Patent No. 10,583,362 – Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Filed on behalf of Supercell Oy
`By:
`BRIAN HOFFMAN, Reg. No. 39,713
`JENNIFER R. BUSH, Reg. No 50,784
`MICHAEL J. SACKSTEDER (pro hac vice)
`KEVIN X. MCGANN, Reg. No. 48,793
`GREGORY HOPEWELL, Reg. No. 66,012
`GEOFFREY MILLER (pro hac vice)
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street, 12th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: 415.875.2300
`Facsimile: 415.281.1350
`
`
`
`
`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 10,583,362 B2
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT 10,583,362
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – 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
`Service of Information (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(4)) ...................................... 2
`D.
`III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ................................................................ 2
`A.
`Timing ................................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Grounds for Standing (37 CFR § 42.204(a)) ........................................ 2
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ’362 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. Ordinary and Customary Meaning .............................................. 15
`
`C.
`D.
`
`V.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`3.
`
`VI.
`
`“A Second Battle Condition” of Claims 14 and 22
`Is Construed as “A Third Battle Condition” ............................... 15
`IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT AT LEAST ONE
`OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’362 PATENT
`IS UNPATENTABLE ................................................................................... 16
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-27 of the ’362 Patent Are Invalid
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 For Failing To Be Directed Toward
`Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ............................................................ 16
`1.
`Introduction ................................................................................. 16
`The ’362 Patent Claims Patent Ineligible Subject Matter
`Under the 2019 Eligibility Guidance and Gaming Cases ................... 21
`Step One, Prong One: The Claims of the ’362 Patent Are
`Directed to Managing and Playing a Game Involving
`Different Rules for Different Time Periods Within the Game ........... 25
`Step One, Prong Two: The Claims of the ’362 Patent Do
`Not Integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application .............. 28
`1. The Additional Elements Do No More than
`Generically Implement the Abstract Idea on a
`Computer ..................................................................................... 29
`2. The Claims Are Not Directed to an Improvement in
`Computer Functionality or Other Technology ............................ 30
`Alice Step Two: The Claims of the ’362 Patent Provide No
`“Inventive Concept” ............................................................................ 33
`1. The Claims Recite Purely Conventional and
`Functional Components .............................................................. 35
`2. The Claims Do Not Capture Any Purported Technical
`Improvement ............................................................................... 37
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`F.
`
`2.
`
`3. Beyond the Abstract Idea, the Claims Are
`Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional ............................ 39
`4. The Dependent Claims Add Nothing Inventive ......................... 41
`Ground 2: Claims 1-27 of the ’362 Patent Are Invalid
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as Obvious Over MH and Gilson .................. 42
`1. Overview of the references ......................................................... 42
`a. Master Hearthstone in 10 Minutes! ................................ 42
`b.
`Gilson .............................................................................. 48
`Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-11 ........................ 49
`a. MH and Gilson disclose a method for
`controlling a battle game of claim 1 ............................... 49
`b. MH and Gilson disclose displaying a game
`screen comprising a first field at a lower
`position in the game screen and a second field
`above the first field, wherein in the first field, a
`plurality of cards selected from a deck which is
`a stack of virtual cards are arranged in a
`horizontal direction of claim 1 ........................................ 50
`c. MH and Gilson disclose during a first term of
`the battle game, in the second field, under a first
`battle condition, conducting a battle against a
`first-term opponent character appearing in the
`first term using a first-term parameter based on
`a first-term card selected by a player, and
`concluding the first term of the battle game at a
`predefined end timing based on a start timing of
`the battle game of claim 1 ............................................... 52
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`f.
`
`d. MH and Gilson disclose starting a second term
`of the battle game at a predefined start timing
`based on the start timing of the battle game of
`claim 1 ............................................................................ 57
`e. MH and Gilson disclose during the second term
`after the first term, in the second field, under a
`second battle condition which is different from
`the first battle condition, conducting a battle
`against a second-term opponent character
`appearing in the second term using a second-
`term parameter based on a second-term card
`selected by the player, and concluding the
`second term of the battle game at a second
`predefined end timing based on the start timing
`of the battle game of claim 1 .......................................... 57
`MH and Gilson disclose the second battle
`condition is predetermined regardless of a battle
`result in the first term of claim 2 .................................... 60
`g. MH and Gilson disclose during a third term
`after the second term, in the second field, under
`a third battle condition which is different from
`the first battle condition and second battle
`condition and is dependent on a battle result in
`the second term, conducting a battle against a
`third-term opponent character appearing in the
`third term using a third-term parameter based on
`a third-term card selected by the player of claim
`3 ...................................................................................... 60
`h. MH and Gilson disclose the third battle
`condition is a condition for giving a reward to
`the player of claim 4 ....................................................... 64
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`MH and Gilson disclose an attack strength
`against at least one second-term opponent
`character under the second battle condition is
`higher than an attack strength against at least
`one first-term opponent character under the first
`battle condition of claim 5 .............................................. 64
`MH and Gilson disclose at least one of the first-
`term parameter and the second-term parameter
`comprises an attack strength and a life force of
`claim 6 ............................................................................ 66
`k. MH and Gilson disclose the second battle
`condition is dependent on a battle result of the
`first term of claim 7 and the second battle
`condition is dependent on an attack status in the
`first term of claim 8 ........................................................ 67
`MH and Gilson disclose the second battle
`condition is a condition for giving a reward to
`the player of claim 9 ....................................................... 68
`m. MH and Gilson disclose receiving a player card
`selection step comprising a selection of a card
`comprising at least one of the set of: the
`first-term card or the second-term card of
`claim 10 .......................................................................... 69
`n. MH and Gilson disclose maintaining an
`interface gauge element during the battle game,
`dynamically adjusting the interface gauge
`element, and the dynamic adjustment of the
`interface gauge element taking place after the
`player card selection step of claim 10 ............................ 69
`
`l.
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`o. MH and Gilson disclose at least one of the set of
`conducting the battle against the first-term
`opponent character appearing in the first term
`and conducting the battle against the
`second-term opponent character appearing in the
`second term comprises receiving, from the
`player, a selection of a card comprising at least
`one of the set of: the first-term card and the
`second-term card of claim 11 ......................................... 72
`p. MH and Gilson disclose displaying a player
`group on the second field, the player group
`comprising a formation including a plurality of
`player characters; and of claim 11 .................................. 72
`q. MH and Gilson disclose modifying the player
`group based on the card selected by the player
`of claim 11 ...................................................................... 73
`MH and Gilson disclose wherein the battle is
`conducted between a player character in the
`player group and the at least one of the set of:
`the first-term opponent character appearing in
`the first term and the second-term opponent
`character appearing in the second term of
`claim 11 .......................................................................... 74
`Independent claims 12, 20, and 27, and dependent
`claims 13-19, 21-26 are obvious in view of MH and
`Gilson for the same reasons ........................................................ 75
`4. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify and
`combine MH and Gilson ............................................................. 77
`VII. THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED UNDER
`§§ 324 OR 325 ............................................................................................... 80
`A.
`Section 325(d) is Inapplicable Because Petition Does Not
`Assert Art Previously Evaluated by the Office ................................... 80
`
`3.
`
`r.
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`The Board Should Not Deny Institution Under Section
`324(a) ................................................................................................... 80
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 82
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – 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
`Apple v. Fintiv,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ......................................... 81
`Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
`133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013) ........................................................................................ 17
`Audatex North Am. Inc. v. Mitchell Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 2016-1913, 2017 WL 3188451 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2017) ........................... 20
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................ 21, 33, 37, 38
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ................................................................................ 17, 20, 35
`BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 34
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 34
`Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Indus.,
`935 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 34
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 12
`Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services,
`859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 19, 23
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................... 32
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ............................................................................................ 32
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – 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, 30
`General Plastic Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 ................................................................................... 80
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) .............................................................................................. 27
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 42
`GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`Civil Case No. 2:19-cv-00413-JRG (ED Tex) ..................................................... 1
`GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`No. 2019-1864, 2020 WL 6789058 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 19, 2020) .......................... 24
`In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.,
`911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................. 24, 27, 28
`In re Smith,
`815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................passim
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................passim
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 24
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 42
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .................................................................................passim
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – 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) .................................................................... 22, 23
`Netflix, Inc. v. Rovi Corp.,
`114 F. Supp. 3d 927 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................................ 35
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................... 11, 12
`Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC,
`576 F. App’x. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................ 24, 26, 27, 37
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 672 (2018) ................ 34
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2020) .......................................... 81
`SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.,
`727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 12
`Supercell Oy. v. GREE, Inc.,
`PGR2018-00047, Paper 39 ..................................................................... 28, 29, 39
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 34
`Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC,
`921 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................... 31, 39
`Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (U.S.) Inc.,
`664 F. App’x 968 (Fed. Cir 2016) ...................................................................... 20
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... 20, 35
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – Petition for Post Grant Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................. 43, 48
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................................................................. 8, 10, 42
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) ................................................................................................. 8, 9
`35 U.S.C. §§ 321-329 ................................................................................................ 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 80
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ............................................................................................. 80, 82
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204 ........................................................................................... 2, 9, 11
`
`Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims
`in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
`83 FR 51340 ........................................................................................................ 11
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, November 2019
`(U.S.P.T.O. Nov 20, 2019) ................................................................................. 80
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 CFR § 42.63(e))
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,518,177 to Suzuki
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,518,177
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,583,362
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,583,362
`
`Declaration of Steve Meretzky
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Steve Meretzky
`
`GREE’s Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`Contentions, dated August 19, 2020 in Case No. 2:19-cv-00413-JRG-RSP
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`1008 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th Ed. (1999)
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`YouTube - Master Hearthstone in 10 Minutes! The Ultimate Beginner’s
`Guide (“MH”) (web page print out from
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVZ4qyx-c2o)
`
`“Master Hearthstone in 10 Minutes! The Ultimate Beginner’s Guide,”
`webpage as captured by The Internet Archive on January 2, 2014
`
`“Master Hearthstone in 10 Minutes! The Ultimate Beginner’s Guide” –
`Video File
`
`“Master Hearthstone in 10 Minutes! The Ultimate Beginner’s Guide” –
`Transcript
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0281173 to Gilson et al.
`
`US Patent Publication No. 2014/0349723 to Nakatani et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,662,332 to Garfield
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`“Dynamic game difficulty balancing,” Wikipedia page as captured by The
`Internet Archive on December 12, 2011
`
`“And That’s A Wrap! BlizzCon 2013 Has Officially Come to an End!”
`webpage as captured by the Internet Archive on Nov. 16, 2013
`
`“FAQ – Hearthstone” webpage as captured by the Internet Archive on
`Nov. 16, 2013
`
`“Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft Official Game Site” webpage as
`captured by the Internet Archive on Nov. 16, 2013
`
`GREE, Inc.’s Opposition to Defendant Supercell Oy’s Motion to Dismiss,
`Dkt. No. 34, Filed April 8, 2020, Case No. 2:19-cv-00413-JRG-RSP
`(E.D. Texas)
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 85, Filed
`Nov. 6, 2020, Case No. 2:19-cv-00413-JRG-RSP (E.D. Texas)
`
`Declaration of Madeline Byers, Custodian of Records for Google LLC
`
`Affidavit of Elizabeth Rosenberg, Records Processor at the Internet
`Archive
`
`
`
`xiii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – 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 1-27 of United States Patent No. 10,583,362 to Suzuki, titled
`
`“Changing Battle Card Game Conditions During Different Terms” (the “’362
`
`patent”; “Ex. 1003”), 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
`
`’362 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 ’362 patent is the subject the following patent infringement lawsuit:
`
`GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, Civil Case No. 2:19-cv-00413-JRG (ED Tex).
`
`A petition for Post Grant Review was filed for the parent of the ‘362 patent,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,518,177 (the ‘177 patent) on September 29, 2020 and accorded
`
`proceeding No. PGR2020-00088. Exhibits are numbered in this petition consistent
`
`with the previously-filed petition for the ‘177 patent.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`C. Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner designates Brian M. Hoffman (Reg. No. 39,713) as lead counsel
`
`and as back-up counsel: Michael J. Sacksteder (pro hac vice to be filed), Kevin X.
`
`McGann (Reg. No. 48,793), Jennifer R. Bush (Reg. No. 50,784), Gregory A.
`
`Hopewell (Reg. No. 66,012), and Geoffrey Miller (pro hac vice to be filed).
`
`Service of Information (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(4))
`D.
`Service of any documents may be made at the postal mailing address of
`
`Fenwick & West LLP, 555 California Street, 12th Floor, San Francisco, CA
`
`94104, (Tel: (415) 875-2300 and Fax: (415) 281-1350), with courtesy copies to the
`
`email address bhoffman-PTAB@fenwick.com. Petitioner consents to electronic
`
`service to bhoffman-PTAB@fenwick.com.
`
`III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
`A. Timing
`The ’362 patent was granted on March 10, 2020 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 December 10, 2020. See Ex. 1003.
`
`B. Grounds for Standing (37 CFR § 42.204(a))
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.204(a) that the ’362 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 ’362 patent on the grounds identified in the Petition.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ’362 PATENT
`Specification
`A.
`The ‘362 patent relates to setting battle conditions for time slots in a game.
`
`Ex. 1003 at Abstract; see generally Ex. 1005 at 19-36. The ‘362 patent is a
`
`continuation of the ‘177 patent (Exhibit 1001). For convenience and except as
`
`otherwise noted, the discussion of the specification refers to the ‘177 patent, parent
`
`to the ‘362 patent. See Ex. 1001. To increase player participation and account for
`
`different player skill levels, the ‘177 patent purports to provide an improved game
`
`that allows “a wide range of players to enjoy a group battle.” Id., 2:38-39;
`
`Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 20-21.
`
`To do so, the ‘177 provides a battle game in “a plurality of time slots” in
`
`which “a battle condition is changed” from one time slot to another. Id. at 2:43-
`
`3:13. The ‘177 patent describes setting a battle condition for each time slot, and
`
`changing the battle conditions in different time slots in ways that are advantageous
`
`for certain players, thereby increasing participation rates throughout the time slots.
`
`Id., 2:61-3:13. Ex. 1005 ¶ 22.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Fig. 4 of the ‘177 patent illustrates an example game screen for a game:
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 4. In the ‘362 patent, Fig. 4 was relabeled to Fig. 4A, and an additional
`
`Fig. 4B was added to illustrate properties displayed on game cards 601, 602, and
`
`603. See Ex. 1003, Figs. 4A-4B. Additional specification text was also added to
`
`describe Fig. 4B. See Ex. 1003, 7:13-23. In this example game, player characters
`
`for one group 300 may battle a second group 400 as shown in an event field 201.
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:58-65. In the “palette” 202 section, a player has a virtual deck of cards
`
`600 and cards 601, 602, and 603 are selected from the deck 600. Id., 7:4-8. These
`
`cards represent skills useable to attack opposing players and may indicate a type of
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`skill, attack points, defense points, or other attributes. Id., 7:8-14. Players “flips
`
`over” these cards to attack the opposing characters. Id., 7:15-21, Ex. 1005 ¶ 23.
`
`The ‘177 patent discloses that a battle may be composed of several “time
`
`slots” with different battle conditions that affect the game. See id., 7:32-67. Fig. 6
`
`shows example time slots or “terms” for the battle having a first portion, middle
`
`portion, and a last portion:
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 6. The ‘177 patent describes that the battle condition for a portion of the
`
`battle “broadly includes additional conditions added on during a group battle.” Id.,
`
`8:1-3. The ‘177 patent describes examples of battle conditions:
`
`While also described in detail below, a battle
`condition can include changing the ability value of an
`individual character, such as changing the parameters 70
`(see FIG. 2) that allow a character to exercise certain
`abilities during a battle, such as a character's attack
`strength, defense strength, or the like. Battle conditions
`also can include any sort of condition applied during a
`battle, such as providing a reward to the player
`controlling a character or tallying the battle result during
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`the first portion of a subdivided time slot and reflecting
`the battle result in a subsequent portion of the subdivided
`time slot.
`
`Id., 8:3-14; Ex. 1005 ¶ 24.
`
`The ‘177 patent provides two examples of changing a battle condition
`
`between portions of a game. “In the first example, the battle condition is changed
`
`randomly or by a predetermined setting in each of the subdivided time slots (see
`
`FIG. 7(a)). In the second example, among the subdivided time slots, battle
`
`participation and battle results are tallied during an earlier time slot, and the tallied
`
`results are reflected in the battle conditions of time slots after the earlier time slot
`
`(see FIG. 7(b)).” Ex. 1001, 9:7-16. These two figures are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`The ‘177 patent includes various examples for changing battle conditions
`
`using these two techniques. Examples of changing conditions according to the
`
`technique of FIG. 7(a), which the ‘177 patent refers to as “changing the battle
`
`condition as time progresses” (Id., 9:18-19), include increasing the attack strength
`
`of lowest ranked characters of a group, increasing item attribute attack points,
`
`increasing attack points in accordance with a player attribute, and increasing a
`
`combo effect. See id., 9:17-54; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 24-26.
`
`Examples of changing conditions according to the technique of FIG. 7(b),
`
`which the ‘177 patent also refers to as “changing battle conditions in accordance
`
`with battle participation and battle results” (Ex. 1001, 9:63-64) include providing a
`
`reward card or other incentive based on an intermediate tally and changing a battle
`
`condition such as the attack strength of a group based on an intermediate tally.
`
`Id., 9:63-10:29; Ex. 1005 ¶ 27.
`
`The computer components described in the ‘177 patent for executing the
`
`game are generic and conventional. See Ex. 1001, FIGS. 1-3; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 28-29.
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a generic client-server architecture, FIG. 2 illustrates an example
`
`server device, and FIG. 3 illustrates an example client device. The game server and
`
`client device are each described as including generic computing technologies such
`
`as a processor, memory, and wireless capability, and the software is similarly
`
`generic. See Ex. 1001, 4:41-51, 5:49-61-9:6; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 28-29. The software
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`executing on the server and client devices is also described in generic terms.
`
`See Ex. 1001, 4:52-55, 4:62-5:8. The ‘177 patent omits detail on processing units
`
`other than the “battle processing unit” (Id., 5:10-12) and generally describes the
`
`battle processing unit in functional terms. See id., 7:32-9:6, Ex. 1005 at ¶ 29.
`
`Prosecution History
`B.
`The ’362 patent was filed on June 19, 2019 as Application No. 16/445,642
`
`(“the ’642 application”), and is a continuation of Application No. 14/631,221, filed
`
`on February 25, 2015 (now U.S. Patent No. 10,518,177). The ’362 patent claims
`
`priority to Japanese Patent application, JP 2014-034003, filed on February 25, 2014.
`
`See Prosecution History of U.S. Patent 10,583,362 (“Ex. 1004”), at 264-342.
`
`The ‘642 application was originally filed with claims 1-30. Id. at 303-08.
`
`On August 2, 2019, a non-final office action was issued in the ’642 application,
`
`rejecting claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. Claims 1-9, 11-16,
`
`18-25, and 27-30 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over U.S. Pub.
`
`2004/0143852 to Meyers in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0054402 to Noguchi, and
`
`claims 10, 17, and 26 over Meyers and Noguchi in further view of U.S. Pub.
`
`2013/0288794 to Ando. The examiner also issued a nonstatutory double patenting
`
`rejection over the ’221 parent application and objected to the drawings as not
`
`showing the limitation “based on a card selected by a player.” Id. at 226-241. An
`
`examiner interview was conducted on October 8, 2019, and an agreement was
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,583,362 – Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`reached that proposed amendments would overcome the outstanding rejections. Id.
`
`at 219.
`
`In an amendment filed Oc