Patent No. 10,398,978 – Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`Filed on behalf of Supercell Oy
`
`By:
`JENNIFER R. BUSH, Reg. No. 50,784
`BRIAN M. HOFFMAN, Reg. No. 39,713
`MICHAEL J. SACKSTEDER (pro hac vice)
`KEVIN X. McGANN, Reg. No. 48,793
`GREGORY A. HOPEWELL, Reg. No. 66,012
`GEOFFREY R. MILLER (pro hac vice)
`ERIC Y. ZHOU, Reg. No. 68,842
`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 10,398,978 B2
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT 10,398,978
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,398,978 – Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`EXHIBIT LIST ....................................................................................................... xi
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`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 
`Service of Information (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(4)) ..................................... 3 
`D. 
`III.  ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................... 3 
`A. 
`Timing .................................................................................................. 3 
`B. 
`Grounds for Standing (37 CFR § 42.204(a)) ....................................... 3 
`IV.  DESCRIPTION OF THE ’978 PATENT ....................................................... 3 
`A. 
`Specification ......................................................................................... 3 
`B. 
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 8 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER
`37 CFR § 42.204(b) AND RELIEF REQUESTED ..................................... 10 
`A. 
`Effective Filing Date of the Challenged Claims ................................ 10 
`B. 
`Claims for Which PGR Is Requested, Precise Relief
`Requested, and Specific Statutory Grounds on Which
`the Challenge Is Based (37 CFR § 42.204(b)(1) &
`37 CFR § 42.204(b)(2)) ...................................................................... 11 
`Claim Construction (37 CFR § 42.204(b)(3)) .................................... 11 
`1.  The Claimed Invention ............................................................... 12 
`2. 
`’594 PGR .................................................................................... 14 
`
`V. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,398,978 – Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`VI. 
`
`3.  District Court Litigation ............................................................. 14 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 14 
`D. 
`IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT AT LEAST ONE
`OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’978 PATENT
`IS UNPATENTABLE .................................................................................. 15 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1-18 of the ’978 Patent Are Invalid
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for Failing to Be Directed Toward
`Patent-Eligible Subject Matter. .......................................................... 15 
`1. 
`Patentable Subject Matter Under 35 U.SC. § 101 ..................... 15 
`2.  The 2019 Eligibility Guidance Was Not Addressed
`During Prosecution .................................................................... 18 
`3.  Claims 1-18 of the ’978 Patent Are Not Materially
`Different from the Claims Previously Invalidated in
`the ’594 Patent. .......................................................................... 21 
`Prong One of Alice Step 1: Claims 1-18 of the ’978
`Patent Recite the Abstract Idea of Managing and
`Playing a Game Involving Creating And Applying
`a Template of Positions of a Plurality of Game Contents. ........ 25 
`a.  Managing and Playing a Game Involving
`Creating and Applying a Template of Positions
`of a Plurality of Game Contents Is a Mental
`Process and a Longstanding Method of
`Organizing Human Activity .......................................... 25 
`b.  Managing and Playing a Game Involving
`Creating and Applying a Template of Positions
`of a Plurality of Game Contents Is a Manually
`Achievable Purpose ....................................................... 29 
`Prong Two of Alice Step 1: Claims 1-18 of the
`’978 Patent Do Not Recite a Practical Application
`of the Abstract Idea .................................................................... 31
`
`5. 
`
`4. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,398,978 – Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`The Additional Elements Do No More than
`Implement the Abstract Idea on a Generic
`Computer ....................................................................... 32 
`The Claims Are Not Directed to an Improvement
`in Computer Functionality or Other Technology .......... 32 
`6.  Alice Step 2: Claims 1-18 of the ’978 Patent Provide
`No “Inventive Concept” ............................................................. 35 
`a. 
`The Claims Recite Purely Conventional and
`Functional Components ................................................. 36 
`The Claims Do Not Capture Any Purported
`Technical Improvement ................................................. 38 
`Beyond the Abstract Idea, the Claims Are
`Well Understood, Routine, and Conventional ............... 41 
`7.  The Dependent Claims Add Nothing Inventive ........................ 42 
`Ground 2: Claims 1-18 of the ’978 Patent Are Invalid
`Under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for Lack of Written Description................ 43 
`Ground 3: Claims 1-18 of the ’978 Patent Are Invalid
`Under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) for Indefiniteness. ..................................... 45 
`D.  Ground 4: Claims 1-18 of the ’978 Patent Are Invalid
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as Obvious Over Clash of Clans
`in View of Mastermind in Further View of Kim. .............................. 46 
`1. 
`Independent Caim 1 and Dependent Claims 2-6. ...................... 48 
`a. 
`Clash and Kim disclose a method performed
`by a portable electronic device of Claim 1. ................... 48 
`Clash discloses executing a game by arranging,
`based on a command received from a first
`player, a plurality of game contents within
`a game space, the game contents including
`at least game contents for defending from
`an attack initiated by a second player of Claim 1. ......... 49 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`b. 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,398,978 – Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`f. 
`
`h. 
`
`c.  Mastermind discloses receiving a command
`to create a template from the first player of Claim 1. .... 50
`d.  Mastermind discloses creating, responsive to the
`received command to create the template, a
`plurality of templates defining the plurality
`of game contents and respective positions
`of the plurality of game contents within the
`game space of Claim 1. .................................................. 51 
`e.  Mastermind discloses creating a plurality
`of images that each correspond to one of
`the plurality of templates of Claim 1. ............................ 53 
`Mastermind discloses displaying a screen
`including the plurality of images of Claim 1. ................ 55 
`g.  Mastermind discloses receiving a selection
`corresponding to one of the displayed
`images of Claim 1. ......................................................... 55 
`The combination of references disclose
`applying a template corresponding to the
`received selection to a predetermined area
`within the game space of Claim 1. ................................ 56 
`Clash discloses that the respective positions
`of the plurality of game contents within
`the game space are defined by coordinates
`in the game space of Claim 2......................................... 58 
`Clash discloses displaying an interface
`including the game space and images
`corresponding to a plurality of game contents,
`receiving a command to allocate at least
`one of the plurality of game contents in an
`area of the game space and allocating the at
`least one of the plurality of game contents to
`the area of the game space based on the
`received command of Claim 3. ...................................... 60
`
`i. 
`
`j. 
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,398,978 – Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`k. 
`
`l. 
`
`Clash discloses the plurality of game contents
`are categorized into a plurality of different
`types of game content and different image
`data is associated with each of the plurality
`of different types of game content of Claim 4. .............. 62 
`Mastermind discloses allocating the applied t
`emplate as the first player’s active allocation
`of the plurality of game contents upon receiving
`a command from the first player of Claim 5. ................ 63 
`Clash, Mastermind and Kim disclose registering
`the applied template to a server by transmitting
`information corresponding to the applied
`template to the server via a communication
`interface of the portable electronic device of
`Claim 6. .......................................................................... 63 
`2.  The Computer Readable Media and Electronic
`Device of Claims 7-18 Are Obvious for the Same
`Reasons as Claims 1 -6. ............................................................. 65 
`3.  A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine
`Clash, Mastermind, and Kim. .................................................... 68 
`VII.  THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED UNDER
`§§ 324 OR 325 .............................................................................................. 69 
`A. 
`Section 325(d) Is Inapplicable Because Petition Does
`Not Assert Art Previously Evaluated by the Office. .......................... 69 
`The Board Should Not Deny Institution Under Section 324(a). ........ 70 
`B. 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 72 
`
`
`m. 
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`576 Fed. App’x. 1005, 1005-06 (Fed. Cir. .............................................................. 25
`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) ........................................................................................ 16
`Audatex N.A., Inc. v. Mitchell Intl., Inc.,
`703 F. App’x 986 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 31
`Bayer CropScience LP v. Exosect Ltd.,
`PGR2017-00018, Paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 11, 2017) .............................................. 45
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................passim
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ...................................................................................... 17, 37
`BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 36
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 36
`Cogent Med., Inc. v. Elsevier Inc.,
`70 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................ 27
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 12
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc.,
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 20
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ........................................................................................ 70
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,398,978 – Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 31
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................. 18, 19, 34
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ............................................................................................ 34
`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) ........................................................ 18, 19, 30, 33
`Ex Parte Miyazaki,
`89 U.S.P.Q.2d 1207 (BPIA 2008) ................................................................ 45, 46
`General Plastic Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 ................................................................................... 70
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 47
`In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.,
`911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 19, 20
`In re Smith,
`815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 19, 20
`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) .......................................................................... 31
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 24
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,398,978 – Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................. 27, 45, 46
`KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 47, 70
`Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................ 44
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .................................................................................. 35, 36
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) .............................................................................................. 17
`Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc.,
`325 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 43
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ............................................................................................ 45
`Netflix, Inc. v. Rovi Corp.,
`114 F. Supp. 3d 927 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................................ 37
`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) ....................................... 20, 25, 29, 39
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 672 (2018) ................ 36
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
`LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................. 24
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
`873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 31
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,398,978 – Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`680 F. App’x 977 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 24
`Supercell Oy. v. Gree, Inc.,
`PGR2018-00008, Paper 15 ................................................................................. 40
`Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC,
`921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............................................................. 33, 34, 41
`Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (U.S.), Inc.,
`664 F. App’x 968 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 29
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... 17, 37
`Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................................................................... 43, 44
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .............................................................................................. 9, 47, 48
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................. 11, 46
`35 U.S.C. §112(a) ........................................................................................ 11, 43, 45
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) ................................................................................... 9, 11, 45, 46
`35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a), 324(a) ..................................................................................... 70
`Rule 42.204 ................................................................................................................ 3
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`83 Fed. Reg. 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018) ......................................................................... 11
`84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ..................................................................... 16, 18, 32
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,398,978 – Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`84 Fed. Reg 55942 (Oct. 18, 2019) .............................................................. 16, 18, 28
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, November 2019,
`84 Fed. Reg. 64280 at 61 .................................................................................... 69
`H.R. Rep. No. 112–98, pt. 1 (2011), 2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. 67 .................................. 70
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,398,978 – 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
`
`1015
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,398,978 to Eda
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,398,978
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,597,594 to Eda
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,597,594
`
`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)
`
`Correspondence Chess in America, Bryce C. Avery (2000)
`(selected pages)
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th Ed. (1999)
`
`Declaration of Mark L. Claypool, Ph.D.
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Mark L. Claypool, Ph.D.
`
`Declaration of Antti Takala Regarding Clash of Clans Version
`4.120 (“Clash”)
`
`Declaration of Sean Olesiuk [Mastermind’s In-Game Builder
`Idea (with LOADS of pictures!) (“Mastermind”)]
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,079,105 to Jeong Hun Kim et al. (“Kim”)
`
`Gratuitous Space Battles Manual, Version 1.1, and related links
`(“GSB”)
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0105626 to Cho et al. (“Cho”)
`
`Review of Clash of Clans by PocketGamer
`
`xi
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,398,978 – Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`Description
`
`Declaration of Christopher Butler and associated Internet
`Archive materials
`
`Eastern District of Texas Standing Order Regarding the Novel
`Coronavirus (COVID-19)
`
`Eastern District of Texas General Order 20-03
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order entered on
`May 14, 2020, in E.D. Texas Case Nos. 19-cv-00071;
`19-cv-00161; 19-cv-00200; and 19-cv-00237
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,398,978 – Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 321-329 and 37 CFR §§ 42.200 et seq.,
`
`I.
`
`Petitioner Supercell Oy (“Supercell” or “Petitioner”) requests Post Grant Review
`
`(“PGR”) of claims 1-18 of United States Patent No. 10,398,978 to Taiki Eda, titled
`
`“Computer Control Method, Control Program and Computer” (the “’978 patent”;
`
`“Ex. 1001”), owned by GREE, Inc. (“GREE”). 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 ’978 patent 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 ’978 patent is the subject the following patent infringement lawsuit:
`
`GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, No. 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) (the “District
`
`Court Litigation”). 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);
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,398,978 – Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
` 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 Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,328,347
`
`(PGR2020-00046);
`
` Petition for Post Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,335,682
`
`(PGR2020-00052);
`
` Petition for Post Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,335,683
`
`(PGR2020-00053); and
`
` Petition for 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: Brian M. Hoffman (Reg. No. 39,713), Michael J. Sacksteder
`
`(pro hac vice to be filed), Kevin X. McGann (Reg. No. 48,793), Gregory A.
`
`Hopewell (Reg. No. 66,012), Geoffrey Miller (pro hac vice to be filed), and Eric
`
`Y. Zhou (Reg. No. 68,842).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,398,978 – Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`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) 938-5200), 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 ’978 patent was granted on September 3, 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 June 3, 2020. See Ex. 1001.
`
`B. Grounds for Standing (37 CFR § 42.204(a))
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.204(a) that the ’978 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 claims of the ’978
`
`patent on the grounds identified in the Petition.
`
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ’978 PATENT
`A.
`Specification
`The ’978 patent shares the specification of U.S. Patent No. 5,597,594
`
`(the “’594 patent”; “Ex. 1003”), and like the ’594 patent, relates to a way of
`
`managing and playing a game involving transmitting and receiving information for
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,398,978 – Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`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 1:20-30;1 Declaration of Mark L.
`
`Claypool, Ph.D. (“Ex. 1008”), ¶ 26.
`
`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) within the city.
`
`Ex. 1003 at 1:42-50; Ex. 1008, ¶ 27.
`
`The Patent Owner set out to solve what it viewed as the problems
`
`encountered in city-building games – namely that it is cumbersome for a user to
`
`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 ’978 patent. The prosecution history of the ’594 patent is
`
`Exhibit 1004.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,398,978 – Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`manually rearrange all the different game pieces players accumulate in their city,
`
`and players find it difficult to predict the impact of the new design. These problems
`
`discourage players from re-designing their cities, and as a result, players opt not to
`
`frequently change the layout of their cities, and the game becomes monotonous.
`
`Ex. 1003 at 1:42-60. The specification purports to solve this problem by “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; Ex. 1008, ¶ 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
`
`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 &
`
`7:16-48. 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.” Ex. 1008, ¶ 29.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,398,978 – Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`
`
`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. Ex. 1003 at 7:18-36; Ex. 1008, ¶ 30.
`
`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
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,398,978 – Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`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;
`
`see generally id. at 7:16-48; Ex. 1008, ¶ 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 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; Ex. 1008, ¶ 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 computer “may be, for example, a portable device, a
`
`desktop device, a server, etc., as long as it can execute the above procedure.”
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,398,978 – Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`Ex. 1003 at 2:11-13. 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. 2A;
`
`Ex. 1008, ¶¶ 33-34.
`
`The specification also describes generic computer functionality for storing
`
`the received information. See generally Ex. 1003 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; Ex. 1008, ¶ 34.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`The ’978 patent was filed on December 29, 2016 as Application Serial
`
`No. 15/393,646 (“the ’646 application”), and claims priority to U.S. Application
`
`Serial No. 14/983,984, filed on December 30, 2015 and issued as U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,597,594 (“the ’594 patent”), and PCT Application Serial No.
`
`PCT/JP2014/075673, filed on September 26, 2014. Foreign priority for the PCT
`
`application was claimed back to Japanese Applications JP 2013-202721, filed
`
`September 27, 2013 and JP 2014-080554, filed April 9, 2014. The ’646
`
`application was initially assigned to art unit 3714, but reassigned to art unit 3717,
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,398,978 – Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`and a reassigned a second time to art unit 3661. See Prosecution History of U.S.
`
`Patent 10,398,978 (“Ex. 1002”), at 129, 928, 1055.
`
`The ’646 application was originally filed with claims 1-29. Id. at 1135-42.
`
`On March 9, 2017, a Non-Final Office Action was issued in the ’646 application,
`
`rejecting claims 1-29 on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting over claims
`
`1-20 of the ’594 patent. Id. at 935. Claims 1-16 were also rejected as indefinite
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Id. at 945-46. The independent claims were amended in
`
`an amendment filed on March 23, 2017, and applicant argued that the amended
`
`claims were definite and patentably distinct from the ’594 patent. Id. at 916-27.
`
`Nevertheless, the applicant filed a terminal disclaimer to obviate the double
`
`patenting rejection on May 9, 2017. Id. at 907-13. The ’646 application was
`
`allowed on May 17, 2017. Id. at 859 (Notice of Allowance).
`
`The applicant proceeded to file several Information Disclosure Statements
`
`following the May 17, 2017 Notice of Allowance. See id. at 648, 710, 729, 754,
`
`788, 855. The examiner considered the references disclosed and on November 16,
`
`2017, issued a Non-Final Office Ac