`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`)
`
`In the Post Grant Review of:
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`U.S. Patent Nos.: 10,335,682
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`For: COMPUTER CONTROL
`METHOD, CONTROL PROGRAM )
`AND COMPUTER
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MARK L. CLAYPOOL, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,335,682
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Mark, L. Claypool, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been asked by the party requesting this review, Supercell Oy
`
`(“Petitioner”), to provide my expert opinions in support of the above-captioned
`
`petition for post grant review of U.S. Patent No. 10,335,682 (the “’682 patent”),
`
`challenging the patentability of claims 1-16 of the ’682 patent.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`I currently hold the opinions set forth in this declaration.
`
`In summary, it is my opinion that the references cited below render
`
`obvious the challenged claims of the challenged patent. My detailed opinions on the
`
`claims are set forth below.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`4.
`I earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Colorado College and both a
`
`Masters of Science in 1993 and Ph.D. in 1997 from the University of Minnesota.
`
`5.
`
`I am currently a professor in the department of Computer Science and
`
`a professor of Interactive Media and Game Development at Worcester Polytechnic
`
`Institute (“WPI”) in Worcester, Massachusetts. I have been a Full Professor at WPI
`
`since 2009. I began working as Assistant Professor at WPI in 1997 and became an
`
`Associate Professor in 2004. I have taught courses covering computing topics
`
`including operating systems, networks, distributed systems, multimedia networking,
`
`1
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`as well as courses covering game development topics including data analysis for
`
`games, the game development process and technical game development.
`
`6.
`
`I am an expert in computer games, including but not limited to the
`
`analysis, design and development of entertainment applications, with a research
`
`focus on the networking and distributed systems aspects of online games. I am the
`
`founder and Director for a decade for the Interactive Media and Game Development
`
`program, the first in the U.S. to offer a unique kind program to teach students all
`
`aspects of the fundamentals of computer game development. I teach technical game
`
`development courses to undergraduate students, and aspects of online games to
`
`graduate students in multimedia networking courses. I advise undergraduate student
`
`projects (akin to a “senior thesis”) and graduate student theses related to game
`
`development and game research. My expertise is enhanced and informed through
`
`peer-reviewing papers as part of the technical program committees I am part of:
`
`ACM Multimedia Systems (MMSys) 2011-2020 (chair 2011 and 2012), ACM
`
`Workshop on Network and Systems Support for Games (NetGames) 2004-2018
`
`(chair 2008), ACM Network Support for Digital Audio and Video (NOSSDAV)
`
`2006-2020 (chair 2006), and the ACM Multimedia Conference 2004-2017 and 2020,
`
`among others. I have received government funding from NSF and MIT Lincoln
`
`Labs to research and develop distributed systems and network games, as well as
`
`2
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`industry funding from Core, EMC, Dyn, and, most recently, Intel and Google to
`
`measure, evaluate and improve existing distributed systems and games.
`
`7.
`
`I have over 100 peer-reviewed publications issued from the early 1990s
`
`to the present on topics related to multimedia networking, network games,
`
`congestion control, information filtering and programming education. I am an
`
`author or co-author of two computer books related to computer games: Dragonfly –
`
`Program a Game Engine from Scratch and Networking and Online Games:
`
`Understanding and Engineering Multiplayer Internet Games. Online games are a
`
`core area of my research, making up about 1/3 of my research publications and over
`
`half of my most recent publications. In addition to my research and teaching
`
`responsibilities at WPI, I have advised over 25 Masters and Doctorate theses on a
`
`variety of relevant topics: multimedia scaling, games and latency, and cloud-based
`
`games. I have more than 25 years of experience in the field of computer science.
`
`8. My professional background and technical qualifications also are
`
`reflected in my Curriculum Vitae, which is attached.
`
`III. COMPENSATION AND RELATIONSHIP WITH PARTIES
`9.
`I am being compensated for my time. This compensation is not
`
`contingent upon my performance, the outcome of this matter, or any issues involved
`
`in or related to this matter.
`
`3
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`10.
`
`I have no financial interest in Petitioner or any related parties. I have
`
`been informed that GREE, Inc. (“GREE”) owns the challenged patent. I have no
`
`financial interest in and have no contact with GREE beyond the kinds of cursory
`
`interactions I often have with game industry professionals at conferences. I similarly
`
`have no financial interest in the challenged patent and have not had any contact with
`
`the named inventors.
`
`IV. MATERIAL CONSIDERED
`11.
`I have reviewed and considered, in the preparation of this declaration,
`
`the following related to the challenged patents:
`
`a.
`
`The ’682 patent (Ex. 1001) and the prosecution file history for
`
`the ’682 patent (Ex. 1002).
`
`12.
`
`I also reviewed U.S. Patent No. 9,597,594 (Ex. 1003 “the ’594 patent”)
`
`and the prosecution file history for the ’594 patent (Ex. 1004), a parent application
`
`to the challenged patents.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that, for purposes of determining whether a reference will
`
`qualify as prior art, the challenged claims of the challenged patent are entitled to an
`
`effective filing date of no earlier than September 27, 2013.
`
`4
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`14.
`
`I have also reviewed and understand various references as discussed
`
`herein, including the following:
`
`a.
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0105626 to Cho et al. (Ex. 1009
`
`“Cho”).
`
`b.
`
`“Manual for Gratuitous Space Battles. Version 1.1” and related
`
`links (Ex. 1010 “GSB”);
`
`c.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,079,105 to Kim et al. (Ex. 1011 “Kim”)
`
`15.
`
`I understand that the above references form the basis for the ground for
`
`invalidity set forth in the Petition for Post Grant Review of the challenged patent.
`
`16. Additionally, I am aware of information generally available to, and
`
`relied upon by, persons of ordinary skill in the art (POSITAs) as of the effective
`
`filing date of the challenged patents, including computer games, technical
`
`dictionaries and technical reference materials (including, for example, textbooks,
`
`manuals, technical papers, articles, and relevant technical standards); some of my
`
`statements below are expressly based on such awareness.
`
`17.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement my opinions to address any
`
`information obtained, or positions taken, based on any new information that comes
`
`to light throughout this proceeding.
`
`5
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`V. BASIS OF OPINIONS FORMED
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`18.
`It is my understanding that the challenged patents are to be interpreted
`
`based on how they would be read by a person of “ordinary skill in the art”
`
`(“POSITA”) at the time of the effective filing date of the application. It is my
`
`understanding that factors such as the education level of those working in the field,
`
`the sophistication of the technology, the types of problems encountered in the art,
`
`the prior art solutions to those problems, and the speed at which innovations are
`
`made may help establish the level of skill in the art.
`
`19.
`
`I am familiar with the technology at issue and the state of the art at the
`
`effective filing date of the challenged patents, September 27, 2013.
`
`20.
`
`In my opinion, the level of ordinary skill in the art of the challenged
`
`patents at the time of the effective filing date is a person with a bachelor’s degree in
`
`game design/development,
`
`interactive media, computer science, computer
`
`engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of professional experience
`
`working in computer game design/development. With more education, such as
`
`additional graduate degrees or study, less professional experience is needed to attain
`
`the ordinary level of skill. Similarly, with more experiential knowledge of computer
`
`games, such as experience developed while playing computer games, less
`
`professional experience is needed to attain the ordinary level of skill.
`
`6
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`21.
`
`I consider myself to have at least such ordinary skill in the art with
`
`respect to the subject matter of the challenged patents at the time of the effective
`
`filing date.
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED PATENT
`22. The challenged patent is a continuation of U.S. Application No.
`
`15/393,646, now patent no. 10,398,978, which is a continuation of the ’594 patent.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a continuation patent generally has the same title and
`
`specification, but different claims, than its parent. Since the challenged patent is
`
`related to the ’594 patent and generally shares the same disclosure, the citations to
`
`the patent specification in my discussion below refer to the ’594 patent unless
`
`otherwise noted.
`
`24. The challenged patent is entitled “Computer Control Method, Control
`
`Program and Computer.” The challenged patent includes 16 claims, all of which are
`
`challenged in the Petition for Post Grant Review of the challenged patent.
`
`A.
`Purported Invention of the Challenged patents
`25. The challenged patent describes a control method and system for
`
`arranging game contents within a game space. Ex. 1003 at Title and Abstract.
`
`26. The challenged patent generally relates to a way of managing and
`
`playing a game involving transmitting and receiving information for reproducing
`
`positions of game contents arranged in a video game space. According to the
`
`7
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`background section, video games played on portable devices have become
`
`increasingly common, particularly “social games” where players can play against
`
`and communicate with one another. Such games include “city building games”
`
`where a player builds a city within a “virtual space” – which the patent refers to as
`
`a “game space.” Ex. 1003 at 1:27-30.
`
`27. According to the specification of the ’682 patent, social city building
`
`games are now designed so that one player’s city can be attacked by the game pieces
`
`of a different player. Thus, the object of these city building games is to build and
`
`design a city that can defend against such attacks by strategically arranging the game
`
`contents (e.g., by placing walls, buildings, soldiers, etc. in strategic locations). Id.
`
`at 1:30-34, 44-50.
`
`28. According to the challenged patent, one problem in these city-building
`
`games is that it is cumbersome for a user to manually rearrange all the different game
`
`pieces that players accumulate in their city, and players find it difficult to predict
`
`what impact the new design will have. See Ex. 1003 at 1:42-60. This difficulty
`
`discourages players from re-designing their cities after a period of time, and as a
`
`result, players opt not to frequently change the layout of their cities, and the game
`
`becomes monotonous. Id. at Background. The specification purports to solve this
`
`problem through “making game contents and the arrangement of the game contents
`
`changeable by using templates” that define “positions of one or more of game
`
`8
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`contents.” Id. at 1:66-2:5. When a template is applied, various game contents “are
`
`automatically moved to the defined positions” on the game space defined by the
`
`template. Id. at 3:30-34, 4:34-37. As used in the ’682 patent, game contents may
`
`refer to “digital contents used in a game,” and may include “facilities, characters,
`
`soldiers, weapons, cards, figures, avatars, items, etc.” Id. at 4:38-40.
`
`29. An excerpt of Figure 4, below, illustrates the concept of creating and
`
`applying a template of game contents in a video game. It describes a process in
`
`which the player selects an arrangement of game pieces to save as a template, the
`
`computer creates a record of the type and location of game contents (i.e., creates a
`
`template), and then the computer moves the game contents in a game space in
`
`accordance with the template (i.e., applies the template). Id. at Fig. 4 & 7:18-53. In
`
`Figure 4, grid 400 illustrates a game space. Nine game facilities are arranged within
`
`the game space: four illustrated as “black circles,” three as “black triangles,” and
`
`two as “black squares.”
`
`9
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30. The player commands that the computer create a “template”
`
`corresponding to the arrangement of game contents as shown in box 401. The
`
`computer records information indicating the types and locations of the game
`
`contents shown in box 410. Id. at 7:18-36.
`
`31. The player commands that the template 410 be applied to area 421 in
`
`game space 420. The computer then moves the game contents in game space 420 in
`
`accordance with the template, the result of which is shown in 420’. In other words,
`
`401 shows the arrangement of game contents the player commands to comprise the
`
`10
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`template, 410 demonstrates that the computer records the template, box 421 in game
`
`space 420 shows where the player commands the template to be applied, and 420’
`
`shows the application of the template to the game space. The specification describes
`
`this process as the “concept of creating and applying a template.” Id. at 7:16-17.
`
`32. The specification describes three embodiments of the purported
`
`invention. The first embodiment envisions a single player environment where a
`
`single player controls the design of the city located within a game space. The player
`
`can select the game contents from his or her game space to create a template that
`
`defines the positions of one or more game contents and then apply that template to
`
`another single player game space. Id. at 4:26-16:21. The second embodiment
`
`applies the same concept of applying a template, but the concept is applied “in a
`
`multi-player environment” instead of a single-player environment. Id. at 16:25-
`
`20:20; see id. at 17:24-25 & Fig. 9 (illustrating the “concept of applying a template
`
`in a multi-player environment”). The third embodiment is nearly identical to the
`
`first embodiment, with the exception that the template is not created by a player, but
`
`rather is a pre-existing template stored in a game server. Id. at 20:24-26:13.
`
`33. The concept of managing and playing a game involving transmitting
`
`and receiving information for reproducing positions of game contents arranged in a
`
`game space is employed with generic computer equipment. The specification states
`
`that the claimed computer “may be, for example, a portable device, a desktop device,
`
`11
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`a server, etc., as long as it can execute the above procedure.” Id. at 2:12-14. The
`
`components of the computer or device, the “device communication unit,” “device
`
`storage unit,” “operation unit,” and “display unit,” are described in purely functional
`
`and generic terms. Id. at 4:55-66 & Fig. 2.
`
`34. The specification also describes generic computer functionality for
`
`storing the received information. See generally id. at 5:19-37. The information is
`
`stored within a generic “device storage unit” of the portable device playing the game
`
`or in a server connected to the device. Id. at 5:19-20. The device storage unit stores
`
`several tables, functionally described as a “facility table,” a “facility-type table,” and
`
`a “template table.” Id. at 5:29-37.
`
`35. The independent claims 1 and 9 of the challenged patent recite methods
`
`containing variations of the same three basic elements: (1) transmission of first
`
`information from a user terminal used by a first player to be received by a server,
`
`the first information “identifying a second player which is different from the first
`
`player and being designated by the first player”; (2) the server receiving second
`
`information from a user terminal used by a second player, the second information
`
`“being associated with the second player and […] indicating types and positions of
`
`at least one of a set of game contents arranged within at least a part of a game space”;
`
`and (3) transmission of third information from the server to be received by the user
`
`terminal used by the first player, the third information “associated with the second
`
`12
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`player [and] related to the second information, […] used for reproducing the types
`
`and the positions of the at least one of the set of game contents arranged within the
`
`at least a part of the game space in the user terminal” used by the first player.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 26:32-29:8. In addition, independent claims 17 and 18 recite that the
`
`user terminal used by the second player comprises circuitry configured to or executes
`
`computer program instructions to “execute a game”, while claims 1 and 9 refer to
`
`the [another] user terminal “executing a game.” Id. at 26:32-52, 27:29-50, 28:34-
`
`29:8.
`
`36.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 9 of the challenged patent and their dependent
`
`claims do not recite the term template. Instead, these claims refer to [second/third]
`
`“information” that indicates “types and positions of at least one of a set of game
`
`contents arranged within at least a part of a game space” or can be “used for
`
`reproducing the types and the positions of the at least one of the set of game contents
`
`arranged within the at least a part of the game space in the user terminal.” Ex. 1001
`
`at 26:32-28:55.
`
`37. Claim 1 of the challenged patent recites a “method performed by a user
`
`terminal used by a first player” comprising elements (1) and (3) described above. In
`
`addition, claim 1 recites that the server performs element (2) described above (e.g.,
`
`“the server receiving second information from another user terminal executing a
`
`game” that is “associated with the second player”). Claim 1 further recites that the
`
`13
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`“third information [received] from the server” is “based on the first information.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 26:32-52.
`
`38. Claim 9 recites a “method performed by a user terminal used by a
`
`second player,” comprising “executing a game” and performing element
`
`(2) described above. In addition, claim 9 recites that the server is “capable of
`
`communicating with another user terminal used by a first player” and performs
`
`element (3) described above (e.g., transmitting “third information” to the [another]
`
`user terminal used by the first player). Claim 9 further recites that the third
`
`information is transmitted when the server receives “first information” as described
`
`above in relation to element (1) from the user terminal used by the first player.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 27:29-47.
`
`39.
`
`In addition, the ’682 recites a number of dependent claims that depend
`
`from claim 1. Claim 2 recites elements relating to the user terminal of the first player
`
`executing the game “based on a command from the first player, by arranging a first
`
`set of game contents within a first game space to increase a first number of the game
`
`contents arranged within the first game space.” Claim 2 further recites that “the first
`
`set of game contents includ[es] at least one facility for defending from another
`
`player's attack.” Ex. 1001 at 26:53-59.
`
`40. Claims 3 recites that the another user terminal may “execute the game
`
`based on another command from the second player [that is] different from a
`
`14
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`command from the first player.” The another command from the second player
`
`indicates “to arrange a second set of game contents within a second game space.” In
`
`addition, the second set of game contents includes “at least one facility for defending
`
`from another player's attack.” Ex. 1001 at 26:60-67.
`
`41. Claim 4 depends from claim 3, and is related to arranging “the second
`
`set of game contents within a third game space displayed on a display of the user
`
`terminal” based on the third information (which, as recited in claim 1, is “used for
`
`reproducing the types and the positions of the at least one of the set of game contents
`
`arranged within the at least a part of the game space in the user terminal”). Ex. 1001
`
`at 27:1-4.
`
`42. The remaining dependent claims of claim 1 relate to arrangement of
`
`game contents indicated by the third information (e.g., second set of game contents)
`
`within the third game space when there is a “third set of game contents” already
`
`within the third game space. Claim 5 depends from claim 4, and describes arranging
`
`“the second set of game contents within the third game space, where a third set of
`
`game contents have been already arranged.” Ex. 1001 at 27:5-8. Claim 6 describes
`
`that when “a third number of game contents which have been already arranged
`
`within the third game space is equal to a fourth number of game contents indicated
`
`by the third information,” the user terminal arranges “the game contents at positions
`
`indicated by the third information.” Id. at 27:9-14. Claim 7 describes that “when at
`
`15
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`least one of the third set of game contents […] already arranged within the third
`
`game space is not included in the second set of game contents indicated by the third
`
`information,” the user terminal stores “the at least one of the third set of game
`
`contents in a space for storing the game contents.” Id. at 27:15-21. Claim 8
`
`describes that when “when at least a part of the second set of game contents indicated
`
`by the third information is not included in the third set of game contents […] already
`
`arranged within the third game space,” the user terminal arranges “the at least the
`
`part of the second set of game contents at positions indicated by the third
`
`information.” Id. at 27:22-28.
`
`43.
`
`Independent claims 10 and 14 of the challenged patent are different in
`
`scope from claims 1 and 9, and recite the term “template.” Ex. 1001 at 27:48-28:7;
`
`28:26-45. Independent claim 10 the challenged patent recites a method for
`
`controlling a first computer, comprising: (1) executing “a game by arranging a set
`
`of plurality of game contents within a game space based on a player's command, the
`
`set of plurality of game contents including at least one game content for defending
`
`from another player's attack”; and (2) transmitting “a parameter to a server from the
`
`first computer, the server being capable of communicating with a second computer
`
`which is different from the first computer, the parameter being used for reproducing
`
`a template in the second computer, the template defining positions of the set of
`
`plurality of game contents for defending from another player's attack and the
`
`16
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`template being created by the first computer in response to a template creation
`
`command from the player.” Ex. 1001 at 27:48-28:7. Independent claim 14 of the
`
`challenged patent recites similar steps in a method for controlling the second
`
`computer (e.g., receiving, at the second computer, a parameter from a server as
`
`described above in relation to claim 10; reproducing, at the second computer, the
`
`template by using the parameter as described above in relation to claim 10). Ex.
`
`1001 at 28:26-45. In addition, claim 14 recites additional elements related to storing
`
`“the parameter for reproducing the template received from the server in a memory”
`
`of the second computer, and storing “types and positions of the one or more game
`
`contents arranged in the game space, in the memory” of the second computer. Id.
`
`44.
`
`In addition, the ’682 patent recites a number of dependent claims that
`
`depend from independent claims 10 and 14. Claim 11 recites that “the parameter is
`
`used for reproducing the template in the second computer” and that the second
`
`computer executes “the game by arranging another set of plurality of game contents
`
`within a game space based on a command from a player of second computer, […]
`
`including at least one game content for defending from other player's attack.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 28:8-15. Claims 12 and 15 recite that the parameter (which as recited in
`
`the independent claims is “used for reproducing the template”) “includes at least one
`
`of information of an identifier of the player issued the template creation command,
`
`information of identifiers of types of the set of plurality of game contents defined by
`
`17
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`the template, and information of the positions of the set of plurality of game contents
`
`defined by the template.” Id. at 28:16-23, 46-52. Claims 13 and 16 all recite that
`
`“the set of plurality of game contents include a facility for defending from another
`
`player's attack.” Id. at 28:23-25, 53-55.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`45. The ’682 patent was filed on August 24, 2018 as U.S. Application No.
`
`16/111,945. The ’682 patent is a continuation of application 15/393,646, filed on
`
`Dec. 29, 2016, which is a continuation of 14/983,894, now Pat. No. 9,597,594, filed
`
`Dec. 30, 2015 which is a continuation of PCT/JP2014/075673, filed Sept. 26, 2014.
`
`All of these applications claim priority to two Japanese Patent Applications,
`
`No. 2014-080554 filed April 9, 2014 and No. 2013-202721 filed Sept. 27, 2013.
`
`I understand for the purposes of this Post Grant Review proceeding that the
`
`challenged patents have an effective filing date no earlier than September 27, 2013.
`
`46.
`
`I have reviewed the prosecution histories of the challenged patent and
`
`the ’594 patent. I understand that comments made during prosecution of a particular
`
`patent may influence the meaning of terms in the claims of that patent, as well as
`
`terms in other claims in the same patent family.
`
`VII. LEGAL STANDARD FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`47.
`It is my understanding that “[i]n a post-grant review proceeding, a
`
`claim of a patent…shall be construed using the same claim construction standard
`
`18
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b),
`
`including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the
`
`prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b).
`
`48.
`
`I am not a patent attorney and my opinions are limited to what I believe
`
`a POSITA would have understood the meaning of certain claim terms to be, based
`
`on the patent specifications and prosecution histories.
`
`49.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA would have no difficulty applying the plain
`
`and ordinary meanings of the majority of terms used in the claims.
`
`50.
`
`In my opinion, in view of the disclosures in the specification of the ’682
`
`patent and the prosecution history of the patent family, the claim term “at least one
`
`of a set of game contents” requires further explanation. A POSITA would have
`
`understood that “at least one of a set of game contents” refers to one or more game
`
`pieces, such as facilities, characters, weapons, and the like. The claims recite that
`
`the second information “indicat[es] types and positions of at least one of a set of
`
`game contents” and that the third information is “used for reproducing the types and
`
`positions of the at least one of the set of game contents,” which expressly includes a
`
`type and position of only a single game piece. In addition, the specification of the
`
`challenged patent includes several disclosures of a template indicating a type and
`
`position of a single game piece. For example, Figure 9 discloses the application of
`
`19
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`individual templates (910 and 930) that, when applied, result in only a single game
`
`piece moving. Ex. 1001 at Fig. 9, 17:42-56. That is, when the template 910 is
`
`applied to the game space, a black triangle is moved one space to the left to match
`
`the type and position of the game piece specified in the template 910. Similarly,
`
`when the template 930 is applied to the game space, a black triangle is moved one
`
`space to the left to match the type and position of the game piece specified in the
`
`template 930. The resulting arrangement of game pieces is shown in the game space
`
`900’.
`
`51.
`
`In my opinion, in view of the disclosures in the specification of the
`
`challenged patents and the prosecution history of the patent family, the claim
`
`limitation “template” requires further explanation. I have reviewed the final decision
`
`by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for the ’594 patent in PGR2018-00008 and
`
`understand that a “template” was construed in that decision as “a record.” PGR
`
`2018-00008 Final Written Decision (Paper 42). Accordingly, in my discussion
`
`below, I understand “a template” to mean “a record” that does not require any
`
`particular structure of organization except to the extent that particular claims provide
`
`further requirements for a template.
`
`VIII. OBVIOUSNESS STANDARDS
`52.
`It is my understanding that a claimed invention is unpatentable if the
`
`differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`20
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`of the claim 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 the subject matter pertains (i.e.,
`
`a POSITA).
`
`53.
`
`It is my understanding that obviousness is a question of law based on
`
`underlying factual issues including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the
`
`differences between the prior art and the asserted claims, (3) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinent art, and (4) the existence of secondary considerations such as
`
`commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs, failure of others, etc.
`
`54.
`
`I understand that for a single reference or a combination of references
`
`to render obvious the claimed invention, a POSITA must have been able to arrive at
`
`the claims by altering or combining the applied references.
`
`55.
`
`I understand that an obviousness evaluation can be based on a
`
`combination of multiple prior art references. I understand that the prior art
`
`references themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine,
`
`but other times the nexus linking two or more prior art references is simple common
`
`sense. I further understand that obviousness analysis recognizes that market
`
`demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be supplied by the direction of the
`
`marketplace.
`
`21
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 22
`
`
`
`
`
`56.
`
`I understand that if a technique has been used to improve one device or
`
`product, and a POSITA would recognize that it would improve similar devices or
`
`products in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application
`
`is beyond his or her skill.
`
`57.
`
`I also understand that practical and common sense considerations
`
`should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because familiar items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. I further understand that a POSITA
`
`looking to overcome a problem will often be able to fit together the teaching of
`
`multiple publications. I understand that obviousness analysis therefore takes into
`
`account the inferences and creative steps that a POSITA would employ under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`58.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven obvious
`
`merely by showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For example, when
`
`there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, a POSITA has good reason to pursue the
`
`known options within his or her technical grasp because the result is likely the
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
