Paper No. __
`Filed: April 22, 2016
`
`Filed on behalf of: Bungie, Inc.
`By: Michael T. Rosato (mrosato@wsgr.com)
`
`Andrew S. Brown (asbrown@wsgr.com)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`BUNGIE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00934
`Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,701,344
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER § 42.8............................................................. 3
`
`III.
`
`PETITIONER HAS STANDING ........................................................................... 5
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under § 42.104(a) ............................................ 5
`
`B.
`
`Claims and Statutory Grounds Under §§ 42.22 and 42.104(b) ............ 6
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’344 PATENT AND ITS TECHNICAL FIELD ............................ 7
`
`A. Overview of the ’344 Patent ............................................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Overview of the Prosecution History .................................................. 9
`
`Overview of the Technical Field ....................................................... 10
`
`V.
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONER
`WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM ............ 12
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction Under § 42.104(b)(3) ......................................... 12
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art and State of the Art ...................... 14
`
`Ground for Unpatentability ............................................................... 14
`
`1.
`
`Grounds 1 and 2: Claims 1-12 and 16-19 Are Obvious in
`View of the Teachings of Shoubridge and the Knowledge
`of a POSITA ........................................................................... 14
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Overview of Shoubridge ............................................... 14
`
`Ground 1: Claim Chart for Claims 1-11 and 16-19. ...... 18
`
`Ground 2: Claim Chart for Claim 12. ............................ 32
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 36
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Ex. 1101
`
`Ex. 1102
`
`Ex. 1103
`
`Ex. 1104
`
`Ex. 1105
`
`Ex. 1106
`
`Ex. 1107
`
`Ex. 1108
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344 to Fred B. Holt et al. (“’344 patent”).
`Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC,
`IPR2015-01972, Ex. 1101 (Sept. 25, 2015).
`Declaration of David K. Lin and the Certified File Wrapper
`for U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344. Retrieved from Activision
`Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2015-01972, Ex.
`1102 (Sept. 25, 2015).
`Bradley Bargen & Peter Donnelly, INSIDE DIRECTX, (Microsoft
`Press, 1998) (“DirectPlay”). Retrieved from Activision Blizzard
`Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2015-01972, Ex. 1103 (Sept.
`25, 2015).
`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”). Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc. v.
`Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2015-01972, Ex. 1104 (Sept. 25, 2015).
`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”). Retrieved from Activision
`Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2015-01972, Ex. 1105
`(Sept. 25, 2015).
`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”).
`Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC,
`IPR2015-01972, Ex. 1106 (Sept. 25, 2015).
`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”). Retrieved from Activision Blizzard
`Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2015-01972, Ex. 1107 (Sept. 25,
`2015).
`Yogen Kantilal Dalal, Broadcast Protocols in Packet Switched
`Computer Networks (Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University 1977) and
`supporting (“Dalal”). Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc. v.
`Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2015-01972, Ex. 1108 (Sept. 25, 2015).
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`Ex. 1109
`
`Ex. 1110
`
`Ex. 1111
`
`Ex. 1112
`
`Ex. 1113
`
`Ex. 1114
`
`Ex. 1115
`
`Ex. 1116
`
`
`
`S. Alagar, et al., Reliable Broadcast in Mobile Wireless Networks,
`Military Communications Conference, 1 IEEE MILCOM ’95
`CONF. REC., 236-40 (San Diego, Cal., 1995) (“Alagar”). Retrieved
`from Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2015-
`01972, Ex. 1109 (Sept. 25, 2015).
`Certificate of Authenticity and a Press Release, Microsoft Boosts
`Accessibility to Internet Gaming Zone with Latest Release (Apr.
`27, 1998) (PR Newswire) (“IGZ”). Retrieved from Activision
`Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2015-01972, Ex. 1110
`(Sept. 25, 2015).
`Donald M. Topkis, Concurrent Broadcast for Information
`Dissemination, SE-11, No. 10 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE
`ENGINEERING, 1107-11 (1985) (“Topkis”). Retrieved from
`Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2015-01972,
`Ex. 1103 (Sept. 25, 2015).
`Dimitri Bertsekas & Robert Gallager, DATA NETWORKS (Prentice
`Hall, 2d ed. 1992) (“Bertsekas”). Retrieved from Activision
`Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2015-01972, Ex. 1112
`(Sept. 25, 2015).
`Kuo-Jui Raymond Lin, Routing and Broadcasting in Two-
`dimensional Linear Congruential Graphs of Degree Four,
`Master’s Thesis (Concordia Univ. Montreal, Canada, 1994)
`(“Kuo-Jui Lin”). Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc. v.
`Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2015-01972, Ex. 1113 (Sept. 25, 2015).
`William S. Davis and David C. Yen, THE INFORMATION SYSTEM
`CONSULTANT’S HANDBOOK: SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
`(CRC Press, 1998) (“Davis”). Retrieved from Activision Blizzard
`Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2015-01972, Ex. 1114 (Sept. 25,
`2015).
`V. G. Cerf, et al., Topological Design Considerations in Computer
`Commc’n Networks, COMPUTER COMMC’N NETWORKS (R. L.
`Grimsdale et al. eds., 1975) (“Cerf”). Retrieved from Activision
`Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2015-01972, Ex. 1115
`(Sept. 25, 2015).
`U.S. Patent No. 6,122,277 to Derrick Garmire et al. (“Garmire”).
`Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC,
`IPR2015-01972, Ex. 1116 (Sept. 25, 2015).
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`Ex. 1117
`
`Ex. 1118
`
`Ex. 1119
`
`Ex. 1120
`
`Ex. 1121
`
`Ex. 1122
`
`Ex. 1123
`
`Ex. 1201
`
`Ex. 1202
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,181,017 to Alexander H. Frey, Jr. et al. (“Frey”).
`Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC,
`IPR2015-01972, Ex. 1117 (Sept. 25, 2015).
`Flaviu Cristian et al., Atomic Broadcast: From Simple Message
`Diffusion to Byzantine Agreement, 118 INFORMATION AND
`COMPUTATION 158-79 (Albert R. Meyer ed., 1995) (“Cristian”).
`Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC,
`IPR2015-01972, Ex. 1118 (Sept. 25, 2015).
`Expert Declaration of David R. Karger. Retrieved from Activision
`Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2015-01972, Ex. 1119
`(Sept. 25, 2015).
`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
`Exhibit 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”). Retrieved from
`Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2015-01972,
`Ex. 1120 (Sept. 25, 2015).
`SUPPORTING MICROSOFT WINDOWS 95, Vol. 1 (Microsoft Press
`1995) (“Supporting Windows 95”). Retrieved from Activision
`Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2015-01972, Ex. 1121
`(Sept. 25, 2015).
`Declaration of Matthew R. Shapiro. Retrieved from Activision
`Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2015-01972, Ex. 1122
`(Sept. 25, 2015).
`Declaration of Julian D. Moore. Retrieved from Activision
`Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2015-01972, Ex. 1123
`(Sept. 25, 2015).
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344 to Fred B. Holt et al. Retrieved from
`Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931,
`Ex. 1201 (Apr. 21, 2016).
`Declaration of David K. Lin and the Certified File Wrapper for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344. Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc.
`v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931, Ex. 1201 (Apr. 21,
`2016).
`
`-iv-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`Ex. 1203
`
`Ex. 1204
`
`Ex. 1205
`
`Ex. 1206
`
`Ex. 1207
`
`Ex. 1208
`
`Ex. 1209
`
`Ex. 1210
`
`
`
`Selected Portions of Bradley Bargen & Peter Donnelly, Inside
`DirectX, (Microsoft Press, 1998). Retrieved from Activision
`Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931, Ex. 1203
`(Apr. 21, 2016).
`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). Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay
`LLC, IPR2016-0931, Ex. 1204 (Apr. 21, 2016).
`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). Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc. v.
`Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931, Ex. 1205 (Apr. 21, 2016).
`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). Retrieved from
`Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931,
`Ex. 1206 (Apr. 21, 2016).
`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). Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc. v.
`Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931, Ex. 1207 (Apr. 21, 2016).
`Yogen Kantilal Dalal, Broadcast Protocols in Packet Switched
`Computer Networks (Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University 1977) and
`supporting. Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration
`Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931, Ex. 1208 (Apr. 21, 2016).
`S. Alagar, et al., Reliable Broadcast in Mobile Wireless Networks,
`Military Communications Conference, 1 IEEE MILCOM ’95
`Conf. Rec., 236-40 (San Diego, Cal., 1995). Retrieved from
`Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931,
`Ex. 1209 (Apr. 21, 2016).
`Certificate of Authenticity and a Press Release, Microsoft Boosts
`Accessibility to Internet Gaming Zone with Latest Release (Apr.
`27, 1998) (PR Newswire). Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc.
`v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931, Ex. 1210 (Apr. 21,
`2016).
`
`-v-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`Ex. 1211
`
`Ex. 1212
`
`Ex. 1213
`
`Ex. 1214
`
`Ex. 1215
`
`Ex. 1216
`
`Ex. 1217
`
`Ex. 1218
`
`Ex. 1219
`
`
`
`Donald M. Topkis, Concurrent Broadcast for Information
`Dissemination, SE-11, No. 10 IEEE Transactions on Software
`Engineering, 1107-11 (1985). Retrieved from Activision Blizzard
`Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931, Ex. 1211 (Apr. 21,
`2016).
`Dimitri Bertsekas & Robert Gallager, Data Networks (Prentice
`Hall, 2d ed. 1992). Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc. v.
`Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931, Ex. 1212 (Apr. 21, 2016).
`Kuo-Jui Raymond Lin, Routing and Broadcasting in Two-
`dimensional Linear Congruential Graphs of Degree Four, Master’s
`Thesis (Concordia Univ. Montreal, Canada, 1994). Retrieved from
`Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931,
`Ex. 1213 (Apr. 21, 2016).
`William S. Davis and David C. Yen, The Information System
`Consultant’s Handbook: Systems Analysis and Design (CRC
`Press, 1998). Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc. v.
`Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931, Ex. 1214 (Apr. 21, 2016).
`V. G. Cerf, et al., Topological Design Considerations in Computer
`Commc’n Networks, Computer Commc’n Networks (R. L.
`Grimsdale et al. eds., 1975). Retrieved from Activision Blizzard
`Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931, Ex. 1215 (Apr. 21,
`2016).
`U.S. Patent No. 6,122,277 to Derrick Garmire et al. Retrieved
`from Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-
`0931, Ex. 1216 (Apr. 21, 2016).
`U.S. Patent No. 5,181,017 to Alexander H. Frey, Jr. et al.
`Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC,
`IPR2016-0931, Ex. 1217 (Apr. 21, 2016).
`Flaviu Cristian et al., Atomic Broadcast: From Simple Message
`Diffusion to Byzantine Agreement, 118 Information and
`Computation 158-79 (Albert R. Meyer ed., 1995). Retrieved from
`Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931,
`Ex. 1218 (Apr. 21, 2016).
`Expert Declaration of David R. Karger (“Karger 931”). Retrieved
`from Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-
`0931, Ex. 1219 (Apr. 21, 2016).
`
`-vi-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`
`
`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), and as Exhibit 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). Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc. v.
`Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931, Ex. 1220 (Apr. 21, 2016).
`Supporting Microsoft Windows 95, Vol. 1 (Microsoft Press 1995).
`Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC,
`IPR2016-0931, Ex. 1201 (Apr. 21, 2016).
`Declaration of Matthew R. Shapiro. Retrieved from Activision
`Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931, Ex. 1222
`(Apr. 21, 2016).
`Declaration of Julian D. Moore. Retrieved from Activision
`Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931, Ex. 1223
`(Apr. 21, 2016).
`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), and as Attachment 3a, Selected Portions of
`Bradley Bargen & Peter Donnelly, INSIDE DIRECTX, (Microsoft
`Press, 1998). Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc. v.
`Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931, Ex. 1224 (Apr. 21, 2016).
`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). Retrieved from Activision Blizzard Inc. v.
`Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931, Ex. 1225 (Apr. 21, 2016).
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler. Retrieved from Activision Blizzard
`Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931, Ex. 1226 (Apr. 21,
`2016).
`Redline comparison of the expert declarations of David. R. Karger:
`Ex. 1119 from IPR2015-01972 and Ex. 1219. Retrieved from
`Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-0931,
`Ex. 1226 (Apr. 21, 2016).
`
`Ex. 1220
`
`Ex. 1221
`
`Ex. 1222
`
`Ex. 1223
`
`Ex. 1224
`
`Ex. 1225
`
`Ex. 1226
`
`Ex. 1227
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`Bungie, Inc., (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 1-12 and
`
`16-19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344 to Holt et al. (“the ’344 patent”), and that these
`
`claims be canceled as unpatentable over the prior art. According to PTO records,
`
`the ’344 patent is assigned to Acceleration Bay, LLC (“Patent Owner”). A copy of
`
`the ’344 patent is provided as Exhibit 1101. Inter partes review of the ’344 patent,
`
`was instituted in IPR2015-01970 and IPR2015-01972 on March 24, 2016 based on
`
`petitions filed by Activision Blizzard, Inc. Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two
`
`Interactive Software, Inc., 2K Sports, Inc., and Rockstar Games, Inc., (“2015
`
`Petitioners”). The present Petition is a practical copy of the content related to the
`
`instituted grounds in IPR2015-01972, with an additional ground challenging the
`
`patentability of claim 12 under the same prior art that the Board relied on in
`
`instituting IPR2015-01972. A motion for Joinder of the ’1972 IPR has been filed
`
`concurrently with this Petition.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’344 patent is directed to a computer network for providing a game
`
`environment in which information is broadcast from one participant to every other
`
`participant. See, e.g., Ex. 1101 at Abstract, Title. 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 invention, 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,
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`
`
`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
`
`message. Karger ¶¶ 26, 29-30, 48-51 (“Karger” will be used in this Petition to
`
`refer to Ex. 1119, 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 ¶¶ 48-49, 53; Ex. 1111 at 2; Ex. 1112 at
`
`24-25; Ex. 1118 at 12.
`
`Similarly, long before July 2000, a POSITA would have understood that the
`
`topology of a network—the configuration of connections between its
`
`participants—could have a significant impact on the network’s characteristics,
`
`such as its performance, scalability, and reliability. Karger ¶ 52; Ex. 1115 at 6-7;
`
`Ex. 1114 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
`
`¶¶ 52-53; Ex. 1113 at 20. (An m-regular graph is one in which each node has
`
`exactly m connections 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 ¶¶ 42-43.)
`
`Moreover, the use of flooding over this particular type of topology was also well
`
`known. Karger ¶ 53; Ex. 1104 at 9, 17 (flooding over 4-regular “Harary” graphs);
`
`Ex. 1108 at 88-89, 157, 161 (“hot potato forwarding” for controlled flooding over
`
`a 4-regular graph); Ex. 1105 at 2-4 (constrained flooding over a 4-regular graph);
`
`Ex. 1116 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).
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`
`
`The dependent claims add commonplace features that would also have been
`
`well-understood implementation choices to any POSITA. Indeed, the teachings of
`
`a 1997 IEEE paper published by Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, “Hybrid
`
`Routing in Dynamic Networks” (“Shoubridge”) (Ex. 1105) in view of the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA, renders obvious claims 1-12 and 16-19.
`
`Shoubridge was not substantively considered by the USPTO during
`
`prosecution, although it was listed in the Examiner’s search report. Shoubridge
`
`renders all of the challenged claims unpatentable, and Petitioner respectfully
`
`requests that: (1) the Board find claims 1-11 and 16-19 obvious under § 103 over
`
`Shoubridge in view of the knowledge of a POSITA (Ground 1), as the Board did
`
`in IPR2015-01972; and (2) similarly find claim 12 obvious under § 103 over
`
`Shoubridge in view of the knowledge of a POSITA (Ground 2).
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER § 42.8
`
`The Real Parties in Interest Under § 42.8(b)(1): Bungie, Inc. is the real
`
`party-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters Under Rule § 42.8(b)(2): Claims 1-12 and 16-19 of the ’344
`
`patent are currently subject to inter partes review in IPR2015-01970 and IPR2015-
`
`01972, both instituted on March 24, 2016, based on petitions filed by the 2015
`
`Petitioners. Review was similarly instituted against claims 1-12 and 16-17 of U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 6,714,966 (IPR2015-01951 and IPR2015-01953, instituted March 24,
`
`2016) and claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634 (IPR2015-01964 and
`
`IPR2015-01996, instituted March 31, 2016) based on petitions filed by the 2015
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`
`
`Petitioners. The 2015 Petitioners have also filed petitions challenging claims 19-24
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634 (IPR2016-00727), claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,732,147 (IPR2016-00747), claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,910,069 (IPR2016-
`
`00726), claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,920,497 (IPR2016-00724),
`
`claim 12 of the ’344 patent (IPR2016-00931), and claim 12 of the ’966 patent
`
`(IPR2016-00932), which are all pending pre-institution.
`
`Patent Owner has asserted the ’344 patent against at least some of the 2015
`
`Petitioners in Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
`
`00228-RGA (D. Del., filed Mar. 11, 2015); Acceleration 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) (collectively, “the underlying
`
`litigations”). Bungie is not a party to the underlying litigations. Bungie received a
`
`subpoena in connection with the underlying litigations, in response to which it has
`
`filed a motion to quash and for entry of a protective order, which is currently
`
`pending in the Western District of Washington as Case No. 2:15-MC-27.
`
`A motion for joinder with IPR2015-01972 is being filed concurrently with
`
`this petition. Additionally, Petitioner is filing concurrently herewith petitions for
`
`inter partes review of the ’966 patent (IPR2016-00935, IPR2016-00936) and
`
`another petition for inter partes review the ’344 patent (IPR2016-00933). The
`
`’966 patent has the same substantive specification (with the exception of one
`
`section, see, e.g. Ex. 1101 at 16:29-17:11), filing date, and assignee as the ’344
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`patent, and is also asserted in the aforementioned litigations. Claims 1-12 and 16-
`
`17 of the ’344 patent are identical to claims 1-12 and 16-17 of the ’966 patent,
`
`except that the ’344 patent claims are directed to game environments and systems,
`
`and the ’966 patent claims are directed to information delivery services.
`
`
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Lead Counsel: Michael T. Rosato (Reg. No. 52,182)
`
`Back-Up Counsel: Andrew S. Brown (Reg. No. 74,177)
`
`Service Information – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4). Petitioner hereby consents to
`
`electronic service. Email: mrosato@wsgr.com; asbrown@wsgr.com;
`
`jmills@wsgr.com; khill@wsgr.com.
`
`Post: WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100,
`
`
`
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036; Tel.: 206-883-2529; Fax: 206-883-2699.
`
`III. PETITIONER HAS STANDING
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under § 42.104(a)
`
`The undersigned and Petitioner certifies that the ’344 patent is available for
`
`inter partes review and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an
`
`inter partes review of claims 1-12 and 16-19 of the ’344 patent. Petitioner has not
`
`filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the ’344 patent. A
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the ’344 patent was not served on Petitioner
`
`more than a year before the date of this Petition and a motion for joinder has been
`
`filed to join IPR2015-01972 no later than 1 month after institution in accordance
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`
`
`with 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). The ’344 patent issued more
`
`than nine months prior to the date of this Petition.
`
`B. Claims and Statutory Grounds Under §§ 42.22 and 42.104(b)
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1-12 and 16-19 of the ’344
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 311 and AIA § 6 and asserts that these claims are
`
`unpatentable as follows:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1-11, 16-19
`
`Shoubridge
`
`12
`
`Shoubridge
`
`Ground 1 is a practical copy of the ground the Board instituted in IPR2015-
`
`01972, challenging the same claims over the same prior art and using the same
`
`arguments and expert testimony. Ground 2 was not previously presented in
`
`IPR2015-01972; however, Ground 2 is merely challenging a dependent claim
`
`under the same prior art and using substantially the same analysis that the Board
`
`instituted for its parent claim in IPR2015-01972.1 As mentioned above, Petitioner
`
`is requesting joinder with IPR2015-01972. Institution and joinder for Ground 1
`
`should create no additional burden for the Board, Patent Owner, or 2015
`
`Petitioners because Ground 1 is a practical copy of an already instituted ground.
`
`Further, in the interest of efficiency, Petitioner respectfully request that the Board
`
`
`
`1 Ground 2 is also substantially similar to Ground 1 of the recent IPR2016-
`
`00931 petition, which also has a pending joinder motion before the Board.
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`institute and join Ground 2, as this ground only adds in a minor dependent claim
`
`and should not result in any significant impact to the instituted review of the ’344
`
`
`
`patent.
`
`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
`
`environment in which information is broadcast from one participant to every other
`
`participant. See, e.g., Ex. 1101 at Abstract, Title; Karger ¶ 26. Claims 1-12 and
`
`16-19 require that each participant be connected to the same (m) number of
`
`neighbors, so the network is m-regular, where m is at least three. Ex. 1101, cls. 1,
`
`13, 16, 18; Karger ¶ 27. Claim 1 is representative:
`
`1. A computer network for providing a game environment for a
`
`plurality 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 connections 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. 1101 at 29:26-37.2 Karger ¶ 30.
`
`By mandating that the number of participants be at least two greater than m,
`
`
`2 All emphasis in quotations is added unless otherwise noted.
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`
`
`the challenged claims also require that the network form a non-complete graph,
`
`where each node on the graph represents a participant, and two nodes connected by
`
`a line (edge) on the graph are neighbors. Ex. 1101 at Abstract; id. cl. 1; id. at 4:23-
`
`47; Karger ¶ 28. A 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, 43-44. Some of the
`
`claims further require that the network is also m-connected. Ex. 1101, cls. 4, 5;
`
`Karger ¶ 27. A graph is m-connected when it would
`
`take the removal of at least m nodes to divide the
`
`graph into two or more separate parts. Ex. 1101 at
`
`4:42-46; Karger ¶¶ 27, 45-47. Figure 1 of the ’344
`
`patent (right), for example, “illustrates a graph that is
`
`[both] 4-regular and 4-connected.” Ex. 1101, Fig. 1,
`
`2:44-45; Karger ¶ 27.
`
`Ex. 1001: Fig. 1
`
`Finally, the challenged claims further require that the participants broadcast
`
`messages 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. 1101, cl. 1; Karger ¶ 29. This forwarding
`
`process is repeated until every participant has received the message. See Ex. 1101,
`
`cl. 1; id. at 7:30-49; Karger ¶ 29. The message is thereby reliably broadcast across
`
`the entire network. Ex. 1101 at 7:30-41, 7:50-51; Karger ¶ 29. Although the term
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`
`
`is not expressly used in the specification, this technique (and its variations), are
`
`commonly referred to as “flooding.” Karger ¶ 29; Ex. 1104 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
`
`Examiner rejected original claims 1-13 as obvious over Alagar in view of IGZ.
`
`Ex. 1102 at 2092-96. The Examiner recognized a motivation to combine IGZ3,
`
`which discloses a system that facilitates multi-player gaming via the Internet, with
`
`Alagar, which discloses a reliable mobile wireless network, stating: “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 information delivery
`
`conferencing system taught by Alagar for an Internet gaming environment, 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
`
`limitations directed to the number of participants and flooding broadcast
`
`techniques, to original claims 14-16, and new claims 17-20 requiring that the
`
`
`
`3 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. Karger ¶ 34; see, e.g., Ex. 1103 at 98-100.
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`
`
`network be m-regular and incomplete Id. at 2330-34. (Applicants cancelled
`
`original claim 4, resulting 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 ¶¶ 48-53; see, e.g., Ex. 1107 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 update was received.”); see also, Ex. 1111 at 2; Ex. 1112 at 24-25;
`
`Ex. 1118 at 12. Moreover, the use of flooding in networks based on m-regular,
`
`non-complete graphs, in particular, was also well known in the art. Karger ¶ 53.
`
`For example, Shoubridge discloses the use of flooding over m-regular, non-
`
`complete “torus” graphs, such as the graph in Figure 4.2 (shown below (left)).
`
`Karger ¶ 53; see Ex. 1105 at 3. (Figure 4.2 is from Ex. 1106, a 175-page Ph.D.
`
`thesis also by Peter J. Shoubridge, hereinafter “Shoubridge Thesis,” which
`
`discloses the same body of work that is described in more concise form in the six-
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`page IEEE publication of Ex. 1105. See Ex. 1106 at 94; id. at 189.)4
`
`
`
`Ex. 1106: Fig 4.2
`
`
`
`Ex. 1117: F