Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`United States Patent No: 6,701,344
`Inventors: Fred B. Holt, Virgil E. Bourassa
`Formerly Application No.: 09/629,042
`Issue Date: March 2, 2004
`Filing Date: July 31, 2000
`Former Group Art Unit: 2153
`Former Examiner: B. Edelman
`Patent Owner: Acceleration Bay, LLC
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`109869-0003-658
`
`Customer No.: 28120
`
`Petitioners: Activision Blizzard,
`Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-
`Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2K
`Sports, Inc., and Rockstar Games,
`Inc.
`
`
`For: DISTRIBUTED GAME ENVIRONMENT
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,701,344
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER § 42.8 ................................................. 10 
`III. 
`PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING ............................................................ 12 
`A.  Grounds for Standing Under § 42.104(a) ............................................ 12 
`B. 
`Claims and Statutory Grounds Under §§ 42.22 and 42.104(b) ........... 12 
`IV.  SUMMARY OF THE ’344 PATENT AND ITS TECHNICAL FIELD ...... 13 
`A.  Overview of the ’344 Patent ................................................................ 13 
`B. 
`Overview of the Prosecution History .................................................. 15 
`C. 
`Overview of the Technical Field ......................................................... 16 
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONERS
`WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM ............ 18 
`A. 
`Claim Construction Under § 42.104(b)(3) .......................................... 18 
`B. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art and State of the Art ....................... 19 
`C. 
`Grounds for Unpatentability ................................................................ 20 
`1. 
`Ground 1: Claim 12 Is Obvious in View of the
`Teachings of Shoubridge .......................................................... 20 
`Ground 2: Claim 12 Is Obvious Over the Teachings of
`Shoubridge in View of DirectPlay ............................................ 30 
`VI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 35 
`
`V. 
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. 1207
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`Ex. 1201 U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344 to Fred B. Holt et al. (“’344 patent”).
`Ex. 1202 Declaration of David K. Lin and the Certified File Wrapper for U.S.
`Patent No. 6,701,344.
`Ex. 1203 Selected Portions of Bradley Bargen & Peter Donnelly, INSIDE DI-
`RECTX, (Microsoft Press, 1998) (“DirectPlay”).
`Ex. 1204 Declaration of Glenn Little and, as Exhibit B, Meng-Jang Lin, et al.,
`Gossip versus Deterministic Flooding: Low Message Overhead and
`High Reliability for Broadcasting on Small Networks, Technical Report
`No. CS1999-0637 (Univ. of Cal. San Diego, 1999) (“Lin”).
`Ex. 1205 Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, Hybrid Routing in Dynamic Net-
`works, in 3 IEEE INT’L CONF. ON COMMC’NS CONF. REC. 1381-86
`(Montreal, 1997) (“Shoubridge”).
`Ex. 1206 Declaration of Steven Silvio Pietrobon and, as Exhibit F, Peter J.
`Shoubridge, Adaptive Strategies for Routing in Dynamic Networks,
`Ph.D. Thesis (Univ. S. Austl., 1996) (“Shoubridge Thesis”)
`John M. McQuillan, et al., The New Routing Algorithm for the AR-
`PANET, COM-28, No. 5 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMC’NS, 711-19
`(1980) (“McQuillan”).
`Ex. 1208 Yogen Kantilal Dalal, Broadcast Protocols in Packet Switched Com-
`puter Networks (Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University 1977) and support-
`ing (“Dalal”)
`Ex. 1209 S. Alagar, et al., Reliable Broadcast in Mobile Wireless Networks, Mil-
`itary Communications Conference, 1 IEEE MILCOM ’95 CONF. REC.,
`236-40 (San Diego, Cal., 1995) (“Alagar”).
`Ex. 1210 Certificate of Authenticity and a Press Release, Microsoft Boosts Ac-
`cessibility to Internet Gaming Zone with Latest Release (Apr. 27, 1998)
`(PR Newswire) (“IGZ”).
`Ex. 1211 Donald M. Topkis, Concurrent Broadcast for Information Dissemina-
`tion, SE-11, No. 10 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING,
`1107-11 (1985) (“Topkis”).
`Ex. 1212 Dimitri Bertsekas & Robert Gallager, DATA NETWORKS (Prentice Hall,
`2d ed. 1992) (“Bertsekas”).
`Ex. 1213 Kuo-Jui Raymond Lin, Routing and Broadcasting in Two-dimensional
`Linear Congruential Graphs of Degree Four, Master’s Thesis (Con-
`cordia Univ. Montreal, Canada, 1994) (“Kuo-Jui Lin”).
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`Ex. 1214 William S. Davis and David C. Yen, THE INFORMATION SYSTEM CON-
`SULTANT’S HANDBOOK: SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN (CRC Press,
`1998) (“Davis”).
`Ex. 1215 V. G. Cerf, et al., Topological Design Considerations in Computer
`Commc’n Networks, COMPUTER COMMC’N NETWORKS (R. L. Grims-
`dale et al. eds., 1975) (“Cerf”).
`Ex. 1216 U.S. Patent No. 6,122,277 to Derrick Garmire et al. (“Garmire”).
`Ex. 1217 U.S. Patent No. 5,181,017 to Alexander H. Frey, Jr. et al. (“Frey”).
`Ex. 1218 Flaviu Cristian et al., Atomic Broadcast: From Simple Message Diffu-
`sion to Byzantine Agreement, 118 INFORMATION AND COMPUTATION
`158-79 (Albert R. Meyer ed., 1995) (“Cristian”).
`Ex. 1219 Expert Declaration of David R. Karger
`Ex. 1220 Declaration of Peter John Shoubridge and, as Exhibit A, Peter J.
`Shoubridge, Adaptive Strategies for Routing in Dynamic Networks,
`Ph.D. Thesis (Univ. S. Austl., 1996) (“Shoubridge Thesis”), and as Ex-
`hibit B, Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, Hybrid Routing in Dynamic
`Networks, in 3 IEEE INT’L CONF. ON COMMC’NS CONF. REC. 1381-86
`(Montreal, 1997) (“Shoubridge”).
`Ex. 1221 SUPPORTING MICROSOFT WINDOWS 95, Vol. 1 (Microsoft Press 1995)
`(“Supporting Windows 95”).
`Ex. 1222 Declaration of Matthew R. Shapiro
`Ex. 1223 Declaration of Julian D. Moore
`Ex. 1224 Declaration of Scott Bennett, Ph.D. and, as Attachment 1c, Peter J.
`Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, Hybrid Routing in Dynamic Networks, in 3
`IEEE INT’L CONF. ON COMMC’NS CONF. REC. 1381-86 (Montreal, 1997)
`(“Shoubridge”), and as Attachment 3a, Selected Portions of Bradley
`Bargen & Peter Donnelly, INSIDE DIRECTX, (Microsoft Press, 1998)
`(“DirectPlay”).
`Ex. 1225 Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier and, as Exhibit A, Peter J. Shoubridge
`& Arek Dadej, Hybrid Routing in Dynamic Networks, in 3 IEEE INT’L
`CONF. ON COMMC’NS CONF. REC. 1381-86 (Montreal, 1997)
`(“Shoubridge”).
`Ex. 1226 Affidavit of Christopher Butler
`Ex. 1227 Redline comparison of the expert declarations of David. R. Karger: Ex.
`1119 from IPR2015-01972 and Ex. 1219
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, the undersigned, on
`
`
`
`behalf of and representing Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-
`
`Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2K Sports, Inc., and Rockstar Games, Inc. (collec-
`
`tively “Petitioners”), hereby petition for inter partes review of claim 12 of U.S. Pa-
`
`tent No. 6,701,344 (“the ’344 patent”). The ’344 patent was issued to The Boeing
`
`Company and is purportedly assigned to Acceleration Bay, LLC (“Patent Owner”).
`
`Petitioners assert there is a reasonable likelihood that this claim is unpatentable and
`
`respectfully request review of, and judgment against, claim 12 (“the Challenged
`
`Claim”) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioners previously filed IPR2015-01970 and -01972 seeking inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-19 of the ’344 Patent based on § 103 grounds applying two al-
`
`ternative references: Lin and Shoubridge.1 As explained in the IPR2015-01972 pe-
`
`tition, Petitioners sought institution of both the Lin and Shoubridge grounds in the
`
`event that Patent Owner is able to swear behind the Lin reference. IPR2015-01972,
`
`Pap. 2 (Pet.) at 5; see also IPR2015-01970, Pap. 6 (Prelim. Resp.) at 14-21. The
`
`ground asserting that Claim 1 (from which Claim 12 depends) was obvious over
`
`1 Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, Hybrid Routing in Dynamic Networks, in 3
`
`IEEE INT’L CONF. ON COMMC’NS CONF. REC. 1381-86 (Montreal, 1997)
`
`(“Shoubridge”) (Ex. 1205).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`Shoubridge was instituted. IPR2015-01972, Pap. 8 (Inst. Dec.) at 23. With respect
`
`
`
`to dependent Claim 12, the petitions asserted that the claims were unpatentable
`
`over a third reference called DirectPlay2 combined with Lin3 or Shoubridge. While
`
`the ground asserting that Claim 12 was obvious over DirectPlay and Lin was insti-
`
`tuted for trial, the ground asserting that Claim 12 was obvious over DirectPlay and
`
`Shoubridge was not. Compare IPR2015-01970, Pap. 9 at 26 with IPR2015-01972,
`
`Pap. 8 at 21-23.4
`
`This Petition seeks inter partes review of Claim 12 based on grounds not
`
`previously considered by the Board: obviousness of Claim 12 in view of
`
`Shoubridge (Ground 1) and obviousness over Shoubridge in view of DirectPlay
`
`2 Bradley Bargen & Peter Donnelly, INSIDE DIRECTX, (Microsoft Press, 1998)
`
`(“DirectPlay”) (Ex. 1203).
`
`3 Meng-Jang Lin, et al., Gossip versus Deterministic Flooding: Low Message
`
`Overhead and High Reliability for Broadcasting on Small Networks, Technical
`
`Report No. CS1999-0637 (Univ. of Cal. San Diego, 1999) (“Lin”) (Ex.1204).
`
`4 In order to avoid burdening the Board with unnecessary motion practice and pro-
`
`vide a fuller opportunity to address Patent Owner’s mischaracterizations (as dis-
`
`cussed below), while Petitioners believe their originally-presented argument was
`
`meritorious, they have filed this Petition and moved for joinder rather than seek re-
`
`hearing.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`(Ground 2).5 Petitioners file a motion herewith to join this petition to the instituted
`
`
`
`grounds in IPR2015-01972 and submit that joinder will not unduly delay the reso-
`
`lution of either proceeding, but will help “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`resolution of every proceeding,” including these proceedings before the Board and
`
`the related district court litigation. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b); Target Corp. v. Desti-
`
`nation Maternity Corp., IPR2014-00508, Pap. 28 (“Granting Petitioner’s Request
`
`for Rehearing”) at 10-13 (Feb. 12, 2015) (finding that “liberal joinder of reviews,
`
`including those having new arguments” furthered the statutory purpose of ensuring
`
`just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of related patent issues).
`
`As the Board’s prior decisions have underscored, the Board exercises its dis-
`
`cretion on whether to institute and join under §§ 314(a) and 315(c) on a “case-by-
`
`case basis” based on the particular facts of each case, substantive and procedural
`
`issues, and other considerations. Target, IPR2014-00508, Pap. 28 at 11. Petition-
`
`ers respectfully submit both that the demonstration herein of the unpatentability of
`
`an actively-litigated claim that should never have issued is a worthwhile subject for
`
`5 Unlike the ground asserted in IPR2015-01972 (obviousness in view of DirectPlay
`
`and Shoubridge), this Petition’s Ground 2 instead asserts that it would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA to apply the teachings of DirectPlay in implementing
`
`Shoubridge, and this combination renders the Challenged Claim obvious. See Sec-
`
`tion V.C.2, below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`the Board’s consideration, e.g., Coal. for Affordable Drugs II LLC v. NPS Pharms.,
`
`
`
`Inc., IPR2015-01093, Pap. 26 (Inst. Dec.) at 30 (Oct. 23, 2015) (“[P]roviding a fo-
`
`rum for legitimate patentability challenges serves a strong public interest in facili-
`
`tating the removal of poor quality patents from the public arena.”), and that the
`
`facts here are analogous to those present in other cases in which the Board deter-
`
`mined to institute trial. See, e.g., Samsung Elecs. Co., v. Va. Innovation Sci., Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-00557, Pap. 10 (Inst. Dec.) at 17-19 (June 13, 2014) (granting institution
`
`and joinder on second petition submitted by same parties, challenging two depend-
`
`ent claims that were previously challenged in the original petition, that added min-
`
`imal additional subject matter where the same prior art relied upon in the second
`
`petition was asserted in related proceedings); ABB Inc. v. Roy-G-Biv Corp.,
`
`IPR2013-00282, Pap. 14 (Inst. Dec.) at 2, 11 (Aug. 9, 2013) (granting institution
`
`on second petition challenging three dependent claims that were previously chal-
`
`lenged in the original petition where the petitioner limited the grounds of unpatent-
`
`ability to those “based primarily on prior art that the Board relied upon in institut-
`
`ing” related IPRs involving the same parties); see also Target, IPR2014-00508,
`
`Pap. 28 at 2-3, 16-17 (granting request for rehearing of a decision based on “an er-
`
`roneously narrow interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c)” where petitioner had lim-
`
`ited its challenge to just two dependent claims that were previously challenged in
`
`an earlier petition and that depended on a claim that was subject to pending inter
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`partes review); id., Pap. 31 (Order) at 3-5 & Pap. 32 (Inst. Dec.) (Feb. 12, 2015)
`
`
`
`(instituting review and granting motion for joinder after finding that the “relevant
`
`factors” – including the fact that “same patent and parties are involved in both pro-
`
`ceedings,” the “overlap in the cited prior art,” and the minimal impact on the
`
`“schedule” due to the limited grounds in the second petition – all favored granting
`
`joinder).
`
`Claim 12 – and Claim 1 from which Claim 12 depends – as well as the ref-
`
`erences relied on in this petition’s two grounds are already at issue in instituted
`
`IPRs: IPR2015-01972 (Pap. 8 at 23) (obviousness of Claim 1 in view of
`
`Shoubridge) and -01970 (Pap. 9 at 26) (obviousness of Claim 1 in view of Lin and
`
`obviousness of Claims 1 and 12 in view of DirectPlay and Lin). Herein, Petition-
`
`ers submit substantially the same arguments and evidence regarding Claim 1 – the
`
`independent base claim not challenged here – as those submitted in IPR2015-
`
`01972 concerning the instituted ground of obviousness of Claim 1 over Shoubridge.
`
`The minimal additional work required on the part of Patent Owner to address the
`
`two additional grounds raised here regarding Claim 12 of the ’344 Patent is strong-
`
`ly outweighed by the public interest in having consistency of outcomes concerning
`
`similar sets of claimed subject matter and prior art. See Samsung, IPR2014-00557,
`
`Pap. 10 at 17-18; Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd., IPR2012-00022, Pap.
`
`104 (Dec. on Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing of Decision to Grant Joinder)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`at 5 (Oct. 31, 2013) (when exercising its discretion to grant joinder under § 315(c),
`
`
`
`the Board noted the significant overlap in the prior art cited in the two proceedings
`
`and that granting joinder allowed for a single deposition). Moreover, to minimize
`
`any alleged prejudice to Patent Owner, Petitioners are amenable to adjusting the
`
`Scheduling Order as necessary. Simply put, Claim 12 should never have issued,
`
`and Petitioners respectfully submit that, in light of Patent Owner’s arguments re-
`
`garding the status of the Lin reference as prior art, the resources of the Board and
`
`the parties, the public interest, and the interests of justice would best be respected
`
`here by instituting and joining trial on this Petition with the instituted trial in
`
`IPR2015-01972.
`
`The ’344 patent is directed to a computer network for providing a game en-
`
`vironment in which information is broadcast from one participant to every other
`
`participant. See, e.g., Ex. 1201, Abstract. In particular, the ’344 patent claims the
`
`use of flooding to broadcast information in computer networks configured as non-
`
`complete, m-regular graphs. Id. at 1:27-29, 4:23-47; cl. 1. This purported inven-
`
`tion, however, was disclosed in printed publications that pre-date its filing date of
`
`July 31, 2000. “Flooding” refers to a simple, reliable technique for broadcasting
`
`information, in which the sender of a message transmits it to each of its neighbors,
`
`who then forward the message to each of their neighbors, who themselves forward
`
`it to each of their neighbors, and so on, until every participant has received the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`message. Karger ¶¶ 26, 29, 45-48 (“Karger” will be used in this Petition to refer to
`
`
`
`Ex. 1219, the expert declaration of David R. Karger). This technique was well-
`
`known to persons of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) for decades prior to the
`
`filing date of the ’344 patent. Karger ¶¶ 45-46; Ex. 1211 at 2; Ex. 1212 at 24-25;
`
`Ex. 1218 at 12.
`
`Similarly, long before July 2000, a POSITA would have understood that the
`
`topology of a network—the configuration of connections between its partici-
`
`pants—could have a significant impact on the network’s characteristics, such as its
`
`performance, scalability, and reliability. Karger ¶ 49; Ex. 1215 at 6-7; Ex. 1214 at
`
`6-12. As a result, many types of network topologies—including those based on
`
`non-complete, m-regular graphs—were well-known in the art. Karger ¶ 50; Ex.
`
`1213 at 20. (An m-regular graph is one in which each node has exactly m connec-
`
`tions to other nodes, i.e., its neighbors; a non-complete graph is one in which at
`
`least two nodes are not connected to each other. Karger ¶¶ 42-44.) Moreover, the
`
`use of flooding over this particular type of topology was also well known. Karger
`
`¶ 50; Ex. 1204 at 9, 17 (flooding over 4-regular “Harary” graphs); Ex. 1208 at 88-
`
`89, 157, 161 (“hot potato forwarding” for controlled flooding over a 4-regular
`
`graph); Ex. 1205 at 2-4 (constrained flooding over a 4-regular graph); Ex. 1216 at
`
`1:59-66, 5:29-43, 6:62-66 (flooding over an m-regular “torus” network, an example
`
`of which is shown below in Section IV.C.).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`Indeed, the Board has already found that there was a reasonable likelihood
`
`
`
`that Petitioners would prevail in establishing that most of the claims of the ’344 pa-
`
`tent – including Claim 1 on which the Challenged Claim 12 depends – are obvious
`
`in view of Shoubridge (Ex. 1205). See IPR 2015-01972, Pap. 8 at 23. Challenged
`
`Claim 12 merely inserts the additional limitation that the “interconnections of par-
`
`ticipants form a broadcast channel for a game of interest.” Ex. 1201, cl. 12.
`
`As discussed further below in Ground 1, Shoubridge discloses the use of
`
`flooding on a regular network to broadcast information to all participants connect-
`
`ed to a communication network. Ex. 1205 at 1. Further, a POSITA would at min-
`
`imum have found it obvious to use the communication network taught by
`
`Shoubridge as a broadcast channel for a game of interest, rendering the Challenged
`
`Claim obvious. Karger ¶¶ 94-99.
`
`While the Board found in the IPR2015-01972 proceeding that Petitioners
`
`had not established a reasonable likelihood that the Challenged Claim was obvious
`
`based on the combination of DirectPlay and Shoubridge, see IPR2015-01972, Pap.
`
`8 at 21-23, this conclusion appears to have rested primarily on a mischaracteriza-
`
`tion of the DirectPlay reference made by Patent Owner in its Preliminary Response.
`
`Specifically, Patent Owner incorrectly asserted that DirectPlay discloses only static
`
`networks in which all participants are known a priori. See IPR2015-01972, Pap. 8
`
`(Inst. Dec.) at 22 (citing Pap. 6 (Prelim. Resp.) at 33). In fact, DirectPlay repeated-
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`ly and affirmatively discloses that its networked gaming sessions, which Direct-
`
`
`
`Play envisioned could include hundreds or thousands of players, can be highly dy-
`
`namic, with participants joining and leaving at will during a session. Ex.1203 at 19,
`
`21 (“DirectPlay provides methods for … connecting to existing sessions.”), 47
`
`(“Once users have been presented with a list of available sessions, they can decide
`
`whether they want to join an existing session ….”), 50, 98, 122 (“In Space Brou-
`
`haha [an example game], players can enter and leave the session at will.”);6 Karger
`
`¶ 103, 109.7 Under this correct understanding of DirectPlay, a POSITA would, to
`
`begin with, have been motivated to apply the teachings of Shoubridge in imple-
`
`menting DirectPlay. And for purposes of this Petition, as detailed below, a POSI-
`
`TA would also have been motivated to apply the teachings of DirectPlay in imple-
`
`menting Shoubridge, and this combination (Shoubridge in view of DirectPlay) ren-
`
`6 All emphasis in quotations is added unless otherwise noted.
`
`7 While the petition in IPR2015-01972 cited many of these portions of DirectPlay,
`
`IPR2015-01972, Pap. 2 at 19, 26, 37, 43, 51 (citing DirectPlay at 21, 50, 98, 122),
`
`the petition generally did not quote these passages in full, as Petitioners could not
`
`have reasonably anticipated that Patent Owner would mischaracterize these clear,
`
`explicit teachings of DirectPlay as it did in its Preliminary Response, and thus did
`
`not perceive a need to emphasize directly this aspect of DirectPlay, which is clear
`
`from the cited passages.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`ders the Challenged Claim obvious. Karger ¶¶ 106-11.
`
`
`
`Neither Shoubridge nor DirectPlay was substantively considered by the
`
`USPTO during prosecution, although a service related to DirectPlay was men-
`
`tioned in a news article the Examiner considered (see Section IV.B.), and Ex.1205
`
`was listed in the Examiner’s search report.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioners respectfully request that the Board find the Chal-
`
`lenged Claim obvious under § 103 in view of Shoubridge and the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA as Ground 1. Petitioners further respectfully request that the Board find
`
`that the Challenged Claim is obvious under § 103 over Shoubridge in view of the
`
`teachings of DirectPlay as Ground 2.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER § 42.8
`The Real Parties in Interest Under § 42.8(b)(1) are Activision Blizzard,
`
`Inc.; Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.; Activision Publishing, Inc.; Activision Enter-
`
`tainment Holdings, Inc.; Electronic Arts Inc.; Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.;
`
`2K Games, Inc.; 2K Sports, Inc.; and Rockstar Games, Inc. (The listing of non-
`
`Petitioner RPI entities should not be deemed as an acknowledgement or admission
`
`that any such entity actually controls this matter.)
`
`Related Matters Under Rule § 42.8(b)(2). Patent Owner has asserted
`
`the ’344 patent against Petitioners in Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard,
`
`Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00228-RGA (D. Del., filed Mar. 11, 2015); Acceleration
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00282-RGA (D. Del., filed Mar.
`
`
`
`30, 2015); and Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al,
`
`Case No. 1:15-cv-00311-RGA (D. Del., filed Apr. 13, 2015). Patent Owner has
`
`also asserted five additional related patents, which have the same substantive spec-
`
`ification (with some limited exceptions, see, e.g. Ex. 1201 at 16:24-17:26), filing
`
`date, and assignee as the ’344 patent, in these aforementioned litigations.
`
`Petitions for inter partes review have been filed challenging these six assert-
`
`ed patents. The Board has instituted review of the ’344 Patent in IPR2015-01970
`
`and -01971. The Board has also instituted review of U.S. Patent No. 6,714,966
`
`(“the ’966 patent”) in IPR2015-01951 and -01953 and instituted review of U.S. Pa-
`
`tent No. 6,829,634 (“the ’634 patent”) in IPR2015-01964 and -01996. Petitions
`
`challenging additional claims of the ’634 patent (IPR2016-00727), U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,920,497 (IPR2016-00724), U.S. Patent No. 6,910,069 (IPR2016-00726), and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,732,147 (IPR2016-00747) are currently pending. The Challenged
`
`Claim of the ’344 patent is identical to Claim 12 of the ’966 patent, except that
`
`the ’344 patent Claim 12 is directed to game environments, and the ’966 patent
`
`Claim 12 is directed to information delivery services. Petitioners will also be filing
`
`a petition for inter partes review and a motion for joinder to IPR2015-01953 for
`
`Claim 12 of the ’966 patent.
`
`Lead/Back-Up Counsel Under § 42.8(b)(3) & (4). Lead: J. Steven
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`Baughman (Reg. No. 47,414, ROPES & GRAY LLP, 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue,
`
`
`
`NW, Washington, DC 20006, P: 202-508-4606/F: 202-383-8371, steven.baugh-
`
`man@ropesgray.com). Backup: Andrew N. Thomases (Reg. No. 40,841,
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP, 1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor, East Palo Alto, CA
`
`94303, P: 650-617-4712/F: 650-566-4275, andrew.thomases@ropesgray.com).
`
`III. PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING
`A. Grounds for Standing Under § 42.104(a)
`Petitioners certify that the ’344 patent is eligible for (and that Petitioners are
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting) inter partes review on the grounds identi-
`
`fied in this Petition. The Board instituted trial against the ’344 patent in Case No.
`
`IPR2015-01972 on March 24, 2016. Although Petitioners were served more than
`
`one year ago with complaints asserting infringement of the ’344 patent, this peti-
`
`tion is accompanied by a timely motion for joinder with Case No. IPR2015-01972
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and, as such, the time period set forth in 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.101(b) does not apply to this petition.
`
`B. Claims and Statutory Grounds Under §§ 42.22 and 42.104(b)
`Petitioners request inter partes review of the Challenged Claim of the ’344
`
`patent and assert that this claim is unpatentable as follows: Ground 1: Claim 12
`
`is obvious under § 103 in view of Shoubridge and the knowledge of a POSITA;
`
`Ground 2: Claim 12 is obvious under § 103 in view of the combination of the
`
`teachings of Shoubridge and DirectPlay. These grounds for unpatentability are
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`discussed in detail below in Section V. In further support of the proposed grounds
`
`
`
`of rejection, the Declaration of technical expert David R. Karger is submitted
`
`herewith as Ex. 1219.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’344 PATENT AND ITS TECHNICAL FIELD
`A. Overview of the ’344 Patent
`The ’344 patent describes a computer network for providing a game envi-
`
`ronment in which information is broadcast from one participant to every other par-
`
`ticipant. See, e.g., Ex. 1201 at Abstract; Karger ¶ 26. Challenged Claim 12 de-
`
`pends on independent Claim 1. Claim 1 provides:
`
`1. A computer network for providing a game environment for a plural-
`ity of participants, each participant having connections to at least three
`neighbor participants, wherein an originating participant sends data to
`the other participants by sending the data through each of its connec-
`tions to its neighbor participants and wherein each participant sends
`data that it receives from a neighbor participant to its other neighbor
`participants, further wherein the network is m-regular, where m is the
`exact 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.
`
`Ex. 1201 at 30:2-13; Karger ¶ 27, 57. Claim 12 further provides:
`
`12. The computer network of claim 1 wherein the interconnections of
`participants form a broadcast channel for a game of interest.
`
`Ex. 1201 at 30:36-38; Karger ¶ 30, 57.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`Thus, the Challenged Claim requires that each participant be connected to
`
`
`
`the same (m) number of neighbors, so that the network is m-regular, where m is at
`
`least three. Ex. 1201, cl. 1; Karger ¶ 27. By mandating that the number of partici-
`
`pants be at least two greater than m, the Challenged
`
`Claim also requires that the network form a non-
`
`complete graph, where each node on the graph rep-
`
`resents a participant, and two nodes connected by
`
`a line (edge) on the graph are neighbors. Ex. 1201
`
`at Abstract; id. cl. 1; id. at 4:23-47; Karger ¶ 28. A
`
`Ex. 1201: Fig. 1
`
`complete graph is one that is fully connected, meaning that each node is connected
`
`to every other node, whereas in a non-complete graph, at least two nodes are not
`
`connected to each other. Karger ¶¶ 28, 43.
`
`The Challenged Claim further requires that the participants broadcast mes-
`
`sages to each other using a technique whereby the originating participant sends the
`
`data to be transmitted to each of its neighbors, who in turn forward the data to each
`
`of their neighbors. See, e.g., Ex. 1201, cl. 1; Karger ¶ 29. This forwarding process
`
`is repeated until every participant has received the message. See Ex. 1201, cl. 1; id.
`
`at 7:30-49; Karger ¶ 29. The message is thereby reliably broadcast across the en-
`
`tire network. Ex. 1201 at 7:30-41, 7:50-51; Karger ¶ 29. Although the term is not
`
`expressly used in the specification, this technique (and its variations), are common-
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`ly referred to as “flooding.” Karger ¶ 29; Ex. 1204 at 9.
`
`
`
`B. Overview of the Prosecution History
`The application that led to the ’344 patent was filed July 31, 2000, and the
`
`Applicants did not claim priority to any earlier filing. During prosecution, the Ex-
`
`aminer rejected original claims 1-13 as obvious over Alagar in view of IGZ. Ex.
`
`1202 at 2092-96-. The Examiner recognized a motivation to combine IGZ, which
`
`discloses a system (related to DirectPlay)8 that facilitates multi-player gaming via
`
`the Internet, with Alagar, which discloses a reliable mobile wireless network, stat-
`
`ing: “Given the teachings of IGZ, a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have readily recognized the desirability and the advantages of using the infor-
`
`mation delivery conferencing system taught by Alagar for an Internet gaming envi-
`
`ronment, to increase reliability of the Internet gaming environment and to prevent
`
`games or particular players from ending or exiting prematurely.” Id. at 2093-94.
`
`Applicants then “significantly” amended their claims by adding the m-
`
`regular and the non-complete graph limitations to all claims, as well as adding lim-
`
`itations directed to the number of participants and flooding broadcast techniques,
`
`to original claims 14-16, and new claims 17-20 requiring that the network be m-
`
`8 IGZ refers to the Internet Gaming Zone, a.k.a. Microsoft Game Zone, which as
`
`discussed in the DirectPlay reference, is an example of a DirectPlay lobby server.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1103 at 98-100; Karger ¶ 102.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 6,701,344
`regular and incomplete Id. at 2330-34. (Applicants cancelled original claim 4, re-
`
`
`
`sulting in a net total of 19 issued claims.) In their remarks, the Applicants argued
`
`that “[i]t is the combination of having a computer network that is m regular and
`
`that is not a complete graph that is patentable over the Alagar reference. This
`
`combination has been shown to produce an efficient and stable computer network.”
`
`Id. at 2340. After Applicants disclaimed the terminal portion of the ’344 patent
`
`over the application which resulted in the ’966 patent, id. at 2343-44, the Examiner
`
`subsequently allowed the claims. See id. at 2349.
`
`C. Overview of the Technical Field
`The use of flooding to broadcast information over a computer network, in
`
`general, had been known for decades before the July 2000 filing date of the ’344
`
`patent. Karger ¶ 45; see, e.g., Ex. 1207 at 5 (“We considered different approaches
`
`for distributing the updates [8] and decided on ‘flooding,’ in which each node
`
`sends each new update it receives on all its lines except the line on which the up-
`
`date was received.”); see also, Ex. 1211 at 2; Ex. 1212 at 24-25; Ex. 1218 at 12.
`
`Moreover, the use of floo