Well, "everything" is maybe a little exaggerated. The independent claim clearly specifies a method for display 3D data which gets interactively divided into subregions.
That said, the claim is certainly much too broad and relies on vague terminology such as "display rules" and "subregions" separated by a "boundary". Virtually any interactive 3D rendering system in which different portions are rendered differently could be read onto this.
Even when taking into account the description, i.e., when looking beyond the limitations of the independent claims, the patent merely appears to relate to a movable intersection plane in volume rendering. I would be extremely surprised if this hadn't been done before 2003 in commercial intraoperative navigation systems or at least in medical visualization research.
In any case, the independent claim is way too broad and generic. Somebody here has obviously been of the "Interpreting It In the Sense of the Description" school of thought, or as I like to call it the Death of the Patent System.