UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`GAMELOFT, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INVENTOR HOLDINGS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent 8,784,198
` ____________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MICHAEL ZYDA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 1
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`GAMELOFT, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INVENTOR HOLDINGS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent 8,784,198
` ____________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MICHAEL ZYDA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 1
`
`
`
`I, Michael Zyda, hereby declare the following:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND EDUCATION
`
`1.
`
`I began my career in Computer Graphics in 1973 as part of an
`
`undergraduate research group, the Senses Bureau, at the University of California,
`
`San Diego. I received a BA in Bioengineering from the University of California,
`
`San Diego in La Jolla in 1976, an MS in Computer and Information Science from
`
`the University of Massachusetts, Amherst in 1978 and a DSc in Computer Science
`
`from Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri in 1984.
`
`2.
`
`I am the Founding Director of the University of Southern California
`
`(USC) GamePipe Laboratory, and a Professor of Engineering Practice in the USC
`
`Department of Computer Science. At USC, I founded the USC Games joint
`
`Advanced Games course and took the USC Games program from no program to
`
`the preeminent Games program in the world in five years. The USC Games
`
`program has been rated #1 by the Princeton Review for six straight years. My
`
`alums have shipped games played by over 2.5 billion players. From Fall 2000 to
`
`Fall 2004, I was the Founding Director of the MOVES Institute located at the
`
`Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey and a Professor in the Department of
`
`Computer Science at NPS as well. From 1986 until the formation of the MOVES
`
`Institute, I was the Director of the NPSNET Research Group. My research interests
`
`include computer graphics, large-scale, networked 3D virtual environments and
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 2
`
`
`
`games, agent-based simulation, modeling human and organizational behavior,
`
`interactive computer-generated story, computer-generated characters, video
`
`production, entertainment/defense collaboration, modeling and simulation, and
`
`serious and entertainment games. I am considered a pioneer in the following fields
`
`- computer graphics, networked virtual environments, modeling and simulation,
`
`and serious and entertainment games. I hold a lifetime appointment as a National
`
`Associate of the National Academies, an appointment made by the Council of the
`
`National Academy of Sciences in November 2003, awarded in recognition of
`
`“extraordinary service” to the National Academies. I am a member of the
`
`Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences. I served as the principal investigator and
`
`development director of the America’s Army PC game funded by the Assistant
`
`Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. I took America’s Army
`
`from conception to three million plus registered players and hence, transformed
`
`Army recruiting. The creation of the America’s Army game founded the serious
`
`games field. I also co-hold two patents that form the basis for the 9-axis sensor in
`
`the Nintendo Wii U.
`
`3.
`
`I began working in the networked visual simulation field in 1987. I
`
`received my first large piece of funding in that area from DARPA in 1991 as part
`
`of the Warbreaker Program. My research group’s role in that program was to build
`
`a low-cost, workstation based (Silicon Graphics workstations) visual simulator that
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 3
`
`
`
`could read SIMNET data packets and SIMNET terrain databases. By 1993, our
`
`NPSNET system could interoperate with SIMNET and the DIS standard and take
`
`part in the large-scale exercises that were part of the Warbreaker Program. As part
`
`of Warbreaker, we received a connection to the Defense Simulation Internet,
`
`DSINET. DSINET was a network dedicated to large-scale military simulation
`
`exercises. The DSINET supported the use of SIMNET and DIS (Distributed
`
`Interactive Simulation) network packets as well as simultaneous video
`
`teleconferencing. In August 1993, DARPA funded my program to put on a joint
`
`demonstration with the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) at the annual
`
`SIGGRAPH Conference in Anaheim, California. Our team purchased a T-1 link
`
`that connected our Anaheim-based LAN to the DSINET. We ran a demonstration
`
`showing off NPSNET connected to the AFIT-HOTAS system and had some 50
`
`workstations playing inside of that demonstration. We put on a special
`
`demonstration for the Director of DARPA, who was in his office in Arlington, VA.
`
`During that demonstration, the DARPA Director could watch what was going on
`
`from a workstation on the DSINET in Arlington and speak to us by video link
`
`across the DSINET at the same time. We additionally spoke to our Program
`
`Manager across the DSINET to Arlington. We continued to utilize the DSINET in
`
`developing the NPSNET system through the end of 1996.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 4
`
`
`
`4.
`
`In 1994, the NPSNET Research Group began to experiment with the
`
`then new Multicase Backbone of the Internet (Mbone). The Mbone was a virtual
`
`network built on top of the Internet and invented by Van Jacobson, Steve Deering
`
`and Stephen Casner in 1992. The purpose of Mbone was to minimize the amount
`
`of data required for multipoint audio and video conferencing. Mbone was free and
`
`it used a network of routers that supported IP multicast, and it enabled access to
`
`real-time interactive multimedia on the Internet, including networked simulation
`
`packets, game packets and video conferencing. The first visual simulation system
`
`to play on the Mbone was NPSNET in 1994.
`
`5.
`
`I also attach as Appendix A a recent and complete curriculum vitae,
`
`which details my educational and professional background and publications.
`
`6.
`
`I am submitting this declaration to offer my independent expert
`
`opinion concerning certain issues raised in the petition for inter partes review
`
`(“Petition”) regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,784,198 (“the ‘198 Patent”). My
`
`compensation is not based on the substance of the opinions rendered here. As part
`
`of my work in connection with this matter, I have studied the ‘198 Patent,
`
`including its written descriptions, figures, and claims, as well as the prosecution
`
`file history of the ‘198 Patent. In addition I reviewed the Petition. I have also
`
`carefully considered the following references discussed in the Petition:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,768,382 to Schneier, et al., (“Schneier”), entitled
`“Remote-Auditing
`of Computer Generated Outcomes
`and
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 5
`
`
`
`and Access Control System Using
`Authenticated Billing
`Cryptographic and Other Protocols,” filed on November 22, 1995 and
`issued on June 16, 1998 [Exhibit 1003]
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,002,617 to Uskela, et al. (“Uskela”), entitled
`“Sponsored Network Games,” filed September 27, 1999 and issued on
`August 23, 2011 [Exhibit 1004]
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,624,316 to Roskowski, et al. (“Roskowski”),
`entitled “Video Game Enhancer with Integral Modem and Smart Card
`Interface,” filed June 6, 1994 and issued on April 29, 1997 [Exhibit
`1005]
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,041,316 to Allen (“Allen”), entitled “Method and
`System for Ensuring Royalty Payments for Data Delivered over a
`Network,” filed on July 25, 1994 and issued on March 21, 2000
`[Exhibit 1006]
`II. Legal Framework
`
`7.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which a prior art patent or
`
`printed publication can be used to invalidate a patent. First, the prior art can be
`
`shown to “anticipate” the claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to “render
`
`obvious” the claim. My understanding of the two legal standards is set forth below.
`
`8.
`
`I understand that, in general, for a patent claim to be invalid as
`
`“anticipated” by the prior art, each and every feature of the claim must be found,
`
`expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference or product arranged as in the
`
`claim. Claim limitations that are not expressly found in a prior art reference are
`
`inherent if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the
`
`claim limitations.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 6
`
`
`
`9.
`
`I further understand that an inventor is not entitled to a patent if his or
`
`her invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of
`
`the invention at the time the invention was made. I understand that a patent claim
`
`is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the patent claim
`
`and the prior art are such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious at the time the claimed invention was made to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. Obviousness, as I
`
`understand it, is based on the scope and content of the prior art, the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claim, the level of ordinary skill in the art, and, to the
`
`extent that they exist and have an appropriate nexus to the claimed invention (as
`
`opposed to prior art features), secondary indicia of non-obviousness.
`
`10.
`
`I have been informed that whether there are any relevant differences
`
`between the prior art and the claimed invention is to be analyzed from the view of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in this case
`
`February 18, 2000. As such, my opinions below as to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art are as of the time of the invention, even if not expressly stated as such; for
`
`example, even if stated in the present tense.
`
`11.
`
`In analyzing the relevance of the differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art, I have been informed that I must consider the impact, if
`
`any, of such differences on the obviousness or non-obviousness of the invention as
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 7
`
`
`
`a whole, not merely some portion of it. The person of ordinary skill faced with a
`
`problem is able to apply his or her experience and ability to solve the problem and
`
`also look to any available prior art to help solve the problem.
`
`12. An invention is obvious if a person of ordinary skill in the art, facing
`
`the wide range of needs created by developments in the field, would have seen an
`
`obvious benefit to the solutions tried by the applicant. When there is a design need
`
`or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to try the
`
`known options. If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in
`
`the same way, using the technique would have been obvious.
`
`13.
`
`It is my understanding that a precise teaching in the prior art directed
`
`to the subject matter of the claimed invention is not needed and that one may take
`
`into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have employed in reviewing the prior art at the time of the invention.
`
`For example, if the claimed invention combined elements known in the prior art
`
`and the combination yielded results that were predictable to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention, then this evidence would make it more
`
`likely that the claim was obvious. On the other hand, if the combination of known
`
`elements yielded unexpected or unpredictable results, or if the prior art teaches
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 8
`
`
`
`away from combining the known elements, then this evidence would make it more
`
`likely that the claim that successfully combined those elements was not obvious.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that hindsight must not be used when comparing the
`
`prior art to the invention for obviousness.
`
`15.
`
`It is my understanding that obviousness may also be shown by
`
`demonstrating that it would have been obvious to modify what is taught in a single
`
`piece of prior art to create the subject matter of the patent claim. Obviousness may
`
`be shown by showing that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of
`
`more than one item of prior art. In determining whether a piece of prior art could
`
`have been combined with other prior art or combined with or modified in view of
`
`other information within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, the
`
`following are examples of approaches and rationales that may be considered:
`
`• Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`• Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results;
`
`• Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`products) in the same way;
`• Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`• Applying a technique or approach that would have been "obvious to
`try" (choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable
`solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success);
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 9
`
`
`
`• Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`• Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`invention.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that the rationale for modifying a reference and/or
`
`combining references may come from sources such as explicit statements in the
`
`prior art, or the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, including any need or
`
`problem known in the field at the time, even if different from the specific need or
`
`problem addressed by the inventor of the patent claim.
`
`III. OPINION
`
`A. Level of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`17.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art to which the application
`
`that issued as the ‘198 patent claims priority (February 18, 2000) would have had
`
`at minimum a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science or a
`
`related field, or two or more years of software programming experience.
`
`18. As demonstrated by my experience listed above, I more than meet the
`
`definition of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`B.
`
`State of the Art
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 10
`
`
`
`19. The ‘198 Patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional App. No.
`
`60/183,391, which was filed February 18, 2000. The ‘198 Patent is directed to
`
`conducting a promotion by providing an unlock code to reveal a locked outcome.
`
`Such systems were well known in the art before the priority date of the ‘198
`
`Patent. As disclosed in the ‘198 Patent specification, merchants for years have
`
`been offering promotions that give customers a chance to win a prize in order to
`
`entice customers to visit a store, try a product, or spend a certain amount in the
`
`store.
`
`Merchants and manufacturers often use promotions to entice people to
`try or purchase products, shop or conduct transactions in certain stores
`or to make people aware of products, store locations, sales, etc.
`
`Ex. 1001, ‘198 Patent at 1:34-37.
`
`20. According to the specification of the ‘198 Patent, an unlock code can
`
`essentially be anything:
`
`An unlock code can comprise or include a written, spoken or data
`entered password, a radio or television signal, a sequence or group of
`keypad selections or entries, a sequence or group of handwritten or
`spoken entries, an electronic or electromagnetic signal, a numerical or
`alphanumerical sequence, a sequence, group or combination of
`musical notes or other sounds, words, syllables, phrases, tones, etc. to
`be provided audibly or symbolically to unlock an outcome, a barcode,
`a decoding key, rule or algorithm for a code or cypher, etc.
`
`Ex. 1001, ‘198 patent at 5:42-51. Providing a coupon or game piece (an “unlock
`
`code”) to reveal the benefit of a prize (a “locked outcome”) is a well-understood,
`
`routine, and conventional promotional tool. Aside from the generic “computer-
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 11
`
`
`
`readable medium” and “mobile device,” nothing differs such activity from a person
`
`participating in a promotion – such as playing a “classic lottery,” which “allows a
`
`person to pick or receive a set of numbers associated with a lottery ticket. If the
`
`person’s numbers are chosen, the person generally wins a monetary prize.” See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001, ‘198 patent at 1:63-65. In such a scenario, the lottery ticket would
`
`comprise an “unlock code” that would permit the user to “unlock” the outcome of
`
`winning – which is associated with the “benefit” of the monetary prize. Likewise,
`
`this is truly no different than playing a board game and not being able to move
`
`forward until you roll a set of doubles (the “unlock code”), or permitting a user to
`
`draw a “Community Chest” card, which could provide a benefit of an
`
`“advancement” or “enhancement” of the game, such as sending a user to the “Go”
`
`square. Board games and lotteries both were around long before the priority date of
`
`the ‘198 Patent. See e.g., Appendix B, Monopoly Instructions at 2, 3, 5.
`
`21. The ‘198 Patent appears to merely implement these well known and
`
`widely utilized concepts on a generic mobile device. However, this too has been
`
`done since at least the late 1990s. For example, portable game machines, such as
`
`Nintendo’s Game Boy, were released before February 18, 2000 and included a
`
`processor, memory, display and operating keys that received input from the user to
`
`effect gameplay. See e.g., Appendix C, U.S. Patent No. 6,315,669 to Okada, et al.
`
`at 1:30-35, 4:29-35, 4:55-5:4; see also, e.g., Appendix D, U.S. Patent No.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 12
`
`
`
`6,716,103 to Eck, et al. (“Eck”) at 2:44-46, 3:19-33, 12:47-50. In the year 1997
`
`Parker Brothers had even released a version of Monopoly on an electronic hand-
`
`held device, which included the features of the board game discussed above. See
`
`e.g., Appendix E, Electronic Hand-Held Game Monopoly Instructions.
`
`22. By this time, game producers had also begun to provide additional
`
`content to supplement games, which users could download via a network. See e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1005, Roskowski at 5:62-6:6. This allowed game providers to create add-ons
`
`and upgrades for games. See e.g., id. at 6:35-46. By offering additional game
`
`content for profit, game providers could continue to make sales off of a game that
`
`was already released for public use. Additionally, by receiving new content, game
`
`players could continue enjoying a favorite game as if it were new again. See e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1005, Roskowski at 6:35-46; Appendix D, Eck at 10:45-49. For example, a
`
`system
`
`that configured
`
`the Game Boy for wireless communication was
`
`contemplated which allowed a user to receive messages and downloads from a
`
`system operator, including benefits such as mini-games, special game levels, game
`
`hints, and items for customizing the game character. See e.g., Appendix D, Eck at
`
`3:19-31, 9:40-56, 10:45-49, 12:20-27.
`
`23. Further, these early systems allowed a user to buy credits or to earn
`
`credits by performing an activity. Id. at 18:57-60. These credits were used in the
`
`game to purchase items, for example. Id. at 12:59-61, 18:18-21, 18:24-26. Players
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 13
`
`
`
`could instead obtain advances in a game or alternate game modes by entering a
`
`cheat code. See e.g., Appendix F, Planet Game Boy Issue 1, Summer 99, pp. 94-
`
`97.
`
`24. Additionally, these early systems included other features such as GPS
`
`circuitry to determine the user’s position, which could then be used during the
`
`execution of the video game program. See e.g., Ex. 1003, Schneier at 14:39-15:2;
`
`Ex. 1004, Uskela at 7:30-32, 7:57-59, 7:64-67;.
`
`C.
`
`25.
`
`Schneier
`
`I was asked to consider whether the disclosed input control devices of
`
`Schneier were capable of facilitating play of a game on the portable game device,
`
`and causing progress in a game. Claim 1 recites “facilitate play of the game by
`
`recognizing inputs from the user via the input mechanism;” and claim 18 recites
`
`“facilitating play of a game on the mobile device by recognizing inputs provided
`
`by a user via an input mechanism of the mobile device, at least one of the inputs
`
`causing progress in the game.” Ex. 1001, ‘198 Patent at claims 1 and 18. It is my
`
`opinion that Schneier meets these claim limitations.
`
`26. Schneier discloses a portable game device, such as a Game Boy,
`
`which includes software programs for generating games.
`
`The term “game computer’ is intended to include personal computers
`(“PCs”), personal digital assistants, coin-operated arcade video game
`machines, television units coupled to game units (e.g., game consoles
`such as Nintendo, Sega, etc.) and portable game devices (e.g., GAME
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 14
`
`
`
`BOY, GAME GEAR, NOMAD and the like). [] Each game computer
`14 contains software and/or firmware (for convenience, all references
`herein to programs are to “software”) which generates games of the
`type well known in the art.
`
`Ex. 1003, Schneier at 5:32-42. The portable game device includes input control
`
`devices such as buttons or other controls, which are manipulated by the user to
`
`effect game play.
`
`The game computer may also have an associated input control device
`17, such as a joystick (shown) as is well known in the art. The
`input/output device 17 may comprise multiple joysticks or controls for
`players to play against each other.
`
`Ex. 1003, Schneier at 5:63-67.
`
`The game controller 504 includes input controls such as joysticks and
`buttons which communicate via an input interface associated with the
`game computer 14 as is well known in the art.
`
`Ex. 1003, Schneier at 43:63-66. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`recognized that the input control devices of Schneier are capable of facilitating
`
`play of a game as required by the claims of the ‘198 Patent. Likewise, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized the input control devices of
`
`Schneier are also capable of causing progress in the game.
`
`27. For example, Schneier discloses the portable game device generates
`
`games of skill of the type well known in the art such as the game Mortal Kombat.
`
`Other well known games of skill (e.g., SONIC AND KNUCKLES,
`VECTORMAN, DONKEY KONG COUNTRY, MORTAL
`KOMBAT, STREET FIGHTER, etc.) include those played on
`
`
`
`15
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 15
`
`
`
`dedicated gaming machines such as game consoles, in an arcade or
`other place where such gaming machines reside.
`
`Ex. 1003, Schneier at 8:30-35. In my opinion these types of games necessarily
`
`require inputs from the user to facilitate game play and to cause progress in the
`
`game. See for example the Mortal Kombat instruction booklet, which depicts
`
`certain moves that are implemented by pressing different combinations of the
`
`buttons on the Game Boy. As depicted in the image below, players may press the
`
`button labeled “A” to perform a kick against their opponent or press the button
`
`labeled “B” to perform a punch:
`
`
`
`Appendix G, Mortal Kombat Instruction Booklet at 13; see also, id. at 13-17.
`
`28. During game play the players press the input buttons on the Game
`
`Boy to perform moves in battle against their opponents. When the player
`
`successfully hits his/her opponent using one of these moves, the opponent’s health
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 16
`
`
`
`meter is reduced. Once the opponent’s health meter runs out then the player has
`
`won the round and advances in the game to compete against the next opponent.
`
`In all Mortal Kombat battles, meters in the upper-left and upper-right
`corners of the screen measure the health of each warrior.
`
`The meters begin each round at full health, but are reduced with each
`blow taken. The amount of the reduction depends both on the type of
`hit and whether or not it was blocked. When a warrior’s health meter
`runs out, he is knocked out and the round is awarded to his opponent.
`[…] The first warrior to win two rounds takes the match and moves
`on to his next opponent.
`
`Appendix G, Mortal Kombat Instruction Booklet at 7-8. The player must complete
`
`all of the challenges by successfully defeating all of his/her opponents, to win the
`
`title of Grand Champion and finish the game.
`
`When you see the Mortal Kombat® title screen, press the START
`BUTTON to begin the one-player battle for the title of Grand
`Champion.
`
`Appendix G, Mortal Kombat Instruction Booklet at 4.
`
`Only when a warrior has succeeded in each of these challenges has he
`proved himself worthy of meeting the Grand Champion, Goro, in
`battle. If Goro is defeated, the demon Shang Tsung will enter the
`contest to oppose you! Defeat him to become the Supreme Mortal
`Kombat Warrior!
`
`Appendix G, Mortal Kombat Instruction Booklet at 10.
`
`29. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that games, such as
`
`Mortal Kombat, require a game device, such as the Game Boy, to recognize inputs
`
`from the user in order to facilitate play of the game and to cause and display
`
`
`
`17
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 17
`
`
`
`progress in the game. As such, Schneier discloses facilitating play of a game on the
`
`portable game device, and causing progress in a game and thus meets the
`
`corresponding limitations of claims 1 and 18.
`
`30.
`
`I was also asked to consider whether Schneier renders claims 3 and 22
`
`obvious. To the extent that Schneier does not disclose the limitations of claims 3
`
`and 22 (which I am not providing an opinion on), it is my opinion that it would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schneier to include
`
`a third party that sends confirmation messages (“CMs”) over a network to a mobile
`
`device. Specifically, Schneier discloses that a central controller authenticates
`
`outcomes of a game. See generally, Ex. 1003, Schneier at 27:1-28:44. The central
`
`computer then generates a confirmation message which can be used by game
`
`computers to access special features or game modifications.
`
`At step 181, the central computer 12 may generate a confirmation
`message CM which, when communicated to the game computer 14,
`can be used by the game software 15 to cause the game computer 14
`to display a certified scoreboard with language to the effect that a
`particular outcome (e.g., score) was certified by the central computer
`12. The same confirmation message CM can be utilized by the game
`software 15 to direct the game computer 14 to generate special
`symbols or medallions as a result of an established level of
`competence. These may be made to appear on the screen with an
`identification of the player during subsequent game play. In view of
`the competitive nature of videogames, this feature greatly enhances
`their play value games by providing for recognition of the player's
`achievements.
`
`Ex. 1003, Schneier at 28:30-44.
`
`
`
`18
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 18
`
`
`
`Prizes or awards can also be offered on an exclusive basis to players
`who achieve certain skill levels. . . . An award for achieving a
`certified level of play may include the incorporation into the game
`software 15 the player's name in background graffiti on the actual
`game screens, renaming game characters, or the modification of the
`game play or visuals in some other subtle manner until a new higher
`scoring player is allowed to change these altered characteristics.
`
`Id. at 28:59-29:6.
`
`The confirmation message CM may also be utilized to unlock certain
`attributes of a game that are only encountered by high scoring players.
`For example, a top scoring player who receives a certified score, may
`be provided with a confirmation message CM that, when read by any
`game computer 14 with the game software 15, allows players on that
`game computer 14 to view special hidden characters or final stages of
`the game, which are not normally encountered until a certain level or
`score is attained.
`
`Id. at 29:52-59.
`
`31. Schneier expressly contemplates utilizing a third party to handle CMs,
`
`tournament rankings, ratings and prize distribution. Id. at 30:4-10. Schneier also
`
`expressly contemplates utilizing a network for communications between local and
`
`remote (i.e., central or third party) computers. Id. at 7:8-31, 30:8-10. Modifying
`
`Schneier, to the extent not already disclosed, to allow a game computer to receive a
`
`signal from a third party that allows the user to access a prize would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Indeed, utilizing a third party for
`
`communications with a game computer would have reduced the burden on the
`
`central computer. Such routine tasks were, and are, frequently outsourced to third
`
`parties so as to the not overload a company’s servers. Thus, this modification
`
`
`
`19
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 19
`
`
`
`would have been well within the skill of one in the art through contracting with a
`
`third party to be responsible for this task. This is little more than using a third
`
`party to perform certain tasks of the central computer, which would have a
`
`reasonable expectation of success and yielded extremely predictable results.
`
`D.
`
`32.
`
`Schneier and Allen
`
`It is my opinion that it would have been obvious to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to combine the embodiments and functionalities described
`
`in Schneier with the downloading functionality described by Allen. I have
`
`reviewed and considered the entire Schneier and Allen references, and I provide
`
`exemplary citations below regarding my analysis.
`
`33. Schneier and Allen both contemplate communication via a network.
`
`For example, Schneier discloses that a game computer (i.e., personal computer,
`
`personal digital assistant, portable game device) is able to access a central
`
`computer over the Internet:
`
`In the embodiment shown in FIG. 1A, the system is principally
`comprised of a central computer 12 associated with a central
`authority, and a plurality of game computers 14. The term "game
`computer" is intended to include personal computers ("PCs"),
`personal digital assistants, coin-operated arcade video gaming
`machines, television units coupled to game units (e.g., game consoles
`such as Nintendo, Sega, etc.) and portable game devices (e.g., GAME
`BOY, GAME GEAR, NOMAD and the like). For the purpose of
`description, the game computer depicted in the drawings replicates a
`standard PC. Each game computer 14 contains software and/or
`firmware (for convenience, all references herein to programs are to
`"software") which generates games of the type well known in the art.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 20
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003, Schneier at 5:29-42.
`
`In an alternative embodiment shown in FIG. 2, the game computers
`14 may communicate with the central computer 12 via a modem 20.
`… it is anticipated that the central computer 12 may be accessed via a
`website 22 on the Internet 24 or over an on-line data network
`including commercial on-line service providers, bulletin board
`systems and the like, as shown schematically in FIG. 3.
`
`Id. at 7:8-21. Allen similarly describes a user terminal (i.e., personal computer) is
`
`in communication with a digital data processor and a provider database over a
`
`network:
`
`FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an exemplary system 10 for delivering
`data in accordance with the present invention. The system 10 includes
`a number of user terminals 14, a network 18, a digital data processor
`20 and a provider database 22. The user terminals 14 may be, for
`example, personal computer terminals, and are connected in a manner
`well-known in the art to communicate over network 18 with other
`user terminals and the provider database 22. The network 18 may be a
`local-area network (LAN), a wide-area-network (WAN), a local or
`long-distance telephone switching network, or any of a number of
`other communication networks.
`
`Ex. 1006, Allen at 3:42-53. Both systems also disclose encrypting game software.
`
`By the time of the purported invention of the ‘198 Patent, encryption algorithms
`
`were well known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Schneier discloses game
`
`software and encryption algorithms or keys that are stored in memory of the game
`
`computer and in another embodiment that the game program includes scrambled
`
`game data:
`
`
`
`21
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1007 Page 21
`
`
`
`Referring now to FIG. 4E, all game
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
