UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`ZYNGA INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`IGT,
`Patent Owner
`____________________________
`U.S. Patent No. 8,795,064
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00200
`_________________________________________________________________
`PETITIONER'S HEARING DEMONSTRATIVES
`March 13, 2023
`____________________________________________________________________________
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`ZYNGA INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`IGT,
`Patent Owner
`____________________________
`U.S. Patent No. 8,795,064
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00200
`_________________________________________________________________
`PETITIONER'S HEARING DEMONSTRATIVES
`March 13, 2023
`____________________________________________________________________________
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`
`The '064 Patent
`
`Identify a player
`
`Track information associated with player
`
`first message
`determined
`Output
`on
`first
`set
`of
`tracked
`based
`information if a trigger condition occurs
`
`Output different, determined second
`message based on second set of tracked
`information if the same trigger condition
`occurs
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex 1001, '064 Patent at Claim 9
`(see also Paper 1, Petition at 12-13)
`
`2
`
`
`
`Overview of the Grounds
`
`Ground
`
`Ground 1
`
`Basis
`Claims 1-18 are obvious over Aristocrat and a
`POSITA's knowledge, or Aristocrat in view of
`Boushy
`
`Paper 1, Petition at 6
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`Aristocrat
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`Ex 1004, Aristocrat, 1:3-11, Figs. 7, 27
`(see also Paper 1, Petition at 15-18)
`
`
`
`Boushy
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`Ex 1005, Boushy, Abstract, Fig. 2B
`(see also Paper 1, Petition at 21-24)
`
`
`
`The Parties' Disputes
`
`1. Does Aristocrat teach the claimed message output steps under
`Patent Owner's erroneous, narrow construction?
`
`2. Do the claims require the output of two messages?
`
`3. Does the prior art teach tracking information "associated with
`[an] identified player"?
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`
`
`1. Does Aristocrat teach the claimed message output steps
`under Patent Owner's erroneous, narrow construction?
`
`Yes, Aristocrat teaches outputting multiple messages after
`the occurrence of a trigger condition.
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Sur-Reply Mischaracterizes Aristocrat and the
`Petition
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`But:
`
`• Aristocrat DOES TEACH outputting
`multiple messages following a single
`triggering event
`
`• The Petition DID NOT argue that
`Aristocrat's system is limited such that
`it always "track[s]" both the first and
`second set of information at the same
`time
`
`Paper 19, Sur-Reply at 2, 7
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`
`
`Aristocrat's Tracked Information, Messages, and Trigger
`Conditions Discussed in the Petition
`
`Paper 1, Petition at 39-40
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`Aristocrat Does Teach Outputting Multiple Messages
`Following a Single Triggering Event
`
`Ex 1004, Aristocrat, 6:9-13, 26:34-27:2
`(see also Paper 18, Reply at 12)
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`
`
`Aristocrat Does Teach Outputting Multiple Messages
`Following a Single Triggering Event
`
`Ex 1004, Aristocrat, Figs. 25(a), 27
`(see also Paper 1, Petition at 39-40;
`Paper 18, Reply at 13)
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`
`
`Aristocrat Itself Suggests Combination
`
`Ex 1004, Aristocrat, 23:10-13
`(see also Paper 18, Reply at 23)
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioner Is Permitted to Reply to Patent Owner's Arguments
`Under These Circumstances
`
`“[T]he petitioner in an inter partes review proceeding may
`introduce new evidence after the petition stage if the
`evidence is a legitimate reply to evidence introduced by the
`patent owner.”
`
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Elecs. Corp., 949 F.3d 697, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
`(quoting Anacor Pharms., Inc. v. Iancu, 889 F.3d 1372, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2018))
`(see also Paper 18, Reply at 16)
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`
`
`Prior to the Petition, Patent Owner Did Not Interpret the Claims As
`Requiring Multiple Message Outputs After One Triggering Event
`"first message"
`"second message"
`
`. . .
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`. . .
`Ex 1011 at 19-23, 55-59
`(see also Paper 18, Reply at 22)
`
`14
`
`
`
`As Noted in the Petition, Aristocrat Also Discloses that One or
`More Sets of Information Can Be Tracked at a Time
`
`Paper 1, Petition at 17
`
`Ex. 1004, Aristocrat, 11:8-16
`(See also Paper 1, Petition at 17)
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`
`
`As Argued in the Petition, Aristocrat Also Discloses that Different
`Sets of Information Can Be Tracked At Different Times
`
`Paper 1, Petition at 37-39
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`
`
`2. Do the claims require the output of two
`messages?
`
`No.
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Narrow Construction Is Inconsistent with
`the Claims
`
`• Tracking both sets of information at
`the same time is not required
`
`• Steps (c) and (d) are conditional and
`independent of each other
`
`•
`
`Includes no timing requirement for
`either tracking or message output
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex 1001, '064 Patent at Claim 9
`(see also Paper 18, Reply at 3-8)
`18
`
`
`
`The '064 Patent Explains that No Particular Message
`Output Timing Is Required
`
`Ex 1001, '064 Patent, 23:39-49
`(see also Paper 18, Reply at 9)
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`
`
`The '064 Patent Includes Embodiments Where Messages Are Not
`Output Simultaneously
`
`Ex 1001, '064 Patent, 61:42-46
`(see also Paper 18, Reply at 9-10)
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`
`
`The '064 Patent Teaches that Determined Messages Can
`be Queued For Later Output
`
`Ex 1001, '064 Patent, 51:13-16, Fig. 14A
`(see also Paper 18, Reply at 9)
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`
`
`3. Does the prior art teach tracking information
`"associated with [an] identified player"?
`
`Yes.
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Understanding of "Information Associated with the Identified
`Player" Excludes the Subject Matter of the '064 Patent's Dependent Claims
`
`Ex 1001, '064 Patent at Claim 4
`(see also Paper 18, Reply at 18)
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`
`
`The '064 Patent Specification Confirms that "Information Associated
`with the Identified Player" Includes Game Play Information
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex 1001, '064 Patent, 17:48-54, 51:17-47
`(see also Paper 18, Reply at 20)
`24
`
`
`
`The Information Tracked by Aristocrat Is Indistinguishable
`from that in the '064 Patent's Own Examples
`'064 Patent
`Aristocrat
`
`Ex 1001, '064 Patent, 19:65-67, 51:17-21
`(see also Paper 18, Reply at 20-21)
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex 1004, Aristocrat, 20:23-26, Figs. 25(b), 27
`(see also Paper 18, Reply at 20-21)
`25
`
`
`
`Aristocrat Repeatedly States that It Tracks "Player" Information
`
`Ex 1004, Aristocrat, 12:13-14; 20:23-31, 23:1-3, 24:13-15, 30:5-13
`(see also Paper 1, Petition at 30-31, Paper 18, Reply at 21)
`
`IPR2022-00200
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby confirms that the foregoing paper was caused to be
`
`served on March 6, 2023 via email upon the following counsel of record for Patent
`
`Owner:
`
`Charles C. Carson (ccarson@bakerlaw.com)
`Leif R. Sigmond, Jr. (lsigmond@bakerlaw.com)
`Jennifer M. Kurcz (jkurcz@bakerlaw.com)
`Daniel J. Goettle (dgoettle@bakerlaw.com)
`Robert L. Hails, Jr. (rhails@bakerlaw.com)
`BAKERHOSTETLER
`
`/K. Patrick Herman/
`K. Patrick Herman, Reg. No. 75,018
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`51 West 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019
`T: 212-506-3596; F: 212-506-5151
`Email: P52PTABDocket@orrick.com
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
