accordingly, a POSITA would understand the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of “Hierarchical Z-Interface” to be “an interface
`
`with a z-buffer logic unit that provides for visibility testing at a coarse level,
`
`including, for example, for an entire tile or primitive.”
`
`3.
`
`“Early Z-interface” and “Late Z-interface”
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,633,506
`
`
`
`Claim 4 requires an “Early Z-interface.” The broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of this term is “an interface with a z buffer logic unit that provides
`
`for visibility testing prior to shading and texturing.” Ex. 1003 (Pfister Decl.), ¶¶
`
`53-55.
`
`The ’506 Patent discloses that the early Z-

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket