Filed on behalf of Game Show Network, LLC and WorldWinner.com, Inc.
`By: Brenton R. Babcock
`
`Ted M. Cannon
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`Tel.: (949) 760-0404
`
`Fax: (949) 760-9502
`
`Email: BoxGSN@Knobbe.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`Game Show Network, LLC and WorldWinner.com, Inc.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`Patent Owner of
`U.S. Patent 6,174,237 to Stephenson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00289
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: Brenton R. Babcock
`
`Ted M. Cannon
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`Tel.: (949) 760-0404
`
`Fax: (949) 760-9502
`
`Email: BoxGSN@Knobbe.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`Game Show Network, LLC and WorldWinner.com, Inc.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`Patent Owner of
`U.S. Patent 6,174,237 to Stephenson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00289
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Game Show Network’s
`Slides for PTAB Oral Hearing
`Game Show Network et al. v. Stephenson
`IPR2013-00289
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,174,237
`
`July 10, 2014
`
`GSN1
`
`
`
`
`
`Three (3) Claim Limitations at IssueThree (3) Claim Limitations at Issue
`
`(1) “playing a game of skill in a qualifying round
`between a single player and the host
`computer”
`(2) “evaluating the results of said qualifying round”
`(3) “said performance level award increases as a
`player qualifies for higher performance level
`classifications”
`
`GSN2
`
`
`
`
`
`SummarySummary
`
`(1) The broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`“playing a game” limitations does not require the
`computer to compete head-to-head with the player.
`(2) Walker discloses “evaluating the results of said
`qualifying round” under any claim construction.
`(3) It would have been obvious, in view of Walker, to
`award performance level awards that increase as
`players qualify for higher performance levels.
`
`GSN3
`
`
`
`
`Issue 1: The "playing a game" limitations do not require the Issue 1: The "playing a game" limitations do not require the
`
`computer to compete head-to-head with the player.computer to compete head-to-head with the player.
`
`• Board: BRI does not require head-to-head
`competition.
`• No dispute that Walker discloses the “playing a
`game” limitations under the Board’s construction.
`• The ordinary meaning in view of the ’237 Patent’s
`specification supports the Board’s construction.
`• Stephenson’s admissions to the USPTO and to the
`U.S. District Court (N.D. Okla.) show that the Board’s
`construction is reasonable
`
`GSN4
`
`
`
`
`The ’237 Patent discloses embodiments in which the host The ’237 Patent discloses embodiments in which the host
`
`computer does not compete head-to-head with a player.computer does not compete head-to-head with a player.
`
`“The game of skill tournament is divided into two distinct
`portions: the qualifying round and the playoff round. The
`qualifying round is played between a single player through
`a computer terminal and a host computer. The host
`computer has the ability to act as a game sponsor by
`keeping score, operating the game, monitoring the
`player’s progress and to distribute awards when
`appropriate. Also, the host computer has the ability to act
`as another player if the game requires more than a single
`player.”
`
`’237 Patent, Ex. 1001 at Col. 2:14-21 (emphasis added).
`
`GSN5
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’237 Patent discloses single-player games.The ’237 Patent discloses single-player games.
`
`“Examples of games of skill include . . . solitaire, . . . ,
`crossword puzzles, word search, . . .”
`
`’237 Patent, Ex. 1001 at Col. 3:33-57.
`
`“The fact that crosswords, or word search or solitaire are
`traditionally single player games, played without
`computers, does not mean that a version of those games
`couldn’t be created that featured a computer opponent being
`played over a network in a particular tournament structure.”
`
`Stephenson’s expert’s declaration, Ex. 2007 ¶ 59 (emphasis added).
`
`GSN6
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’237 Patent claims single-player games.The ’237 Patent claims single-player games.
`
`“10. The method of claim 9 wherein said card game is
`selected from the group consisting of . . . solitaire.”
`
`’237 Patent, Ex. 1001, Claim 10 (emphasis added).
`“14. The method of claim 13 wherein said strategy game is
`selected from the group consisting of crosswords, word
`search . . . .”
`
`’237 Patent, Ex. 1001, Claim 143 (emphasis added).
`“The fact that crosswords, or word search or solitaire are
`traditionally single player games . . .”
`Stephenson’s expert’s declaration, Ex. 2007 ¶ 59 (emphasis added).
`
`GSN7
`
`
`
`
`The ’237 Patent does not disclose a two-player The ’237 Patent does not disclose a two-player
`
`implementation of crosswords, word search, or solitaire.implementation of crosswords, word search, or solitaire.
`
`“Q: Are there – now, the specification lists crosswords. Does
`it describe a two-player implementation of crosswords?
`A: It does not.
`Q: Does the specification describe a two-player
`implementation of word search?
`A: It does not.
`Q: Does it describe a two-player implementation of solitaire?
`A: It does not.”
`
`Stephenson’s expert’s deposition, Ex. 1020 at 109:23 – 110:8.
`
`GSN8
`
`
`
`
`The ordinary meaning of “playing between” and “playing The ordinary meaning of “playing between” and “playing
`
`against” does not require competition.against” does not require competition.
`
`“The term ‘between’ means ‘by the common action of: jointly engaging.’”
`Stephenson’s Response, Paper No. 22 at 24 (citing Ex. 2001 (Webster’s
`Dictionary) and Ex. 2007 ¶ 56 (Stephenson’s expert’s declaration)).
`
`“When you play craps, you play against the house. When you play
`blackjack, you play against the house. When you play baccarat,
`slots, video poker, keno, big wheel, or flip-it, you play against the
`house.”
`
`Ex. 1019 at 216 (emphasis added).
`
`“Walker discloses a tournament structure where multiple players play
`against each other, or against a natural yardstick like time.”
`
`Stephenson’s expert’s declaration, Ex. 2007 ¶ 81 (emphasis added).
`
`GSN9
`
`
`
`
`Stephenson’s attempted claim amendment is an admission Stephenson’s attempted claim amendment is an admission
`
`that the claims do not require head-to-head competition.that the claims do not require head-to-head competition.
`
`“a. playing a game of skill in a qualifying round between a
`single player and the host computer, wherein said playing
`includes the single player and host computer playing
`against each other”
`Stephenson’s ex parte reexamination request, Ex. 1009 at 17 (emphasis, in
`original, to show “the new limitations” of proposed Claim 20).
`“The new limitations of claim 20, as well as those of
`dependent claims 21-28, represent a significant change
`from the original claims of the ’237 Patent that are
`currently before the panel.”
`Stephenson’s Opposition to Motion to Terminate or Stay Ex Parte Reexamination,
`Ex. 1015 at 2 (emphasis added).
`
`GSN10
`
`
`
`
`Stephenson's assertion of the '237 Patent against Golden Stephenson's assertion of the '237 Patent against Golden
`
`Fairway shows that the Board's construction is reasonable.Fairway shows that the Board's construction is reasonable.
`
`• In 2009, Stephenson alleged in
`U.S. District Court that Golden
`Fairway infringed the ’237 Patent.
`See Exs. 1012-1014.
`
`• Golden Fairway did not have a computer that competed
`head-to-head with a human player.
`See Exs. 1011 & 1021.
`• Stephenson could not have ethically accused Golden
`Fairway of infringement unless it was reasonable to construe
`the ’237 Patent’s claims to not require head-to-head
`competition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
`
`GSN11
`
`
`
`
`Stephenson alleged that Golden Fairway infringesStephenson alleged that Golden Fairway infringes
`
`the ’237 Patent.the ’237 Patent.
`
`“11. Defendants use, sell, have sold, and/or offer to sell a variety of
`infringing products and/or services that incorporate a method of
`play as described in ’237 patent, namely, having a qualifying round
`of game play and a playoff round of game play, all performed over an
`interactive computer system, including, but not limited to, Defendants’
`game entitled ‘GOLDEN FAIRWAY’, which is an online game having a
`golf theme, in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States.
`
`12. According to Defendants’ website, the instructions for play for the
`GOLDEN FAIRWAY indicate that a player must first obtain a
`qualification level prior to entry into a tournament.”
`
`Stephenson Complaint for Patent Infringement, Ex. 1012 ¶ ¶ 11-12;
`see also Exs. 1013 & 1014.
`
`GSN12
`
`
`
`
`Golden Fairway did not have a computer that competed Golden Fairway did not have a computer that competed
`
`head-to-head with a human player.head-to-head with a human player.
`
`“3. On November 3, 2009, I posted to my blog a review of a computer
`golf game called Golden Fairway. Prior to writing my review of Golden
`Fairway, I became familiar with the game by playing many rounds of
`Golden Fairway golf on a computer. I played the game in each of the
`different modes, including solo player games, multi-player games,
`challenge games, and online tournaments. I estimate that, in total, I
`played 100 rounds of golf with the Golden Fairway game.”
`Declaration of David Johnson, Ex. 1021 ¶ 3.
`
`GSN13
`
`
`
`
`Golden Fairway did not have a computer that competed Golden Fairway did not have a computer that competed
`
`head-to-head with a human player.head-to-head with a human player.
`
`“5. In some modes, such as in challenge games or online
`tournaments, Golden Fairway allowed players to play in head-to-head
`competition against other human players. From my experience,
`Golden Fairway did not offer an option to compete head-to-head
`against a computer-operated opponent that acted as a player in
`the game. Rather, from my experience, all head-to-head competition
`in Golden Fairway involved only human players.”
`Declaration of David Johnson, Ex. 1021 ¶ 5.
`
`GSN14
`
`
`
`
`Issue 2: Walker discloses “evaluating the results of said Issue 2: Walker discloses “evaluating the results of said
`
`qualifying round” under any claim construction.qualifying round” under any claim construction.
`
`• Board: did not construe this limitation
`• Stephenson: argues that this limitation requires the
`evaluation of a single player’s absolute performance,
`not relative comparison to other players.
`• GSN: The BRI of this limitation includes both absolute
`and relative evaluation, but, in any event, Walker
`discloses both absolute and relative evaluation.
`
`GSN15
`
`
`
`
`The claims cover “evaluating the results” using either The claims cover “evaluating the results” using either
`
`absolute or relative performance criteria.absolute or relative performance criteria.
`
`• The “evaluating the results” limitation broadly covers any
`performance criteria.
`• Stephenson incorrectly infers that absolute criteria are
`used because “a single player” plays the “game of skill.”
`• But the “evaluating the results” limitation evaluates “said
`qualifying round”—which includes multiple games and
`multiple players—not just a single “game of skill.”
`• Thus, the “evaluating the results” limitation covers either
`absolute or relative performance criteria.
`
`GSN16
`
`
`
`
`It is undisputed that Walker discloses “evaluating the It is undisputed that Walker discloses “evaluating the
`
`results of said qualifying round” using relative criteria.results of said qualifying round” using relative criteria.
`
`“Walker teaches qualification based on the player’s
`performance as well as the performance of the other players
`in the qualifying round:”
`
`Stephenson’s Response, Paper No. 22 at 34.
`“However, regarding whether a player has qualified for
`advancement, Walker only discloses a relative
`comparison between player’s scores after all players in the
`qualifying round finish playing . . . .”
`
`Stephenson’s expert’s declaration, Ex. 2007 ¶ 85 (emphasis added).
`
`GSN17
`
`
`
`
`Walker also discloses “evaluating the results of said Walker also discloses “evaluating the results of said
`
`qualifying round” using absolute criteria.qualifying round” using absolute criteria.
`
`“There are a number of preferred embodiments for the
`qualifying criteria, including, for example, a minimum
`required score, a minimum average score over the last
`several game sessions, or the maximum score within a sub-
`group of players in the game session.”
`
`Walker, Ex. 1002 at 14:11-14 (emphasis added);
`see also GSN’s expert’s declaration, Ex. 1005 ¶ 57 (pp. 36-37).
`
`GSN18
`
`
`
`
`Issue 3: It would have been obvious to give increased Issue 3: It would have been obvious to give increased
`
`awards as players qualify for higher performance levels.awards as players qualify for higher performance levels.
`• Claim 4: “said performance level award increases as a
`player qualifies for higher performance level
`classifications”
`• This limitation means, simply, that there is a direct
`relationship between the player’s performance level
`and the amount of performance level award that he or
`she receives.
`• This limitation does not say when the player qualifies,
`or that the player knows that he or she has qualified,
`for an award.
`
`GSN19
`
`
`
`
`Claim 4 expresses a simple direct relationship between Claim 4 expresses a simple direct relationship between
`
`performance level and award amount.performance level and award amount.
`
`’237 Patent, Ex. 1001 at Col. 5:1-9; Table 1.
`
`GSN20
`
`
`
`
`Claim 4 does not require that the player know that he or she Claim 4 does not require that the player know that he or she
`
`has qualified for a higher award during the qualifying round.has qualified for a higher award during the qualifying round.
`
`“After each player has completed the qualifying round, the
`results are analyzed. The results are listed in Table 2.”
`
`’237 Patent, Ex. 1001 at Col. 5:23-33; Table 2 (emphasis added).
`
`GSN21
`
`
`
`
`Increasing performance level awards as a player qualifies Increasing performance level awards as a player qualifies
`
`for higher performance levels would have been obvious.for higher performance levels would have been obvious.
`
`“Prizes awarded might be $100 for the player getting the top
`score, $50 for the player with the second highest score, and
`$25 for the third highest score.”
`
`Walker, Ex. 1002 at 13:29-30.
`“. . . it would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill
`in the art, that multiple levels of prizes can be awarded after
`the qualifying round. The person of ordinary skill in the art
`would readily understand that it is advantageous to provide
`multiple award levels in order to promote competition by
`providing an incentive to perform at the highest possible level
`during the qualifying round.”
`
`GSN22
`
`GSN’s expert’s declaration, Ex. 1005 ¶ 78.
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00289
`GSN v. Stephenson
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of PETITIONERS’
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS is being served on July 8, 2014, via email
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) per agreement of the parties, to counsel for
`
`Stephenson at the email address set forth below:
`
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`P.O. Box 2903
`Minneapolis, MN 55402-0903
`stephensonIPR@merchantgould.com
`
`
`
`Dated: July 8, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`18382724
`
`
`VIA EMAIL
`
` /Ted M. Cannon/
`Ted M. Cannon
`Reg. No. 55,036
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
