`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`FANDUEL, INC., DRAFTKINGS, INC., and
`BWIN.PARTY DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT PLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CG TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 16, 2018
`___________
`
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
`MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
`
`
`MEGAN J. REDMOND, ESQUIRE
`CALLIE PENDERGRASS, SENIOR TECHNICAL ADVISOR
`Erise IP, P.A.
`7015 College Boulevard
`Suite 700
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JOSHUA L. GOLDBERG, ESQUIRE
`YI YU, ESQUIRE
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing Monday, July 16,
`
`2018, commencing at 10 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600
`Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Please be seated. Good morning. This
`
`
`is a hearing in IPR2017-00902.
`
`
`Let's start with the appearances of the parties and have
`Petitioner go first.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Good morning, my name is Megan
`Redmond. I'm here on behalf of FanDuel, DraftKings and Bwin, and with
`me is lead counsel, Callie Pendergrass, as well as Jonathan Berschadsky.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: And for the Patent Owner?
`
`
`MR. GOLDBERG: Good morning, Your Honor, Joshua
`Goldberg for CG Technology Development, LLC, and with me I have my
`colleague Yi Yu.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Thank you, Ms. Redmond and Mr.
`Goldberg.
`Our hearing order set out the basic ground rules. Just to remind
`
`
`you, each side is going to have 60 minutes, the Petitioner goes first. You'll
`have an opportunity to reserve some time for a rebuttal. Patent Owner has
`60 minutes to respond to their case in chief.
`
`
`I think, Patent Owner, you also have a motion to exclude; you
`have the burden on that motion. If you want to discuss your motion to
`exclude during your 60 minutes, you can. If you want to reserve some
`rebuttal just exclusively for the motion to exclude, you can do that also. So
`I'll ask you when you take the podium.
`
`
`If you don't have any questions, Ms. Redmond, I'll let you begin
`when you are ready. I'll try -- if you do reserve some time, I'll try to remind
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`
`you, but you should also watch the clock yourself.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: I will, Your Honor. We have copies of our
`PowerPoint slides, would that be helpful to the panel?
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Not for me. I have copies
`electronically in front of me on --
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Okay.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- our screens. And also I'll just point
`out, if you see me looking down at the screens, I'm not checking my emails
`or searching the Internet --
`
`
`(Laughter.)
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- I'm looking at the record, all of
`which is before us on the screens.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Okay.
`
`
`JUDGE GIANETTI: I think we're fine.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Okay.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Have you given copies to the court
`reporter?
`MS. REDMOND: Oh, yes.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: And would you like to reserve any
`
`
`rebuttal time?
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Yes, Your Honor, we'd like to reserve ten
`minutes.
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. You may proceed whenever
`
`
`you're ready.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: All right. May it please Board. In this IPR,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`
`Patent Owner's arguments distill down to one theme, and we believe that
`theme is disregard; disregard the teachings of the prior art, disregard the
`teachings and the authority invested in the Board, disregard the rules and
`case law, disregard the claim language, and, most importantly, disregard
`Petitioner's mappings.
`
`
`Taking a step back, the video game -- the patent at issue is a
`video game system that includes a personalized wireless controller to allow
`for an interactive video game system. The system permits a transmission of
`personal information from the controller to the server.
`
`
`Now, the 818 was part of a reissue proceeding and as part of
`that proceeding there's two groups of claims. So looking at slide DX-2,
`please, you can see we've set out those two groupings of claims.
`
`
`The first grouping of claims are where the player data is stored
`on the processor. And these are claims 20, 21, 31 -- I'm sorry, 20, 21, 24,
`31, and 32, and it is our belief that those claims are obvious based on the
`primary reference, Walker in view of Kelly. In claim --
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: On all those claims is the processor a
`separate element from the controller?
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: That is correct, Your Honor, it's like a server
`or a central controller.
`
`
`And for claim 25, that claim also falls in that bucket, but that
`combination is Walker in view of Kelly, in further view of ViescasViescas.
`
`
`And the second group of claims are really the original claims to
`the patent and those are where the player data is actually stored on the game
`controller as opposed to a central server, and those are claims 1 and 16, and
`the primary reference for those claims is Kelly in view of Walker.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`
`So taking a step back --
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Before we go much further, I think in
`
`
`our decision to institute we combined what you had originally proposed as
`grounds 1 and 3, where you said Walker in view of Kelly on 1 and then
`Kelly in view of Walker on 3, and we said it really doesn't matter whether
`you name one or the other first. Do you agree with the way we've organized
`that or do you have any objection to that?
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: We don't have an objection, Your Honor.
`We were just sticking with what we put in the petition, so we weren't
`accused of trying to change our mapping as we stand here today.
`
`
`So the Walker reference, which just for the record is Exhibit
`1007, teaches a network gaming system where the remotely located players
`can participate in a tournament through their input/output devices or the
`game controllers that are connected via a wireless network to some sort of
`central controller that's actually controlling the tournament or the game play.
`And that server, that remote server does have storage of player information
`such as name, age, all sorts of fields there, and that player data is used to
`authorize game play.
`
`
`Now, the Kelly reference, which is Exhibit --
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: In Walker the date is used to authorize
`game play?
`MS. REDMOND: Some of the data that is stored on a server
`
`
`can be used to authorize game play.
`
`
`For the Kelly reference, which is Exhibit 1008, that also teaches
`a similar networked game scenario where the players are remotely
`participating in the game via their remote control, and that tournament is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`
`managed by that central server. And Kelly also teaches utilizing the user's
`age to authorize participation in that tournament.
`
`
`And finally the ViescasViescas reference, which is 1009, is a
`more minor reference. We're simply using that for the storage, the auto
`storage of the user's login credentials. It was a prodigy system where people
`could go and game online and the system would save your user ID, so you
`wouldn't have to log in every time.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: And do you have a citation in Walker
`for where Walker authorizes game play based on age?
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Sure -- not based on age, based on player
`data, and that's an important distinction.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: And where is your cite for player data?
`
`
`(Pause.)
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: It's on slide DX-7. And so, for example,
`player data is used by Walker, you can use it to authorize game play. For
`example the number times a player has played a game is part of that player
`data on the Walker server, and then that server can decide, okay, you've
`played the game enough times, I'm going to let you in the tournament. So
`that's an example of the Walker reference.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. So what Walker is talking about
`is past performance, right? So there's some historical data --
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Right.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- and if your historical data meets a
`certain criteria -- if it doesn't meet a certain criteria, your registration is
`denied, if you haven't played enough tournaments or won enough
`tournaments --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`
`MS. REDMOND: Right.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- or done something else. And is that
`
`
`where -- the quote that you have up there is registration is denied, so is that -
`- that's the basis for the position that authorization is denied based on the
`registered data?
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Yeah, that's a good example. I think also if
`we look at figure 3, which is next to that, you can see that the players can
`enter their unique identifier. The computer, the central server is going to
`say, okay, I'm going to check my database, that is in there, and then the
`player is going to be identified. And then from there you could go and say,
`okay, is this person authorized to play this tournament, have they played
`enough games based on using that unique personal number to know that they
`can then participate in the tournament.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Counsel, Walker does collect age data,
`though, doesn't it?
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: It does collect age data, that's correct.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: But your contention is that it doesn't
`use that in the way that it permits people to play the game or to operate the
`system based on that criteria?
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: That's a great question. So Walker certainly
`collects age data, but there's no express disclosure in Walker where that age
`data is actually authorizing the game play. And so we're using Kelly to
`show that -- using that Kelly data field to say that you could authorize data
`based on that age.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Authorize data? Authorize
`game play?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`
`MS. REDMOND: I'm sorry, authorize game play based on that
`
`
`age data in Kelly.
`
`
`So what we're basically saying is Walker has a pretty firm and
`filled out player information data field, right? Name, age, all this
`information about it. And so Walker doesn't expressly say, okay, you can
`use age to authorize game play, but it would be absolutely obvious as taught
`in Kelly to use that age information already there in Walker to authorize
`game play.
`All right. And turning to slide DX-3, please. So one of the --
`
`
`and I think this is what you all are hitting on -- one of the Patent Owner's
`arguments is that --
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: If I could just interrupt to remind you,
`as you turn to your colleague to call up a slide number, if you could make
`sure that you are -- state what slide you're on for the record, because then the
`record will know what we're talking about --
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Sure.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- and when we go back and look at the
`transcript we'll know what slide you're talking about.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: So looking here at DX-3, one of Patent
`Owner's arguments is that Kelly does not teach authorizing game play based
`on age. So just taking a look, step back and look at the claims, here we have
`claim 1 wherein the processor unit authorizes game execution based on the
`user's age. Or another example is claim 20, authorizing game play at least in
`part on age of the player. So those are the claim limitations.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Now, the Patent Owner's argument is
`those are separated by 20 columns --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`
`MS. REDMOND: Yes.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- dealing with two different
`
`
`embodiments.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Right.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: So how do you sort of deal with their
`argument as to column 22 is dealing with one disclosure and column 42 is
`dealing with a different disclosure of a different system?
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Sure. So the disclosure in column 2, that
`disclosure relates to figure 5 --
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Column 22?
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: 22, yes, relates to a description of figure 5.
`Figure 5 in the patent has said it applies to all embodiments. So therefore
`we think it's absolutely appropriate to read column 22 in concert with
`column 42, it's also consistent with the law that says you have to read the
`prior art reference as a whole. So we think for those two reasons you should
`read these columns in concert.
`
`
`That being said, I think what the disclosure in column 14 --
`
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Counsel, just to come back to that --
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Sure.
`
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: -- point of law, you're not saying that
`you have to consider -- if they're separate embodiments in the patent, you
`can't consider them separately?
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Well, you can consider them separately if
`that's what the patent says, but here the patent says figure 5 applies to all the
`embodiments, which would be -- include column 42, which relates to a
`description of figure 9.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: All right. So you're relying on the
`
`
`precise description of figure 5 in this patent?
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Yes. But here we think column 42 alone
`gives you enough to get authorizing game play based on age, because as you
`can see at the bottom it says "of course additional fields can be provided in
`Tournament Table 490 to allow the operator to designate further
`characteristics of tournaments such as participation based on predefined
`characteristics, including age." So we think that's enough, but we also think
`that reading these two in concert, that also gives you the claim limitation.
`
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Well, they might be talking about
`something else there in column 42, right? They could be saying, well, you
`know, we decide what level of skill you have based on age and maybe
`certain games are more appropriate for certain age groups.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: And I think that that would authorize it
`based on age. Then I think under your description that means Kelly teaches
`that claim limitation, because that's everything the '818 patent is talking
`about, right?
`
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Well, what if hypothetically you had a
`game that had different levels of skill and if someone was 12 years old it
`would be given a particular skill level and the game would be simpler. The
`same game, but if you're 40, there would be a more advanced version of the
`game. Would that fulfill this claim in your --
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: I think so, I believe so, because you're
`always going to have a situation in your scenario where some players are
`authorized and some players are not authorized to play that particular game.
`So the level of the game is easier when you're young, then there's going to be
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`
`the older players that are not authorized to play the young content, they have
`to play the harder, older content.
`
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: But in my hypothetical it's the same
`game, it's just different levels of skill.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: But it would be different levels of skill and
`different content that you would be entitled, so --
`
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: So you would consider that to be
`different games?
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: I would (indiscernible) --
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is there anything in the patent
`disclosure that talks about the skill level related to age? If you take a look at
`column 3, about line 36ish or so, the disclosure about age in the patent, in
`the '818 patent, is that it's designed for a specific age group and it's not
`operated by an inappropriate group. Are they really just talking about age as
`parental control? Is there anything about skill level and age in the '818
`patent?
`MS. REDMOND: There's nothing explicit in the '818 patent. I
`
`
`really do think the '818 patent is directed toward a situation where parents
`are trying to control a content for their child, because I think if you look at
`the time period in which this patent issued that was kind of what was going
`on in the marketplace and there were demands being made no the
`marketplace to protect kids from inappropriate content. So I think that that
`was the intent here.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Is there any disclosure that you're
`aware of in the '818 patent that links age and skill level and other things or is
`this -- is there any disclosure other than suggesting it's a parental control?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`
`MS. REDMOND: I don't believe so.
`
`
`(Pause.)
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Turning to another argument that the Patent
`
`
`Owner has made with respect to on DX-3 the authorizing game play based
`on page. Patent Owner has quibbled with the word participation, which is a
`word in Kelly, versus the word authorization, which is in the claim.
`
`
`When asked at his deposition -- Callie, DX-5, please -- when
`asked at his deposition, Dr. Akl distinguished that Kelly referenced over the
`'818 patent and said Kelly doesn't disclose authorizing, it discloses
`participation. And so when I asked him, well, what does that authorizing
`mean to you; you made this distinction over Kelly, what does that mean to
`you, he wouldn't opine. He wouldn't tell me why Kelly's participation
`doesn't need that authorization element.
`
`
`So we don't believe there's a factual basis to rely on Dr. Akl,
`because he has not explained himself what in Kelly does not meet that claim
`limitation.
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Now, on claim construction we've got
`
`
`both sides agree that the construction -- and one thing is just to point out, as I
`think you did in the petition, but the patent's expired.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Yes.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: So we're talking about a Phillips-type
`construction rather than a broadest reasonable construction. And both sides
`agree that the claim should be interpreted according to the plain and ordinary
`meaning of the words, but they completely disagree about what that plain
`and ordinary meaning is.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: And yet I don't think either side has
`
`
`provided us with any evidence about what your -- what do you think
`authorizing means, I don't think -- the experts haven't opined on it, so we
`don't have the benefit of the experts giving us their opinion on how a person
`of ordinary skill would interpret the word "authorize." Is there any evidence
`that you can point us to to support your position that authorize means the
`same thing as allowing to participate?
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Yeah, so I think that just based on common
`vernacular and what one of ordinary skill in the art would have known at this
`time, I think we look at it and we say, okay, am I being allowed to
`participate in this game, yes or no, am I authorized? I mean, I think that
`participation and authorization in that situation are synonyms. I don't sitting
`here know what difference would be -- if you can participate or you can't
`participate. If it's a soccer game, everybody can participate. That's a
`different kettle of fish. When we're talking about authorizing versus
`participation and that participation is based on certain factors, then I think,
`yes, participation and authorization are the same thing.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: And I understand your position is that
`they're synonyms. Is there any evidence of that? Do we have any dictionary
`definitions of records? Do we have any opinions that say that they're
`synonyms? Is there anything other than your argument, which represents
`your position, that establishes that you think they're the same?
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: I think --
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Because the other side thinks that
`they're different.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Right.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: They also -- I'm going to ask them for
`
`
`the evidence that supports their position as well, but what I'm looking for is
`some evidence to tie the record -- in the record that supports your argument
`that they're the same.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: And I think the references themselves and
`reading the references themselves in context of the '818 patent, as well as the
`opinions from our expert, Mr. Kitchen, who viewed it through that lens, is
`our best evidence of what authorizing means. And I think that --
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Did Mr. Kitchen -- excuse me for
`interrupting -- did Mr. Kitchen express an opinion on what authorizing
`means?
`MS. REDMOND: Just one second, Your Honor.
`
`
`(Pause.)
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: So just to clarify, so Mr. Kitchen didn't offer
`
`
`an express opinion about what the word authorizing means, but he did offer
`an opinion as to how Kelly teaches the authorizing claim limitation, so that's
`clear.
`And the final point I would make on this particular argument --
`
`
`and, Callie, if you would turn to DX-4 for me, please? In reviewing Patent
`Owner's slides, I didn't see a slide on this argument, but I believe it's in the
`briefing and which is why we included it here. In their briefing, Patent
`Owner alleges on DX-4 here that the claims require "restricting, slash,
`authorizing game play in its entirety based on an age of a player." And so
`we think this argument -- and again, it's not in their slide decks here today,
`but we believe this argument kind of falls short because it's adding words in
`to the claim term to try to preserve patentability, specifically "in its entirety."
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`
`And so we think that that is -- that's inappropriate and contrary to the law.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: And how does in entirety sort of add to
`what's authorized? If you're authorized, you can either play or not play. If
`you're under ten years old, you can't play; if you're over ten years old, you
`can. Is that -- if I add the words "in its entirety" to it, does that change any
`difference with --
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: I think that they're using that to distinguish
`it over Kelly and that somehow what Kelly is authorizing, participation
`based on age, in their view is not enough, that it has to authorize more. I'm
`not sure fully what that argument, how that bakes out, but it is an argument
`they raised in their briefing, so I wanted to raise it here today.
`
`
`All right, moving on to the next line of arguments raised by
`Patent Owner. Callie, can we go to DX-6? Perfect, okay. And on DX-6
`we're talking about Patent Owner's argument where they say Walker does
`not teach authorization based on identification codes or data. And, again,
`this is for claims 20, 21, 24, and 31.
`
`
`Just to give you a sample, for example, claim 24 there talks
`about an identification code is used by the processor to authorize game play
`based on an age of a player. And then for example claims 21 and 31 --
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: You skipped over --
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: I apologize --
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: -- the middle phrase --
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: I'm sorry.
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: -- and I don't want to leave that on the
`record the way it is.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Sure, let me try again. Claim 24 states,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`
`"Identification code is used by the processor to authorize game play based
`on --
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Well, but I think -- it says "to retrieve
`
`
`identification data," not to authorize game play.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Oh, I'm sorry --
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: So it's --
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: -- I'm reading from claim 24.
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: -- the processor uses the identification
`code for two things, right --
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: I --
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: -- one is to retrieve identification data
`and two is to authorize game play placed at least -- based at least in part on
`an age of a player.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: For claim 20. I apologize, I was reading
`from claim 24.
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: I was just trying to simplify it --
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: All right.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: -- since we're just talking about the ID codes
`here, so I was trying to pick the ones that were a little bit cleaner on the
`language.
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Maybe I didn't hear you, your
`
`
`reference to claim 24. I apologize.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: I apologize. So for claims 21 and 31,
`"authorizing play of the interactive game based at least in part on the data
`and an age of the player." And so looking at the claim limitations there, I
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`
`think if you view Walker as well as the disclosure from the '818 patent, the
`mapping of Walker lines up.
`
`
`So just kind of walking through these, the '818 patent here
`describes one embodiment "transmits an identification code from the
`wireless controller, 126, to the central processing unit, 122, during
`operation."
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: But let me -- before you go too far --
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Sure.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- and lose that thought. You said
`
`
`Walker authorizes based on age and I thought that you had said earlier that
`Walker collects age, but doesn't expressly disclose any authorization or
`participation, if you want to use the different words, based on age.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Yeah, so what we're talking about here is the
`identification codes. And so for the identification codes, we believe Walker
`does teach authorization based on the identification codes themselves. This
`one is not -- and then again we're combining it with Kelly for that age
`element. So Walker itself does not teach that authorization based on age.
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Is there a distinction between the way
`claim 20 and claim 24 recites the use of identification codes?
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: I don't believe so.
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: You don't think that they differ at all
`in scope?
`MS. REDMOND: I think -- I mean, the 20 -- to me, the
`
`
`distinction between 20 and 24, you're talking about the authorizing game
`play based on the age of the player, you're retrieving the data and
`authorizing game play. I mean, there are some additional elements, but as
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`
`far as what Patent Owner is arguing here, the purpose of this slide was just
`to respond to their argument on this point.
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: No, I understand, but I'm much less
`interested in what your response to Patent Owner's argument is --
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Sure.
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: -- and much more interested in what
`are the scope of the claims. I mean, one of the things that's complicated
`about this case is there are lots of independent claims, lots of different kinds
`of phraseology. I think both sides try to summarize and group things
`together, I sort of understand that. We don't have that luxury. And so --
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Understood.
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: -- I'm trying to see in my own mind
`whether there are distinctions that may make a difference and so that's why I
`asked my question. It seems to me that claim 24, at least as it relates to this
`concept of authorization based on age and use of identification codes, may
`be a little broader than claim 20.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: I would probably agree with that, because
`for 20 you have the processor is retrieving the identification data and then
`authorizing. So, arguably 24 could be a little bit broader than 20.
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: And it certainly would be possible to
`use an identification code to retrieve identification data and then never do
`any kind of authorization, just stop right there, right?
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: You could.
`
`
`JUDGE WEATHERLY: Okay.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Okay, all right. So taking a step back. The
`'818, so it discloses transmitting the identification code from the wireless
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`
`controller to the CPU during operation.
`
`
`And, Callie, if you'll turn to DX-7 for me, please?
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Do we care in claims 20, 21, 24, and 31
`that the ID code -- the disclosure is the ID code is transmitted from the
`wireless controller, what if the -- in 20, 21, 24, and 31, the processor has the
`memory, isn't that keeping -- that's where all of this data is stored, in the
`processor, not in the controller.
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Right.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: And so where the embodiments where
`the ID code that's disclosed in the '818, where the ID code comes from the
`wireless controller, does that make any difference or is that relevant in some
`way to claims 20, 21, 24, or 31?
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: I think that our point on this is that it maps
`up directly. The same thing is going on in the '818 that's going on in
`Walker. You have the code, the gamer putting the code in on the controller,
`that's getting transmitted to the central server, that central server is doing its
`lookup, trying to find, okay, do I know who this player is, I do know who
`this player is, and then you can proceed from there.
`
`
`It's just trying to figure out if it knows who the player is, so it
`can pull up its player profile, so that it can either participate, for example, in
`a tournament game or -- but it can be generally identified, that's the purpose
`for both in both disclosures.
`
`
`And so I think that -- and that's our point on slides DX-6 and
`DX-7, and here we believe -- and this is figure 3 on DX-7 that have been
`reproduced from Walker on this slide, just for the record -- and we think that
`that disclosure in Walker directly maps with what's going on in the '818 and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00902
`Patent RE39,818 E
`
`exactly how the '818 performs this function. The Patent Owner has taken
`the position that that only relates to registration and that doesn't relate to
`authorization. And so our purpose for showing you this was that figure 3
`has a separate flow if that player is not identified and then registration can
`begin for that player. But Walker's disclosure about this identification codes
`does not relate to registration, it relates to authorization, because even after
`you complete that registration series, you still have to go up and be
`authorized before you can be an authorized player.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: Now, your slide also, the second quote
`-- and I assume the cite that's at the bottom of your slide is where it is in
`Walker with Exhibit 1007 --
`
`
`MS. REDMOND: Yes.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: -- it specifically says registration can be
`denied.
`MS. REDMOND: Right.
`
`
`JUDGE GROSSMAN: So is that -- that denial of registration is
`
`
`what y
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
