Trials@uspto.gov Paper 13
`571-272-7822 Entered: September 9, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.,
`2K SPORTS, INC., and
`ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00727
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822 Entered: September 9, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.,
`2K SPORTS, INC., and
`ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00727
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00727
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two Interactive
`Software, Inc., 2K Sports, Inc., and Rockstar Games, Inc. (collectively,
`“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 19–24 of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,829,634 B1 (Ex. 1201, “the ’634 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”).
`Acceleration Bay, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 12 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is
`authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and
`any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon
`consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude the
`information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of claims 19–24 of
`the ’634 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`Petitioner identifies the following pending judicial matters as relating
`to the ’634 patent: Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, Case
`No. 3:16-cv-03375 (N.D. Cal., filed June 16, 2016); Electronic Arts Inc. v.
`Acceleration Bay LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-03378 (N. D. Cal., filed June 16,
`2016); Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, Case
`No. 3:16-cv-03377 (N.D. Cal., filed June 16, 2016); Acceleration Bay LLC
`v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00453 (D. Del., filed June 17,
`2016); Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-
`00454 (D. Del., filed June 17, 2016); and Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00727
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`
`Interactive Software, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00455 (D. Del., filed June 17,
`2016). Paper 11, 2–3.
`Petitioner previously filed two petitions (IPR2015-01964 and
`IPR2015-01996) for inter partes review of claims 1–18 of the ’634 patent.
`Id. at 4. We instituted review in both of those proceedings, which remain
`pending. See Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC,
`IPR2015-01964 (PTAB Mar. 31, 2016) (Paper 10); Activision Blizzard, Inc.
`v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2015-01996 (PTAB Mar. 31, 2016) (Paper 8).
`Inter partes reviews of related patents also are pending: U.S. Patent No.
`6,714,966 B1 (IPR2015-01951 and IPR2015-01953) and U.S. Patent No.
`6,701,344 B1 (IPR2015-01970 and IPR2015-01972).
`
`B. The ’634 Patent
`The ’634 patent relates to a “broadcast technique in which a broadcast
`channel overlays a point-to-point communications network.” Ex. 1201,
`4:29–30. The broadcast technique overlays the underlying network system
`with a graph of point-to-point connections between host computers or nodes
`through which the broadcast channel is implemented. Id. at 4:49–52.
`Figure 1 of the ’634 patent is reproduced below:
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00727
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a broadcast channel represented by a “4-regular,
`4-connected” graph. Id. at 5:7–8. The graph of Figure 1 is “4-regular”
`because each node is connected to exactly four other nodes (e.g., node A is
`connected to nodes E, F, G, and H). Id. at 4:64–65, 5:8–12. A node in a
`4-regular graph can only be disconnected if all four of the connections to its
`neighbors fail. Id. at 4:65–5:1. Moreover, the graph of Figure 1 is
`“4-connected” because it would take the failure of four nodes to divide the
`graph into two separate sub-graphs (i.e., two broadcast channels).
`Id. at 5:1–5.
`The ’634 patent describes a process for adding nodes, or participants,
`to a broadcast channel. Id. at 5:45–7:53. The computer seeking connection
`to the network locates and contacts a portal computer that is fully connected
`to the network. Id. at 5:62–67. The portal computer then directs the
`identifying of computers to which the seeking computer will connect, i.e.,
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00727
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`
`computers that will be the seeking computer’s neighbors. Id. at 5:67–6:3.
`The seeking computer then connects to each of the identified neighbors.
`Id. at 6:3–5.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 19–24 of the ’634 patent. Claim 19 is
`independent and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
`19. A non-routing table based computer-readable medium
`containing instructions for controlling communications of a
`participant of a broadcast channel within a network, by a method
`comprising:
`locating a portal computer;
`requesting the located portal computer to provide an
`indication of neighbor participants to which the participant can
`be connected;
`receiving the indications of the neighbor participants; and
`establishing a connection between the participant and each
`of the indicated neighbor participants, wherein a connection
`between the portal computer and the participant is not
`established, wherein a connection between the portal computer
`and the neighbor participants is not established, further wherein
`the network is m-regular and m-connected, where m is the
`number of neighbor participants of each participant, and further
`wherein the number of participants is at least two greater than m
`thus resulting in a non-complete graph.
`
`Id. at 30:20–39. Each of claims 20–24 depends directly from claim 19.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 19–24 are unpatentable based on the
`following grounds (Pet. 6):
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00727
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`
`Basis
`References
`§ 103(a)
`Obraczka1 and Shoubridge2
`Obraczka, Obraczka Thesis,3 and
`§ 103(a)
`Shoubridge
`§ 103(a)
`DirectPlay4 and Shoubridge
`DirectPlay, Shoubridge, and Dénes 5 § 103(a)
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`19–24
`19–24
`19–22 and 24
`23
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016)
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard).
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`
`
`1 Katia Obraczka et al., A Tool for Massively Replicating Internet Archives:
`Design, Implementation, and Experience, IEEE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 16TH
`INT’L CONF. ON DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING SYS. 657–64 (1996) (Ex. 1224)
`(“Obraczka”).
`2 Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, Hybrid Routing in Dynamic Networks,
`3 IEEE INT’L CONF. ON COMMS. CONF. REC. 1381–86 (1997) (Ex. 1205)
`(“Shoubridge”).
`3 Katia Obraczka, Massively Replicating Services In Wide-Area
`Internetworks (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern California) (Dec. 1994)
`(Ex. 1225) (“Obraczka Thesis”).
`4 Bradley Bargen & Peter Donnelly, Inside DirectX®: In-Depth Techniques
`for Developing High-Performance Multimedia Applications (1998)
`(Ex. 1203) (“DirectPlay”).
`5 Tamás Dénes, “Evolution” by Vertex of Even-order Regular Graphs,
`MATEMATIKAI LAPOK 365–77 (1979) (Ex. 1228) (“Dénes”). Petitioner has
`provided a certified translation of Dénes from Hungarian into English. See
`Exs. 1228, 1229.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00727
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`
`1. “m-regular”
`Petitioner proposes the term “m-regular,” recited in independent
`claim 19, means “each node is connected to exactly m other nodes.” Pet. 8
`(citing Ex. 1201, 4:64–65, 15:32–41). Patent Owner does not offer a
`construction of this term. Prelim. Resp. 10. For purposes of this Decision,
`we agree Petitioner’s proposed construction accords with the broadest
`reasonable construction consistent with the specification, which, for
`example, describes a graph in which each node is connected to four other
`nodes as a 4-regular graph. Ex. 1201, 4:64–65.
`
`2. “non-complete graph”
`Petitioner proposes the term “non-complete graph,” recited in
`independent claim 19, be construed as a “graph in which at least two nodes
`are not connected to each other,” and cites claims of the ’634 patent as
`support. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1201, 29:23–25, 29:58–60). Patent Owner does
`not offer a construction of this term. Prelim. Resp. 10. We observe that
`claim 19 itself defines a non-complete graph as the “result[]” when each
`participant is connected to m neighbors and “the number of participants is at
`least two greater than m.” Ex. 1201, 30:28–29. For purposes of this
`Decision, we are not persuaded the term “non-complete graph” requires any
`further definition beyond what is recited in the claims.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00727
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`
`3. “m-connected”
`Petitioner proposes the term “m-connected,” recited in independent
`claim 19, means “dividing the network into two or more separate parts
`would require the removal of at least m nodes.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1201, 5:1–
`5). Patent Owner does not offer a construction of this term. Prelim.
`Resp. 10. The portion of the specification cited by Petitioner describes the
`4-connected graph as having the property that it would take the failure of at
`least 4 nodes to divide the graph into disjoint subgraphs. Ex. 1201, 5:1–5.
`Consequently, we agree for purposes of this Decision that Petitioner’s
`proposed construction accords with the broadest reasonable construction
`consistent with the specification.
`
`4. “non-routing table based”
`Petitioner proposes that the term “non-routing table based,” recited in
`independent claim 19, modifies “instructions” and means “a set of
`instructions that are implemented without the use of routing tables.” Pet. 8
`(citing Ex. 1201, 2:46–47). Patent Owner does not offer a construction of
`this term. Prelim. Resp. 10. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt
`Petitioner’s proposed construction as the broadest reasonable construction
`consistent with the specification, which states that “[e]mbodiments of the
`invention deal with a non-routing table based method for broadcasting
`messages in a network.” Ex. 1201, 2:46–47.
`
`B. Asserted Obviousness over Obraczka and Shoubridge
`
`Petitioner contends claims 19–24 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Obraczka and Shoubridge.
`Pet. 11–36. Relying on the testimony of Dr. David R. Karger, Petitioner
`explains how the references allegedly teach or suggest all of the claim
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00727
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`
`limitations and contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`have been motivated to combine the references. Id. (citing Ex. 1219).
`Patent Owner counters that the asserted combination fails to disclose certain
`limitations of independent claim 19 and that the Petition fails to provide
`adequate motivation for combining the references. Prelim. Resp. 23–29, 35–
`40.
`
`1. Summary of Obraczka
`Obraczka discloses a scalable and efficient tool for replicating Internet
`information services. Ex. 1224, 657.6 The tool includes a process, flood-d,
`which aggregates nodes into replication groups. Id. For each replication
`group, flood-d calculates a logical topology over which information updates
`travel. Id. Every group member measures available bandwidth and
`propagation delay to the other group members. Id. at 657–58. Based on
`these measurements, flood-d builds k-connected, logical topologies for the
`group. Id. at 658. Obraczka explains that a single designated site, the group
`master, generates topologies for the group by running the flood-d process.
`Id. at 660. Obraczka’s replication tool uses flooding to propagate topology
`updates to all members of a group. Id. at 659.
`Obraczka also describes a procedure for adding a site to a group.
`Id. at 660. When a new site joins a group, it sends a join request to an
`existing group member. Id. When the existing group member receives the
`join request, it floods the join request out to all sites in the group. Id. “A
`site is not part of the group until the master distributes a new topology that
`
`
`6 Unless otherwise indicated, we cite to the original document pagination of
`the asserted prior art references.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00727
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`
`contains the site. This naturally gives the master control over group
`membership.” Id.
`
`2. Summary of Shoubridge
`Shoubridge describes techniques for routing messages to all the
`participants in a communications network. Ex. 1205, 1381. Specifically,
`Shoubridge models a communication network as a graph in which “[e]ach
`node functions as a source of user traffic entering the network where traffic
`can be destined to all other nodes within the network.” Id. at 1382. In a
`specific example, Shoubridge describes a “64 node network with
`connectivity of degree 4” modeled as a “large regular graph forming a
`manhattan grid network that has been wrapped around itself as a torus.”
`Id. at 1383.
`Shoubridge describes routing algorithms that determine the shortest
`path between source and destination nodes. Id. at 1381. Such algorithms
`“are typically used in static or quasi-static networks” and “require periods of
`network stability so routing tables can settle to reflect true shortest paths.”
`Id. Shoubridge also addresses flooding algorithms that broadcast user traffic
`through a network by attempting all paths to a destination and operate
`without the use of routing tables. Id. According to Shoubridge, flooding is
`effective “in very dynamic networks where destination nodes are highly
`mobile or topological changes occur very frequently and therefore the
`network connectivity is uncertain.” Id. Shoubridge describes a routing
`protocol called “constrained flooding,” described as “the most efficient way
`to flood an entire network.” Id. at 1382. In constrained flooding, packets
`are identified uniquely with sequence numbers, so that a packet received at a
`node is rebroadcast on all links except the link on which it was received, and
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00727
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`
`if a packet revisits a node with the same sequence number, it is discarded.
`Id. at 1383.
`Shoubridge describes simulations using both constrained flooding and
`minimum hop algorithms that use routing tables. Id. at 1382–84.
`Ultimately, Shoubridge proposes a hybrid routing model in which
`constrained flooding is used if routing tables are unable to provide a next
`node entry for forwarding user traffic, but minimum hop is used if a valid
`next node entry exists. Id. at 1384–85. In this model, “[f]looding occurs
`only for the parts of the network where routing tables are uncertain and only
`for the periods of time when the uncertainty persists.” Id. at 1385.
`
`3. Analysis
`Petitioner relies primarily on Obraczka for teaching the method steps
`of independent claim 19, citing Shoubridge only for its description of an
`m-regular, m-connected, non-complete network that uses non-routing table
`based instructions. Pet. 24–32. For the first step of claim 19, “locating a
`portal computer,” Petitioner cites Obraczka’s description of how a new
`participant seeking to join a replication group contacts an existing group
`member and sends a join request. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1224, 660 ¶ 5).
`According to Petitioner, the contacted existing group member is a “portal
`computer” as recited in the claim because the new site gains access to the
`broadcast channel through that computer. Id. at 24–25.
`With respect to the second step, Petitioner contends that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Obraczka’s “join request
`is a request that the located portal computer ‘provide an indication of
`neighbor participants to which the participant can be connected,’” as recited
`in claim 19, because the portal computer (i.e., the contacted existing group
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00727
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`
`member) “responds to the join request message with a topology update
`message for a proposed, new k-connected topology.” Id. at 26 (citing
`Ex. 1224, 659 ¶ 7, 660 ¶ 5, 662 ¶ 1; Ex. 1219 ¶¶ 129–30). Because the
`topology update message identifies the new broadcast channel topology for
`the replication group, Petitioner contends, the topology update message
`includes an identification of the k (e.g., two) neighbors to which the new site
`will be connected when the new topology is implemented. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1224, 661 ¶ 2, 662 ¶ 2; Ex. 1219 ¶ 128). Petitioner further contends that
`“[t]he new group membership and topology information [are] distributed to
`all participants before the new topology takes effect, confirming receipt by
`the seeking participant.” Id. (citing Ex. 1224, 659 ¶ 7, 660 ¶ 5; Ex. 1219
`¶ 129).
`Patent Owner argues Petitioner fails to show that Obraczka discloses
`“requesting the located portal computer to provide an indication of neighbor
`participants to which the participant can be connected,” as required by
`claim 19. Prelim. Resp. 25–26. We agree with Patent Owner. As
`discussed, Petitioner identifies the existing group member contacted by a
`new site wishing to join a replication group in Obraczka as the claimed
`“portal computer.” Pet. 24. Petitioner further asserts that the existing group
`member responds to a join request from the new site with a topology update
`message that allegedly identifies neighbors to which the new site can
`connect. Id. at 26. As Patent Owner points out, however, the group master,
`not the contacted existing group member, updates the topology to include
`the new site and distributes the new topology to the group members.
`Ex. 1224, 660 ¶ 5; see Prelim. Resp. 25. Although Petitioner alleges that the
`contacted group member responds to the join request with a topology update
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00727
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`
`message, the cited passages of Obraczka do not support that proposition.
`See Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1224, 659 ¶ 7, 660 ¶ 5, 662 ¶ 1). Thus, a new site
`sending a join request to an existing group member cannot be requesting the
`existing group member “to provide an indication of neighbor participants to
`which the participant can be connected,” as required by claim 19, because
`only the group master in Obraczka can perform that function. See Prelim.
`Resp. 25.
`For at least this reason, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Obraczka and Shoubridge teaches or suggests all of the
`limitations of independent claim 19. Accordingly, we determine the
`information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail in establishing that any of claims 19–24 would have been
`obvious over Obraczka and Shoubridge.
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness over Obraczka, the Obraczka Thesis,
`and Shoubridge
`
`Petitioner also contends claims 19–24 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Obraczka, the Obraczka Thesis, and
`Shoubridge. Pet. 11–36. The Obraczka Thesis provides a detailed
`description of a tool for replicating Internet information services. Ex. 1225,
`Abstract. With respect to claim 19, Petitioner’s analysis is the same as its
`analysis based on the combination of Obraczka and Shoubridge, with one
`exception. For the “locating a portal computer” limitation, Petitioner further
`relies on a description in the Obraczka Thesis of a “location service” for
`finding a current group member. See Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1225, 7 ¶ 1).
`Petitioner, however, does not cite the Obraczka Thesis in connection with
`the “requesting” limitation, or explain how the cited location service
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00727
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`
`addresses the deficiency identified above. See id. at 25–27. Therefore, for
`the same reasons discussed in the previous section, we determine the
`information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail in establishing that any of claims 19–24 would have been
`obvious over Obraczka, the Obraczka Thesis, and Shoubridge.
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness Based on DirectPlay and Shoubridge
`
`Petitioner contends claims 19–22 and 24 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of DirectPlay and
`Shoubridge, and claim 23 is unpatentable as obvious over the combination
`of DirectPlay, Shoubridge, and Dénes. Pet. 36–60. Relying on the
`testimony of Dr. Karger, Petitioner explains how the references allegedly
`teach or suggest all of the claim limitations and contends that a person
`having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
`references. Id. (citing Ex. 1219). Patent Owner counters that the asserted
`combinations fail to disclose certain limitations of independent claim 19 and
`that the Petition fails to provide adequate motivation for combining the
`references. Prelim. Resp. 23–29, 35–40.
`
`1. Summary of DirectPlay
`DirectPlay describes an application program interface (“API”) for
`providing medium-independent communications for multiplayer games over
`computer networks. Ex. 1203, 15, 19.7 Figure 18-3 of DirectPlay is
`reproduced below:
`
`
`7 For DirectPlay (Ex. 1203), we cite to the exhibit pagination rather than the
`original document pagination.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00727
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`
`
`Id. at 23. Figure 18-3 depicts two network topologies that may be used for a
`multiplayer gaming session. Id. Figure 18-3(a) represents a Peer-to-Peer
`gaming session, in which Player #1 creates the session and becomes the
`session host for the session. Id. Players #2, #3, and #4 may connect to
`Player #1 and receive a list of the other DirectPlay objects (i.e., players). Id.
`“Because each DirectPlay object knows about the other objects, they route
`messages directly to one another rather than through the session host. So the
`resulting session is peer-to-peer . . . .” Id. Figure 18-3(b) represents an
`alternative network topology relying on a client-server configuration.
`Id. at 24.
`DirectPlay also provides a “matchmaking service” in which players
`gather to identify game sessions to which they want to connect. Id. at 24,
`98. Players use “lobby clients,” which could be web-based applications, to
`meet in a virtual lobby and set up networked game sessions. Id. at 24, 98–
`100. “Lobbies can offer a theme park environment . . . with features and
`games appropriate for children.” Id. at 100. Once players decide to play a
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00727
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`
`game, the lobby launches the game application simultaneously on the
`players’ computers to form a networked gaming session. Id. at 24.
`
`2. Analysis
`Petitioner relies on DirectPlay for teaching the method steps of
`independent claim 19, citing Shoubridge primarily for its description of an
`m-regular, m-connected, non-complete network that uses non-routing table
`based instructions. Pet. 43–55. Petitioner contends a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of
`DirectPlay with those of Shoubridge for three reasons. Id. at 39–42. First,
`Petitioner submits that DirectPlay discloses an interface for providing
`multiplayer games that could run over a variety of networks, and
`“Shoubridge discloses a network topology and networking protocol—
`flooding over a 64-node, 4-regular torus graph—with which DirectPlay
`could be used.” Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1203, 22, 27; Ex. 1205, 1383 ¶¶ 2–8;
`Ex. 1219 ¶ 222). Second, Petitioner argues that DirectPlay addresses the
`problem of broadcasting messages to multiple participants, and Shoubridge
`similarly discloses a technique—constrained flooding—to send messages to
`all participants in a network. Id. at 40–41 (citing Ex. 1203, 20, 22, 72, 73,
`123; Ex. 1205, 1382 ¶ 1–1383 ¶ 1, 1383 ¶ 4; Ex. 1219 ¶ 225). Third,
`Petitioner asserts that DirectPlay teaches the need for a reliable network, and
`Shoubridge discloses that flooding is a reliable routing strategy for large
`networks that operate in a very dynamic environment, “such as some subset
`of hundreds or thousands of players joining or leaving a game session.”
`Id. at 41–42 (citing Ex. 1205, 1384 ¶ 5; Ex. 1219 ¶ 227).
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to provide adequate
`motivation for combining DirectPlay and Shoubridge in the manner asserted
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00727
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`
`to achieve the claimed invention. Prelim. Resp. 29–37. We are persuaded
`by Patent Owner’s argument. All of the reasons offered by Petitioner for
`why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings
`of DirectPlay and Shoubridge relate to Shoubridge’s disclosure of flooding a
`network to broadcast messages to all participants. Shoubridge, however,
`describes flooding as effective in “very dynamic networks.” Ex. 1205, 1381.
`In contrast, Shoubridge explains that routing-table based algorithms such as
`minimum hop typically are used in “static or quasi-static networks.” Id.
`Although Petitioner suggests that a network with players joining or leaving a
`game session would be highly dynamic, Petitioner does not cite any portion
`of DirectPlay that characterizes its network as highly dynamic. See Pet. 42.
`Rather, as Patent Owner asserts, DirectPlay appears to contemplate a static
`or quasi-static environment in which a virtual lobby allows a potential
`participant to search for other participants with similar skills or interests and
`then sets up a game session for the participants. See Prelim. Resp. 34, 37,
`38; see also Ex. 1203, 24 (“A player can search for players . . . and set up a
`game. The lobby takes it from there, . . . launching the application
`simultaneously on everyone’s computer.”). Thus, Petitioner has not shown
`that DirectPlay teaches the type of network for which Shoubridge describes
`flooding as an effective and reliable routing method (i.e., a very dynamic
`network). Accordingly, we are not persuaded a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have been motivated to apply Shoubridge’s teaching of
`constrained flooding to DirectPlay.
`Moreover, Shoubridge compares constrained flooding to routing-table
`based algorithms such as minimum hop using simulations. Ex. 1205, 1383–
`84. As Patent Owner notes, Shoubridge concludes that, at least with the
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00727
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`
`64-node network that was simulated, “flooding results in very low network
`utili[z]ation, and therefore better routing strategies need to be sought.”
`Ex. 1205, 1384; see Prelim. Resp. 36. Shoubridge ultimately proposes a
`hybrid routing model in which constrained flooding is used only temporarily
`and only in parts of the network where routing tables are uncertain for a
`period of time. Ex. 1205, 1385. Thus, Shoubridge teaches an approach that
`uses a combination of routing tables and constrained flooding for its
`4-regular, 4-connected, 64-node network, which Petitioner maps to the
`m-regular, m-connected network limitation recited in claim 19. See id.;
`Pet. 54–55. Therefore, we agree with Patent Owner that applying
`Shoubridge’s teachings to a network, such as DirectPlay’s, that is not highly
`dynamic would result in a routing-table based approach, contrary to the
`“non-routing table based” recitation in the preamble of claim 19. See
`Prelim. Resp. 30, 34, 37. To the extent that claim language is limiting, we
`concur with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
`have combined DirectPlay and Shoubridge in a manner that would satisfy
`such a limitation. See id. at 37.
`For at least the foregoing reasons, we determine the information
`presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail in establishing that claims 19–22 and 24 would have been obvious
`over the combination of DirectPlay and Shoubridge, or that claim 23 would
`have been obvious over the combination of DirectPlay, Shoubridge, and
`Dénes.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00727
`Patent 6,829,634 B1
`
`prevail in showing that claims 19–24 of the ’634 patent are unpatentable on
`the grounds asserted in the Petition.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and
`
`no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Andrew R. Sommer
`Gregg Duffey
`Michael M. Murray
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`asommer@winston.com
`gduffey@winston.com
`mmurray@winston.com
`mtomasulo@winston.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`James Hannah
`Michael Lee
`Shannon Hedvat
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`mhlee@kramerlevin.com
`shedvat@kramerlevin.com
`
`19
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
