Trials@uspto. gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 42
`Entered: January 2, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case PGR2018—00008
`
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, TIMOTHY J. GOODSON,
`and AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`
`35 US. C. § 328(a) and 37 CFR. § 42. 73
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00008
`
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Background
`
`Supercell Oy (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (“Pet”) for post-grant
`
`review of claims 1—20 of US. Patent No. 9,597,594 B2 (“the ’594 patent”)
`
`(Ex. 1001) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 321—329. Paper 1. GREE Inc. (“Patent
`
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (“Prelim Resp”). Paper 7. With
`
`authorization from the Board (Paper 11), Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 12) and Patent Owner filed a Sur-
`
`Reply/(Paper 13).
`
`On May 1, 2018, we ordered that “a post-grant review is hereby
`
`instituted for claims 1—20 of the ’594 patent with respect to all grounds set
`
`forth in the Petition.” Paper 15, 16 (“Dec”). After institution of trial, Patent
`
`Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 24, “PO Resp”), Petitioner
`
`filed a Reply (Paper 27, “Pet. Reply”), and, with Board authorization
`
`(Paper 30), Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 34, “PO Sur-Reply”).
`
`Patent Owner also filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 35;
`
`“PO Mot.”), to which Petitioner filed an Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 39; “Pet. Opp”), and Patent Owner filed
`
`a Reply to Opposition to Motion to Exclude (Paper 40; “PO Reply”). An
`
`oral hearing was held on November 28, 2018. Paper 41 (“TL”).
`
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. In this Final Written
`
`Decision, after reviewing all relevant evidence and assertions, we determine
`
`that Petitioner has met its burden of Showing, by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence, that claims 1, 8, and 10—20 of the ’594 patent are unpatentable.
`
`We determine further that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing, by a
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00008
`
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2—7 and 9 of the ’594 patent are
`
`unpatentable. We further grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.
`
`B.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner identifies the following matter: GREE, Inc. v. Supercell
`
`KK, Case 2017 (Yo) No. 22046 in Tokyo District Court, associated with
`
`related patent JP 5,676,032, which relates to PCT/JP2014/07673. Pet. 2;
`
`Ex. 1001, (63) (the ’594 patent also claiming priority to
`
`PCT/JP2014/07673).
`
`C.
`
`The ’594 patent
`
`The ’594 patent relates generally to a method of improving the
`
`usability of computer games, where a user builds and defends a virtual city,
`
`by using templates to allow the user to more easily change game elements
`
`within a game space. Ex. 1001, 1:42—60, 2:5—1 1. More specifically, the
`
`’594 patent describes such a game where a user creates a city by arranging
`
`various game elements, where those various game elements may include
`
`facilities, characters, soldiers, weapons, cards, figures, avatars, and items.
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:26—29; 4:3 8—40. The user’s city may then be attacked by
`
`opposing players, and the layout and design of the user’s city becomes a
`
`factor in whether the user is able to defend successfully the city. Ex. 1001,
`
`1:44—49. According to the ’594 patent, as a player progresses in a game and
`
`expands their city within the game space, it becomes more complicated for a
`
`player to keep track of an ever-increasing number of game elements, for
`
`example, changes to the positions, types, and levels of those game elements.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:50—55. To address this problem, the ’594 patent describes a
`
`game play method where a user may modify the game space using templates
`
`that can be applied to a predetermined area. Ex. 1001, 1:61—2:10. Hence, a
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00008
`
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`user is able to automatically rearrange a group of game elements to match a
`
`predesigned template. Ex. 1001, 4:34—37.
`
`D.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1—20 are pending and challenged, of which claims 1, 10, 11,
`
`and 12 are independent. Independent claim 12, which is representative, is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`12. A device in communication with a server, comprising:
`
`a memory device storing game software instructions; and
`
`one or more hardware processors configured to execute
`the game software instructions perform operations including:
`
`storing first positions of game contents;
`
`creating a template defining game contents and second
`positions of one or more of the game contents arranged in a game
`space based on a template creation command by a game player,
`
`storing the created template in the memory device, and
`
`applying the template to a predetermined area within the
`game space based on a template application command by the
`game player.
`
`E.
`
`The Alleged Ground 0f Unpatentability
`
`The Petition asserts that claims 1—20 of the ’594 patent are
`
`unpatentable as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Pet. 16—
`
`38.
`
`F.
`
`Eligibility ofPatent for Post-Grant Review
`
`The post-grant review provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents
`
`Act (“AIA”)l only apply to patents subject to the first inventor to file
`
`provisions of the AIA. AIA § 6(t)(2)(A). Specifically, the first inventor to
`
`1 Pub L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011).
`
`

`

`PGR2018—00008
`
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`file provisions apply to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing
`
`thereon, that contains or contained at any time a claim to a claimed invention
`
`that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. AIA § 3(n)(1).
`
`Furthermore, “[a] petition for a post-grant review may only be filed not later
`
`than the date that is 9 months after the date of the grant of the patent or of
`
`the issuance of a reissue patent (as the case may be).” 35 U.S.C. § 321(c);
`
`see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.202(a) (setting forth the same).
`
`Petitioner asserts that the instant Petition was filed within nine months
`
`of the March 21, 2017, issue date of the ’594 patent. Pet. 2. Further, the
`
`application that issued as the ’594 patent was filed on December 30, 2015.
`
`Ex. 1001, (22). Patent Owner does not dispute that the ’594 patent is
`
`eligible for post-grant review. See generally PO Resp. We find that the
`
`’594 patent is eligible for post-grant review.
`
`11.
`
`ANALYSIS OF GROUND OF UNPATENTABILITY
`
`We now turn to Petitioner’s asserted ground of unpatentability to
`
`determine whether Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, that each of claims 1—20 are unpatentable.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 326(6).
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`In this post-grant review, a claim in an unexpired patent shall be given
`
`its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent
`
`in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00008
`
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144—46 (2016).2 Under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard, claim terms generally are given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech,
`
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, a “claim term will not
`
`receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer
`
`and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the
`
`specification or prosecution history.” CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp,
`
`288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). We determine that only the following
`
`claim term, “template,” needs express construction. See Vivid Tcells, Inc. v.
`
`Am. Sci. & Eng ’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those
`
`terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent
`
`necessary to resolve the controversy”).
`
`Independent claim 12 recites “a template defining game contents and
`
`second positions of one or more of the game contents arranged in a game
`
`space.” Independent claims 1, 10, and 11 each recite similar limitations.
`
`Petitioner asserts that “[a] template is a record of the positions of one or
`
`more game pieces in a game that can be applied in other game spaces.”
`
`Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:2—3). In support, Petitioner cites numerous
`
`portions of the ’594 patent. Pet. l3—16 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:28—45, 6:50—57,
`
`7:4—15, 7:37—48, 8:18—24, 11:29—33, 16:25—35, 17:42—56, 18:52—19:9, Figs.
`
`3A—3E).
`
`2 For petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018, the Phillips standard
`will be applied. Changes to the Claim Construction Standardfor
`Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt.
`42).
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00008
`
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`While not squarely rooted in a claim construction, Patent Owner
`
`repeatedly makes a variation of the following argument: “[t]he claim recites
`
`that the ‘template’ defines both ‘game contents’ and their ‘second positions,’
`
`providing limits to the structure and composition of the template.” PO Resp.
`
`20; see, e. g., PO Resp. 27 (referencing “[t]he use of templates storing game
`
`contents and positions thereof .
`
`.
`
`. .”); PO Sur-Reply 9—10 (“[T]he claims
`
`recite, for example, a template ‘defining game contents and second positions
`
`of one or more of the game contents.’”).
`
`We determine that these proposed constructions of “template” are
`
`misplaced, in that they are largely no more than regurgitations of claim
`
`language. Put simply, we are unpersuaded that the term “template” itself has
`
`anything to do with “game contents” and “second positions.” To be sure, the
`
`claim limitations related to “game contents” and “second positions” further
`
`limit “template” within the context of the claim, and must be considered.
`
`They are considered, however, as claim terms themselves, and not as a part
`
`of a definition of “template.”
`
`As a part of its construction of “template,” however, Petitioner does
`
`assert that “[a] template is a record .
`
`.
`
`. .” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 22-3);
`
`see also Pet Reply 9 (“The challenged independent claims recite nothing
`
`more than automating tasks that can be performed manually by a human,
`
`including record keeping of the location of one or more game pieces
`
`(‘creating a template’ and ‘storing’ the template information).”). Although
`
`not set forth expressly as a claim construction, Patent Owner repeatedly uses
`
`the term “data structure” in connection with the claimed “template.” See,
`
`e. g., PO Resp. 33 (referencing “use of data structures implemented as
`
`templates”), 35 (“[T]he claim use of templates .
`
`.
`
`. is a data structure”). At
`
`

`

`PGR2018—00008
`
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`oral argument, Patent Owner confirmed its position that a “template” was a
`
`“data structure.” Tr. 43: 1 5—44:2. No party has identified any substantive
`
`difference between “recor ” and “data structure,” and we do not find any, as
`
`a record appears to be no more than a structure for storing data.
`
`In its most relevant definition, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate
`
`Dictionary defines “template” as “something that establishes or serves as a
`
`pattern.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1286 (11th ed. 2007)
`
`(Ex. 3004). The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms defines
`“template matching” as follows: “(A) An image processing technique in
`
`which patterns or shapes are detected by comparison with pre-specified
`
`patterns or shapes called templates. See also: image matching. (B) A pattern
`
`recognition technique using the principle described in definition (A).” The
`
`Authoritative Dictionary ot'IEEE Standard Terms 1161 (7th ed., IEEE Press
`
`2000) (Ex. 3003). The common theme in these dictionary definitions is that
`
`a “template” includes a “pattern,” which also denotes data set forth in a
`
`structure, and thus is consistent with the features of both a “record” and
`
`“data structure.”
`
`We have considered the parties’ citations to portions of the claims and
`
`specification of the ’594 patent that use the term “template,” and find that
`
`they are consistent with “record.” Accordingly, for all of the foregoing
`
`reasons, we construe a “template” as a “record.”
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner ’5 Lack of Testimonial or Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s failure to provide relevant
`
`testimonial or extrinsic evidence compels a conclusion that Petitioner has
`
`failed to meet its burden that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`PO Resp. 12—13. Patent Owner asserts that this is so especially for
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00008
`
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`Petitioner’s assertions that certain claim elements are “well-understood,
`
`routine, conventional.” PO Sur—Reply 2—4 (citing Ex. 2004 11 34; Exs. 1011,
`
`1012). Petitioner responds that expert testimony is sometimes unnecessary
`
`to establish ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, for example, when there is
`
`no genuine issue of material fact or when the specification itself provides the
`
`requisite evidence. Pet. Reply 4—5. As an initial matter, we note that
`
`Petitioner has provided some extrinsic evidence, for example, Exhibits
`
`1003—1005, 1011, 1012, and 1015, as well as testimonial evidence in the
`
`form of the deposition testimony of Mr. Crane. That aside, however, we
`
`agree with Petitioner’s contention that such extrinsic evidence is not always
`
`necessary for the reasons stated.
`
`Even with respect to a disputed factual inquiry as to whether a claim
`
`element is “well-understood, routine, conventional,” the Federal Circuit has
`
`repeatedly held that intrinsic evidence can be dispositive. See, e. g.,
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp, 838 F.3d 1307, 1317 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016) (“The written description is particularly useful in determining
`
`what is well—known or conventional”); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active
`
`Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on
`
`specification’s description of additional elements as “well-known,”
`
`“common,” and “conventional”); TL1 Commc ’ns LLC v. AVAuto. LLC, 823
`
`F.3d 607, 614 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (specification describing additional elements
`
`as “either performing basic computer functions such as sending and
`
`receiving data, or performing functiOns ‘known’ in the art”). The Federal
`
`Circuit further has used case law, when appropriate, to satisfy the inquiry as
`
`well. TLI Commc ’ns, 823 F.3d at 614 (citing Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int ’1,
`
`573 US. 208, 216 (2014) and other Federal Circuit cases to satisfy factual
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00008
`
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`inquiry that adding generic computer components to an abstract idea is not
`
`an inventive concept).
`
`To be sure, if there is a disputed factual inquiry where the intrinsic
`
`evidence and case law are silent, Petitioner’s lack of relevant testimonial and
`
`extrinsic evidence can be fatal, especially where Patent Owner has provided
`
`pertinent countervailing evidence. We determine here, however, that
`
`Petitioner has satisfied its evidentiary burden with the evidence and
`
`testimony of record.
`
`C.
`
`Weight to be Aflorded Mr. Crane ’s Testimony
`
`Petitioner asserts that the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant,
`
`Mr. Crane, deserves no weight because (1) Mr. Crane does not provide the
`
`underlying facts or data for some of his findings as required by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.65(a); (2) Mr. Crane fails to address the specific language of the claims
`
`at issue; and (3) Mr. Crane admits that he did not opine on any aspect
`
`relevant to step two of the Alice inquiry. Pet. Reply 6—8 (citing Ex. 2004
`
`111118, 31; Ex. 1010, 37:17—42:10, 4427—52224, 53:2—55:7, 117211—11829).
`
`Patent Owner responds that (1) Petitioner has not identified any particular
`
`facts or data that are allegedly lacking; (2) the underlying factual basis for all
`
`of Mr. Crane’s testimony is his “training, knowledge, and experience in the
`
`relevant art,” which Petitioner has not challenged; (3) Mr. Crane did address
`
`certain claim limitations; and (4) Mr. Crane is offered as a fact witness, not a
`
`legal one, and some uncertainty about the legal formulation of steps in the
`Alice inquiry is irrelevant. PO Sur-chly 4-7 (citinglEx. 2004 1111 3, 15, 32—
`
`47; Ex. 1010, 36:21—37:15). We have reviewed all the cited testimony, and
`
`agree with Patent Owner.
`
`10
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00008
`
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`More specifically, we disagree with Petitioner that every aspect of a
`
`declarant’s testimony requires articulated underlying facts or data Specific to
`
`that testimony. We agree with Patent Owner that, in many instances, a
`
`declarant’s background can be sufficient. To the extent we determine that
`
`any testimony lacks adequate support, we discount the weight accorded that
`
`testimony appropriately.
`
`We also agree with Patent Owner that Mr. Crane is offered as a
`
`technical expert with respect to specific inquiries for certain claim terms,
`
`and is not expected to display the same command of legal doctrines as a
`
`lawyer. We note, however, that Petitioner’s characterization that Mr. Crane
`
`“failed to address [Alice] step two” is incorrect. Ex. 1010, 47:15—20 (“THE
`
`WITNESS: As I said, there’s no section of my declaration that specifically
`
`applies that second standard of the legal standard. But I just pointed out, and
`
`I’ll reiterate, that there are sections in my declaration that may be used to
`
`help someone try to answer that question”).
`
`D.
`
`Claims [—20 as Directed t0 Patent Ineligible
`Subject Matter Under 35 US. C. § 101
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1—20 do not recite patent eligible
`
`subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Pet. 16—38 (citing Exs. 1001, 1003).
`
`Patent Owner disagrees. PO Resp. 12—48 (citing Exs. 1001, 1003, 2004,
`
`2006—2011). Petitioner replies. Pet. Reply 8—24 (citing Exs. 1001, 1009—
`
`1012, 2004). Patent Owner responds. PO Sur-Reply 8—22 (citing
`
`Exs. 1001, 2004).
`
`I .
`
`Relevant Law
`
`An invention is patent eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
`
`machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
`
`11
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00008
`
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
`
`ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 216.
`
`In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
`
`are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
`
`and Alice. Id. at 217—2 1 8 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
`
`Labs, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
`
`we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573
`
`U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
`
`intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
`
`risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
`
`in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
`
`against risk.”).
`
`Concepts determined to be abstract ideas in the § 101 analysis include
`
`certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
`
`economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—220; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
`
`mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978); and
`
`mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
`
`determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
`
`such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192
`
`(1981)), “‘tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India
`
`rubber, smelting ores’” (id. at 184 n.7 (citing Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
`
`252, 267—268 (1854)), and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
`
`(citing Cochranc v. Dcener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876)).
`
`In Dielzr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
`
`Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
`
`statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
`
`12
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00008
`
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`mathematical formula. .
`
`. .” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192
`
`(“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding
`
`rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula”).
`
`Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking
`
`patent protection for that formula in the abstract .
`
`.
`
`. is not accorded the
`
`protection of our patent laws, .
`
`.
`
`. and this principle cannot be circumvented
`
`by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
`
`environment.” Id. (citing Benson, Flook).
`
`If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
`
`step of the Alice and Maya framework, where “we 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.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. “[M]erely requir[ing] generic
`
`computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a
`
`patent-eligible invention.” Id.
`
`2.
`
`Whether the Claims Are ”Directed t0 ” an Abstract Idea
`
`a.
`
`Petitioner ’3 Initial Analysis
`
`Petitioner asserts that the claims are directed to “creating and applying
`
`a template.” Pet. 20, 21. Petitioner asserts that “creating and applying a
`
`template” is an abstract idea because it (1) “consists entirely of mental steps
`
`that can be carried out by a human, either mentally, using pen and paper, or
`
`with real-world game pieces”; (2) is merely “automating [a] manually-
`
`achievable purpose[ ]”; and (3) “cannot be considered to be directed to an
`
`improvement in computer technology because neither the claims nor the
`
`specification recites any new technology, new process, or improvement to
`
`existing technologies.” Pet. 16—28.
`
`13
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00008
`
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`For support, Petitioner provides a reasoned analysis as to why “[t]he
`
`’594 patent’s claimed concept of creating and applying a template .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`consists entirely of mental steps that can be carried out by a human, either
`
`mentally, using pen and paper, or with real-world game pieces.” Pet. 21—23.
`
`Petitioner additionally directs us to Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F.
`
`App’x 1005, 1005—1007 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The .
`
`.
`
`. patents claim managing
`
`a bingo game while allowing a player to repeatedly play the same sets of
`
`numbers in multiple sessions”). Petitioner asserts that the claims in Planet
`
`Bingo are sufficiently analogous to the claims of the ’594 patent, in that both
`
`sets of claims reasonably are characterized as directed to the same general
`
`concept of repeatedly applying a template to a game space.
`
`As further evidence, Petitioner analogizes the current claims to a
`
`game of correspondence chess, as described in A Guide to Correspondence
`
`Chess in Wales. Pet. 21, 22 (citing Ex. 1003). In correspondence chess, a
`
`player records the current state of the chess game, indicates the player’s next
`
`move on a post card, and sends the post card to a second player who will
`
`modify their game board to reflect the updated state of the chess game. Pet.
`
`21 , 22 (citing Ex. 1003). Petitioner asserts that, in creating the post card, the
`
`first player creates a template defining game contents, stores the created
`
`template, and allows a second player to apply the template to a
`
`predetermined area. Pet. 22. In this way, Petitioner asserts that
`
`correspondence chess is evidence that the “claimed process is a well-known
`
`mental process and method of organizing human activity — and is, therefore,
`
`abstract.” Id. at 23.
`
`14
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00008
`
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`b.
`
`Patent Owner ’s Assertions Concerning
`What the Claims are “Directed to ”
`
`Patent Owner asserts that independent claim 12 is not representative,
`
`in that the various claims recite unique limitations not recited in independent
`
`claim 12. PO Resp. 17—19. Patent Owner asserts that even for independent
`
`claim 12, Petitioner has failed to address all of the claim limitations.
`
`PO Resp. 19—21. Petitioner responds that independent claim 12 indeed is
`
`representative, and that Patent Owner has not shown how any of the unique
`
`limitations identified for the other independent claims indicate that
`
`independent claim 12 is not representative. Pet. Reply 5—6. We agree with
`
`Petitioner, in that Patent Owner’s assertions are misplaced.
`
`Fundamentally, we view Patent Owner’s assertion as comprising two
`sub-assertions. First, Patent Owner appears to be asserting that every claim
`
`limitation must be accounted for in a subject matter eligibility analysis. We
`
`agree. That, however, has nothing to do with whether a particular claim is
`
`representative.
`
`Second, Patent Owner appears to be asserting that independent claim
`
`12 is the broadest claim, and by selecting the broadest claim, Petitioner’s
`
`formulation of the concept independent claim 12 is “directed to” is also
`
`broad, in that it does not account for every claim limitation in, for example,
`
`the dependent claims. Identifying the concept to which the claim is
`“directed” merely addresses some claim limitations in connection with the
`
`first aspect of the Alice inquiry. While every claim limitation certainly must
`
`be accounted for somewhere in the § 101 analysis, there is no mandate that
`
`every claim limitation be addressed in connection with identifying the
`
`concept to which the claim is “directed,” i.e., as part of Alice step 1. Some
`
`limitations may be addressed in Alice step 2.
`
`15
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00008
`
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`i.
`
`Frameworkfor Formulating What a Claim is “Directed t0 ”
`
`To better illustrate this framework, it is instructive to consider the
`
`Supreme Court’s approach in Bilski and Alice in formulating the concept that
`
`a claim is “directed to.” In Bilski, representative independent claim 1 recites
`
`at least 92 words. The Supreme Court reduced the concept down to between
`
`one and‘three words, depending on how you count them, in determining
`
`what independent claim 1 is “directed to.” Bilski, 561 US. at 611 (“Claims
`
`1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or
`
`protecting against risk.”). In Alice, the Supreme Court clarified that the
`
`series of steps, and hence claim limitation equivalents, in Bilski considered
`
`to be accounted for in the concept of “hedging risk” were as follows
`
`“(1) initiating a series of financial transactions between providers and
`
`consumers of a commodity; (2) identifying market participants that have a
`
`counterrisk for the same commodity; and (3) initiating a series of
`
`transactions between those market participants and the commodity provider
`
`to balance the risk position of the first series of consumer transactions.”
`
`Alice, 573 US. at 218—219.
`
`In Alice, representative independent claim 33 recites 198 words. Id. at
`
`213 n.2. The Supreme Court reduced the concept down to between two and
`
`ten words, depending on how you count them. Id. at 219 (“On their face, the
`
`claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e.,
`
`the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk”). The series of steps, and
`
`hence claim limitation equivalents, accounted for in Alice by “intermediated
`
`settlement” appear to be as follows:
`
`[A] method of exchanging financial obligations between two
`parties using a third—party intermediary to mitigate settlement
`risk. The intermediary creates and updates “shadow” records to
`
`16
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00008
`
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`the value of each party’s actual accounts held at
`reflect
`“exchange
`institutions,”
`thereby
`permitting
`only
`those
`transactions for which the parties have sufficient resources. At
`the end of each day,
`the intermediary issues
`irrevocable
`instructions to the exchange institutions to carry out
`the
`permitted transactions.
`
`Id. at 219. The Supreme Court further indicated that what was not
`
`accounted for by “intermediated settlement,” and thus needed to be
`59 6‘
`
`accounted for in step two of Alice, included “a computer,
`
`a computer
`
`system,” and “a computer-readable medium containing program code.” Id.
`
`at 221—224.
`
`The Federal Circuit recently elaborated that formulating the concept a
`
`claim is “directed to” requires a careful reading of the claim as a whole in
`
`light of the specification. Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d
`
`999, 1011 (Fed Cir. 2018). In doing so, the Federal Circuit indicated that “it
`
`is not enough to merely identify a patent-ineligible concept underlying the
`
`claim; we must determine whether that patent-ineligible concept is what the
`
`claim is ‘directed to.’” Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d
`
`1042, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit further has held that, afier
`
`formulating the concept the claims are “directed to,” the inquiry under Alice
`
`step two is to determine whether claim limitations other than the steps for
`
`executing the formulated concept are “well-understood, routine, and
`
`conventional.” BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc, 899 F.3d 1281, 1290
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`ii.
`
`Application of “Directed to” Framework to
`Patent Owner ’3 Assertions
`
`Beginning with independent claim 12, Patent Owner identifies several
`
`claim limitations that purportedly are not accounted for by Petitioner.
`
`17
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00008
`
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`PO Resp. 19—21 (citing Ex. 1001, 28:11—25). We agree with Patent Owner
`
`that each claim limitation must be accounted for. Under the above
`
`framework, however, Petitioner only needed to account for each claim
`
`limitation under either a formulation of the concept a claim is “directed to”
`
`or under Alice step two. We evaluate Patent Owner’s identified limitations
`
`in light of that framework.
`
`Patent Owner first identifies “[a] device in communication with a
`
`server, comprising: a memory device storing game software instructions;
`
`and one or more hardware processors configured to execute the game
`
`software instructions perform operations.” PO ReSp. 19. We agree with
`
`Patent Owner that these are not steps for executing the concept of “creating
`
`and applying a template.” Petitioner, however, has accounted for these
`
`limitations under Alice step two as generic computer technology. Pet. 29-
`
`32.
`
`Patent Owner next identifies the italicized portions of “creating a
`
`template defining game contents and second positions of one or more of the
`
`game contents arranged in a game space based on a template creation
`
`command by a game player” and “applying the template to a predetermined
`
`area within the game Space based on a template application command by the
`
`game player.” PO Resp. 19—20. Petitioner also has accounted for these
`
`limitations under Alice step two, asserting that “[t]hese steps cannot provide
`
`an inventive concept because they describe only the result of a command
`
`from a user to a computer, but provide no insight into how the claimed
`
`computer will exccute the command.” Pet. 32—33.
`
`Patent Owner further identifies the entirety of the claim limitation of
`
`“creating a template defining game contents and second positions of one or
`
`18
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00008
`
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`more of the game contents arranged in a game space based on a template
`
`creation command by a game player,” and asserts that Petitioner has not
`
`accounted for “game contents” and “second positions.” PO Resp. 20. The
`
`portion from “arranged” onward, i.e., “arranged in a game space based on a
`
`template creation command by a game player,” has already been addressed
`
`above. For the rest of the claim limitation, however, Patent Owner’s
`
`assertion has some merit, in that the words “creating and applying a
`
`template” do not appear to account literally for “game contents” and “second
`
`positions,” and the Petition does not address these claim limitations in Alice
`
`step two. See generally Pet. 29—33.
`
`As a part of its claim construction analysis, however, Petitioner asserts
`
`that “[a] template is a record of the positions of one or more game pieces in
`
`a game that can be applied in other game spaces.” Pet. 13—1 6 (citing
`
`Ex. 1001, 22—3, 6:28—45, 6:50—57, 7:4—15, 7:37—48, 8:18—24, 11:29—33,
`
`16:25—35, 17:42—56, 18:52—19:9, Figs. 3A—3E). At oral argument, when
`
`asked what terms should be added to the formulation of the concept the
`
`claims are “directed to,” Patent Owner identified “move game contents.”
`
`Tr. 49:18—51:18.3 When the assertions in this and the previous two
`
`paragraphs are considered together, we take the parties to agree that the
`
`current formulation of the concept that independent claim 12 is “directed
`
`to,” namely “creating and applying a template,” should be clarified to
`
`include the express claim language of “positions of one or more of the game
`
`contents.” We agree that is consistent with the claim language and cited
`
`3 We acknowledge that this statement was made “off the cuf

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket