`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`)
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of:
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`U.S. Patent No.: 10,076,708
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For: GAME CONTROL METHOD, )
`GAME SERVER, AND PROGRAM )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEWS OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,076,708
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 1
`
`
`
`I, Ravin Balakrishnan, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I have been asked by the party requesting this review, Supercell Oy
`1.
`
`(“Petitioner”), to provide my expert opinions in support of the above-captioned
`
`petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,076,708 (the “’708 patent”),
`
`challenging the patentability of claims 1-3 of the ’708 patent.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`I currently hold the opinions set forth in this declaration.
`
`In summary, it is my opinion that the references cited below render
`
`obvious claims 1-3 of the ’708 patent. My detailed opinions on the claims are set
`
`forth below.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`I am currently a tenured Full Professor of Computer Science in the
`4.
`
`Department of Computer Science at the University of Toronto. I joined the faculty
`
`at the University in 2001, was granted tenure in 2006, and served as Chair of my
`
`Department from 2015 to 2019. From 2006-2016, I held the Canada Research Chair
`
`in Human-Centered Interfaces in the Department of Computer Science.
`
`5.
`
`I earned a B.Sc. in Computer Science from the University of New
`
`Brunswick in 1993, an M.Sc. in Computer Science in 1997 and a Ph.D. in Computer
`
`Science in 2001 both from the University of Toronto. Since receiving my Ph.D., I
`
`have been a member of the faculty of the Department of Computer Science at the
`
`1
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 2
`
`
`
`University of Toronto where my research has focused on human computer
`
`interaction (“HCI”), including the development of user interface technologies to
`
`improve HCI on a variety of computational platforms and application areas
`
`including mobile devices, video games, large displays, 3D displays, virtual and
`
`augmented reality technologies.
`
`6.
`
`In conjunction with my professorship, I serve as Co-Director of the
`
`Dynamic Graphics Project Laboratory at the University of Toronto that has twelve
`
`faculty members and roughly 50 graduate students and postdoctoral researchers
`
`working on various aspects of user interface technologies, display technologies,
`
`computer graphics, interactive technologies and virtual environments. Tech transfer
`
`of research to industry from this lab in recent years has resulted in several spin-off
`
`companies, including ones focused on 3D user interfaces, medical data visualization,
`
`virtual reality, and 3D architectural visualization and interaction.
`
`7.
`
`As part of my professorial duties, I teach and supervise graduate
`
`students and postdoctoral fellows in their research work. To date, 27 research M.Sc.
`
`students, 15 Ph.D. students, and 8 postdoctoral fellows have completed their
`
`research training under my guidance. Their research has led to theses and peer
`
`reviewed publications in over a broad range of topics covering interactive computing
`
`and user interfaces for multiple applications and technology platforms. I have taught
`
`courses covering computing topics including interactive computing, human-
`
`2
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 3
`
`
`
`computer interaction, and information systems and design, as well as courses
`
`covering game development topics including user interfaces for games including on
`
`virtual reality and augmented reality systems.
`
`8.
`
`I have published over 140 refereed publications in peer-reviewed
`
`journals. I have further presented numerous conference abstracts, posters, talks, and
`
`demonstrations in my field. My work has been cited more than 17,000 times across
`
`a spectrum of high-impact publications, and my current h-index score is 76, which
`
`is an indication of the significant impact of my research on scholarly literature in the
`
`field of Computer Science.
`
`9.
`
`I have received major awards and honors in my field. For example, in
`
`2007, I received an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship. In 2011, I was elected
`
`into the Association for Computing Machinery’s Computer Human Interaction
`
`Academy, which is an honorary group consisting of researchers who have made
`
`extensive contributions to the study of HCI and who have led the shaping of the HCI
`
`field. The stated criteria for being elected into the Association for Computing
`
`Machinery’s Computer Human Interaction Academy are: (1) cumulative
`
`contributions in the field; (2) impact on the field through development of new
`
`research directions and/or innovations; and (3) influence on the work of others.
`
`10.
`
`I have been a co-founder on a number of start-ups focusing on human-
`
`computer interfaces, including Bump Technologies (acquired by Google in 2010)
`
`3
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 4
`
`
`
`which developed a physically realistic desktop user interface system, Arcestra
`
`(formerly Sketch2 Corp) which developed software for designing 3D building
`
`layouts, and Conceptualiz which develops surgical planning technology.
`
`11. My research at the University of Toronto has involved nearly every
`
`broad aspect of human-computer interaction and data visualization. For instance, I
`
`have done significant work in the areas of input devices, displays, sensing
`
`technologies, interfaces to small and/or mobile computers, interfaces to displays of
`
`the future, and interaction techniques, including touch and multi-touch, gestural,
`
`sketching, and multi degree-of-freedom interactions. As another example, I have
`
`done work in the evaluation of user interfaces, including associated metrics and
`
`predictive models of human performance.
`
`12.
`
`In addition to my research at the University of Toronto, I have
`
`collaborated with researchers at leading institutions worldwide. For example, I have
`
`been a visiting professor at Laboratoire de Recherche en Informatique (LRI) at the
`
`Université Paris-Sud, France. Additionally, I have been a visiting researcher at
`
`several industrial laboratories, including: (1) HPLabs, (2) Mitsubishi Electric
`
`Research Laboratories (MERL), and (3) Microsoft Research Labs. At those
`
`companies, my work generally focused on developing new user interface techniques
`
`for a variety of technology platforms. Prior to becoming a professor, during my MSc
`
`and PhD studies, I was also concurrently a part-time researcher at Alias|wavefront
`
`4
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 5
`
`
`
`(now part of Autodesk), that was a leading developer of 3D graphics software
`
`applications.
`
`13.
`
`I have also served on the organizing and paper reviewing committees
`
`of many leading conferences in my field, and have taken on editorial roles for leading
`
`technical journals in fields pertinent to my research. For example, I have been an
`
`associate editor of the Association for Computing Machinery (“ACM”) Transactions
`
`on Computer-Human Interaction and an associate editor of the IEEE Transactions
`
`on Visualization and Computer Graphics, which are both peer-reviewed journals.
`
`Similarly, I have been the paper’s chair for the ACM UIST Symposium on User
`
`Interface Software and Technology, and have served multiple times as an associate
`
`chair for the ACM CHI Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Over my
`
`career, I have also reviewed hundreds of published and unpublished papers,
`
`including many on user interfaces for video games and video game technology more
`
`generally.
`
`14.
`
`I am the co-inventor on 20 patents, and have several patent applications
`
`pending, all in the area of user interfaces, including new techniques and technologies
`
`for handling user input to computational platforms in novel and more facile ways.
`
`15. Additionally, I have served as an expert witness in numerous patent
`
`actions, including in multiple IPR proceedings and ITC and district court cases,
`
`including for Apple in several actions against Samsung, HTC and other entities
`
`5
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 6
`
`
`
`involving multiple patents covering tablet and mobile phone interfaces, for Nintendo
`
`involving their Wii gaming technology, and for Oculus involving their virtual reality
`
`technology.
`
`16. My professional background and technical qualifications also are
`
`reflected in my Curriculum Vitae, which is attached as Ex. 1008.
`
`III. COMPENSATION AND RELATIONSHIP WITH PARTIES
`I am being compensated for my time. This compensation is not
`17.
`
`contingent upon my performance, the outcome of this matter, or any issues involved
`
`in or related to this matter.
`
`18.
`
`I have no financial interest in Petitioner or any related parties. I have
`
`been informed that GREE, Inc. (“GREE”) owns the challenged patents. I have no
`
`financial interest in and have no contact with GREE beyond the kinds of cursory
`
`interactions I often have with game industry professionals at conferences. I similarly
`
`have no financial interest in the challenged patents and have not had any contact
`
`with the named inventors.
`
`IV. MATERIAL CONSIDERED
`I have reviewed and considered, in the preparation of this declaration,
`19.
`
`the ’708 patent (Ex. 1001) and the prosecution file history for the ’708 patent
`
`(Ex. 1002). I additionally reviewed and considered U.S. Patent No. 10,413,832 (the
`
`“’832 patent”) (Ex. 1003) and its prosecution history (Ex. 1004), as well as U.S.
`
`6
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 7
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,583,365 (the “’365 patent”) (Ex. 1005) and its prosecution history
`
`(Ex. 1006). The ’832 patent is a child of the ’708 patent, and the ’365 patent is a
`
`grandchild of the ’708 patent.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that, for purposes of determining whether a reference will
`
`qualify as prior art, the challenged claims of the challenged patents are entitled to an
`
`effective filing date of no earlier than June 21, 2012.
`
`21.
`
`I have also reviewed and understand various publications as discussed
`
`herein, including the following references:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,511,285 to Hawkins (“Hawkins”) (Ex. 1022)
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0051114 to Robbers et al. (“Robbers”)
`
`(Ex. 1023)
`
`c.
`
`Scrabble Complete PC Manual, Infogrames Interactive, Inc.,
`
`2002 (“SCM”) (Ex. 1016)
`
`d.
`
`U.S. Patent 8,352,542 to Stroffolino (“Stroffolino”) (Ex. 1024)
`
`22.
`
`I understand that the above references form the basis for the ground for
`
`rejection set forth in the Petitions for Inter Partes Review of the challenged patents.
`
`Additionally, I am aware of information generally available to, and relied upon by,
`
`persons of ordinary skill in the art (POSITAs) at the effective filing date, including
`
`computer games, technical dictionaries and technical reference materials (including,
`
`7
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 8
`
`
`
`for example, textbooks, manuals, technical papers, articles, and relevant technical
`
`standards); some of my statements below are expressly based on such awareness.
`
`23. Due to procedural limitations for Inter Partes Reviews, the grounds for
`
`invalidity discussed herein are based solely on prior patents and other printed
`
`publications. I understand that Petitioner and the other interested parties reserve all
`
`rights to assert other grounds for invalidity not addressed herein at a later time, for
`
`instance failure of the application to claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 101, failure to meet requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (e.g., lack of written
`
`description in support of the claims) and anticipation/obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102 and 103 not based solely on patents and printed publications (e.g., evidence
`
`of prior use of combinations of elements claimed in the ’708 patent). Thus, absence
`
`of discussion of such matters here should not be interpreted as indicating that there
`
`are no such additional grounds for invalidity of the challenged patents.
`
`24.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement my opinions to address any
`
`information obtained, or positions taken, based on any new information that comes
`
`to light throughout this proceeding.
`
`V. BASIS OF OPINIONS FORMED
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`It is my understanding that the challenged patents are to be interpreted
`25.
`
`based on how they would be read by a person of “ordinary skill in the art”
`
`8
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 9
`
`
`
`(“POSITA”) at the time of the effective filing date of the application. It is my
`
`understanding that factors such as the education level of those working in the field,
`
`the sophistication of the technology, the types of problems encountered in the art,
`
`the prior art solutions to those problems, and the speed at which innovations are
`
`made may help establish the level of skill in the art.
`
`26.
`
`I am familiar with the technology at issue and the state of the art at the
`
`effective filing date of the challenged patents, June 21, 2012.
`
`27.
`
`In my opinion, the level of ordinary skill in the art of the challenged
`
`patents at the time of the effective filing date is a person with a bachelor’s degree in
`
`game design, interactive design/media, computer science, computer engineering, or
`
`a related field, with at least two years of professional experience working in
`
`computer game design. With more education, such as additional graduate degrees
`
`or study, less professional experience is needed to attain the ordinary level of skill.
`
`Similarly, with more experiential knowledge of computer games, such as experience
`
`developed while researching and developing computer games, less professional
`
`experience is needed to attain the ordinary level of skill.
`
`28.
`
`I consider myself to have at least such ordinary skill in the art with
`
`respect to the subject matter of the challenged patents at the time of the effective
`
`filing date.
`
`9
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 10
`
`
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED PATENT
`29. The challenged patent ’708 patent is entitled “Game Control Method,
`
`Game Server, and Program.” The challenged patent includes 3 claims, all of which
`
`are challenged in the Petition for Inter Partes review of the challenged patent.
`
`Purported Invention of the Challenged Patents
`A.
`30. The challenged patent generally relates to ways of acquiring virtual
`
`items in video games. According to the Background and Summary sections of the
`
`challenged patent, a battle game may be played by a user having a deck “formed by
`
`a plurality of battle cards” used to compete with other users, and that users can
`
`acquire battle cards by various methods. Ex. 1001 at 1:20-28. However, the patent
`
`notes that if methods for acquiring battle cards in a battle game and the like are
`
`limited, users may lose interest in the game. Id. at 1:40-42. For example, if “it is
`
`difficult to acquire a battle card or the like with a high rarity value, the user ends up
`
`with the impression that such an item cannot be acquired at all and suffers a drastic
`
`loss of interest in the game.” Id. at 1:43-46.
`
`31. According to the challenged patent, a solution to this problem involving
`
`item acquisition in video games is to “increase the variations on methods for
`
`acquiring battle cards and the like, increase the predictability of acquisition of a card
`
`or the like with a high rarity value or the like, and heighten interest in the game.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:47-53. The challenged patent argues that this would provide the user
`
`10
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 11
`
`
`
`“with incentive to increase the occasions of an item acquisition request and is enticed
`
`to continue playing the game longer.” Id. at 10:39-41.
`
`32. FIG. 1 of the ’708 patent, reproduced below, shows a communication
`
`terminal 2, operated by a user, that communicates with a server (e.g., “battle game
`
`server” 1) over a network during gameplay.
`
`
`
`33. The Specification of the patent describes that a battle game server
`
`contains a memory that “stores information on items to provide, a total count of
`
`items, item type, and an acquisition count,” where “[a]n ‘item’ refers to any of a
`
`variety of objects used within a game, such as a battle card constituting a user’s deck,
`
`a character, a weapon, armor, an ornament, a plant, food, and the like.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`4:9-14. The item information may be stored among a plurality of item information
`
`tables. Id. at 17-18. FIGs. 2A to 2C illustrate example item information tables.
`
`11
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`34. The ’708 patent further describes that the communication terminal may
`
`request to present information relating to acquirable items from the game server. For
`
`example, “when a request
`
`to present
`
`information
`
`is received from
`
`the
`
`communication terminal 2 via the communication unit 10,” the information
`
`presentation unit 12 determines information to present to the communication
`
`terminal based on the item information tables 111 a to 111 c. Ex. 1001 at 4:65-5:11.
`
`12
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 13
`
`
`
`35. The information presented by the information presentation unit 12 may
`
`comprise “acquirable item information.” The ’708 describes that in some
`
`embodiments, the information presentation unit 12 “tallies the total count of items
`
`for each item type [and] also refers to the user information table 112 to calculate the
`
`acquisition count of items for each item type based on the identification information
`
`of provided items and the table identification information that correspond to the user
`
`identification information pertaining to the communication terminal 2 [and] presents
`
`the communication terminal 2, via the communication unit 10, with the result of
`
`calculation as the acquirable item information.” Ex. 1001 at 4:65-5:11. In some
`
`embodiments of “the game control method according to the present invention, the
`
`acquirable item information for the first item may include identification information
`
`or an image for an item.” Id. at 2:11-14. In some cases, “the control unit 13 may
`
`adopt a different method for presenting the acquirable item information to the
`
`communication terminal 2” for items of different types, in which “the information
`
`presentation unit 12 may display an image for the first item yet display only the item
`
`name or the like, without displaying an image, for the second item. In other words,
`
`the acquirable item information that the information presentation unit 12 presents
`
`for the first item may include identification information (item name or the like) or
`
`an image for the item.” Id. at 8:15-27.
`
`13
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 14
`
`
`
`36. FIG. 5 of the ’708 patent shows an example of “acquirable item
`
`information that the information presentation unit 12 presents… when a request to
`
`present information is received from the communication terminal 2.” For example,
`
`FIG. 5 illustrates “information 501 on the total count and information 502 on the
`
`acquisition count of items for each item type are presented to the communication
`
`terminal 2.” Ex. 1001 at 5:18-21. The Specification also notes that “a non-
`
`acquisition count may be presented by subtracting the acquisition count from the
`
`total count of items.” Id. at 5:22-25.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 15
`
`
`
`37. The server may further receive an item acquisition request from the
`
`player at the communication terminal, whereupon the “control unit 13 determines
`
`one item to provide to the communication terminal 2 based on information
`
`corresponding to the user identification information pertaining to the communication
`
`terminal 2” and “provides the item to the communication terminal 2 via the
`
`communication unit 10.” Ex. 1001 at 5:29-32.
`
`38. FIG. 9 of the ’708 patent illustrates an example screen that the
`
`information presentation unit may transmit to the communication terminal for
`
`display. As illustrated in FIG. 9, the displayed interface may comprise a “sheet”
`
`composed of a plurality of “cells,” where each cell corresponds to an item. See
`
`Ex. 1001 at 11:52-60. The user can select a cell using an operation unit “such as a
`
`key or a touch panel of the communication terminal 2, and the communication
`
`terminal 2 transmits a selection request to the battle game server 1 based on the user
`
`operation.” Id. at 12:37-42. In response, “[t]he control unit 13 of the battle game
`
`server 1 then determines that the item corresponding to the cell pertaining to the
`
`selection request is the item to provide to the communication terminal 2.” Id. at
`
`12:42-44.
`
`15
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`39. The cells may be displayed having certain patterns. For example, the
`
`pattern of a displayed cell may be based on an item type or rarity value of the item
`
`associated with the cell (e.g., “when the numerical value of the item type is at least
`
`a predetermined value, the pattern shown in cell 301 and the like is displayed….
`
`Conversely, when the item type is less than the predetermined value, the pattern
`
`16
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 17
`
`
`
`shown in cell 302 and the like is displayed”). Ex. 1001 at 11:61-66. In some cases,
`
`the cells may be displayed “with the same pattern,” while selected cells may be
`
`displayed having a pattern based upon item type. See id. at 12:25-28, 45-49.
`
`Alternatively, the cells may be displayed with “a predetermined icon, character, or
`
`the like” indicating item type or rarity value in lieu of a pattern. Id. at 9:63-67.
`
`40. The concept of presenting cells associated with items and displaying
`
`items in response to a received selection request is employed with generic computer
`
`equipment. The specification states that “[a] computer is preferably used to function
`
`as the battle game server 1,” where a “program containing a description of the
`
`processing for achieving the functions of the battle game server 1 is stored in the
`
`memory unit of the computer, and the functions are achieved by the central
`
`processing unit (CPU) of the computer reading and executing the program.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 13:14-19. The components of the computer, e.g., the “information
`
`presentation unit,” “control unit,” “communication unit,” and “memory unit,” are
`
`described in purely functional and generic terms. See generally Ex. 1001 at 3:65-
`
`4:5 & Fig. 1.
`
`41. The specification also describes generic computer functionality for
`
`storing the information maintained by the computer / server. See generally Ex. 1001
`
`at 4:6-23. The information is stored within a generic “memory unit” of the battle
`
`game server “by dividing the information among tables,” functionally described as
`
`17
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 18
`
`
`
`an “item information table,” a “user information table,” and “item data.” See id. at
`
`4:6-44.
`
`42. The independent claims of the ’708 patent recite variations on the same
`
`four basic elements: (a) initializing a virtual game; (b) displaying, during the virtual
`
`game, a plurality of cells and acquirable item information that is received from a
`
`server over a communication line, the plurality of cells being displayed in the same
`
`size, wherein each of a plurality of items extracted from an item information table
`
`pertaining to a user is associated with each of the plurality of cells, the plurality of
`
`items being selected randomly only from items in the item information table, and at
`
`least one of the cells including a character which indicates a rarity value of an item
`
`associated with the at least one of the cells; (c) receiving, during the virtual game, a
`
`selection request selecting one of the plurality of cells and sending the selection
`
`request to the server; and (d) displaying, during the virtual game, an item associated
`
`with the selected cell, which is determined by the server based on the selection
`
`request. Ex. 1001 at 13:51-14:55.
`
`43. Claim 1, for example, recites a game control method that comprises
`
`elements (a) through (d). Ex. 1001 at 13:51-14:13. Claim 2 recites a computer
`
`comprising a controller configured to perform (a) and (c), and a display for
`
`performing (b) and (d). Id. at 14:14-33. Claim 3 recites a non-transitory computer
`
`18
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 19
`
`
`
`readable recording medium having stored thereon instructions to be executed on a
`
`computer to cause the computer to perform elements (a) through (d). Id. at 14:34-55.
`
`Prosecution History
`B.
`44. The ’708 patent was filed on December 18, 2014 as Application Serial
`
`No. 14/409,219 (“the ’219 application”), and claims priority to PCT Application
`
`Serial No. PCT/JP2013/003899, filed on June 21, 2013. Foreign priority is claimed
`
`back to Japanese Application No. 2012-140213, filed June 21, 2012.
`
`45. The ’219 application was originally filed with claims 1-15, and
`
`assigned to art unit 3717. See Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,076,708
`
`(“Ex. 1002”) at 351, 854. On December 1, 2016, a Non-Final Office Action was
`
`issued in the ’219 application, rejecting claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being
`
`directed to non-statutory subject matter, and under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as
`
`being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0038716 to Endo (“Endo”). Id. at
`
`290-297. In an amendment filed on March 30, 2017, Applicant amended the claims
`
`1-4, 6-9, and 11-14 significantly, and cancelled claims 5, 10, and 15. In addition,
`
`Applicant argued that claims were allowable under 35 U.S.C. 101 and that Endo did
`
`not quality as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). Id. at 261-270.
`
`46. On August 25, 2017, a Final Office Action was issued in the ’219
`
`application, rejecting the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 101. Id. at 194-
`
`200. In an amendment filed on December 18, 2017, Applicant amended the
`
`19
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 20
`
`
`
`independent claims to include an additional element of “at least one of the cells
`
`containing an item type for which the user does not have the highest acquisition
`
`count,” and argued that the claims were allowable under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
`
`“tilting the deck in favor of rarer items or more desirable items is not routine or
`
`conventional.” Id. at 183-190. Following an Advisory Action issued on December
`
`18, 2017, in which the Examiner indicated that further search and consideration
`
`would be needed, Applicant filed a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) on
`
`December 22, 2017. Id. at 179-182; 171-172.
`
`47. On February 9, 2018, a Non-Final Office Action was issued in the ’219
`
`application, rejecting the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, as well as
`
`35 U.S.C. 112 for failing to comply with the written description requirement as the
`
`“Examiner was unable to find support for ‘and at least one of the cells containing an
`
`item type for which the user does not have the highest acquisition count.’” Id. at
`
`159-167. On April 26, 2018, Applicant amended the claims to remove the element
`
`of at least one of the cells “containing an item type for which the user does not have
`
`the highest acquisition count,” instead replacing the element with at least one of the
`
`cells “including a character which indicates a rarity value of an item associated with
`
`the at least one of the cells.” Id. at 151-155. In addition, Applicant amended the
`
`independent claims to recite the element of “initializing a virtual game,” and
`
`specified that the remaining steps of the claim took place “during the virtual game.”
`
`20
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 21
`
`
`
`Id. Applicant further cancelled all dependent claims. Id. In their response,
`
`Applicant argued that the combination of the claimed steps being “performed during
`
`the virtual game” and the feature of “at least one of the cells including a character
`
`which indicates a rarity value of an item associated with the at least one of the cells”
`
`represented “significantly more than the abstract idea of inventory management.”
`
`Applicant also clarified that the feature of “at least one of the cells including a
`
`character which indicates a rarity value of an item associated with the at least one of
`
`the cells” may be “understood with reference to the publication of this application,
`
`with paragraph [0089] disclosing that each cell may be a ‘character’ in lieu of the
`
`‘pattern’ in accordance with the ‘item type’ as in paragraph [0087], and paragraph
`
`[0040] describing the ‘item type’ as representing the rarity value.” Id. at 154.
`
`48. The examiner issued a Notice of Allowance on May 25, 2018. Id. at
`
`138. Applicant filed an Information Disclosure Statement on July 11, 2018
`
`containing additional references cited in a foreign counterpart application, which
`
`was acknowledged by the Examiner on July 23, 2018, and Applicant proceeded to
`
`pay the issue fee on August 14, 2018. Id. at 2, 9-10, 13.
`
`VII. LEGAL STANDARD FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`It is my understanding that “[i]n an inter partes review proceeding, a
`49.
`
`claim of a patent…shall be construed using the same claim construction standard
`
`that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b),
`
`21
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 22
`
`
`
`including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the
`
`prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`50.
`
`I am not a patent attorney and my opinions are limited to what I believe
`
`a POSITA would have understood the meaning of certain claim terms to be, based
`
`on the patent specifications and prosecution histories.
`
`51.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA would have had no difficulty applying the
`
`plain and ordinary meanings of the majority of terms used in the claims.
`
`52.
`
`In my opinion, in view of the disclosures in the specification of the ’708
`
`patent and the prosecution history of the patent family, the claim term “acquirable
`
`item information” may require further explanation. The term “acquirable item
`
`information” is used in many places throughout the specification of the ’708 patent.
`
`For example, the specification of the ’708 patent states that for some embodiments,
`
`“acquirable item information” may “for each item type, includes a total count and
`
`an acquisition count or a non-acquisition count of items.” Ex. 1001 at 2:27-29. The
`
`specification also states that “[i]n the game server according to the present invention,
`
`the acquirable item information for the first item may include identification
`
`information or an image for an item.” Id. at 2:46-48. The specification further states
`
`that in some embodiments “the control unit 13 may adopt a different method for
`
`presenting the acquirable item information to the communication terminal 2” for
`
`22
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1007
`Page 23
`
`
`
`items of different types, in which “the information presentation unit 12 may display
`
`an image for the first item yet display only the item name or the like, without
`
`displaying an image, for the second item. In other words, the acquirable item
`
`information that the information presentation unit 12 presents for the first item may
`
`include identification information (item name or the like) or an image for the item.”
`
`Id. at 8:15-27. The Specification also states that “acquirable item information” may
`
`include a “retrieved count of necessary attempts for acquisition for each item” for
`
`items of certain types. Id. at 9:13-15. As such, I believe that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood “acquirable item information” as being any
`
`type of information pertaining to items associated with displayed cells that the player
`
`can acquire during the virtual game, which may include but is not limited to a total
`
`count, an acquisition count, a non-acquisition count, identification information such
`
`as item name, an image of the item, number of attempts needed to acquire the item,
`
`etc.
`
`53.
`
`In addition, the original independent claims of the ’219 application
`
`when filed contained the element “presenting a communication terminal… with
`
`acquirable item information that, for each item type, includes a total count and an
`
`acquisition count or a non-acquisition count of items.” Ex. 1002 at 854. However,
`
`in an amendment made on March 30, 2017, the Applicant removed this element and
`
`replaced it with “displaying a plurality of cells and acquirable item information that
`
`23