`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FANDUEL, INC., DRAFTKINGS, INC., AND
`BWIN.PARTY DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT PLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`CG TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE39,818
`Case IPR No.: IPR2017-00902
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ROBERT AKL, D.Sc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 84
`
`CG TECH EXHIBIT 2002
`FANDUEL v. CG TECH
`IPR2017-00902
`
`

`

`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 1 
`II. 
`III.  MATERIALS REVIEWED ............................................................................ 6 
`IV.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 7 
`V. 
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................... 10 
`VI.  OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE RE’818 PATENT ...... 12 
`A.  Overview of the Technology ............................................................... 12 
`B. 
`Overview of Claims 1 and 16 of the RE’818 Patent ........................... 13 
`C. 
`Overview of Claims 20, 21, 24, 31, and 32 of the RE’818 Patent ...... 15 
`D.  Overview of Claim 25 of the RE’818 Patent ...................................... 16 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 17 
`VIII.  SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART ................... 18 
`A.  Walker.................................................................................................. 18 
`B. 
`Kelly ..................................................................................................... 20 
`C. 
`Viescas ................................................................................................. 24 
`IX.  NON-OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 31, AND
`32 ................................................................................................................... 26 
`A.  Non-Obviousness of Claims 1 and 16 Over Kelly and Walker ........... 26 
`1. 
`Non-Obviousness of Authorizing Game Execution Based
`on a User Age Over Kelly and Walker ...................................... 26 
`Non-Obviousness of Wireless Transmission of Historical
`Game Performance Data to the Processor Unit Over
`Kelly and Walker ....................................................................... 30 
`One of Ordinary Skill Would Not Have Been Motivated
`to Modify Kelly to Store User Age in the Personalized
`Portable Control. ....................................................................... 33 
`Non-Obviousness of Claims 20, 21, 24, 31, and 32 Over Walker and
`Kelly ..................................................................................................... 35 
`1. 
`Non-Obviousness of Authorizing Game Execution Based
`at Least in Part on a Player’s Age Over Walker and Kelly. ...... 35 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`C. 
`
`Non-Obviousness of the Claimed Identification Code of
`Over Walker and Kelly. ............................................................. 36 
`Non-Obviousness of the Data Transmission Features
`Over Walker and Kelly. ............................................................. 38 
`Non-Obviousness of Claim 25 Over Walker, Kelly, and Viescas ....... 40 
`1. 
`Non-Obviousness of the Claimed CPU Memory Features
`Over Walker, Kelly, and Viescas............................................... 40 
`Non-Obviousness of Authorizing Game Participation if a
`Player’s Age Is within a Defined Age Group Over
`Walker, Kelly, and Viescas ........................................................ 42 
`One of Ordinary Skill Would Not Have Been Motivated
`to Modify Walker with Viescas’ Autologon Feature to
`Store an Identification Code in a Non-Volatile Memory
`of Walker’s I/O device. ............................................................. 44 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 47 
`X. 
`APPENDIX A .......................................................................................................... 48 
`
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Robert Akl, and I have been retained by counsel for CG
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`Technology Development, LLC (“CG Tech”) as an independent expert technical
`
`consultant in this proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) of
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Although I am being
`
`compensated for the time I spend on this matter, no part of my compensation
`
`depends on the outcome of this proceeding, and I have no other interest in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`2.
`I am an expert in the field of computer hardware/software, e.g.,
`
`mobile computing, telecommunications, computer security, and mobile
`
`applications. I have studied, taught, practiced, and researched this field for over
`
`twenty years. I have summarized in this section my educational background, work
`
`experience, and other relevant qualifications. A true and accurate copy of my
`
`curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A to my declaration.
`
`3.
`
`I earned my Bachelor of Science degrees in Electrical Engineering
`
`and Computer Science summa cum laude and a ranking of first in my
`
`undergraduate class from Washington University in Saint Louis in 1994. While
`
`earning my Bachelor of Science degrees, I took a number of classes directed to the
`
`design and development of computer technology hardware and software, including,
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 4 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`for example, the design and development of video and mobile gaming programs
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`and applications, as well as the design and development of hardware configured to
`
`implement such software. In 1996, I earned my Master of Science degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering from Washington University in Saint Louis. I earned my
`
`Doctorate of Science in Electrical Engineering from Washington University in
`
`Saint Louis in 2000, with my dissertation on “Cell Design to Maximize Capacity in
`
`Cellular Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) Networks.”
`
`4. While a graduate student, from 1996 through 2000, I worked at
`
`MinMax Corporation in St. Louis, where I designed software packages that
`
`provided tools to flexibly allocate capacity in a CDMA communications network
`
`and maximize the number of subscribers. I also analyzed and simulated different
`
`audio compression schemes. I also validated the hardware architecture for an
`
`Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) switch capable of channel group switching,
`
`as well as performed logical and timing simulations, and developed the hardware
`
`architecture for the ATM switch. I also worked with Teleware Corporation in
`
`Seoul, South Korea, where I designed and developed algorithms commercially
`
`deployed in a software package suite for analyzing the capacity in a CDMA
`
`network implementing the IS-95 standard to maximize the number of subscribers.
`
`5.
`
`After obtaining my Doctorate of Science degree, I worked as a Senior
`
`Systems Engineer at Comspace Corporation from October of 2000 to December of
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 5 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`2001. At Comspace, I designed and developed advanced data coding and
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`modulation methods for improving the reliability and increasing the available data
`
`rates for cellular communications. I coded and simulated different encoding
`
`schemes (including Turbo coding, Viterbi decoding, trellis coded modulation, and
`
`Reed-Muller codes) and modulation techniques using amplitude and phase
`
`characteristics and multi-level star constellations. This work further entailed the
`
`optimization of soft decision parameters and interleavers for additive white
`
`Gaussian and Rayleigh faded channels. I also extended the control and trunking of
`
`Logic Trunked Radio (LTR) to include one-to-one and one-to-many voice and data
`
`messaging.
`
`6.
`
`In January of 2002, I joined the faculty of the University of New
`
`Orleans in Louisiana as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical
`
`Engineering. While in this position, I designed and taught two new courses called
`
`“Computer Systems Design I and II.” I also developed a Computer Engineering
`
`Curriculum with a strong hardware-design emphasis, formed a wireless research
`
`group, and advised graduate and undergraduate students.
`
`7.
`
`In September of 2002, I received an appointment as an Assistant
`
`Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the
`
`University of North Texas (UNT), in Denton, Texas. In May of 2008, I became a
`
`tenured Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science and
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 6 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`Engineering. As a faculty member, I have taught courses and directed research in
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`telecommunications, including 2G, 3G, 4G, CDMA/WCDMA, GPS, GSM,
`
`UMTS, LTE, ad-hoc networks, Bluetooth, call admission control, channel coding,
`
`compression, computer architecture, multi-cell network optimization, packet-
`
`networks, telephony, VoIP, Wi-Fi, wireless communication, and wireless sensors. I
`
`am the director of the Wireless Sensor Lab (“WiSL”) at UNT. Several of my
`
`research projects are funded by industry. In January of 2015, I was promoted to
`
`Associate Chair of Graduate Studies in the Department of Computer Science and
`
`Engineering.
`
`8.
`
`In addition to advising and mentoring students at UNT, I was asked to
`
`join the faculty of the University of Arkansas in Little Rock as an Adjunct
`
`Assistant Professor from 2004 to 2008 to supervise the research of two Ph.D.
`
`graduate students doing research in wireless communications. At UNT, I have
`
`advised and supervised more than 250 undergraduate and graduate students, many
`
`of whom received a master’s or doctorate degree under my guidance.
`
`9.
`
`I have consistently received funding from the State of Texas, Texas
`
`Higher Education Coordination Board, the National Science Foundation, and
`
`industry to design and conduct robotics and video and mobile gaming (e.g., Xbox,
`
`PC, mobile device) programming summer camps for middle and high school
`
`students at UNT. By using video and mobile gaming as the backdrop, participants
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 7 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`have learned coding and programming principles and developed an understanding
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`of the role of physics and mathematics in video game design.
`
`10.
`
`In addition to my academic work, I have remained active in the
`
`communication industry through my consulting work. In 2002, I consulted for
`
`Input/Output Inc. and designed and implemented algorithms for optimizing the
`
`frequency selection process used by sonar for scanning the bottom of the ocean. In
`
`2004, I worked with Allegiant Integrated Solutions in Fort Worth, Texas to design
`
`and develop an integrated set of tools for fast deployment of wireless networks.
`
`Among other features, these tools optimize the placement of Access Points and
`
`determine their respective channel allocations to minimize interference and
`
`maximize capacity. I also assisted the Collin County Sheriff’s Office (Texas) in a
`
`double homicide investigation, analyzing cellular record data to determine user
`
`location.
`
`11.
`
`I have authored and co-authored over 75 journal publications,
`
`conference proceedings, technical papers, book chapters, and technical
`
`presentations in a broad array of communications-related technologies, including
`
`networking and wireless communication. I have also developed and taught over
`
`100 courses related to communications and computer system designs, including
`
`several courses on LTE, OFDM, VoIP, W-Fi, wireless communication,
`
`communications systems, sensor networks, source coding and compression,
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 8 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`computer systems design, game and app design, and computer architecture. These
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`courses have included introductory courses on communication networks and
`
`signals and systems, as well as more advanced courses on wireless
`
`communications. A complete list of my publications and the courses I have
`
`developed and/or taught is also contained in my curriculum vitae.
`
`12. My professional affiliations include services in various professional
`
`organizations and serving as a reviewer for several technical publications, journals,
`
`and conferences. I have also received several awards and recognitions, including
`
`the IEEE Professionalism Award (2008), UNT College of Engineering
`
`Outstanding Teacher Award (2008), and Tech Titan of the Future (2010) among
`
`others, which are listed in my curriculum vitae.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`13.
`I understand that this proceeding involves U.S. Reissued Patent No.
`
`RE39,818 (the RE’818 patent). In forming my opinions, I have considered, among
`
`other things, a Petition for Inter Partes Review of claims 1, 16, 20-21, 24-25, and
`
`31-32 by FanDuel, Inc., DraftKings, Inc., and bwinparty digital entertainment PLC
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) dated March 13, 2017, and an Institution Decision
`
`issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on October 18, 2017. I have also
`
`considered the RE’818 patent (Ex. 1001), all exhibits filed with the Petition, and
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 9 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`the exhibits referenced in this declaration. I have considered the Patent Owner’s
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`Preliminary Response filed on July 20, 2017.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`14.
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I was asked to
`
`consider the patent claims and the prior art through the eyes of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”). I considered factors such as the educational level and
`
`years of experience of those working in the pertinent art; the types of problems
`
`encountered in the art; the teachings of the prior art; patents and publications of
`
`other persons or companies; and the sophistication of the technology. I understand
`
`that a POSITA is not a specific real individual, but rather a hypothetical individual
`
`having the qualities reflected by the factors discussed above.
`
`15. Taking these factors into consideration, it is my opinion that a
`
`POSITA as of the time of the RE’818 patent would have had at least a B.S. degree
`
`in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science or similar
`
`field, and possessed around two years’ experience in design, development, and/or
`
`analysis of hardware and software, or equivalent.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that the technical expert retained by Petitioner in this
`
`matter, Mr. Garry Kitchen, has offered an opinion about the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art as it pertains to the RE’818 patent. Mr. Kitchen has said that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would include “a person with a Bachelor of Science Degree
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 10 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering or equivalent, and at least two
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`years of experience in the design and development of video game-related hardware
`
`and software.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 49. This is similar to my definition a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, except that Mr. Kitchen contends the hardware and software design
`
`and development experience must be “video game-related.” In my opinion, the
`
`language “video game-related” is ambiguous, but according to Mr. Kitchen, it
`
`means “the hardware and the software knowhow and techniques that are involved
`
`in putting interactive graphics on a screen and creating a game experience.”
`
`Exhibit 2003, 26:12-15. Given the way Mr. Kitchen interprets the “video game-
`
`related” experience, this language is effectively meaningless because anyone with
`
`two years’ experience in design, development, and/or analysis of hardware and
`
`software would have the “video-game-related” experience. For this reason,
`
`although I disagree with the introduction of “video-game related” in Mr. Kitchen’s
`
`definition and see no reason for it, my analysis is the same regardless of which
`
`definition is applied. Moreover, I meet and exceed both my definition and Mr.
`
`Kitchen’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`17.
`
`In my opinion, the “video game-related” aspect of Mr. Kitchen’s
`
`definition is unduly restrictive and not representative of the breadth of technical
`
`knowledge and understanding associated with the inventions of the RE’818 patent.
`
`Based on my understanding of the claims of the RE’818 patent, I disagree with Mr.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 11 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`Kitchen that the hardware and software design and development experience for a
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`person of ordinary skill must have been limited to “video game-related”
`
`experience.
`
`18. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that hardware
`
`and software components of a computer system are interrelated. For example, in
`
`addition to video games, systems and methods, the claims of the RE’818 patent
`
`also relate to, and rely upon a number of different and interrelated computer
`
`hardware (e.g., processor unit, memory, display screen), software, networks, and
`
`wireless communication technologies. It is my opinion that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in this art must have a broader sense of understanding of the computer
`
`hardware and software components upon which “video-game related” software is
`
`implemented.
`
`19.
`
`I note that claim 1, for example, recites a “video game system”
`
`comprising, “a receiver for receiving wireless identification and control signal
`
`transmissions,” “a non-volatile memory for storing personalized identification
`
`information corresponding to a user of the controller,” and “a transmitter for
`
`wireless transmitting of the personalized identification to the processor unit.” Ex.
`
`1001, 5:40-59. Claim 16 recites a “method of operating an interactive video
`
`system” comprising, “transmitting personalized information from a controller
`
`using wireless transmissions,” “storing the personalized information in a memory
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 12 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`of the processing unit,” “transmitting updated personalized information from the
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`processing unit to the controller using wireless transmissions,” and “storing the
`
`updated personalized information in a memory of the controller.” Id., 6:61-7:9.
`
`V. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`20.
`I have been asked to provide opinions on whether certain prior art
`
`references would have rendered obvious certain claims of the RE’818 patent to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art as of 1997, which I have been informed by
`
`counsel to be the priority date of the RE’818 patent claims.
`
`21. Counsel has informed me that this proceeding will focus primarily on
`
`two issues related to the validity of an issued patent. In particular, to show
`
`invalidity of any claim of the RE’818 patent in this proceeding, I understand that
`
`the Petition must show the subject matter recited in the claim was either (1)
`
`anticipated or (2) obvious in light of the prior art.
`
`22. Regarding anticipation, I understand that the subject matter of the
`
`patent claim is anticipated only if a single item of prior art teaches each and every
`
`element recited in the claim. The prior art also needs to disclose the elements
`
`arranged the same way that they are arranged in the claim—merely disclosing the
`
`elements is not enough. Moreover, the disclosure of the prior art must be
`
`substantial enough that it would have enabled a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`make and use the invention recited in the claim without undue experimentation.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 13 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`23.
`
`I understand that, in some cases, a prior art reference can be
`
`considered to disclose an element of the claim even if the reference does not
`
`expressly teach it. But for so-called “inherent” disclosure, I understand that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have had to recognize from what is
`
`expressly disclosed in the reference that the missing element was necessarily
`
`present despite the reference’s failing to expressly disclose it.
`
`24. Regarding obviousness, I understand that a patent claim that is not
`
`anticipated might still be unpatentable if the subject matter would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of the prior art at the time of
`
`the invention. The claimed subject matter as a whole must be considered when
`
`determining obviousness. Additionally, I understand that this obviousness analysis
`
`takes into account the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between
`
`the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the invention. I understand that the proponent of an obviousness
`
`challenge must provide clear reasoning showing why the claimed subject matter
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that multiple prior art references or teachings can be
`
`combined to show that a patent claim would have been obvious. When taking this
`
`approach, I understand that the proponent of obviousness must show that a person
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 14 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason or motivation to combine the
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`references in the way the elements are recited in the claim. This reason or
`
`motivation can come from different sources—like the prior art—but it cannot come
`
`from the challenged patent’s own disclosure. That is, the detractor of a patent
`
`claim cannot use the inventor’s own work against the inventor to argue that the
`
`invention would have been obvious.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE RE’818 PATENT
`A. Overview of the Technology
`26. The RE’818 patent relates generally to a unique apparatus and method
`
`for remotely playing video games with a personalized controller. Ex. 1001, 1:49–
`
`50. Generally, the RE’818 claims are directed to a personalized, wireless remote
`
`that integrates with video-game systems “to allow each user to have a personality
`
`which interacts with the game, such that video game[s] have the ability to
`
`‘recognize’ a user and adjust game operations accordingly.” Id., 1:21–24. Before
`
`1997, all conventional gaming controllers required wires and were not personalized
`
`to individual users, thereby restricting users in possible operating locations. By
`
`utilizing a specific arrangement of video-game components, including “different
`
`methods of transmitting controller information from the wireless controller to the
`
`CPU,” the RE’818 patent’s innovation enabled video-game users to play remotely
`
`while simultaneously exchanging personalized identification codes between their
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 15 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`controllers and the gaming CPU. Id., 4:20–23; see also id. 1:40–43, 1:25–30, 3:14–
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`16.
`
`B. Overview of Claims 1 and 16 of the RE’818 Patent
`27. As shown below in annotated Figure 2, claim 1 of the RE’818 patent
`
`is directed to a video game system 120 (dark blue) which includes a processor unit
`
`122 (aqua) for executing game instructions and displaying video images on a
`
`display screen 124 (green), and a personalized portable control 126 (purple). Ex.
`
`1001, 2:60-3-5; 5:39-44; Fig. 2 (annotated).
`
`
`
`
`28. As further shown below in annotated Figs. 3a and 3b, the processor
`
`unit 122 includes (1) a receiver 130 (pink) for receiving wireless identification and
`
`control signal transmissions from a transmitter 132 (brown) of the personalized
`
`portable control 126; and (2) a transmitter 140 (orange) for transmitting historical
`
`game performance data (“HGPD”) to a memory 134 (grey) of the personalized
`
`portable control 126. Ex. 1001, 3:6-22, 49-4:20; 5:39-44; Figs. 3a, 3b (annotated).
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 16 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`User age,
`HGPD, and
`control signals
`
`HGPD
`
`
`
`Stores personalized
`identification info (user
`
`age and HGPD)
`
`
`
`29. As also shown above, the personalized portable control 126 includes
`
`(1) a plurality of control switches 128 (Fig. 2) for generating game control signals;
`
`(2) a non-volatile memory 134 (grey) for storing personalized identification
`
`information corresponding to a user of the controller 126, including a user age and
`
`historical game performance data; and (3) the transmitter 132 (brown) for wireless
`
`transmission of the personalized identification and game control signals to the
`
`receiver 130 (pink) processor unit 122. Ex. 1001, 3:6-22, 49-4:20; 5:39-44; 5:45-
`
`59; Figs. 3a, 3b. The processor unit 122 authorizes game play execution based on
`
`the user age of the personalized identification information transmitted from the
`
`stored memory of the controller 126. Ex. 1001, 3:35–48.
`
`30. While not identical, claim 16 recites similar features as those
`
`discussed above in connection with claim 1. Ex. 1001, 6:61–7:10.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 17 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`C. Overview of Claims 20, 21, 24, 31, and 32 of the RE’818 Patent
`31. Claim 20 of the RE’818 patent is directed to a game apparatus 126
`
`(purple) which includes a wireless transmitter 132 (brown) to transmit both an
`
`identification code and game control signals to a processor 122 (aqua) executing a
`
`game, as shown below in annotated Figs. 3a and 3b. Ex. 1001, 3:6-22, 49-4:42;
`
`5:39-44; 5:45-59; Figs. 3a, 3b. The identification code is used by the processor to
`
`retrieve identification data and authorize game play based at least in part on an age
`
`of a player. Ex. 1001, 3:35–48; 4:21-42. The game apparatus 126 (purple) also
`
`includes a plurality of input controls 128 (Fig. 2) to allow the player to interact
`
`with the processor 122 to play the game.
`
`Identification
`code and game
`control signals
`
`
`
`
`
`32. While not identical, claims 21, 24, 31, and 32 recite similar features as
`
`those discussed above in connection with claim 20. Ex. 1001, 7:34–41; 46-54;
`
`8:34-49.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 18 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`D. Overview of Claim 25 of the RE’818 Patent
`33. As shown above in annotated Figure 2, claim 25 of the RE’818 patent
`
`is directed to a game system 120 (dark blue) which includes a central processing
`
`unit (CPU) 122 (aqua) for executing a game, and a game controller 126 (purple).
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:60-3-5; 5:39-44; Fig. 2. As shown below in annotated Figs. 3a and 3b,
`
`the CPU 122 includes (1) receiver 130 (pink) for wirelessly receiving an
`
`identification code and control signal transmissions; (2) a CPU memory 136 (red)
`
`to store data corresponding to a game controller; and (3) a CPU transmitter 140
`
`(orange) for wirelessly transmitting game performance data (“GPD”) to the
`
`controller 126. Ex. 1001, 3:6-22, 49-4:59; 5:39-44; Figs. 3a, 3b. The CPU 122
`
`analyzes the identification code and retrieves data stored in the CPU memory
`
`which corresponds to the identification code. Ex. 1001, 4:20-42. The CPU 122 also
`
`authorizes game participation if a player's age is within a defined age group. Ex.
`
`1001, 3:35–48.
`
`Stores data
`corresponding to a
`game controller
`
`
`
`Identification
`code and control
`signals
`
`GPD
`
`16
`
`Stores
`identification
`
`code
`
`Page 19 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`34. As also shown above, the game controller 126 includes (1) a plurality
`
`of control switches 128 (Fig. 2) for generating game control signals; (2) a non-
`
`volatile memory 134 (grey) for storing the identification code; and (3) a transmitter
`
`132 (brown) for wirelessly transmitting the identification code and the control
`
`signal transmissions to the CPU 122. Ex. 1001, 3:6-22, 49-4:20; 5:39-44; 5:45-59;
`
`Figs. 3a, 3b.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`35.
`I understand that the RE39,818 patent will expire prior to an expected
`
`Final Written Decision from the Board in this case. I have been informed that, in
`
`this circumstance, the Board construes the claims in the same way that a district
`
`court would, namely in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`
`would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention, in light of the specification. I have not been asked to provide a detailed
`
`claim construction analysis in this section. But this is the standard I have applied in
`
`formulating my opinions in other sections of my declaration.
`
`36. When using this standard, I understand that the sources to be
`
`consulted in construing the claims include the intrinsic evidence (the patent claims,
`
`specification, and file history), which is primarily to be considered, as well as
`
`extrinsic evidence (e.g., textbooks, encyclopedias, dictionaries, articles, etc.),
`
`which may also be considered. I understand that the file history informs the
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 20 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`meaning of the claims and assists in determining whether the inventor limited the
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`scope of the patent claims during the course of prosecution.
`
`VIII.
`
`SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`A. Walker
`37. Walker discloses a database driven online distributed tournament
`
`system. Ex. 1007 at title. As shown below in Fig. 1, Walker discloses a distributed
`
`electronic tournament system 100 with a central controller 102 connected to a
`
`number of input/output (I/O) devices, 104 and 106, “through a wireless
`
`telecommunication network.” Id., 5:9-1, 21-22.
`
`Walker, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`38. The input/output (I/O) device “may be a video gaming console, a
`
`personal computer, handheld electronic device, and the like.” Id., 5:12-14. The
`
`central controller 10 “may be a workstation, a minicomputer, or other type of
`
`computation device, typically in the form of a server computer connected to a
`
`public or private network,” and “includes software which it uses in coordination
`18
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`with a database management system (DBMS) to conduct and manage the
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`tournament.” Id., 5:14-17, 32-61. “The database is associated with or resides at the
`
`central controller.” Id., 5:38-39.
`
`Walker, Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`39. As shown above in Fig. 3, Walker explains that, before the player is
`
`allowed to participate in a tournament, a player must first establish an online
`
`connection between their I/O device and the central controller. Id., 6:21-23. To do
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 22 of 84
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`
`so, Walker explains that the player “enters 302 a unique identifier through the
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE39,818
`
`associated I/O device” which is then “communicated 304 to the central controller.”
`
`Id., at 6:21-24. The central controller “accesses 306 a database and searches 308
`
`the records to determine whether or not the identifier already exists.” Id., 6:33-36.
`
`“If the record already exists, the player is identified 310; when the record does not
`
`already exist the registration process 312 begins in which the player enters 314
`
`information such as name, age, address, payment preferences, etc. The central
`
`controller generates 316 a unique identifier for the player and stores [the record]
`
`318 in the database,” which is “associated with or resides at the central controller.”
`
`Id., 5:38-39; 6:36-42. The unique identifier of Walker is thus used for registration
`
`of the player, a separate process from authorization of game play. Further,
`
`Walker’s central controller database stores information corresponding to the
`
`player, such as “name, age, address, payment preferences,” not the I/O device. Id.,
`
`6:39-40.
`
`B.
`Kelly
`40. Kelly discloses a prize redemption system for games. Ex. 1008 at title.
`
`As shown below in Figs. 1 and 2, Kelly discloses a game unit 10/50 including a
`
`game processor 12, input devices 14, 16, an output device 18, ticket dispensers 20,
`
`22, a display screen 56, and a communication de