Paper No. __
`Filed: December 13, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case PGR2018-00039
`Patent 9,669,308
`____________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER'S RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.220
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 9,669,308
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`A. The 308 Patent ................................................................................................. 1
`
`B. Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 5
`
`1. "executing" ................................................................................................... 5
`
`2. "automatically determining a procedure for executing the battle to be a
`first mode for executing the battle based on at least one user operation
`received from the communication terminal" ............................................... 8
`
`III. THE PETITION FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT CLAIMS 1-8 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................ 11
`
`A. The Petition Fails to Establish that Claims 1-8 are Unpatentable Under 35
`U.S.C. §101 .................................................................................................... 11
`
`1. Claims 1-8 are Not "Directed to" an Abstract Idea .................................... 12
`
`a) Data Engine Tech. ................................................................................. 13
`
`b) Core Wireless ........................................................................................ 16
`
`c) Enfish ..................................................................................................... 19
`
`d) McRO .................................................................................................... 21
`
`e) Affinity Labs and Two-Way Media ........................................................ 23
`
`2. Claims 1-8 Also Recite an Inventive Concept that Otherwise Transforms
`the Alleged Abstract Idea into a Patent-Eligible Invention ....................... 24
`
`a) Berkheimer ............................................................................................ 26
`
`b) BASCOM ............................................................................................... 32
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`PGR2018-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 9,669,308
`
`3. Claims 1-8 Do Not Preempt All Ways of Practicing the Alleged Abstract
`Idea ............................................................................................................. 33
`
`B. The Petition Fails to Establish that Claims 1-8 are Unpatentable Under 35
`U.S.C. §112(a) ............................................................................................... 35
`
`1. The Disclosure Provides Adequate Written Description for "Executing the
`Battle with the Determined Procedure" ..................................................... 35
`
`2. The Disclosure Provides Adequate Written Description for Determining a
`Procedure for Executing the Battle Based on Whether the User has Battled
`an Opponent in the Past ............................................................................. 38
`
`3. The Disclosure Need Not Provide Adequate Written Description for
`Automatically Determining the Procedure to be the First Mode Based on a
`User Operation Received from the Communication Terminal.................. 41
`
`C. The Petition Fails to Establish that Claims 1-8 are Unpatentable Under 35
`U.S.C. §112(b) ............................................................................................... 41
`
`1. The Recited "Executing the Battle with the Determined Procedure," is
`Definite ...................................................................................................... 42
`
`2. The Recited "When the User has Not Battled with the Determined
`Opponent in the Past, Automatically Determining a Procedure for
`Executing the Battle to be a First Mode for Executing the Battle Based on
`at Least One User Operation Received from the Communication
`Terminal," is Definite ................................................................................ 43
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 45
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PGR2018-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 9,669,308
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................... 23, 24
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2004) ................................................................................. passim
`Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
`841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir., 2016) .................................................................... 18, 20
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 34
`BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 32, 33
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................... passim
`Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 5
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc.,
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................................... 16, 17, 18, 19
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ........................................................................................... 5
`Data Engine Tech. LLC v. Google LLC,
`906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................... passim
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................... 12, 19, 20
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 5
`In re Packard,
`751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 42
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 9,669,308
`
`
`In re Wertheim,
`541 F.2d 257 (CCPA 1976) .................................................................................. 35
`In re Zletz,
`893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................................................................................ 5
`Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 27
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... passim
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................................. 5
`Morton Int'l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co.,
`5 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ................................................................................ 41
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................................. 8
`Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc.,
`827 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 33, 34
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 34
`Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States,
`850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 12
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 23, 24
`Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............................................................................ 35
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §101 ................................................................................................. passim
`35 U.S.C. §102 ......................................................................................................... 29
`35 U.S.C. §103 ......................................................................................................... 29
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 9,669,308
`
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ................................................................................................. passim
`Rules
`37 CFR § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................... 5
`Other Authorities
`MPEP §2106.07(b) ................................................................................................... 33
`MPEP §2111.01(I) .............................................................................................. 5, 29
`MPEP §2111.01(IV)(A) ............................................................................................. 5
`MPEP §2163.02 ....................................................................................................... 35
`MPEP §2163.04 ....................................................................................................... 35
`MPEP §2173(II) ....................................................................................................... 41
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On March 5, 2018, Petitioner, Supercell Oy, filed a Petition requesting Post-
`
`Grant Review ("PGR") of U.S. Patent No. 9,669,308 ("308 Patent") owned by
`
`GREE, Inc. On September 13, 2018 The PTAB issued a Decision instituting the
`
`PGR (Paper 10, "Decision"). Despite the institution, as explained in detail below,
`
`the Petition fails to establish that (i) any claim of the 308 Patent is patent-ineligible
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §101, (ii) any claim of the 308 Patent lacks written description
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), or (iii) any claim of the 308 Patent is indefinite under 35
`
`U.S.C. §112(b).
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. The 308 Patent
`The 308 Patent discloses and claims a game server (with a corresponding
`
`
`
`method and program) that conducts a battle game over a network with a
`
`communication terminal operated by a player (i.e., user) of the game. For example,
`
`FIG. 1 below shows a schematic diagram of the game server 1 and communication
`
`terminal 2 connected over a network.
`
`

`

`
`
`PGGR2018-000039
`
`UU.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,6699,308
`
`
`
`game that
`
`
`
`can be connducted ussing the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OOne example of a type of battle
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claimedd server is aa turn-baseed combat--style gamee in whichh the user bbattles
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`opponennts one after another. Exhibit 11001, 1:27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-29, 5:57-663, and 12
`
`:58-13:41.
`
` In
`
`
`
`this typee of game, a user commpiles a deeck of virtuual cards thhat each reepresents aan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`action (e.g., attackk, recover,
`
`
`
`or assist)
`
`
`
`that a userr can makee against ann opponentt. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at 5:53--63 and 7:55-10. The uuser battlees the oppoonent over
`
`
`
`the course
`
`
`
` of a numbber
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of turnss. Id. at 7:226-33 and 13:29-41. In each tuurn, the useer selects aa virtual carrd
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that insttructs the uuser's charaacter to perrform a speecific actioon against
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the oppon
`
`ent
`
`
`
`and the opponent performs aan action aagainst the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`user's charracter. Id.
`
`
`
` The turnss
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`continue until eithher the userr's characteer or the oppponent is
`
`
`
`defeated.
`
`
`
`Id. at 7:188-33.
`
`
`
`The oppponent cann be one ennemy charaacter or a ggroup of ennemy charaacters. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7:54-588. This moode of play is referredd to in the 3308 Patentt as "manu
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"first mmode." Id. 88:32-37 annd 10:15-233. The maanual modee requires mmany user
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`at
`
`
`
`al mode" oor a
`
`

`

`
`inputs and the complex rendering of a manual mode battle screen 9. Id. at 12:58-
`
`PGR2018-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 9,669,308
`
`13:41.
`
`
`
`One problem recognized by the inventors in conventional combat-style
`
`games is that a user must manually battle each opponent, which requires many user
`
`operations for each battle. Id. at 1:41-44. This can become both tedious for the
`
`user and an unnecessary draw on system resources, especially when the opponent
`
`is an opponent with whom the user has battled with before. Id. at 1:21-49, 11:63-
`
`67, and 17:16-23. The disclosed and claimed game server 1 addresses these
`
`problems by providing the user with an option to conduct the battle in "auto
`
`mode," which is also referred to as a "second mode." Id. at 2:1-16, 3:44-56, and
`
`8:32-37. The "auto mode" requires less user inputs than manual mode and is less
`
`resource intensive on the game server 1 and the communication terminal 2. Id. at
`
`1:21-49, 11:63-67, and 17:16-23. This improved process is described in more
`
`detail below.
`
`
`
`To determine whether the auto mode will be offered to the user, the server
`
`consults the user's battle history 112, stored in a storage unit 11. Id. at 1:59-60,
`
`6:4-5, 7:59-61, and 17:9-11. The battle history indicates which opponents the user
`
`has battled in the past. Id. Optionally, the battle history can include win-loss
`
`information. Id. at 17:48-50. When the battle history indicates that the user has
`
`battled the opponent in the past, the server 1 causes the communication terminal 2
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`to display a mode selection screen 3 allowing the user to select either the manual
`
`PGR2018-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 9,669,308
`
`mode (first mode) or the auto mode (second mode). Id. at 2:1-16, 3:44-56, 8:32-59,
`
`and 17:24-28.
`
`
`
`In auto mode, the battle is conducted with fewer user operations than in the
`
`manual mode by, for example, conducting the battle semi-automatically by
`
`omitting a portion of the command selection by the user or conducting the battle
`
`automatically by omitting all command selection by the user. Id. at 8:38-43. In
`
`particular, the auto mode processing unit 13 of the server 1 automatically controls
`
`the player character by selecting cards and attacking the opponent in accordance
`
`with a predetermined process. Id. at 8:66-9:3. For example, the auto mode
`
`processing unit 13 may select only the cards in the user's deck that are of the attack
`
`type and attack in order starting with the first enemy character or by prioritizing
`
`cards having a long recovery turn. Id. at 9:3-10. When the auto mode processing
`
`unit 13 has completed the battle, the server 1 provides the results to the user. For
`
`example, the server 1 can instruct the communication terminal 2 to display a battle
`
`result screen 6 indicating whether the user won or lost and the content of the battle.
`
`Id. at 12:1-19, 14:58-60, and 16:34-37.
`
`
`
`Providing the option to use the auto mode when battling an opponent that the
`
`user has battled in the past, not only makes the game less troublesome (i.e.,
`
`tedious) for the user, but it also reduces the time of conducting the battle and
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`reduces the processing load by (i) having to act on less user inputs and (ii) avoiding
`
`PGR2018-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 9,669,308
`
`the complex rendering of the manual mode battle screen 9. Id. at 1:21-49, 11:63-
`
`67, and 17:16-23; and Exhibit 2001, ¶¶ 20-27.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`Although the USPTO has recently changed the claim construction standard
`
`
`
`for PTAB trials, that change does not apply to this PGR. As such the claims are to
`
`be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, as understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and consistent with the disclosure. See 37 CFR § 42.100(b); see
`
`also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275-76 (Fed. Cir. 2015),
`
`affirmed, Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016). Under this
`
`standard, the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain
`
`meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111.01(I), citing In re
`
`Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) and Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston,
`
`Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For the disclosure of a patent to
`
`narrow the plain meaning of a term, it must clearly and unambiguously do so. See
`
`MPEP §2111.01(IV)(A) (discussing BRI), citing Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms.
`
`USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`1.
`"executing"
`Although not formally construed in the Petition, the Petition assumes a
`
`
`
`narrow construction of the term "execute." In particular, the Petition appears to
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`assume that the term "execute" means to carry out. See Petition, pp. 43-44.
`
`PGR2018-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 9,669,308
`
`However, as explained below, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
`
`"execute" is broader.
`
`
`
`The plain meaning of the term "execute" is "to put into effect; carry out."
`
`Exhibit 2002. This plain meaning is consistent with the use of the term in the
`
`disclosure of the 308 Patent. In particular, the disclosure at times uses the term to
`
`mean "carry out." For example, in the context of the functions of the
`
`communication terminal 2, the specification explains that it receives an instruction
`
`to "execute" the battle process in manual mode. Exhibit 1001, 14:47-53, 15:36-39
`
`and 53-56, 16:12-15. However, the disclosure also uses the term to mean "to put
`
`into effect." For example, in the context of the server 1, the disclosure explains
`
`that the server 1 contains instructions to be executed for conducting the battle. See,
`
`e.g., Exhibit 1001, Abstract, 1:53-67, and 3:4-22. And when further explaining
`
`how these instructions are executed by the server 1 to conduct the battle, the
`
`disclosure describes, for example:
`
`…the procedure determination unit 12 [of the server 1]
`determines the procedure for conducting the battle to be
`manual mode and transmits an instruction to the
`communication terminal 2 to execute a battle process in
`manual mode (step S110).
`Exhibit 1001, 14:47-53. So, in the context of the server 1, the term execute is used
`
`to explain that the server 1 causes the battle process to happen, i.e., the executed
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`instructions cause the battle process to be "put into effect." In view of this usage
`
`PGR2018-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 9,669,308
`
`(which comports with the usage of the term in the last element of each of claims 1,
`
`7, and 8) the disclosure does not clearly and unambiguously limit the term
`
`"execute" to only performing an act. In fact, when describing the actual
`
`performance of an act, the disclosure much more frequently uses the term
`
`"perform" rather than "execute." See, e.g., Exhibit 1001, 8:66-67, 9:18-23, 9:44-45,
`
`10:15-16; 15:31-33, 16:28-30, and 18:51-54. Accordingly, the disclosure does not
`
`clearly and unambiguously limit the term "execute" to only carrying out an act.
`
`
`
`This plain meaning of the term "execute" is also consistent with how a
`
`skilled artisan would have understood the meaning of the term in view of the
`
`specification at the time of the invention. See Exhibit 2001, ¶¶ 17-19. Thus, the
`
`skilled artisan would not have understood the term "execute" to have been used
`
`more narrowly than its plain meaning.
`
`
`
`Because both the disclosure and the understanding of the skilled artisan are
`
`consistent with the plain meaning of the term execute, the term should be
`
`construed in accordance with its plain meaning to mean "to put into effect; carry
`
`out."
`
`
`
`What's more, absent any clear statements in the intrinsic record (claims,
`
`disclosure, prosecution history) or compelling extrinsic evidence (which the
`
`Petitioner has failed to provide), the above construction of "execute" should also be
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`reached under the Phillips standard. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`PGR2018-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 9,669,308
`
`1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (the plain meaning of a claim term should apply absent (i) a
`
`clear statement in the intrinsic record to the contrary or (ii) compelling extrinsic
`
`evidence when the intrinsic record is unclear).
`
`2.
`
`"automatically determining a procedure for
`executing the battle to be a first mode for
`executing the battle based on at least one user
`operation received from the communication terminal"
`Although not formally construed in the Petition, the Petition assumes a
`
`
`
`strange construction of this claim element. In particular, the Petition assumes that
`
`the earlier recited act of "automatically determining" in this claim element is
`
`modified by the phrase "based on at least one user operation." However, this
`
`assumption is not supported by either the claim language itself or the specification.
`
`When properly construed in view of the specification, it is the immediately
`
`preceding act of "executing the battle" that is modified by the phrase "based on at
`
`least one user operation."
`
`
`
`In the independent claims, the "first mode" is expressly recited as being "for
`
`executing the battle based on at least one user operation received from the
`
`communication terminal," and the "second mode" is expressly recited as being "for
`
`executing the battle with fewer user operations received from the communication
`
`terminal than in the first mode." By saying "than in the first mode" when
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`describing the number of user operations required for executing the battle
`
`PGR2018-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 9,669,308
`
`according to the second mode, the number of user operations for executing the
`
`second mode is being directly compared to the previously recited "at least one user
`
`operation" for executing the battle according to the first mode. In fact, if the "at
`
`least one user operation" did not describe the number of operations for executing
`
`the battle according to the first mode, this comparison would not make sense.
`
`Thus, it is clear from this comparison within the claim language that the claimed
`
`"based on at least one user operation" modifies "executing the battle"—not
`
`"automatically determining."
`
`
`
`This is further confirmed by the claims' use of the term "automatically." By
`
`reciting "automatically determining procedure of executing the battle to be a first
`
`mode," it is clear that no user operation is required. For a process to be automatic,
`
`it must be done independent of external influence or control. See Exhibit 2004. If
`
`the claimed "automatic determination" of the procedure for executing the battle to
`
`be the first mode were based on at least one user operation, as alleged by the
`
`Petition, the automatic determination would be subject to the external influence or
`
`control of the at least one user operation. As such, the determination could not be
`
`"automatic," as required by the claims. In fact, the Petition itself acknowledges
`
`that it would not make sense for an "automatic" process to be "based on at least
`
`one user operation." Petition, p. 53. For this additional reason, it is clear that the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`claimed "based on at least one user operation" modifies "executing the battle"—not
`
`PGR2018-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 9,669,308
`
`"automatically determining."
`
`
`
`The disclosure of the 308 Patent also confirms that the claimed automatic
`
`determination of the first mode is not based any user operation received from the
`
`communication terminal. For example, the Abstract recites:
`
`… determining, based on the battle history and an
`identifier of an opponent with whom a battle begins, a
`procedure for conducting the battle in the battle game to
`be one of a first mode for conducting the battle based on
`user operations and a second mode for conducting the
`battle with fewer user operations than in the first mode…
`
`Exhibit 1001, Abstract. Similar language is used throughout the "Solution to
`
`Problem" section of the disclosure of the 308 Patent.
`
`
`
`The language in the Abstract is similar to the language of the independent
`
`claims, but written in a way that confirms that the "based on user operations"
`
`language modifies conducting the battle in the first mode. Further, the disclosure
`
`later clearly explains that:
`
`…the procedure determination unit 12 determines a
`procedure for conducting the battle to be either a manual
`mode (first mode) for conducting the battle based on user
`operations and an auto mode (second mode) for
`conducting the battle with fewer user operations than in
`the manual mode. Conducting the battle with fewer user
`operations than in the manual mode includes, for
`example, the cases of conducting the battle semi-
`automatically by omitting a portion of command
`selection by the user and conducting the battle
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 9,669,308
`
`
`
`automatically by omitting all command selection by the
`user.
`
`Id. at 8:32-43.
`
`
`
`The flow charts of FIGS. 13 and 14 confirm that the method of the
`
`exemplary embodiment proceeds directly to manual mode (claimed "first mode")
`
`without any user inputs if the user has not battled the opponent in the past. In fact,
`
`nowhere does the specification disclose or imply that the claimed automatic
`
`determination of the procedure of executing the battle is based on any user
`
`operations.
`
`
`
`Thus, the disclosure confirms that the claimed "based on at least one user
`
`operation" modifies "executing the battle"—not "automatically determining."
`
`III. THE PETITION FAILS TO ESTABLISH
`THAT CLAIMS 1-8 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`As explained in detail below, the Petition fails to establish that any of the
`
`
`
`claims of the 308 Patent are unpatentable.
`
`A. The Petition Fails to Establish that Claims
`1-8 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. §101
`In Alice, the Supreme Court set forth a two-step test for determining whether
`
`
`
`a patent claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 for reciting the judicially-
`
`recognized exception of an abstract idea. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
`
`Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2004). Under the first step (USPTO Step 2A), one must
`
`determine whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea or other patent-
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`
`ineligible concept. Id. at 2355. Under the second step (USPTO Step 2B), if the
`
`PGR2018-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 9,669,308
`
`claim is directed to an abstract idea, one must examine the elements of the claim to
`
`determine whether it contains an inventive concept sufficient to transform the
`
`claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Id. at 2357 (internal
`
`citations omitted). As explained below, the Petition fails to establish that it is more
`
`likely than not that any challenged claim (i) is directed to an abstract idea, or (ii)
`
`lacks an inventive concept sufficient to transform the alleged abstract idea into a
`
`patent-eligible application.
`
`1.
`Claims 1-8 are Not "Directed to" an Abstract Idea
`As noted by the Supreme Court and repeatedly discussed by the Federal
`
`
`
`Circuit, a common mistake when concluding that a claim is directed to an abstract
`
`idea under the first step of the Alice analysis is improperly overgeneralizing the
`
`claimed invention. Thus, it is critical to "articulate what the claims are directed to
`
`with enough specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful." Thales
`
`Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Further,
`
`"describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the
`
`language of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to §101 swallow the
`
`rule." Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(internal citations omitted). This sentiment is also echoed in the USPTO's
`
`November 2, 2016 Memorandum which states that "[e]xaminers should consider
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`the claim as a whole under Step 2A of the USPTO's SME guidance, and should not
`
`PGR2018-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 9,669,308
`
`overgeneralize the claim or simplify it into its 'gist' or core principles, when
`
`identifying a concept as a judicial exception." Exhibit 1004, p. 4.
`
`
`
`As explained below with reference to precedential Federal Circuit decisions,
`
`both the Petition and Decision instituting this PGR improperly overgeneralize the
`
`claims to conclude that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. When the
`
`claimed invention is articulated with appropriate specificity, the claims are not
`
`directed to an abstract idea under step one, but rather, they are directed to a specific
`
`manner of executing a video game battle in a way that results in an improved
`
`system for executing the video game battle. Thus, the Petition fails to establish
`
`that it is more likely than not that at least one claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§101.
`
`a)
`Data Engine Tech.
`In the Federal Circuit's decision in Data Engine Tech, the court determined
`
`
`
`that claims directed to tabbed spreadsheet pages were patent-eligible under the first
`
`step of the Alice analysis. See Data Engine Tech., 906 F.3d 999. In particular, the
`
`court found that the claims recited "a 'specific' and 'particular' manner of
`
`navigating a three-dimensional spreadsheet that improves the efficient functioning
`
`of computers." Id. at 1009. In so doing, the court described the improvement in
`
`efficiency as "allow[ing] a user to avoid the burdensome task of navigating through
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`spreadsheets in separate windows using arbitrary commands." Id. at 1011. That is,
`
`PGR2018-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 9,669,308
`
`the improvement related to an improvement in the user experience—avoiding the
`
`burdensome operations of prior spreadsheets.
`
`
`
`The patent claims 1-8 are directed to the same kind of improvement.
`
`Specifically, as explained in the 308 Patent, prior to the invention, users were
`
`required to go through the troublesome (i.e., burdensome) process of manually
`
`battling an opponent even if the user had already battled the same opponent in the
`
`past. Exhibit 1001, 1:21-49, 17:16-23; and Exhibit 2001, ¶¶ 22 and 24. The
`
`claimed invention provides a way to avoid this burdensome process by providing a
`
`"second mode" (disclosed "auto mode" in the 308 Patent) for executing the battle
`
`that requires fewer user inputs than the claimed "first mode" (disclosed "manual
`
`mode") for executing the battle. Exhibit 1001, 1:21-49, 11:63-67, and 17:16-23;
`
`and Exhibit 2001, ¶24. By providing a way to eliminate the burdensome manual
`
`mode when a user has battled an opponent in the past, this claimed "second mode"
`
`is just like the "tabs" provided by the claims at issue in Data Engine Tech., which
`
`provided a way to eliminate the "burdensome task of navigating through
`
`spreadsheets in separate windows using arbitrary commands." Data Engine Tech.,
`
`906 F.3d at 1011.
`
`
`
` In Data Engine Tech., the court acknowledged that the patent-eligible
`
`claims "recite[d] specific steps detailing the method of navigating through
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`spreadshheet pagess within a tthree-dimennsional sprreadsheet eenvironmeent using
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGGR2018-000039
`
`UU.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,6699,308
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`noteboook tabs." IdId. at 1008. Similarlyy, the patennt claims pprovide speecific stepss
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`detailing the methhods of prooviding the second m
`
`
`
`
`
`ode. For eexample, c
`
`
`
`laims 1, 7,, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8 descriibe specificc steps, inccluding:
`
`operationss
`
`
`
`exxecuting thhe battle wiith the deteermined prrocedure.
`
`
`
`
`
`DDependent claims 4 a
`
`cluding:
`"secondd mode" in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` …when the user has battled with thhe determinned
`
`
`
`
`opponent in thee past deterrmining, baased on at
`least one
`
`
`
`
`
`
`user ooperation rreceived frrom the coommunicatiion terminnal,
`
`
`
`
`
`the procedure too be one of the first mmode and aa second
`
`
`
`
`modee for execuuting the baattle with ffewer user
`
`
`
`
`
`
`receivved from tthe commuunication teerminal thaan in the
`
`
`first mmode; and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`nd 6, descrribe even ffurther speecific steps related to
`
`
`
`the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`…whhen the proocedure forr executingg the battlee is the
`age at the
`
`
`
`
`seconnd mode suuspending displayingg of the im
`
`
`
`commmunicationn terminal.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FFurther,