Patent No. 10,335,682 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`Filed on behalf of Supercell Oy
`
`By:
`JENNIFER R. BUSH, Reg. No 50,784
`MICHAEL J. SACKSTEDER (pro hac vice)
`BRIAN HOFFMAN, Reg. No. 39,713
`KEVIN X. MCGANN, Reg. No. 48,793
`GREGORY HOPEWELL, Reg. No. 66,012
`GEOFFREY MILLER (pro hac vice)
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone: 650.988.8500
`Facsimile: 650.938.5200
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Post Grant Review No. __________
`Patent 10,335,682 B2
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT 10,335,682
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,682 —Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES (37 CFR § 42.8(A)(1)) ....................................... 1 
`A. 
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(1)) ...................................... 1 
`B. 
`Notice of Related Matters (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(2)) ................................ 1 
`C. 
`Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(3) ........ 2 
`D. 
`Service of Information (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(4)) ..................................... 2 
`III.  ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................... 2 
`A. 
`Timing .................................................................................................. 2 
`B. 
`Grounds for Standing (37 CFR § 42.204(a)) ....................................... 3 
`IV.  DESCRIPTION OF THE ’682 PATENT ....................................................... 3 
`A. 
`Specification ......................................................................................... 3 
`B. 
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 8 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER
`37 CFR § 42.204(B) AND RELIEF REQUESTED ....................................... 9 
`A. 
`Effective Filing Date of the Challenged Claims .................................. 9 
`B. 
`Claims for Which PGR Is Requested, Precise Relief
`Requested, and Specific Statutory Grounds on Which the
`Challenge Is Based ............................................................................. 10 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 10 
`Claim Construction (37 CFR § 42.204(b)(3)) .................................... 11 
`1.  The Claimed Invention ............................................................... 12 
`2. 
`“At least one of a set of game contents” .................................... 14 
`3. 
`“Template” ................................................................................. 15 
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`V. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,682 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`VI. 
`
`4. 
`
`4. 
`Intended Use: “being used for reproducing…” ......................... 15 
`IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT AT LEAST ONE
`OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’682 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE ....................................................................................... 16 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1-16 of the ’682 Patent Are Invalid
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ....................................................................... 16 
`1. 
`Patentable Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 .................... 16 
`2.  The 2019 Eligibility Guidance Was Not Addressed
`During Prosecution. ................................................................... 20 
`3.  Claims 1-16 of the ’682 Patent are Not Materially
`Different from the Claims Previously Invalidated in the
`’594 Patent ................................................................................. 23 
`Prong One of Alice Step 1: Claims 1-16 of the ’682
`Patent Recite the Abstract Idea of Managing and Playing
`a Game Involving Transmitting and Receiving
`Information for Reproducing Positions of Game Contents ....... 26 
`a.  Managing and Playing a Game Involving
`Transmitting and Receiving Information for
`Reproducing Positions of Game Contents Is a
`Mental Process and a Longstanding Method of
`Organizing Human Activity .......................................... 27 
`b.  Managing and Playing a Game Involving
`Transmitting and Receiving Information for
`Reproducing Positions of Game Contents Is a
`Manually Achievable Purpose ....................................... 31 
`Prong Two of Alice Step 1: Claims 1-16 of the ’682
`Patent Do Not Recite a Practical Application of the
`Abstract Idea .............................................................................. 35 
`a. 
`The Additional Elements Do No More than
`Implement the Abstract Idea on a Computer ................. 35 
`
`5. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,682 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`The Claims Are Not Directed to an Improvement
`in Computer Functionality or Other Technology .......... 36 
`6.  Alice Step 2: Claims 1-16 of the ’682 Patent Provide
`No “Inventive Concept” ............................................................. 39 
`a. 
`The Claims Recite Purely Functional Components ...... 40 
`b. 
`The Claims Do Not Capture the Purported
`Innovation ...................................................................... 42 
`The Claims Are Well-understood, Routine,
`Conventional .................................................................. 44 
`7.  The Dependent Claims Add Nothing Inventive. ....................... 45 
`Ground 2: Claims 1-16 of the ’682 Patent Are Invalid Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as Obvious Over Cho and GSB ............................... 46 
`1. 
`Independent Claims 1 and 9 ....................................................... 47 
`a. 
`Cho and GSB disclose “A method performed by a
`user terminal used by a first player” of claim 1,
`and “A method performed by a user terminal used
`by a second player” comprising “executing a
`game” of claim 9 ............................................................ 47 
`Cho and GSB disclose “transmitting first
`information to a server from the user terminal […]
`identifying a second player […] different from the
`first player and being designated by the first
`player” of claims 1 and the server “receiving first
`information identifying the second player…” of
`claim 9 ........................................................................... 48
`
`b. 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,682 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`2. 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`Cho and GSB disclose “the server receiving
`second information from another user terminal
`executing a game, 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” of claims 1, and “transmitting
`second information to [the] server from the user
`terminal [of the second player]” of claim 9 ................... 50 
`Cho and GSB disclose “receiving, at the user
`terminal, third information from the server based
`on the first information, the third information
`being associated with the second player, […]
`related to the second information, and […] 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” of claims 1, “the server transmitting
`third information to the another user terminal”
`used by the first player of claim 9 ................................. 53 
`Independent Claims 10 and 14 ................................................... 56 
`a. 
`Cho and GSB disclose “A method for controlling a
`first computer” of claim 10, and “A method for
`controlling a second computer comprising a
`memory” of claim 14 ..................................................... 56 
`Cho and GSB disclose “executing a game by
`arranging a set of plurality of game contents within
`a game space based on a player’s command, […]
`including at least one game content for defending
`from another player’s attack” of claim 10 ..................... 56
`
`b. 
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,682 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`Cho and GSB disclose a “template defining
`positions of the set of plurality of game contents
`for defending from another player's attack […]
`being created by the first computer in response to a
`template creation command from the player” of
`claims 10 and 14 ............................................................ 57 
`Cho and GSB disclose transmitting “a parameter to
`a server from the first computer, the server being
`capable of communicating with a second computer
`[…], the parameter being used for reproducing
`[the] template in the second computer” of claim 10
`and “receiving, at the second computer, a
`parameter from a server…” and “reproducing…
`the template by using the parameter…” of claim 14 ..... 59 
`Cho and GSB disclose storing “the parameter for
`reproducing the template received from the server
`in a memory of the second computer” and “types
`and positions of the one or more game contents
`arranged in the game space, in the memory” of
`claim 14 ......................................................................... 61 
`3.  Cho and GSB disclose “wherein the user terminal is
`configured to execute 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, the first set of game contents including at
`least one facility for defending from another player's
`attack” of Claim 2 ...................................................................... 62
`
`e. 
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,682 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.  Cho and GSB disclose “wherein the another user terminal
`is configured to execute the game based on another
`command from the second player […] different from a
`command from the first player and […] indicating to
`arrange a second set of game contents within a second
`game space, the second set of game contents including at
`least one facility for defending from another player's
`attack” of Claim 3 ...................................................................... 64 
`5.  Cho and GSB disclose “wherein the user terminal is
`further configured to arrange, based on the third
`information, the second set of game contents within a
`third game space displayed on a display of the user
`terminal” of Claim 4 .................................................................. 65 
`6.  Cho and GSB disclose the user terminal configured to
`“arrange the second set of game contents within the third
`game space, where a third set of game contents have been
`already arranged” of Claim 5 ..................................................... 67 
`7.  Cho and GSB disclose 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, […] arrange
`the game contents at positions indicated by the third
`information” of Claim 6 ............................................................. 68 
`8.  Cho and GSB that “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 which have
`been already arranged within the third game space, to
`arrange the at least the part of the second set of game
`contents at positions indicated by the third information”
`of Claim 8 ................................................................................... 69
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,682 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`
`9.  Cho and GSB disclose 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” of Claim
`11 ................................................................................................ 69 
`10.  Cho and GSB disclose that “the parameter […] 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 the template, and information of the positions
`of the set of plurality of game contents defined by the
`template” of Claims 12 and 15 ................................................... 71 
`11.  Cho and GSB disclose that “the set of plurality of game
`contents include a facility for defending from another
`player's attack” of Claims 13 and 16 ......................................... 72 
`12.  A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Cho
`with GSB .................................................................................... 72 
`Ground 3: Claim 7 of the ‘682 Patent Are Invalid Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 as Obvious Over Cho, GSB, and Kim .......................... 74 
`1.  Cho, GSB and Kim disclose “when at 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, […]
`store the at least one of the third set of game contents in a
`space for storing the game contents” of claim 7 ........................ 74 
`2.  A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Cho
`and GSB with Kim ..................................................................... 77
`
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,682 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`VII.  THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED UNDER
`§§ 324 OR 325 .............................................................................................. 78 
`A. 
`Section 325(d) is Inapplicable Because Petition Does Not
`Assert Art Previously Evaluated By the Office ................................. 78 
`The Board Should Not Deny Institution Under Section 324(a) ......... 78 
`B. 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 80 
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,682 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) .....................................................................................passim
`Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
`133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013) ........................................................................................ 17
`Audatex N.A., Inc. v. Mitchell Int’l, Inc.,
`703 F. App’x 986 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 33
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................passim
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ................................................................................ 17, 20, 41
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 39
`Cogent Med., Inc. v. Elsevier Inc.,
`70 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................ 29
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 13, 29
`Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services,
`859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 19
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ........................................................................................ 79
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 32
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 21, 38
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ............................................................................................ 38
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,682 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................passim
`Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................ 19, 21, 31, 36
`General Plastic Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 ................................................................................... 78
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 46
`Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp.,
`405 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 16
`In re Giannelli,
`739 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 15
`In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.,
`911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 22
`In re Smith,
`815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 22
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................passim
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank,
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 32
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 29
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 46, 79
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ............................................................................ 17, 20, 39
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,682 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 33, 34
`Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc.,
`336 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 15
`Netflix, Inc. v. Rovi Corp.,
`114 F. Supp. 3d 927 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................................ 40
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................... 11, 12
`Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC,
`576 Fed. App’x. 1005-06 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................... 22, 27
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
`873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 32
`SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.,
`727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 12
`Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC,
`921 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 37
`Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (U.S.), Inc.,
`664 F. App’x 968 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 31
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... 20, 41
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 11
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ....................................................................................... 46, 47, 74
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................... 10, 46, 74, 80
`
`
`
`xi
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,682 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) ..................................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 .......................................................................................... 1, 80
`35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a), 324(a) ..................................................................................... 78
`Rule 42.204 ................................................................................................................ 3
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ........................................................................................... 3, 9, 11
`37 CFR § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................... 2
`Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims
`in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
`83 FR 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018) .............................................................................. 11
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, November 2019
`(U.S.P.T.O. Nov 20, 2019) (“TPG”) at 61 ................................................... 78, 79
`H.R. Rep. No. 112–98, pt. 1 (2011), 2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. 67 .................................. 79
`S.Rep. No. 110-259 (2008) ...................................................................................... 79
`USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,
`84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ................................................................ 18, 19, 36
`USPTO October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update,
`84 Fed. Reg 55942 (Oct. 18, 2019) .............................................................. 18, 30
`
`
`
`
`
`xii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,682 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 CFR § 42.63(e))
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,335,682 to Eda
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,335,682
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,597,594 to Eda
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,597,594
`
`Declaration of Mark L. Claypool, Ph.D.
`
`Correspondence Chess in America, Bryce C. Avery
`(2000)(selected pages)
`
`The History of Chess, From the Time of the Early Inventions of
`the Game in India, till the Period of its Establishment in
`Western and Central Europe, Duncan Forbes, LL.D.
`(Wm. H. Allen & Co. 1860)(selected pages)
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th Ed. (1999)
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0105626 to Cho et al. (“Cho”)
`
`Gratuitous Space Battles Manual, Version 1.1, and related links
`(“GSB”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,079,105 to Kim et al. (“Kim”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Mark L. Claypool, Ph.D.
`
`Declaration of Christopher Butler and associated Internet
`Archive materials
`
`Standing Order Regarding the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19),
`E.D. Texas
`
`1015
`
`General Order 20-3, E.D. Texas
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,682 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 CFR §§ 42.200 et seq.,
`
`I.
`
`Petitioner Supercell Oy (“Supercell” or “Petitioner”) requests Post Grant Review
`
`(“PGR”) of claims 1-16 of United States Patent No. 10,335,682 to Eda, titled
`
`“Computer Control Method, Control Program and Computer” (the “682 patent”;
`
`“Ex. 1001”), owned by GREE, Inc. (“GREE” or “Patent Owner”). This Petition
`
`demonstrates that Petitioner is more likely than not to prevail in invalidating at least
`
`one of the challenged claims. The challenged claims of the ‘682 application should
`
`be canceled as unpatentable.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 CFR § 42.8(a)(1))
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(1))
`The sole real party-in-interest for this Petition is Supercell Oy, Petitioner.
`
`B. Notice of Related Matters (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(2))
`The ‘682 patent is the subject the following patent infringement lawsuit:
`
`GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, Civil Case No. 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP (EDTx).
`
`The following PGR matters are related to the instant matter: Petition for Post
`
`Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,300,385 (PGR2020-00034); Petition for Post
`
`Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,307,675 (PGR2020-00038); Petition for Post
`
`Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,307,676 (PGR2020-00039); Petition for Post
`
`Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,307,677 (PGR2020-00041); Petition for Post
`
`Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,307,678 (PGR2020-00042); Petition for Post
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,682 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,328,346 (PGR2020-00043); Petition for Post
`
`Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,328,347 (PGR2020-00046); and Completed
`
`Post Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,597,594 (PGR2018-00008).
`
`C. Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner designates Jennifer R. Bush (Reg. No. 50,784) as lead counsel and
`
`as back-up counsel: Michael J. Sacksteder (pro hac vice to be filed), Brian M.
`
`Hoffman (Reg. No. 39,713), Kevin X. McGann (Reg. No. 48,793), Gregory A.
`
`Hopewell (Reg. No. 66,012), Geoffrey Miller (pro hac vice to be filed), Eric Zhou
`
`(Reg. No. 68,842).
`
`D.
`Service of Information (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(4))
`Service of any documents via hand-delivery may be made at the postal
`
`mailing address of Fenwick & West LLP, 801 California Street, Mountain View,
`
`CA 94041 (Tel: (650) 988-8500 and Fax: (650) 988-5200), with courtesy copies to
`
`the email address JBush-PTAB@fenwick.com. Petitioner consents to electronic
`
`service to JBush-PTAB@fenwick.com.
`
`III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
`A. Timing
`The ’682 patent was granted on July 2, 2019 and the present petition is being
`
`filed on or before the date that is nine months after the date of the grant of the
`
`patent, or April 2, 2020. See Ex. 1001.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,682 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`B. Grounds for Standing (37 CFR § 42.204(a))
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.204(a) that the ’682 patent is
`
`available for Post Grant Review (“PGR”) and that Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting a Post Grant Review challenging the validity of the
`
`above-referenced claims of the ’682 patent on the grounds identified in the
`
`Petition.
`
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ’682 PATENT
`A.
`Specification
`The ’682 patent generally relates to a way of managing and playing a game
`
`involving receiving and transmitting information for reproducing positions of game
`
`contents arranged in a video game space. According to the 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;1 see also Ex. 1005 at ¶¶25-26.
`
`
`1 Since the challenged patent is related to the ‘594 patent and generally shares the
`
`same disclosure, the citations to the patent specification herein refer to the ‘594
`
`patent specification (Ex. 1003) unless otherwise noted by reference to Ex. 1001,
`
`e.g., for the claims of the ‘682 patent.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,682 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`According to the specification, 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). Ex. 1003 at 1:30-34.
`
`The Patent Owner set out to solve what it viewed as problems in these
`
`city-building games – namely that it is cumbersome for a user to manually
`
`rearrange all the different game pieces players accumulate in their city, and players
`
`find it difficult to predict what impact the new design will have. 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” wherein game pieces “are automatically moved to
`
`the defined positions” on the game space defined by the template. Id. at 3:30-34,
`
`4:34-37; see also Ex. 1005 at ¶¶27-28.
`
`An excerpt of Figure 4, below, illustrates the concept of creating and
`
`applying a template of game pieces 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 pieces (i.e., creates a
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,682 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`template), and then the computer moves the game pieces in a game space in
`
`accordance with the template (i.e., applies the template). Ex. 1003 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.”
`
`
`
`The player commands that the computer create a “template” of the game
`
`pieces as shown in box 401. The computer records the types and locations of these
`
`game pieces in a “template” shown in box 410. Id. at 7:18-36; see also Ex. 1005 at
`
`¶¶29-30.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,682 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`The player commands that the template 410 be applied to area 421 in game
`
`space 420. The computer then moves the pieces 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 pieces the player commands to comprise the 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.” Ex. 1003 at 7:16-17.
`
`There is no template recited in the claims of the ‘682 patent. See Ex. 1001 at 26:32-
`
`29:8; see also Ex. 1005 at ¶31.
`
`The specification describes three embodiments of the 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
`
`pieces 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. Ex. 1003 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
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,682 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`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;
`
`see also Ex. 1005 at ¶32.
`
`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 co