Paper 14
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: March 21, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GAME AND TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01918
`Patent 7,682,243 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01918
`Patent 7,682,243 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Activision Blizzard, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter
`partes review of claims 1–8 of U.S. Patent No. 7,682,243 B2 (“the ’243
`patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Game and Technology Co., Ltd.
`(“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 11 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.4(a).
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be
`instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`For the reasons that follow, we deny institution of an inter partes
`review.
`
`A. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner identifies the following additional real parties in interest:
`Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Activision Publishing, Inc., and Activision
`Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Pet. 1.
`B. Related Matters
`Petitioner and Patent Owner cite a number of judicial and
`administrative matters involving the ’243 patent and other patents owned by
`Patent Owner. Pet. 1–2; Paper 5, 2–3.
`C. The ’243 Patent and Illustrative Claim
`The ’243 patent generally relates to “providing an online game, in
`which ability information of a unit associated with a pilot is enabled to
`change as ability information of the pilot changes.” Ex. 1001, 1:23–25. The
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01918
`Patent 7,682,243 B2
`
`’243 patent has eight claims, of which claims 1, 6, and 7 are independent.
`Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
`
`An online game providing method for providing a pilot
`1.
`and a unit associated with the pilot at an online game, the method
`comprising the steps of:
`controlling an online game such that a player can
`manipulate a pilot and a unit associated with said pilot, said pilot
`being a game character operated by a player, said pilot
`representing the player, said unit being a virtual object controlled
`by the player;
`the unit
`information database,
`maintaining a unit
`information database recording unit information on said unit, in
`which the unit information includes ability of said unit and sync
`point information;
`maintaining a pilot information database, the pilot
`information database recording pilot information on said pilot, in
`which the pilot information includes a unit identifier indicating
`said unit associated with said pilot, ability of said pilot and the
`ability of said unit associated with said pilot;
`receiving a request for update on first pilot ability
`information of a first pilot;
`searching for unit identifier information associated with
`the first pilot by referring to the pilot information database;
`searching for sync point information associated with the
`searched unit identifier information by referring to the unit
`information database; and
`updating and recording the first pilot ability information
`and unit ability information associated therewith in accordance
`with the searched sync point information such that said ability of
`unit is changed proportionally to changes in ability of the pilot
`by referring to said sync point,
`wherein said sync point information is a ratio of which
`changes in said ability of pilot are applied to said ability of unit,
`and said steps of searching for unit identifier information and of
`searching for sync point information are performed by a
`processor.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01918
`Patent 7,682,243 B2
`
`
`D. References
`Petitioner relies upon the following references:
`Matsui
`JP2000-135272
`May 16, 2000
`
`Ex. 10031
`
`Kurosawa
`
`JP2002-200350
`
`July 16, 2002
`
`Ex. 10102
`
`“Warlords Battlecry III User’s Guide” (“Battlecry Manual”),
`© 2004 Enlight Interactive Inc. and Infinite Interactive Pty. Ltd.
`
`Ex. 10043
`
`“Warlords Battlecry III – Hero Creation” (“Battlecry Heroes
`Table”), bearing a date of May, 2004.
`
`“Warlords Battlecry III – Spells” (“Battlecry Spells Table”),
`bearing a date of May, 2004.
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Warlords Battlecry III Units (“Battlecry Units Table”), allegedly
`available online before June 28, 2004. See Pet. 6.
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`
`1 As Patent Owner correctly notes, Exhibit 1003 filed with the Petition
`includes an English translation of Matsui but does not include the original
`Japanese language document. See Prelim. Resp. 3–4. Petitioner filed a
`motion to correct the Petition along with a corrected exhibit including the
`Japanese language document. See Paper 12; Ex. 1014. Because we deny for
`other reasons, we need not address Petitioner’s motion to correct further.
`
` 2
`
` As Patent Owner correctly notes, Exhibit 1010 filed with the Petition
`includes an English translation of Kurosawa but does not include the original
`Japanese language document. See Prelim. Resp. 3–4. Petitioner filed a
`motion to correct the Petition along with a corrected exhibit including the
`Japanese language document. See Paper 12; Ex. 1015. Because we deny for
`other reasons, we need not address Petitioner’s motion to correct further.
`
` 3
`
` Patent Owner does not substantively argue that the Battlecry Manual and
`other game documentation are not printed publications at this stage. See
`Prelim. Resp. 3 n.1 (“Patent Owner reserves the right to contest whether the
`game manuals are prior art printed publications.”). For purposes of this
`Decision, we treat the Battlecry game documentation as prior art printed
`publications.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01918
`Patent 7,682,243 B2
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`2–5 and 8
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–8 of the ’243 patent based on the
`asserted grounds of unpatentability set forth in the table below.
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`Claims Challenged
`Matsui alone or in combination with
`§ 103(a)
`1, 6, and 7
`Battlecry Manual, Battlecry Heroes
`Table, Battlecry Spells Table, and
`Battlecry Units Table (collectively,
`“the Battlecry Documents”)
`Matsui alone or in combination with
`Kurosawa
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016)
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in an
`inter partes review). In applying a broadest reasonable construction, claim
`terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would
`be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`(Fed. Cir. 2007). This presumption may be rebutted when a patentee, acting
`as a lexicographer, sets forth an alternate definition of a term in the
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01918
`Patent 7,682,243 B2
`
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the following claim terms:
`“pilot,” “unit,” “sync point information,” and “database.” Pet. 12.
`Petitioner, however, merely lists its proposed constructions with citations to
`the ’243 patent and the testimony of its Declarant David Crane (Ex. 1002)
`but provides no substantive argument explaining why its proposed
`constructions are correct. See Pet. 12.
`For purposes of this Decision, we need only address the proper
`construction of the term “sync point information,” and we determine that the
`remaining terms of the challenged claims do not require express
`constructions.
`
`1. “Sync point information”
`The term “sync point information” appears in all claims of the ’243
`patent. Petitioner contends “sync point information” means “information
`indicating a relationship between a unit and its associated pilot such that a
`change in a first pilot ability information is applied to associated unit ability
`information according to said relationship.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:19–
`23; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 37–38). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s proposed
`construction is incomplete because each independent claim requires the
`“sync point information” to be a ratio. Prelim. Resp. 17. We agree with
`Patent Owner.
`Each of the independent claims recites “wherein said sync point
`information is a ratio of which changes in said ability of pilot are applied to
`said ability of unit.” Petitioner’s proposed construction of “information
`indicating a relationship” ignores this express requirement of the claim, and
`it is also unreasonably broad in view of the ’243 patent’s disclosure that
`“sync point 304 is information indicating a numeric relationship between a
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01918
`Patent 7,682,243 B2
`
`unit and its associated pilot, that is, information indicating a ratio or
`proportion of which changes in pilot ability information are applied to unit
`ability information.” Ex. 1001, 5:7–11 (emphasis added).
`Therefore, we reject Petitioner’s proposed construction of “sync point
`information” because it is not the broadest reasonable interpretation. The
`claims themselves define “sync point information” to be “a ratio of which
`changes in said ability of pilot are applied to said ability of unit.” Thus, we
`apply the plain language of the claims in addressing the merits of
`Petitioner’s contentions.
`
`B. Principles of Law
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, 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 said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`C. Obviousness over Matsui Alone or in Combination
`with the Battlecry Documents
`
`Petitioner contends independent claims 1, 6, and 7 of the ’243 patent
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as having been obvious over
`Matsui alone or in combination with the Battlecry Documents. Pet. 4, 13–
`31.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01918
`Patent 7,682,243 B2
`
`
`The term “sync point information” appears in several limitations of
`independent claims 1, 6, and 7, and as discussed above with respect to claim
`construction, each of these claims recites that “said sync point information is
`a ratio of which changes in said ability of pilot are applied to said ability of
`unit.” Petitioner identifies various disclosures in each of Matsui and the
`Battlecry Documents it contends teach the recited “sync point information.”
`See Pet. 13–31. As we explain in detail below, we are not persuaded that the
`various disclosures Petitioner cites as teaching the recited “sync point
`information” satisfy the limitations of the claim.
`1. Matsui
`Petitioner does not consistently identify any one disclosure in Matsui
`as teaching the recited “sync point information.” Rather, as discussed
`below, Petitioner contends that the “Item ID” field and “coefficient y” teach
`the recited “sync point information” in different limitations.
`a. Item ID
`The term “sync point information” first appears in claim 1 in the
`limitation reciting “maintaining a unit information database, the unit
`information database recording unit information on said unit, in which the
`unit information includes ability of said unit and sync point information.”
`Petitioner contends that “[t]he equipment data tables include an Item ID field
`that serves as the sync point to link the item database record to a pilot
`information database as discussed below.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 51,
`Figs. 7, 9; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 68–72, 210–212). The term next appears in the
`limitation of claim 1 reciting “searching for sync point information
`associated with the searched unit identifier information by referring to the
`unit information database.” Petitioner again contends the “Item ID” field of
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01918
`Patent 7,682,243 B2
`
`Matsui’s equipment data tables teaches “sync point information.” Pet. 23
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 51, Figs. 7, 9; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 68–72, 210–212).
`Patent Owner argues that Matsui’s Item ID field is simply a number
`indicating an item and, therefore, does not teach “sync point information”
`because it is not a ratio by which a unit ability is changed. Prelim. Resp. 19–
`20. We agree. Matsui discloses that “each item that makes appearance in
`the game is assigned an ID (IDentity) number (referred to as the ‘Item ID’).”
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 47. Matsui further discloses: “FIG. 8 shows an item table that
`describes the correspondence between items and item IDs. In the figure
`shown, the items ‘herb’, ‘tent’, ‘key’, ‘letter’, ‘XX’s shield’, and ‘XX’s
`sword’ are assigned item IDs ‘00’, ‘01’, ‘02’, ‘03’, ‘04’, and ‘05’,
`respectively.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 48. Therefore, these Item IDs are simply
`identification numbers for items used in the game. Petitioner does not direct
`us to disclosure within Matsui or other evidence demonstrating that these
`Item IDs are “ratio[s] of which changes in said ability of pilot are applied to
`said ability of unit,” as recited in each independent claim.
`b. Coefficient y
`Claim 1 further recites “updating and recording the first pilot ability
`information and unit ability information associated therewith in accordance
`with the searched sync point information such that said ability of unit is
`changed proportionally to changes in ability of the pilot by referring to said
`sync point.” Petitioner contends “Matsui discloses updating and recording
`pilot abilities and unit abilities corresponding to the searched sync point
`information,” but Petitioner does not mention Matsui’s “Item ID” field nor
`identify what in particular it contends teaches the “sync point information”
`in this limitation. Pet. 24. However, with respect to the limitation “wherein
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01918
`Patent 7,682,243 B2
`
`said sync point information is a ratio of which changes in said ability of pilot
`are applied to said ability of unit,” Petitioner for the first time identifies
`Matsui’s “coefficient y” as the claimed “sync point information.” Pet. 25.
`Petitioner’s contentions are not persuasive. In its discussion of the
`“updating and recording” limitation of claim 1, Petitioner identifies various
`operations in Matsui that allegedly teach changing unit abilities. See Pet. 24.
`First, Petitioner contends Matsui discloses “the unit abilities ATP and
`ATPMAX are updated and recorded when weapon items are used in battle,
`along with pilot ability AT.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52, 93, Fig. 9; Ex.
`1002 ¶¶ 98–100). The cited disclosures from Matsui are reproduced below.
`Here, the attacking power addition value ATP is the
`correction value that increases the attacking power AT for a
`character when the player character is outfitted with the weapon
`item. The maximum attacking power addition value ATPMAX
`represents an upper limit under which the attacking power
`addition value ATP is increased according to the combat count
`BT which is the number of times combat is waged when the
`player character is outfitted with said weapon item. The
`calculation processing for these parameters will be described
`later.
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 52.
`Next, by using weapons items in a battle, the maximum
`attacking power addition value ATPMAX which is an upper
`limit on increasing the attacking power addition value ATP is
`computed (Step S129), and the processing is terminated. In the
`computation processing on the maximum attacking power
`addition value ATPMAX in Step S129, the basic maximum value
`UMAX for said weapons item is read from the fabricatable
`equipment item information table. By adding to the UMAX
`value the product of basic maximum correction coefficient λ and
`the difference between the creation ability value SK for said
`player character and the basic creation ability value Sb, an
`ATPMAX value is computed.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01918
`Patent 7,682,243 B2
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 93.
`Although these passages may describe updating limits on unit abilities
`after a battle, Petitioner does not explain how coefficient y, the alleged “sync
`point information,” is used in this process. See Pet. 24. Rather, “basic
`maximum correction coefficient λ” is used in the process. See Ex. 1003
`¶ 93. Furthermore, with respect to this particular operation, Petitioner does
`not explain how “said ability of unit is changed proportionally to changes in
`ability of the pilot by referring to said sync point,” as recited in claim 1.
`(Emphasis added). Therefore, Petitioner’s contentions with respect to the
`first operation are not persuasive.
`Second, Petitioner contends Matsui discloses “the pilot creation
`ability SK can change during gameplay, which then changes the created unit
`abilities such as ATPMAX and ARTMAX.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 97,
`103; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 101–02). According to Petitioner, “[a]s the pilot creation
`ability gets higher, the created unit abilities also get higher,” such that “the
`change in unit ability is proportional to the change in pilot ability.” Pet. 24
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91; Ex. 1002 ¶ 106). The cited disclosures of Matsui
`describe different processes for changing or setting various values.
`Paragraph 97 of Matsui refers to a process of setting certain unit
`values during the creation of the unit. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 97 (“By the
`processing as described above, given the same type of equipment item, if the
`player plays a game that increases the player character’s creation ability
`value SK, the player can acquire higher-performance equipment items
`during the game.”). Petitioner cites this process in its discussion of
`“coefficient y.” See Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 90, Fig. 20). According to
`Petitioner, coefficient y “is used to apply changes in the pilot ability to the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01918
`Patent 7,682,243 B2
`
`unit abilities,” such that, “[f]or example, the unit’s attacking power AT4 is
`calculated by multiplying the change in the pilot’s creation ability SK by
`coefficient y (a ratio).” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 90, Fig. 20; Ex. 1002
`¶ 110). Petitioner’s contentions do not accurately characterize the use of
`coefficient y in the equipment creation process.
`Matsui discloses:
`First, the basic creation ability value Sb and the basic addition
`value correction coefficient y for the equipment item for which
`creation was selected are read from the creatable equipment item
`information table (Step S126). Next, a test is made to determine
`whether the equipment item to be created is a weapon item (Step
`S127). If it is a weapon item (Step S127: Yes), the attacking
`power addition value ATP for the weapon item to be fabricated
`is computed by adding to the attacking power AT which is a basic
`correction value for that type of preset weapon item the value
`which is computed by multiplying the difference between the
`creation ability value SK for the player character that creates said
`weapon item and the basic creation ability value Sb, by the basic
`addition correction coefficient y (Step S128).
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 90 (emphases added). Thus, according to Matsui, coefficient y is
`multiplied by the difference between SK and Sb.5 Ex. 1003 ¶ 90, Fig. 20.
`In further describing this operation, Matsui discloses:
`In this manner, if the player character’s creation ability value SK
`is higher than the basic creation ability value Sb, a weapon item
`with capabilities higher than that type of standard weapon item
`can be created. On the other hand, if the player character’s
`creation ability value SK is lower than the basic creation ability
`
`
`4 Elsewhere, Petitioner contends “AT” is a pilot ability. See Pet. 20 (“The
`fields ‘HPMAX,’ ‘SPD,’ ‘AT,’ and ‘AR’ are pilot abilities.”).
`5 The value “Sb” is the “basic creation ability value,” which “represents the
`degree of difficulty for a player character to create equipment items.” Ex.
`1003 ¶ 81.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01918
`Patent 7,682,243 B2
`
`
`value Sb, the created weapon item will have capabilities lower
`than that of the standard weapon item of that type.
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 91. Petitioner relies on this disclosure in support of its
`contentions that, “[a]s the pilot creation ability gets higher, the created unit
`abilities also get higher” and that “the change in unit ability is proportional
`to the change in pilot ability.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91; Ex. 1002 ¶
`106). The created unit abilities, however, are only increased if SK exceeds
`Sb. As the disclosure of paragraph 91 makes clear, if SK is lower than Sb,
`the equipment capabilities will be lowered. Thus, an increase in SK that still
`results in a value of SK lower than Sb will actually result in a lowering of
`the equipment capabilities.
`Therefore, Petitioner’s contention that coefficient y is multiplied by a
`change in SK is not supported by Matsui, and Petitioner has not
`demonstrated that a change in the value of SK results in a proportional
`change in unit ability. See Pet. 24–25.
`Petitioner also cites paragraph 103 of Matsui, which concludes the
`description of a procedure by which “the performance of the equipment item
`gradually improves up to the maximum attacking power addition value
`ATMAX or the maximum defensive power addition value ARTMAX.” Ex.
`1003 ¶ 103 (cited at Pet. 24). In this procedure, certain values are
`incremented by one after a battle if their maximum values have not been
`reached. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 98–103, Fig. 21. Petitioner does not explain how
`incrementing certain equipment values based on the use of the equipment in
`battle teaches a change proportional to a change in pilot ability, as recited in
`claim 1. Nor does Petitioner explain how coefficient y, the alleged “sync
`point information,” is used in the process of incrementing values following a
`battle.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01918
`Patent 7,682,243 B2
`
`
`Therefore, Petitioner has not identified consistently one value in
`Matsui it contends teaches “sync point information” in each limitation in
`which that term appears, nor has Petitioner demonstrated that any value it
`identifies as “sync point information” teaches “a ratio of which changes in
`said ability of pilot are applied to said ability of unit,” as recited in each
`independent claim. As such, Petitioner’s contentions as to Matsui are not
`persuasive.
`
`2. Matsui in Combination with the Battlecry Documents
`Petitioner also contends that the Battlecry Documents’ disclosures of
`spell casting teach updating unit ability in proportion to the ability of the
`“hero” (the alleged “pilot” of the claims). See Pet. 24–26. In particular,
`Petitioner argues:
`[T]he spell “True Sight” allows the unit to “see” farther into the
`game’s map. (Ex. 1006 at 5; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 135-136.) For every
`level the pilot has attained, the unit’s ability to “see” is increased
`by a distance of one map grid. (See id.) Thus, the unit ability is
`changed proportionally to the change in pilot ability. (Ex. 1006
`at 5; Ex. 1002 at ¶ 137.).
`Pet. 25. Furthermore, according to Petitioner, this teaches the required
`“ratio” because, “[a]s the pilot’s level increases by one level, the ‘seeing’
`ability of the unit increases by one grid.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1006, 5; Ex.
`1002 ¶ 150).
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions. The Battlecry
`Spells Table discloses that the “True Sight” spell “[a]dds a permanent vision
`bonus to the caster’s side” whose “area of effect” is the “[e]ntire map.” Ex.
`1006, 5. The bonus is “+ 1 grid per level.” Ex. 1006, 5. However, unlike
`other spells, such as the “morph” spells discussed below, the “True Sight”
`spell makes no mention of affecting particular unit abilities. Although
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01918
`Patent 7,682,243 B2
`
`Petitioner alleges that the “True Sight” spell increases the “seeing” ability of
`the unit, Petitioner has not identified a “seeing” unit ability in the Battlecry
`Documents. Petitioner identifies “Life,” “Speed,” “Damage (causing),” and
`“Armor” as exemplary unit abilities in the Battlecry Documents. Pet. 19
`(citing Ex. 1007; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 125–26). Petitioner does not direct us to, nor
`do we find, a “sight” or “seeing” unit ability in the Battlecry Documents.
`See Ex. 1007.
`Regarding the “True Sight” spell, Petitioner’s Declarant, David Crane,
`testifies:
`
`This spell applies a bonus to an ability value to every unit
`in the Hero’s retinue, allowing each one to “see” farther into the
`game’s map. ([Ex. 1006, 5].) The spell’s effect is again
`multiplied by the hero’s level as shown in column 3. (See id.)
`For every level the Hero has attained, the unit’s ability to see is
`increased by one map grid. (See id.) This increase of the unit’s
`ability is based on an ability value of the pilot, further showing
`the interoperation of pilot sync point information and unit sync
`point information. (See id.).
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 136. As with Petitioner, Mr. Crane does not identify a “sight” or
`“seeing” unit ability in the Battlecry Documents. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 125–26.
`Rather, Mr. Crane identifies the same unit abilities as Petitioner—life, speed,
`damage (causing), and armor. Ex. 1002 ¶ 125. Because Mr. Crane has not
`identified a particular “seeing” unit ability in the Battlecry Documents, we
`do not find this testimony probative as to whether the Battlecry Documents
`disclose “updating” this unidentified unit ability. See 37 C.F.R. 42.65(a)
`(“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on
`which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01918
`Patent 7,682,243 B2
`
`
`Mr. Crane identifies additional spells that Petitioner does not
`expressly rely on in the Petition, referring to the “Chaos Sphere” table
`reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006, 4. This table describes spells that are in the “Chaos Sphere.”
`Mr. Crane testifies:
`This table is laid out to show that for each spell in the first
`column “SPELL,” a spell which causes the effect shown in
`“DESCRIPTION” is performed. ([Ex. 1006, 4].) The spell’s
`effect is multiplied by the hero’s level as shown in column 3.
`(See id.) The first four “Morph” spells affect units within the
`Hero’s command radius to a degree directly related to the Hero’s
`mastery level, showing the interoperation of pilot sync point
`information and unit sync point information. (See id.).
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 134.
`In contrast to the “True Sight” spell, several of the spells in the
`“Chaos Sphere” are directed to particular characteristics identified by
`Petitioner as unit abilities. For example, the table above describes that
`“morph combat,” “morph speed,” and “morph damage” spells affect
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01918
`Patent 7,682,243 B2
`
`“combat values,” “speed values,” and “damage values” of “nearby units.”
`Ex. 1006, 4. However, the Battlecry Spells Table discloses that these spells
`“[r]andomly change[] [combat, speed, and damage] values of nearby units
`by up to +/- 3 – friend and foe.” Ex. 1006, 4. Therefore, although the
`Battlecry Documents disclose that these morph spells affect particular unit
`values, the changes are random, not proportional to changes in pilot ability.
`In sum, Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the “True
`Sight” spell causes “updating and recording” of a “seeing” unit ability in
`proportion to a change in pilot ability. Furthermore, the ability of morph
`spells to “[r]andomly change[]” certain unit values does not demonstrate the
`proportional change required by the claims.
`3. Conclusion
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that either Matsui or
`the Battlecry Documents teach
`updating and recording the first pilot ability information
`and unit ability information associated therewith in accordance
`with the searched sync point information such that said ability of
`unit is changed proportionally to changes in ability of the pilot
`by referring to said sync point,
`wherein said sync point information is a ratio of which
`changes in said ability of pilot are applied to said ability of unit,
`as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 6 and 7.
`Because Petitioner’s contentions rely on either Matsui or the Battlecry
`Documents to teach this limitation, Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the challenged claims
`would have been obvious over Matsui alone or in combination with the
`Battlecry Documents.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01918
`Patent 7,682,243 B2
`
`
`D. Obviousness over Matsui alone or in Combination with Kurosawa
`
`Petitioner contends dependent claims 2–5 and 8 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as having been obvious over Matsui alone or in
`combination with Kurosawa. Pet. 4, 31–36. Petitioner’s contentions with
`respect to dependent claims 2–5 and 8 depend on, but do not cure, its
`contentions with respect to independent claim 1. As such, we are not
`persuaded the record before us establishes a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail on its assertions that dependent claims 2–5 and 8
`would have been obvious as alleged in the Petition.
`
`
`III. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01918
`Patent 7,682,243 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`John Garretson
`Tanya Chaney
`jgarretson@shb.com
`tchaney@shb.com
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`William Mandir
`Peter Park
`John Bird
`Christopher Bezak
`Fadi Kiblawi
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`pspark@sughrue.com
`jbird@sughrue.com
`cbezak@sughrue.com
`fkiblawi@sughrue.com
`Sughrue Mion PLLC
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`