Supercell Oy (Petitioner)
`v.
`GREE, Inc. (Patent Owner)
`Case PGR2018-00008 / U.S. Patent 9,597,594
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives
`Wednesday, November 28, 2018
`
`1:00 PM, Courtroom B
`
`PGR2018-00008
`Ex. 3002
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 1
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 1
`
`
`
`All Challenged Claims are Valid
`
`• The Challenged Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea
`
`• The Challenged Claims Survive Alice Step Two
`
`Patent Owner Response, Paper 24, at 22, 40; Patent Owner Sur-Reply,
`Paper 34, at 8, 19.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 2
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`• U.S. 9,597,594 – claims 1-20 are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 101
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 3
`
`
`
`‘594 Patent – Claim 12
`
`Ex. 1001, 28:10-25.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 4
`
`
`
`The Challenged Patent
`• The ‘594 patent identifies and addresses problems in the city-building
`game art that are unique to these games.
`
`Ex. 1001, at 1:42-60; Patent Owner Response, Paper 24 at 3.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 5
`
`
`
`The Challenged Patent
`
`Ex. 1001, Figs. 2B-2D, 4.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 6
`
`
`
`The Claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea
`
`• The challenged claims do not fall into any of the
`traditional categories of abstract ideas:
`– Mathematical algorithm
`– Purely mental process
`– Method of organizing human activity
`– Fundamental economic or commercial practice
`
`P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at 8.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 7
`
`
`
`The Claims Solve a Problem Arising in GUIs for the Genre of
`Video Games
`
`• The “claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in
`order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of
`computer networks.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d
`1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“It is this challenge of retaining control over the attention of the customer
`in the context of the Internet” that the challenged claims address. See
`id. at 1258.
`
`“…these claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems,
`resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.” Core
`Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363
`(Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 23-24; P.O.
`Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at 12.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 8
`
`
`
`The Claims Solve a Problem Arising in GUIs for the Genre of
`Video Games
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 29 (cited in P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 26.
`
`P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 26.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 9
`
`
`
`The Claims Recite Improvements to the Usability of a GUI
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 31 (cited in P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 26).
`
`See, e.g., claim 1:
`“…moving, by the computer, the game contents arranged at the first
`positions within the game space to the second positions of the game
`contents defined by the template within the predetermined area.”
`
`P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 26; P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at
`14.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 10
`
`
`
`Petitioner Admits the Disclosed Problem and Solution
`Provided by the ‘594 Patent
`
`• The “problem identified by the patent is that manually
`moving each individual game piece is cumbersome.”
`Petition, Paper 1, at 24.
`
`• “When a template is applied, facilities arranged within the
`game space are automatically changed to the facilities
`defined in the template, and they are automatically moved
`to the defined positions.” Petition, Paper 1, at 24 (emphasis
`in original).
`
`P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at 10.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 11
`
`
`
`Petitioner Argues…
`
`• Creating and applying a template…
`– …has been performed in Planet Bingo and correspondence chess.
`Petition, Paper 1, at 21.
`
`– …is manually achievable. Petition, Paper 1, at 23.
`
`– …can be performed on a general purpose computer. Petition, Paper
`1, at 26.
`
`P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at 10.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 12
`
`
`
`Neither Planet Bingo nor Correspondence Chess are
`Analogous
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 52 (cited in P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 32)
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 60 (cited in P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 37)
`
`P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 31-37; P.O. Sur-
`Reply, Paper 34, at 15-18.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 13
`
`
`
`Allegedly Analogous Examples Are Irrelevant and Insufficient
`to Meet Petitioner’s Burden
`
`“It is not enough, however, to merely trace the invention to
`some real-world analogy. The eligibility question is not
`whether anyone has ever used tabs to organize information.
`That question is reserved for §§ 102 and 103. The question of
`abstraction is whether the claim is ‘directed to’ the abstract
`idea itself.”
`
`Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2017-1135, 2018
`WL 4868029, at *8 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2018).
`
`P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at 15-16.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 14
`
`
`
`The Claimed Improvements are Not Manually Achievable
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 47 (cited in P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at 10).
`
`P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 39; P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at 9.
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 15
`
`
`
`Improvements on General Purpose Hardware are Not Abstract
`
`• “Moreover, we are not persuaded that the invention’s ability
`to run on a general-purpose computer dooms the claims.”
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016).
`
`• “Much of the advancement made in computer technology
`consists of improvements to software that, by their very
`nature, may not be defined by particular physical features
`but rather by logical structures and processes.” Id. at 1339.
`
`P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 27, 40; P.O. Sur-
`Reply, Paper 34, at 19.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 16
`
`
`
`The Claims Survive Alice Step Two
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 17
`
`
`
`Step Two Is Satisfied When the Claims are More than Well-
`Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity
`
`• “When the limitations…are taken together as an ordered
`combination, the claims recite an invention that is not
`merely the routine or conventional use of the Internet.”
`DDR, 773 F.3d at 1259.
`
`• “In short, the claimed solution amounts to an inventive
`concept for resolving this particular Internet-centric problem,
`rendering the claims patent-eligible.” Id.
`
`P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at 12.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 18
`
`
`
`The Claims are Patentable Under Alice Step Two
`
`Ex. 2004 § 31 (cited in P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 41).
`
`P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 41.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 19
`
`
`
`The Specification’s Improvements are Captured in the Claims
`
`Ex. 1001, at 3:30-34.
`
`P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 42; P.O. Sur-
`Reply, Paper 34, at 20.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 20
`
`
`
`Petitioner Fails to Provide Any Evidence from a Skilled Artisan
`
`“The question of whether a claim element or combination of
`elements is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a
`skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact.”
`Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368.
`
`P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at 4.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 21
`
`
`
`There is No Evidence Templates Were Well-Understood,
`Routine, or Conventional in Video Games
`
`Ex. 1001, at 1:27-38.
`
`P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 43.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 22
`
`
`
`Mr. Crane’s Testimony Stands Unrebutted
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 34 (cited in P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at 6).
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 42 (cited in P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 44.
`P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 44; P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at
`6.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 23
`
`
