Patent No. 10,076,708 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Filed on behalf of Supercell Oy
`
`By:
`JENNIFER R. BUSH, Reg. No 50,784
`MICHAEL J. SACKSTEDER
`BRIAN HOFFMAN, Reg. No. 39,713
`KEVIN X. MCGANN, Reg. No. 48,793
`GREGORY HOPEWELL, Reg. No. 66,012
`GEOFFREY MILLER
`ERIC ZHOU, Reg. No. 68,842
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone: 650.988.8500
`Facsimile: 650.938.5200
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. ___________________
`Patent 10,076,708 B2
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT 10,076,708
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,076,708 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ...................................................................... 1
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ..................................... 1
`B.
`Fees for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)) ............................ 1
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)) ............................................. 1
`D. Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(3)) ....... 2
`E.
`Service of Information (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(4)) ...................................... 2
`III. THRESHOLD FOR REVIEW (35 U.S.C. § 314(a)) ...................................... 2
`IV.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED .......................... 2
`V. DESCRIPTION OF THE ’708 PATENT ........................................................ 3
`A.
`The Effective Filing Date of the ’708 Patent ........................................ 3
`B.
`Specification .......................................................................................... 4
`C.
`The Claimed Invention ........................................................................ 10
`D.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 12
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 14
`VII. CLAIM INTERPRETATION ....................................................................... 14
`A.
`“acquirable item information” of claims 1-3 ...................................... 16
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 18
`A.
`The core features of the ’708 patent were common
`in gaming long before the alleged invention ....................................... 18
`Hawkins ............................................................................................... 25
`Robbers ................................................................................................ 34
`
`B.
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,795,873 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`Page
`
`D.
`SCM ..................................................................................................... 36
`Stroffolino ........................................................................................... 39
`E.
`IX. GROUND I: CLAIMS 1-3 ARE RENDERED OBVIOUS BY
`HAWKINS IN VIEW OF ROBBERS .......................................................... 42
`A. Hawkins discloses the preambles of claims 1-3 .................................. 43
`B.
`Hawkins discloses “initializing a virtual game” of claims 1-3 ........... 44
`C.
`Hawkins discloses “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”
`of claims 1-3 ........................................................................................ 44
`D. Hawkins discloses “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” of claims 1-3 ............................. 48
`Hawkins and Robbers disclose “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” of
`claims 1-3 ............................................................................................ 49
`Hawkins discloses “receiving, during the virtual game,
`a selection request selecting one of the plurality of cells
`and sending the selection request to the server” of claims 1
`and 3, and “the controller is configured to (i) receive…
`a selection request selecting one of the plurality of cells,
`and (ii) send… the selection request to the server” of
`claim 2 ................................................................................................. 51
`G. Hawkins discloses “displaying, during the virtual game,
`an item associated with the selected cell, which is determined
`by the server based on the selection request” of claims 1-3 ............... 52
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,795,873 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`H. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine
`Hawkins with Robbers ........................................................................ 53
`X. GROUND II: CLAIMS 1-3 ARE RENDERED OBVIOUS
`BY SCM IN VIEW OF STROFFOLINO ..................................................... 55
`A.
`SCM discloses the preambles of claims 1-3 ....................................... 55
`B.
`SCM discloses “initializing a virtual game” of claims 1-3 ................. 55
`C.
`SCM and Stroffolino disclose “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” of claims 1-3 ............................................................ 56
`SCM and Stroffolino disclose “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” of claims 1-3..................... 59
`SCM discloses “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” of claims 1-3 .......................................... 61
`SCM and Stroffolino disclose “receiving, during the virtual
`game, a selection request selecting one of the plurality of
`cells and sending the selection request to the server” of
`claims 1 and 3, and “the controller is configured to
`(i) receive… a selection request selecting one of the
`plurality of cells, and (ii) send… the selection request to
`the server” of claim 2 .......................................................................... 62
`SCM and Stroffolino disclose “displaying, during the
`virtual game, an item associated with the selected cell,
`which is determined by the server based on the selection
`request” of claims 1-3.......................................................................... 64
`
`G.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,795,873 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`H. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine
`SCM with Stroffolino .......................................................................... 65
`XI. THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED UNDER
`§§ 314 OR 325 ............................................................................................... 67
`A.
`Section 325(d) is inapplicable because Petition does
`not assert art previously evaluated by the Office ................................ 67
`The Board Should Not Deny Institution Under Section 314(a). ......... 67
`B.
`XII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 71
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,413,832 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Apple v. Fintiv,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ......................................... 68
`Augustine Med., Inc. v. Gaymar Indus., Inc.,
`181 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 15
`General Plastic Indus. Co., v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 7, 2017)..................................... 67, 68
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 43
`KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 42
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 15
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2020) .................................... 68, 70
`Uniloc United States v. Avaya Inc.,
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168855 (E.D. TEx. April 19, 2017) .............................. 69
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 15
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................. 12, 13
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................... 3, 42
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................. 13, 15
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b) ................................................................................................... 14
`
`v
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,076,708 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .............................................................................................. 1, 15, 71
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ......................................................................................... 2, 67, 71
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................................... 67
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 15
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ................................................................................................... 71
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 2
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide Update,
`83 Fed. Reg. 39989 at 11 (Aug. 13, 2018) ......................................................... 67
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,413,832 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 CFR § 42.63(e))
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,076,708 to Yoshikawa
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,076,708
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,413,832 to Yoshikawa
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,413,832
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,583,365 to Yoshikawa
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,583,365
`
`Expert Declaration of Ravin Balakrishnan
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Ravin Balakrishnan
`
`Robert Corrina, “What is a Role Playing Game?”, Gamasutra,
`March 11, 2009
`
`“Secret of Monkey Island, The Download (Adventure
`Game)”, old-games.com
`
`Gus Mustrapa, “Scarce Borderlands Weapons Scratch That
`Old Diablo Itch”, WIRED, October 20, 2009
`
`“Vending Machine”, Borderlands Wiki, 13:39, February 25,
`2012 Revision
`
`M.J. Stephey, “A Brief History of Scrabble”, TIME, Dec. 7,
`2008
`
`Game Rules”, World English-Language Scrabble Players’
`Association (WESPA), Version 2.0, issued by the WESPA
`Rules Committee 17 November 2010
`
`1015
`
`Scrabble Dating, Donald Sauter
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,076,708 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`Description
`
`Scrabble Complete PC Manual, Infogrames Interactive, Inc.,
`2002
`
`Francis Chang et al., “Modeling Player Session Times of On-
`line Games”, NetGames '03: Proceedings of the 2nd
`workshop on Network and system support for games, May
`2003
`
`John Carter, “The Original Magic Rulebook”, December 25,
`2004
`
`“Rarity”, MTG Wiki, 29 Jan. 2010 Revision
`
`“Magic: The Gathering Online 3.0 and the Theory of Virtual
`Objects”, Gamespy, March 27, 2005
`
`“Now Everyone Can Play the Pokémon Trading Card Game
`Online”, Kotaku, August 25, 2011
`
`U.S. Patent 9,511,285 to Hawkins
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0051114 to Robbers et al.
`
`U.S. Patent 8,352,542 to Stroffolino
`
`“Scrabble/Rules”, Wikibooks
`
`Scrabble Complete (PC CD-ROM), Infogrames
`
`“Amazon.com: Scrabble Complete: Video Games”,
`Amazon.com
`
`“Hasbro Family Game Night: Scrabble Xbox Live
`Gameplay”, IGN, YouTube
`
`1029
`
`POPR, PGR2020-00053
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,076,708 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`Scott McKeown, Congress Urged to Investigate PTAB
`Discretionary Denials, Patents Post-Grant (June 30, 2020)
`
`Scott McKeown, District Court Trial Dates Tend to Slip After
`PTAB Discretionary Denials, Patents Post-Grant (July 24,
`2020)
`
`Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Relief re
`Governmental Restrictions re COVID-19 (19-00161),
`Dkt. 102
`
`Fourth Amended Docket Control Order (19-00310), Dkt. 62
`
`Plaintiff Gree, Inc.’s Paragraph 1 and 3 Initial and Additional
`Disclosures, Feb. 18, 2020 (19-00310)
`
`Defendant Supercell Oy’s Notice of Deposition of Tomoki
`Yasuhara, Aug. 7, 2020 (19-00310)
`
`Defendant Supercell Oy’s Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition
`of Plaintiff Gree, Inc.
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,076,708 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Supercell Oy (“Supercell” or “Petitioner”) hereby requests inter
`
`partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 of claims 1–3 of United States Patent No.
`
`10,076,708 to Yoshikawa, et al., titled “Game Control Method, Game Server, and
`
`Program” (the “’708 patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`II. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that the ’708 patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`of the ’708 patent.
`
`Fees for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a))
`B.
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a) to Deposit Account No. 19-2555.
`
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b))
`Petitioner Supercell Oy is the real party-in-interest. No other party had
`
`access to this Petition, and no other party exercised or could have exercised control
`
`over, or contributed to any funding of, the preparation or filing of this Petition.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner is aware of the following
`
`related matters: Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,413,832 and
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00310-JRG (E.D. Tex. January 28, 2020).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,076,708 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`D. Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(3))
`Petitioner designates Jennifer R. Bush (Reg. No. 50,784) as lead counsel and
`
`as back-up counsel: Michael J. Sacksteder (pro hac vice to be filed), Brian M.
`
`Hoffman (Reg. No. 39,713), Kevin X, McGann (Reg. No. 48,793), Gregory A.
`
`Hopewell (Reg. No. 66,012), Geoffrey Miller (pro hac vice to be filed), Eric Zhou
`
`(Reg. No. 68,842).
`
`Service of Information (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(4))
`E.
`Service of any documents via hand-delivery may be made at the postal
`
`mailing address of Fenwick & West LLP, 801 California Street, Mountain View,
`
`CA 94041 (Tel: (650) 988-8500 and Fax: (650) 988-5200), with courtesy copies to
`
`the email address JBush-PTAB@fenwick.com. Petitioner consents to electronic
`
`service to JBush-PTAB@fenwick.com.
`
`III. THRESHOLD FOR REVIEW (35 U.S.C. § 314(a))
`It is reasonably likely that Petitioner will prevail on at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in this Petition because the request shows that the subject matter recited
`
`in claims 1-3 of the ’708 patent was well known in the prior art. Any motivation to
`
`combine the prior art is provided herein as necessary.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioner requests the review and
`
`cancellation of claims 1-3 of the ’708 patent (the “challenged claims”). The
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable in view of the following prior art:
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,076,708 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`• 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)
`
`• Scrabble Complete PC Manual, Infogrames Interactive, Inc., 2002
`
`(“SCM”) (Ex. 1016)
`
`• U.S. Patent 8,352,542 to Stroffolino (“Stroffolino”) (Ex. 1024)
`
`The challenged claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3 are rendered obvious by Hawkins in view of Robbers.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-3 are rendered obvious by SCM in view of Stroffolino.
`
`See Ex. 1007, ¶¶21-24.
`
`V. DESCRIPTION OF THE ’708 PATENT
`A. The Effective Filing Date of the ’708 Patent
`The ’708 patent was filed on December 18, 2014 as U.S. 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. The
`
`earliest effective filing date of the ’708 patent is therefore June 21, 2012, and each
`
`of the grounds presented herein is based on prior art from before this date.
`
`Petitioner reserves the right to challenge any priority claim Patent Owner may
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,076,708 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`make to the priority applications in this or other proceedings. Ex. 1007, ¶¶19-20;
`
`¶29.
`
`Specification
`B.
`The ’708 patent generally relates to ways of acquiring virtual items in video
`
`games. According to the Background and Summary, a battle game may be played
`
`by a user having a deck “formed by a plurality of battle cards,” where users can
`
`acquire battle cards by various methods. Ex. 1001 at 1:20-28. However, if
`
`methods for acquiring battle cards are limited, users may lose interest in the game.
`
`Id. at 1:40-42; Ex. 1007, ¶30.
`
`The patent’s purported solution to the alleged 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 1:49-53; Ex. 1007, ¶31.
`
`FIG. 1 shows a communication terminal 2, operated by a user, that
`
`communicates with a “battle game server” over a network during gameplay.
`
`Ex. 1007, ¶32.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,076,708 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`The Specification of the ’708 patent describes a battle game server
`
`containing 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 4:11-16. The item information may be stored among a plurality of
`
`item information tables. Ex. 1001 at 4:17-23; Ex. 1007, ¶33. FIGs. 2A-2C
`
`illustrate example item information tables.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,076,708 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`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. Ex. 1001 at
`
`4:65-5:11; Ex. 1007, ¶34.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,076,708 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`The presented information may comprise “acquirable item information.”
`
`The ’708 patent describes that in some embodiments, the information presentation
`
`unit 12 “tallies the total count of items for each item type” and “refers to the user
`
`information table 112 to calculate the acquisition count of items for each item type
`
`based on […] user identification information,” and presents “the result of
`
`calculation as the acquirable item information.” Ex. 1001 at 4:65-5:11. In some
`
`embodiments acquirable item information “may include identification information
`
`or an image for an item.” Id. at 2:11-14. In some cases, the presented acquirable
`
`item information may be different for items of different types, e.g., “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.”
`
`Id. at 8:15-27; Ex. 1007, ¶¶35-36.
`
`The server may 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; Ex. 1007, ¶37.
`
`FIG. 9 of the ’708 patent illustrates an example screen that the information
`
`presentation unit may transmit to the communication terminal for display. The
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,076,708 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`displayed interface may comprise a plurality of “cells,” each corresponding to an
`
`item. See Ex. 1001 at 11:52-60. The user selects a cell using an operation unit
`
`“such as a key or a touch panel of the communication terminal 2,” which
`
`“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; Ex. 1007, ¶38.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,076,708 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`The cells may be displayed having certain patterns based on an item type or
`
`rarity value of the item associated with the cell. Ex. 1001 at 11:61-66.
`
`Alternatively, the cells may be displayed with “a predetermined icon, character” in
`
`lieu of a pattern. Id. at 12:15-19; Ex. 1007, ¶39.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,076,708 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`The concept of presenting cells associated with items and displaying items in
`
`response to a selection request is employed with generic computer equipment. The
`
`specification states that “[a] computer is preferably used to function as the battle
`
`game server,” 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; Ex. 1007,
`
`¶40.
`
`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
`
`“item information table,” “user information table,” and “item data.” See id. at 4:6-
`
`44; Ex. 1007, ¶41.
`
`C. The Claimed Invention
`All 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
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,076,708 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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; Ex. 1007, ¶42.
`
`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
`
`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; Ex. 1007, ¶43.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,076,708 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Prosecution History
`D.
`The ’708 patent was filed on December 18, 2014 as Application Serial No.
`
`14/409,219, originally 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, 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 anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0038716
`
`(“Endo”). Id. at 290-297. In an amendment filed on March 30, 2017, Applicant
`
`cancelled claims 5, 10, and 15, amended the remaining claims, and argued that the
`
`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; Ex. 1007, ¶¶44-45.
`
`On August 25, 2017, a Final Office Action was issued, rejecting the
`
`remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Id. at 194-200. On December
`
`18, 2017, Applicant amended the 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 receipt
`
`of an Advisory Action, Applicant filed a Request for Continued Examination on
`
`December 22, 2017. Id. at 179-182; 171-172; Ex. 1007, ¶46.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,076,708 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`On February 9, 2018, a Non-Final Office Action was issued, 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 replace the element objected to
`
`by the Examiner 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. Applicant further amended the independent claims to recite
`
`“initializing a virtual game,” and that the claimed steps take place “during the
`
`virtual game”, and cancelled all dependent claims. Id. Applicant argued that the
`
`combination of steps “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.” Id. at 154; Ex. 1007, ¶47.
`
`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; Ex. 1007, ¶48. Applicant
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,076,708 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`further filed a continuation application 16/053,149, later granted as U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,413,832. See Ex. 1003, Ex. 1004.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`would have had 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. Ex. 1007, ¶¶25-28.
`
`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 or developing computer games, less professional
`
`experience is needed to attain the ordinary level of skill. Id., ¶¶1-18; ¶¶25-28;
`
`¶¶71-84.
`
`VII. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`Claim terms subject to inter partes review are to 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), including construing the claim in accordance
`
`with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,076,708 — Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.”
`
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b))1; Ex. 1007, ¶¶49-54.
`
`Prosecution history “of a parent application may limit the scope of a later
`
`application using the same claim term.” Augustine Med., Inc. v. Gaymar Indus.,
`
`Inc., 181 F.3d 1291, 1300-01 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Statements made by the Applicant
`
`in related applications are relevant to the claim construction of terms claimed in an
`
`issued patent. See Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc., 357 F.3d 1340,
`
`1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“the prosecution history of one patent is relevant to an
`
`understanding of the scope of a common term in a second patent stemming from
`
`the same parent application”); see also Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings
`
`Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“a statement made by the patentee
`
`during prosecution history of a patent in the same family as the patent-in-suit can
`
`operate as a disclaimer.”).
`
`
`1 Petitioner expressly reserves the right to challenge one or more claims (and claim
`
`terms) of the ’708 patent for failure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`which cannot be raised in these proceedings. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). Nothing in
`
`this Petition, or the constructions provided herein, shall be construed as waiver of
`
`such challenge, or agreement that the requirements