`
`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