UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Zynga, Inc.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IGT,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,168,089
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2022-00199
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`Page
`Table of Authorities ................................................................................................. iii
`Exhibit List ................................................................................................................. v
`I.
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`II.
`Summary of the ’089 Patent ............................................................................ 2
`III. Legal Standards ............................................................................................... 4
`IV. Review of Prior Art ......................................................................................... 5
`A. Goldberg ................................................................................................ 6
`B.
`Olden ................................................................................................... 14
`C.
`D’Souza ............................................................................................... 17
`Claim Constructions ...................................................................................... 18
`V.
`VI. Level of Skill ................................................................................................. 18
`VII. Argument ....................................................................................................... 21
`A.
`Zynga’s Petition and the Crane Declaration Both Read the
`Patent’s Teachings into the Prior Art. ................................................. 22
`The Petition’s Proffered Motivation to Combine Goldberg’s and
`Olden’s Teachings is Fatally Flawed. ................................................. 27
`The Board Should Reject All Grounds Because the Prior Art Does
`Not Teach or Suggest Either to Transfer or Authorize Transfer of
`Gaming Software to a Second Device. ............................................... 31
`The Board Should Reject All Grounds Because the Petition Fails
`to Show that the Cited Prior Art Teaches the Monitoring
`Functions of a Software Authorization Agent .................................... 47
`The Board Should Reject All Grounds Because the Prior Art Fails
`to Teach Processing the Requests and Authorization Messaging as
`Claimed. .............................................................................................. 48
`The Board Should Reject Ground 2 Because Goldberg, Olden, and
`D’Souza Fail to Render Claims 49 or 50 Obvious, ............................. 52
`Zynga is Estopped from Pursuing this IPR. ........................................ 58
`G.
`VIII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 64
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Blackford v. Wilder,
`28 App. D.C. 535 (D.C. Cir. 1907) ...................................................................... 63
`Forest Labs., LLC v. Sigmapharm Labs., LLC,
`918 F.3d 928 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ......................................................................... 4, 45
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................... 4
`In re Shimer,
`69 F.2d 556 (CCPA 1934) ................................................................................... 64
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 5
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .................................................................................... 4, 5, 45
`Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`22 F.4th 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................... 20, 21
`Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ....................................................................... 5, 38
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................... 4, 5, 27
`Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment Co.,
`740 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ........................................................... 5, 21, 25, 39
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 27
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 4
`Agency Decisions
`Adama Makhteshim Ltd. v. Finchimica S.p.A.,
`IPR2016-00577, Paper 7 (PTAB May 24, 2016) .......................................... 62, 63
`Chemours Co. FC v. Mexichem Amanco Holdings SA,
`IPR2020-01667, Paper 10 (PTAB Mar. 25, 2021) .............................................. 63
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 41.127 ............................................................................................ 61, 62
`37 C.F.R. § 41.201 ................................................................................................... 62
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`37 C.F.R. § 41.208 ................................................................................................... 62
`Other Administrative Materials
`49 Fed. Reg. 48,416 (Dec. 1984) ............................................................................. 63
`MPEP § 2308.03 ...................................................................................................... 63
`MPEP § 2803.01 ...................................................................................................... 61
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`Decisions – Motions – 37 CFR § 41.125(a), Patent Interference No.
`105,747 (RES), Paper 145 (Feb. 14, 2014)
`
`Declaration – 37 CFR § 41.203(b), Patent Interference No. 105,747
`(RES), Paper 1 (Mar. 5, 2010)
`
`Standing Order, Patent Interference No. 105,747 (RES), Paper 2
`(Mar. 5, 2010)
`
`Legal iGaming List of Proposed Motions, Patent Interference No.
`105,747 (RES), Paper 20 (Apr. 28, 2010)
`
`Order – Authorizing Motions – 37 CFR § 41.121, Patent Interference
`No. 105,747 (RES), Paper 22 (May 3, 2010)
`
`Zynga Substantive Motion 3, Patent Interference No. 105,747 (RES),
`Paper 91 (July 9, 2013)
`
`Second Declaration of Charles R. Berg, Patent Interference No.
`105,747 (RES), Zynga Ex. 2015 (July 9, 2013)
`
`IGT Motion List, Patent Interference No. 105,747 (RES), Paper 21
`(Apr. 28, 2010)
`
`Decision – Interlocutory Motions – 37 C.F.R. § 41.125(b), Patent
`Interference No. 105,747 (RES), Paper 50 (Oct. 21, 2010)
`
`Docket Report, IGT et al. v. Zynga Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00331- ADA
`(W.D. Tex.) (generated March 9, 2022)
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, IGT et al. v. Zynga
`Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00331-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 7
`
`Claim Construction Order, IGT et al. v. Zynga Inc., No. 6:21-cv-
`00331-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 64
`
`Joint Notice of Agreed Extension of Deadlines, IGT et al. v. Zynga
`Inc., No. 6:21-cv- 00331-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 38.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`Joint Notice of Agreed Extension of Deadlines, IGT et al. v. Zynga
`Inc., No. 6:21-cv- 00331-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 55.
`
`Zynga Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, IGT et al. v. Zynga
`Inc., No. 6:21-cv- 00331-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 25.
`
`Zynga Inc.’s Reply Claim Construction Brief, IGT et al. v. Zynga Inc.,
`No. 6:21-cv- 00331-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 39.
`
`Judgment - Motions - 37 CFR § 41.127, Patent Interference No.
`105,747 (RES), paper 146.
`
`West Texas Judge Says He Can Move Faster Than PTAB, Law360,
`available at https://www.law360.com/articles/1224105/west-texas-
`judge-says-he-can-move-faster-than-ptab.
`
`Albright Says He'll Very Rarely Put Cases On Hold For PTAB,
`Law360, available at https://www.law360.com/articles/1381597/-
`albright-says-he-ll-very-rarely-put-cases-on-hold-for-ptab.
`
`The IP Rise of Waco and the Western District of Texas, National Law
`Review, available at https://www.natlawreview.com/article/move-
`over-marshall-there-s-new-sheriff-town-rise-waco-and-western-
`district-texas.
`
`available
`2019 Data Update, RPX Corp,
`Q1
`https://www.rpxcorp.com/intelligence/blog/q1-in-review-new-
`uncertainties-spark-further-change-as-reform-momentum-builds.
`
`at
`
`Order on Discovery, IGT et al. v. Zynga Inc., No. 6:21-cv- 00331-
`ADA (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 61.
`
`2023
`
`IGT Letter to Zynga (Sept. 25, 2020).
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`Defendant’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, IGT et al. v. Zynga
`Inc., No. 6:21-cv- 00331-ADA (W.D. Tex.).
`
`Defendant’s Opposed Motion to Transfer Venue to the Austin
`Division of the Western District of Texas, IGT et al. v. Zynga Inc.,
`No. 6:21-cv- 00331-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 63.
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`Order Granting Intra-District Transfer of Venue, Datascape, Ltd. v.
`Dell Techs, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00129-ADA (W.D. Tex.).
`
`E-mail to counsel re: IGT et al v. ZYNGA INC. (6:21-cv-00331-
`ADA) - Preliminary Constructions (Jan. 4, 2022).
`
`Docket Sheet, IGT et al. v. Zynga Inc., No. 6:21-cv- 00331-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.) (Apr. 18, 2022).
`
`Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Defendants Motion for Judgment on
`the Pleadings, IGT et al. v. Zynga Inc., No. 6:21-cv- 00331-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 68.
`
`Defendant’s Final Invalidity Contentions, IGT et al. v. Zynga Inc.,
`No. 6:21-cv- 00331-ADA (W.D. Tex.).
`
`Declaration of Craig Wills, Ph.D.
`
`Curriculum Vita of Craig Wills, Ph.D.
`
`from
`(video game), Wikipedia, downloaded
`Slot Machine
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slot_Machine_(video_game) Aug. 29,
`2022.
`
`Atari 2600, Wikipedia, downloaded from https://en.wikipedia.org/-
`wiki/Atari_2600 Aug. 29, 2022.
`
`2035
`Freedman, The Computer Glossary, p. 192, AMACOM (1998)
`2036 Webster’s New World Computer Dictionary, 10th ed., p. 177, Wiley
`Publishing (2003).
`
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner, IGT, respectfully requests that the Board reject the invalidity
`
`grounds proposed against claims 28-29, 31-33, 47-50, 84-86, 90-92, and 99-100 (the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,168,089 (the “’089 Patent”) because they
`
`are driven by hindsight. They ignore clear prior art teachings that would dissuade a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) from transferring gaming software to
`
`client machines. A first prior art reference retains gaming software on a web site to
`
`promote a perception of fairness among players. A second prior art reference keeps
`
`software on a webserver to keep it secure. The Petition ignores these teachings and,
`
`instead, shoehorns the references’ disclosures onto invalidity challenges using the
`
`Challenged Claims as a roadmap for its analysis. A POSITA, unaware of the ’089
`
`Patent’s claims, would be led along a different path, one that diverges from the
`
`claimed subject matter.
`
`Thus, when the prior art references are read for what they actually teach, the
`
`proposed grounds should be rejected. The prior art does not teach transferring
`
`gaming software to client devices in the manner contemplated by the Petition.
`
`Instead, it teaches keeping gaming software safe and sound on a web server. The
`
`prior art simply dissuades a skilled worker from using the techniques recited in the
`
`Challenged Claims.
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’089 PATENT
`The ’089 Patent is directed to managing downloads of gaming software
`
`among gaming machines. Electronic “download [of] gaming software is desirable
`
`because it may enable gaming machines to be quickly reconfigured to account for
`
`changes in popularity of various games played on the gaming machines and it may
`
`simplify software maintenance issues on the gaming machine[s].” Ex. 1001, col.
`
`4:3-9. Gaming software components may be executed on a gaming machine to play,
`
`for example, a game of chance. Id. col. 25:38-39.
`
`The ’089 Patent discloses, in one embodiment, a software distribution
`
`network that includes gaming machines 54-59 (blue), gaming software content
`
`providers 51, 52 (yellow), gaming software distributors 58, 60 (green), and a
`
`software authorization agent 50 (red):
`
`’089 Patent (Ex. 1001), FIG. 8 (annotated)
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`See generally, id. col. 24:27-31:57. The gaming software content providers 51, 52
`
`maintain various gaming software titles and make them available for download to
`
`their customers. Id. col. 25:27-37. The gaming software distributors 53, 60 may
`
`operate at casinos or other establishments, and may store licensed gaming software
`
`for transfer to the gaming machines. Id. col. 26:27-62. The gaming machines 55-
`
`59 download gaming software from appropriate software distributors 53, 60. Id.
`
`
`
`’089 Patent (Ex. 1001), FIG. 9 (annotated)
`
`The software authorization agent 50 manages downloads of gaming software
`
`to gaming machines 55-59. Id. col. 24:27-42. A “gaming software distributor 53 …
`
`may contact the software authorization agent 50 to request a transfer of gaming
`
`software … to another gaming device such as [a] gaming machine.” Id. col. 28:37-
`
`47. “The software authorization agent 50 may approve or deny the request.” When
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`the request is approved, the gaming software distributor 53 “may forward the gaming
`
`software to the gaming machine 55.” Id. col. 29:59-66.
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`A claim is obvious when “the differences between the subject matter sought
`
`to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
`
`have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`
`determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when available, objective evidence such as
`
`commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, and failure of others. Graham v.
`
`John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966); see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
`
`U.S. 398, 407 (2007) (the Graham “factors continue to define the inquiry that
`
`controls.”).
`
`Obviousness is not shown merely by showing that the prior art includes
`
`separate references covering separate limitations of a challenged claim. Forest
`
`Labs., LLC v. Sigmapharm Labs., LLC, 918 F.3d 928, 934 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Unigene
`
`Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Rather, it must be
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`shown that a POSITA at the time of the invention “would have selected and
`
`combined those prior art elements in the normal course of research and development
`
`to yield the claimed invention.” Id. As a corollary, a reference “teach[es] away
`
`when a person of ordinary skill … would be led in a direction divergent from the
`
`path that was taken by the applicant.” Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882
`
`F.3d 1056, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`In an IPR, the Board must remain aware “of the distortion caused by hindsight
`
`bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.” KSR, 550
`
`U.S. at 421. “[A] court must view the prior art without reading into that art the
`
`patent’s teachings.” Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 1564
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1984). For this reason, the obviousness test “focuses on evidence before
`
`the time of invention.” In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1260 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007).
`
`IV. REVIEW OF PRIOR ART
`Zynga’s Petition disregards these analytical rules. Rather than evaluate the
`
`references for what they disclose, the Petition foists purported “teachings” upon the
`
`prior art that the references themselves do not supply. In so doing, the Petition errs.
`
`Vandenberg, 740 F.2d at 1564. For this reason, it is necessary first to explain what
`
`the prior art actually teaches before addressing the errors in the Petition.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`A. Goldberg
`Goldberg discloses a game playing method and apparatus for automated
`
`casino games where [1] “players may play continuously and asynchronously,” and
`
`[2] “information related to advertised items can be exchanged between players and
`
`advertisers.” Ex. 1004, Abstract. Goldberg describes several system embodiments:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`
`Goldberg (Ex. 1004), FIGS. 1, 3, 6 & 8 (annotated) 1
`
`
`
`The FIG. 1 embodiment applies when a blackjack game controller 14 (yellow)
`
`communicates with gaming stations 18 (orange) in a casino. Id. col. 7:6-13. The
`
`other embodiments apply when gaming stations 18 (orange) access the game
`
`controller 14 (yellow) through an Internet web site 308. Id. cols. 14:29-36, 21:36-
`
`52, 28:44-58. In all cases, the blackjack game controller 14 has a common modular
`
`architecture.
`
`
`1 Goldberg illustrates the latter two embodiments in respective pairs of drawings:
`
`FIGS. 6A & 6B, and FIGS. 8A & 8B. For convenience, these embodiments are
`
`discussed as “FIG. 6” and “FIG. 8,” respectively.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`The blackjack game controller 14 has a blackjack player evaluator module 34
`
`(blue) that determines a player’s options during a game. Id. col. 8:50-63. A house
`
`blackjack playing module 42 (green) plays blackjack hands on behalf of the house.
`
`Id. col. 9:16-20. A blackjack hand evaluator 46 (red) determines outcomes—wins,
`
`losses, and ties—of individual games. Id. col. 9:35-48.
`
`The blackjack game controller 14 has a card generator module 38 (brown)
`
`that generates cards for blackjack hands. Id. col. 9:3-17. The card generator 38
`
`generates new cards at regular intervals (for example, every half-second) for as long
`
`as the blackjack game controller 14 is active. Id. cols. 15:64-16:5. Cards from the
`
`card generator 38 are not used in all games at all times. Id. col. 20:20-33. The
`
`blackjack game controller 14 generates new blackjack hands and accepts player
`
`requests for cards asynchronously, and, therefore, “substantially every blackjack
`
`game, even if played concurrently with other blackjack games, will have unique
`
`player hands and house hands.” Id. col. 20:53-56.
`
`Goldberg illustrates this process in FIG. 5. A single card sequence from the
`
`card generator 38 (row 604) is applied to the hands 610-626 asynchronously,
`
`yielding unique outcomes:
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`Goldberg (Ex. 1004), FIG. 5 (annotated)
`
`
`
`Goldberg identifies this operation as “an important aspect of the present invention.”
`
`Id. col. 20:20-25. The house receives cards from the same card sequence 604 as
`
`player hands, which promotes confidence that the games are fair:
`
`[N]ot only can a large number of asynchronous blackjack games be played
`simultaneously head-to-head with the house, but also there may be a
`greater degree of confidence by the blackjack players that the house is not
`manipulating card representations
`in
`that blackjack players may
`substantially determine the timing for substantially all hits in a blackjack
`game (for both the player hand and the house hand) and thereby reduce
`any suspicions that the card representations are being manipulated.
`
`Id. col. 20:56-64.
`
`Importantly, Goldberg places all gameplay functionality on a server no matter
`
`whether the controller 14 communicates with gaming stations 18 at a casino (FIG.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`1) or with client nodes 318 via the Internet (FIGS. 3, 6 & 8). Id. cols. 14:64-15:1,
`
`21:41-46. For Internet applications, client nodes 18 access the blackjack game
`
`controller 14 via a web site 308 that has an Internet interface 322 (bright green), a
`
`WWW server 340 (purple), and a variety of CGI scripts 348 (bright blue):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Goldberg (Ex. 1004), FIGS. 3, 6, 8 (annotated)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`See generally, id. col. 14:29-65. The Internet interface 322 “receiv[es] and
`
`suppl[ies] communications between the Internet 324 and the remainder of the web
`
`site 308.” Id. The WWW server 340 handles player registrations and activates web
`
`site modules in response to Internet requests. Id. The CGI scripts 348 interpret
`
`Internet requests according to semantics of an associated web site 308 application
`
`and construct Internet responses from the applications’ output. Id.
`
`The WWW server 340 validates player registrations using data from a player
`
`database 28 (pink, above):
`
`The Internet interface 332, in turn, communicates with World Wide Web
`server 340: (a) for validating and/or initiating registration of web site users
`(e.g., blackjack players) at web site 308; …
`[T]he World Wide Web server 340 may access the database system 28 for
`determining the registration identity of, for example, a blackjack player.
`
`Id. at 14:40-48. The database 28 “maintains in persistent storage information
`
`regarding each blackjack player,” including: (1) player identifications, (2) player
`
`financial status, (3) information regarding games underway for each player, and
`
`(4) information regarding tournaments in which each player is playing. Id. cols.
`
`7:65-8:27.
`
`Goldberg explains that the web site 308 is organized into a hierarchy of
`
`“access routes [to] access[] the features of the game/advertisement web site 308:”
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`Goldberg (Ex. 1004), FIG. 7 (annotated)
`
`
`
`See id. col. 25:24-40. The user reaches the opening page 700 “upon initiating
`
`Internet contact with the game/advertisement web site 308.” Id. col. 25:27-29.
`
`“Assuming the user is registered at the game/advertisement web site 308, the user
`
`may proceed from the LOBBY 708 to the game page 710, wherein a game 726 or
`
`game rules 730 can be selected for playing.” Id. col. 25:36-38. Thus, Goldberg
`
`discloses that a player navigates among four levels (red) of the website 308—the
`
`opening page 700, the lobby 700, the game page 710, and an introduction page 728—
`
`before arriving at the game 726 itself.
`
`In the Internet configurations, the games 726 are presented to client nodes 18
`
`as a series of web pages corresponding to the different events that occur during the
`
`game’s progression. Id. col. 14:52-58 (the CGI scripts 348 “construct[] Internet
`
`responses from output from the associated application[s].”), 15:39-44 (describing
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`“active buttons on a blackjack web page”), 24:17-18 (discussing “HTML output to
`
`the user by the common gateway interface 348.”). Each time a player takes an action
`
`in a game, a blackjack driver 26 receives a respective request, coordinates with the
`
`other game controller modules, and outputs a response in a new script-generated web
`
`page. Id. cols. 18:36-19:19; see also id. col. 16:42-48 (the CGI script 348 processes
`
`output from driver 26). Also during the course of each game, the blackjack driver
`
`26 “update[s] information in the database system 28 as the game configuration
`
`changes due to interactions between the player and the blackjack game controller
`
`14.” Id. col. 18:4-9. Thus, the web site 308 manages the progress of each game. See
`
`also, id. col. 15:54-19:50 (blackjack game controller 14 manages games and
`
`tournaments as in FIGS. 4A-4E according to game requests from client devices).
`
`Because games advance only in response to player requests from the client nodes
`
`318, delays in game state “could be as long as a number of days if the player, for
`
`example, did not request another hit during such a time interval.” Id. 20:32-35.
`
`As discussed, Goldberg foresees an ad-supported service. Id. Abstract, FIGS.
`
`6, 8. The system matches particular users with advertising based on data stored in
`
`their database 28 profiles. Id. col. 22:16-20. In this application, when a user
`
`completes registration, the system “downloads, for example, an ad viewer program
`
`812 and a communications daemon (e.g., ad receiver daemon 806) to the user’s
`
`Internet client node 318.” Id. col. 29:3-10. The daemon 806 downloads advertising
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`information to the client node 318. Id. The ad viewer program 812 displays the
`
`advertisements. Id. FIG. 8, col. 29:49-52. In this implementation, the advertising
`
`not only supports access to the game controller 14, but it also enables users to “access
`
`substantially the entire Internet through the web site 308 at a reduced cost.” Id. col.
`
`29:10-14.
`
`B. Olden
`Olden discloses a secure access management system for web-enabled and
`
`non-web-enabled applications in which “execution of applications and use of content
`
`by users of the computer network is controlled.” Ex. 1005, col. 1:6-10. Olden
`
`implements security by dividing applications into “application functions” and
`
`defining access rights (called “entitlements”) to each:
`
`Olden (Ex. 1005), FIG. 3
`
`
`
`Id. col. 7:64-67. “An entitlement gives a user access to an application on the Web”
`
`(id. col. 10:62-64), and may extend other rights beyond access (id. col. 31:61-32:5).
`
`The bulk of Olden’s disclosure is directed to techniques for defining entitlements for
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`system users at the “user,” “group,” and “realm” level. See id. FIGS. 5-27 and
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`related discussion.
`
`Olden’s security architecture includes, for
`
`web-enabled applications, webservers 20 (blue), an
`
`authorization
`
`server 24
`
`(purple), and an
`
`entitlements database 32 (green). Id. FIG. 1, col.
`
`3:40-4:64. For non-web-enabled applications, an
`
`API server 16 (brown) and an entitlements server
`
`14 (light blue) regulate access to application
`
`functions on a non-web server 30 (red). Id.
`
`The Web servers 20A, 20B, 20C provide
`
`Web-enabled applications and content to users.
`
`Olden (Ex. 1005), FIG. 1
`(annotated)
`
`Id. col. 4:5-57. The authorization server 24 handles access requests for the Web
`
`servers 20. Id. col. 5:5-7. Specifically, webserver plug-ins “quer[y] the primary
`
`authorization server 24A, 24B, or 24C for authorization requests,” and “[t]he
`
`primary authorization server 24A, 24B, or 24C queries the entitlements database 32
`
`for entitlements and responds to the requests from the plug-ins.” Id. col. 5:36-40.
`
`FIGS. 28 and 29 show the authentication servers’ operation:
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`
`
`
`Olden (Ex. 1005), FIGS. 28, 29
`
`Id. col. 23:46-54. As shown, the process involves determining whether a requested
`
`URL is protected, whether a requesting user is valid, and whether assigned
`
`entitlements require access to be allowed or denied.
`
`When access to an application function is allowed, Olden’s system “return[s]
`
`an interface supporting only the level of functionality that matches the service
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`contract of the customer.” Id. col. 9:10-14; see also id. col. 9:30-34 (interface
`
`determined by access rights). The applications themselves remain on the webservers
`
`20. Id. col. 1:45-49 (“Web applications are accessed across networks and operate
`
`on managed systems”), 10:57-61 (“a Web application can span multiple Web servers
`
`20A, 20B, 20C seamlessly.”). Olden has no teaching that any software is transferred
`
`outside of his system, for example, to client devices. Ex. 2031 ¶¶ 86-88.
`
`C. D’Souza
`D’Souza discloses techniques for downloading
`
`documents from the Internet as they are modified. A
`
`computer 20 (yellow) downloads a document 60 (blue),
`
`which makes it available for off-line use. Ex. 1011 col.
`
`1:7-11, 3:16-21, 7:1-7.
`
` The download
`
`repeats
`
`periodically any modifications of the document to a local
`
`cache 66 (green). Id. FIG. 2, cols. 6:43-50, 7:1-7.
`
`Specifically, a “web check” service 53 (red) downloads
`
`D’Souza (Ex. 1011),
`FIG. 2 (annotated)
`
`the document on a periodic basis. Id. col. 5:24-33. The update operations may occur
`
`at times when the computer normally is idle. Id. col. 8:21-25.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`In the Decision to Institute, the Board applied claim constructions as follows,
`
`taken from the counterpart district court case:
`
`Term
`
`Construction
`
`software
`authorization
`agent:
`
`a device that authorizes (that is approves or rejects)
`specific
`transfers of gaming software based on
`applicable rules, and monitors (that is tracks) these
`transfers
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`Note: data alone is not gaming software.
`
`gaming
`software:
`gaming
`machine: Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Dec. Inst. at 22 (citing Ex. 2012). IGT applied the district court’s constructions for
`
`purposes of this IPR.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF SKILL
`For this IPR, the Board should define the level of ordinary skill as “a degree
`
`in computer engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, along with 2
`
`years of professional experience in the fields of networking and network-based
`
`systems or applications, such as client-server and web-based systems, in the context
`
`of gaming or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience.” This
`
`definition adopts, in part, the definition applied by the Board in its institution
`
`decision. See Dec. Inst. at 19.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Wills, has a Ph.D in computer science and over 30
`
`years of experience in that field. See Exs. 2031 § I.A, 2032. His education and
`
`experience exceed the level of ordinary skill in this art.
`
`Zynga’s proposed definition adds additional qualifications that are unduly
`
`narrow given the ’089 Patent’s disclosure, namely:
`
`This POSITA would be aware of and generally knowledgeable about
`casino gaming systems, including the types of software running on casino
`gaming machines, the types of software casinos employ to allow
`customers to engage in remote gaming, and the types of authentication and
`network security systems employed by casinos at the time the ’089 patent
`was filed.
`
`Pet. at 26 (emphases added). The ’089 Patent explains that the claimed techniques
`
`apply to gaming machines generally, not solely to “casino gaming machines.” None
`
`of the Challenged Claims limit themselves to a “casino” implementation.
`
`The ’089 Patent, for example, explains that the proposed techniques apply for
`
`use with remote gaming devices including “a cell phone, a personal digital assistant,
`
`and a wireless game player.” Ex. 1001, col. 13:18-21. When discussing stand-alone
`
`gaming machines, the ’089 Patent identifies both casino-located embodiments (id.
`
`col. 29:59-60) and non-casino embodiments. Id. col. 30:9-12. Gaming machines
`
`may communicate with other elements by LAN (id. col. 29:59-60), satellite (id. col.
`
`30:9-12), Bluetooth and infrared (id. col. 31:31-37), or wireless cellular
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`communication (id. col. 31:37-38). The ’089 Patent discloses use of public/private
`
`encryption keys to keep communications secure. Id. col. 32:1-62. These are tools
`
`used in computer science generally, not tools that are specific to casinos. Ex. 2031
`
`¶¶ 101-102. Thus, Zynga’s list of additional qualification is unduly narrowing given
`
`the ’089 Patent’s disclosure and the recitations of the Challenged Claims.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner’s expert lacks experience in these fields, which
`
`necessitates striking his declaration if Zynga’s definition were applied. Kyocera
`
`Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2022) (it is an abuse of discretion to accept expert testimony on an issue analyzed
`
`through the lens of an ordinarily skilled artisan). Mr. Crane claims to have an
`
`experience level that exceeds Zynga’s proposed definitions simply because he has
`
`experience in casino-themed video games. Ex. 1003, ¶ 46 (referring to Ex. 1003, §
`
`II). He developed the Atari Slot Machine game program in 1978 for residential
`
`applications:
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00199
`
`Screenshot of Atari Slot Machine
`from Wikipedia (see Ex. 2033)
`
`
`
`The Atari 2600 from Wikipedia
`(see Ex. 2034)
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 9. But Mr. Crane’s declaration identifies nothing that suggests he has
`
`experience relating to