`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________
`
`WARGAMING GROUP LIMITED
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GAME AND TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01082
`Patent 7,682,243
`
`_____________
`
`CORRECTED PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.120, Game and Technology Co., Ltd.
`
`(“Patent Owner”) timely submits this Corrected Patent Owner Response.
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ i
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`PETITION BARRED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ........................................ 1
`
`A. Service on Wargaming by John Talbot ..................................................... 2
`
`B. Exhibit A to John Talbot’s Witness Statement .......................................... 4
`
`C. Signed and Sealed Summons ..................................................................... 5
`
`D. Effective Service on Roman Zanin ........................................................... 7
`
`E. Voluntary Dismissal ................................................................................. 10
`
`III. RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................... 12
`
`IV. THE ‘243 PATENT ....................................................................................... 13
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 15
`
`A. “pilot” ....................................................................................................... 17
`
`B. “unit associated with said pilot” .............................................................. 21
`
`C. “ability” .................................................................................................... 29
`
`D. “sync point information” ......................................................................... 36
`
`E. “level” ....................................................................................................... 37
`
`VI.
`
`INSTITUTED GROUND .............................................................................. 38
`
`VII. CITED ART ................................................................................................... 38
`
`A. D&D and Role Playing Games ................................................................ 38
`
`B. Levine ....................................................................................................... 40
`
`C. Roleplaying in D&D v. CRPG ................................................................ 40
`
`
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`VIII. CLAIMS 1-7 OF THE ‘243 PATENT ARE PATENTABLE OVER
`LEVINE IN VIEW OF D&D ........................................................................ 42
`
`A. Pilot and Unit Relationship ...................................................................... 42
`
`1. Pilots in D&D ................................................................................. 42
`
`2. Familiars in D&D ........................................................................... 43
`
`3. Animal Companions in D&D ......................................................... 45
`
`4. Paladin Mounts in D&D ................................................................. 47
`
`B. D&D Has No Pilot-Unit Relationship ..................................................... 48
`
`C. Sync Point Information ............................................................................ 50
`
`1. Abilities in D&D ............................................................................ 50
`
`2. Sync Ratios in D&D ....................................................................... 52
`
`IX. CLAIM 2: SYNC POINT INFORMATION IS INCREASED WITH PILOT
`LEVEL ........................................................................................................... 66
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`
`Document
`Witness Statement of Service in Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-01260
`by John Frederick Talbot, dated December 13, 2015
`Witness Statement of Service in Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-01260
`by John Frederick Talbot, dated December 13, 2015 (with
`Anexes)
`Certificate - Attestation by Superior Courts of England and
`Wales, Foreign Processing Section regarding service upon
`Wargaming.Net.LLP, dated January 6, 2016
`Certificate - Attestation by Superior Courts of England and
`Wales, Foreign Processing Section regarding service upon
`Wargaming.Net.LLP, dated January 6, 2016 (with Exhibits)
`Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Springfield, MA:
`Merriam-Webster, 1983 (1990) at 892 .
`Complicated Currents: Media Flows, Soft Power and East Asia,
`Ch. 11, Black et al.
`Video of MazingerZ emulation at
`http://www.playretrogames.com/3898-mazinger-z (accessed
`January 9, 2017)
`Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares, Instruction Manual
`Request for Legal Language Services
`Email from Legal Language Services
`Email correspondence with Central Authority
`Talbot Credit Card Statement December 2015
`Email correspondence to evasive scientist
`Proof of service of evasive scientist
`Scrap paper from Talbot file
`Joannou business card
`Email to Legal Language Solutions
`Kounnis webpage photo
`Kounnis webpage photo
`Declaration of John Talbot
`Service Documents from Legal Language Services
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2001
`(Supplemental)
`
`2002
`
`2002
`(Supplemental)
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`2008
`2009
`2010
`2011
`2012
`2013
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017
`2018
`2019
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`Notice of Service filed in 2:16-cv-06554 BRO (SKx)
`Declaration of Joseph Zito
`Summons from Pacer
`Wargaming.net Documents
`Wargaming Group Documents
`Cyprus Service Requirements
`Summons for Wargaming
`Declaration of Joseph Zito
`Dungeons & Dragons, Dungeon Master’s Guide (DMG)
`Dungeons & Dragons, Monster Manual (MM)
`RPG Status Markers blog
`Transcript of Deposition of Garry Kitchen
`Declaration of Mark Claypool
`
`
`2020
`2021
`2022
`2023
`2024
`2025
`2026
`2027
`2028
`2029
`2030
`2031
`2032
`
`iv
`
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The proceeding should be terminated because the Petition is barred under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b). Wargaming.net LLP, a real party-in-interest to this proceeding,
`
`was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ‘243 patent on December
`
`14, 2015, more than one year before the filing date of this proceeding. Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 4(f)(1).
`
`Moreover, the Petition requesting Inter Partes review (Paper 1) fails to show
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1- 7 of U.S. 7,682,243 ("the '243
`
`patent") are unpatentable. The combination of U.S. Patent Application Publication
`
`No. 2003/0177187 to Levine et al. Ex[1004] and Dungeons and Dragons Players
`
`Handbook Core Rulebook Ex[1005](D&D) does not meet the limitations that “said
`
`ability of unit is changed proportionally to changes in ability of the pilot by
`
`referring to said sync point,” and the “sync point information is a ratio of which
`
`changes in said ability of pilot are applied to said ability of unit.”
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PETITION BARRED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`
`This proceeding should be terminated because the Petition as barred by
`
`statute under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Wargaming.net LLP was served with a complaint
`
`more than one year before the filing date of the Petition in the United Kingdom and
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`in Cyprus. Even though Wargaming.net LLP was dismissed as a party (Ex. 1013 at
`
`2, ¶ 1), the substitution of parent company Wargaming Group Limited as a
`
`defendant (Ex[1013],2:2) necessitates continuation of the same infringement
`
`action.
`
`A. Service on Wargaming by John Talbot
`
`Wargaming.net LLP was served with a complaint in the United Kingdom by
`
`John Talbot, an experienced process server, more than one year before the filing
`
`date of this Petition. John Talbot owned a process service business that specializes
`
`in providing service under Article 5 of the Hague Convention for twenty-seven
`
`years. Ex[2018],2-3.
`
`Mr. Talbot’s original statement that “[o]n Thursday the 10th day of
`
`December 2015 at 1305 hours I served Wargaming.Net LLP, one of the
`
`Defendants herein, with the Summons in a Civil Action issued herein, together
`
`with the Complaint for Patent infringement, the Civil Cover Sheet, the Summons
`
`in a Civil Action, the Report on the Filing or Determination of an Action
`
`Regarding a Patent or Trademark and the U.S. Patent No. US 7,682,243 B2,
`
`together with the Hague Convention Summary of the Document to be Served and
`
`Notice, by delivering them to, and leaving them with, Costas A Joannou, who
`
`confirmed that he was authorised to accept service on behalf of Wargaming.Net
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`LLP” was made only three days after service and fifteen months before this
`
`Petition was filed. See Ex[2002],1; Ex.[2002](Supplemental),1; Ex.[2019],3. Mr.
`
`Talbot sent his witness statement to Graham Bridgman, who certified the statement
`
`and applied to the Central Authority for a Hague Certificate of Service. Ex.[2018],
`
`1; Ex[2001](Supplemental),1; Ex[2002](Supplemental),1; Ex[2019],3. The Hague
`
`Certificate of Service issued on January 6, 2016. Ex[2002](Supplemental),1;
`
`Ex[2019],2.
`
`Regarding what occurred the day of service, Mr. Talbot stated that when the
`
`“registered office turns out to be accountants,” he asks whether “there is anyone in
`
`particular I could leave [the documents] with.” Ex[ 2018],9. Consistent with his
`
`practice, Mr. Talbot recalls personally serving Mr. Joannou, Wargaming’s
`
`authorized agent. Ex[1025], 63: 3-5. The contents of Mr. Talbot’s file from that
`
`day, including a scrap of paper and Mr. Joannou’s business card, aided Mr.
`
`Talbot’s recollection. Ex.[2018],11. The scrap of paper within Mr. Talbot’s file
`
`has “kos” and “1.05” scribbled on it. Ex[2013]. This paper reminded Mr. Talbot of
`
`the time of service, and that “kos” was “the beginning of my attempt to write down
`
`the name of the person whom I personally served, Costas A Joannou…. While I
`
`was writing down his name, Mr. Joannou gave me his business card, at which point
`
`I didn’t need to finish writing his name.” Ex[2018], ¶11. Based on these facts and
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`Mr. Talbot's experience, Mr. Talbot’s statements are highly credible.
`
`Almost eighteen months after Mr. Talbot made his original statement, Mr.
`
`Joannou has stated that that he has no recollection of receiving the documents.
`
`Ex[1017], ¶ 4. Mr. Joannou does not believe that he was in the office at 1:05 PM
`
`because Mr. Joannou had to leave his office for a meeting at 3 PM in Central
`
`London and had another meeting that was “brought forward.” Ex[1017], ¶ 5.
`
`However, Mr. Talbot has testified that Mr. Joannou’s travel time to his meeting
`
`would be “approximately one hour by train.” Ex.[1023],69:24-70:9. Even if true,
`
`none of Mr. Joannou’s circumstantial statements affirmatively establishes that
`
`service was not effected. Mr. Joannou does not establish that he was, for example,
`
`in a different location at the date and time of alleged service, and thus all of Mr.
`
`Joannou’s statements do not evidence a lack of service. Either Mr. Joannou does
`
`not remember the encounter from two years ago or Mr. Joannou’s statements are in
`
`effort to mitigate damage to his personal business interest, having billed almost
`
`350,000 pounds in service fees to Wargamming.net. Ex[1017], Exhibit B.
`
`B. Exhibit A to John Talbot’s Witness Statement
`
`Mr. Talbot has testified that he served all documents including the Hague
`
`Notice and Summary to Mr. Joannou. Ex.[1025], 31:14-21; 73:3-23. While Ex.
`
`2002 (Supplemental) did not include a true copy of Exhibit A with the Notice and
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`Summary, all served documents included in the correct Exhibit A were of record
`
`before Mr. Talbot's deposition in a combination of the documents shown in Ex.
`
`2001 (Supplemental) (Notice and Summary), and Ex. 2002 (Supplemental)
`
`(Summons, Compliant, Cover Sheet, and Patent). And the declaration of Joseph
`
`Zito (Ex[2021]) regarding the documents that he received from Legal Language
`
`Services (Ex[2019]) corroborates that the Notice and Summary were included in
`
`Exhibit A to Mr. Talbot’s witness statement.
`
`C. Signed and Sealed Summons
`
`Petitioner's allegation that “the summons was not issued by the district
`
`court” is incorrect. Petitioner’s Brief on Service (Paper 24) at 7. In fact, Patent
`
`Owner obtained a signed and sealed pdf electronic copy of the summons, which is
`
`publically available on PACER and incudes the seal and signature on graphics
`
`layers that overly the document fields. Ex[2022]. In Ayers v. Jacobs & Crumplar,
`
`P.A., F3d 565, 567 (3rd Cir. 1996), upon which the Petitioner relies, the plaintiff
`
`“did not request the Clerk of the Court to issue a signed summons with a seal of the
`
`court affixed thereto.” By contrast, in the present matter, the court did properly
`
`issue a summons, providing personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
`
`Moreover, regarding the summons requirement of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, “Rule 4 is a flexible rule which principally requires sufficient notice to
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`the party of claims brought against it, and dismissal is not appropriate unless the
`
`party has been prejudiced.” Gottfried v. Frankel, 818 F.2d 485, 493 (6th Cir.
`
`1987). In Gottfried, a petition under Rule 10(j) of the National Labor Relations
`
`Act was served without summons. Id at 492. The Court found “strict adherence to
`
`Rule 4 summons specifications is not a requirement for jurisdiction over the party.”
`
`Id. at 492-93.
`
`Similarly, relying on former Rule 4(h), Sanderford v. Prudential Ins. Co. of
`
`Am., 902 F.2d 897, 900 (11th Cir. 1990) held “[w]hen a defect in process is found,
`
`Rule 4(h) does not require that the party be served anew as if the first service of
`
`process did not exist. Rather, the court may allow amendment of the process to
`
`perfect the original process. The date the action was commenced, however, relates
`
`back to the date the first process was served.” (emphasis added). Former Rule 4(h)
`
`states: “At any time in its discretion and upon such terms as it deems just, the court
`
`may allow any process or proof of service thereof to be amended, unless it clearly
`
`appears that material prejudice would result to the substantial rights of the party
`
`against whom the process issued.” Rule 4(h) was amended into Rule 4(a)(2) in the
`
`1993 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rule 4 Advisory
`
`Committee Notes regarding subdivision (a). See also 4B Wright & Miller, Federal
`
`Practice and Procedure § 1131 (4th ed.) regarding Rule 4: “The most common
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`occasion for amendment is when the plaintiff has made a simple mistake or a
`
`technical error that results in a failure to identify the defendant properly, such as
`
`when a corporation is not denominated by its registered name or the defendant’s
`
`name is misspelled. When the error goes to form rather than substance, as these
`
`illustrative defects obviously do, and the proper defendant receives the original
`
`process, realizes it is directed at him, and thus is put on notice of the
`
`commencement of the action, there is no reason why a United States district court
`
`should refuse to permit the amendment of either the process or the return of
`
`service.” Accordingly, mere procedural printing error that caused the seal and
`
`signature to be missing from the copy of the summons properly served by Mr.
`
`Talbot does not render the service ineffective.
`
`The equities favor Patent Owner because, as discussed below, Wargaming
`
`acknowledges receiving a copy of the summons and complaint, as discussed
`
`below. And Patent Owner’s litigation counsel's actions to work with opposing
`
`counsel instead of promptly moving for entry of default judgment are not evidence
`
`of a lack of service.
`
`D. Effective Service on Roman Zanin
`
`Patent Owner obtained a signed and sealed pdf electronic copy of a
`
`summons for Wargaming Public Company Limited, which became Wargaming
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`Group Limited. This document is also publically available on PACER. See Ex.
`
`2026. Therefore, the court also has personal jurisdiction over Wargaming Public
`
`Company Limited/ Group Limited. General Counsel for Wargaming Group
`
`Limited, Roman Zanin, has admitted that “on or around December 24, 2015,
`
`Wargaming Group Limited received by post, in Cyprus, a summons and complaint
`
`addressed to Wargaming.net LLP.” Ex. 1011 at 3. Joseph Zito also declares that
`
`summons addressed to both Wargaming Public Company Limited and
`
`Wargaming.net LLP and the complaint were mailed to Wargaming in Cyprus. Ex.
`
`2027.
`
`The Supreme Court in Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 137 S.Ct. 1504, 1513
`
`(2017) held that “in cases governed by the Hague Service Convention, service by
`
`mail is permissible if two conditions are met: first, the receiving state has not
`
`objected to service by mail; and second, service by mail is authorized under
`
`otherwise-applicable law.” Hague Convention Art. 10(a) states: “Provided the
`
`State of destination does not object, the present Convention shall not interfere with
`
`a) the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons
`
`abroad.”
`
`Regarding the first condition, according to the HCCH’s (Hague Conference
`
`on Private International Law’s) website, Cyprus has “no opposition” to Art. 10(a).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`See Ex. 2025. Therefore, the mailing of a summons and complaint to Wargaming
`
`Public Company Limited is effective service on newly named Wargaming Group
`
`Limited. Regarding the second condition, F.R.C.P. 4(c) permits service by "Any
`
`person who is 18 years old and not a party." Mr. Zito, who mailed the summons
`
`and complaint to Wargaming in Cyprus, is the plaintiff's attorney and is not a party
`
`to the litigation.1
`
`Moreover, although Mr. Zanin is General Counsel for Wargaming Group
`
`Limited, due to the close relationship between Wargaming Group Limited and
`
`Wargaming.net LLP, service received on the parent company should be considered
`
`service of the subsidiary. According to public records obtained from i-Cyprus -
`
`Cyprus Companies Search, Wargaming.net LLP is a wholly owned subsidiary of
`
`Wargaming Group Limited with at least one common director, Victor Kislyi, and
`
`Wargaming Group Limited and Wargaming.net LLP and Wargaming Group
`
`Limited share the same address in Cyprus. See Ex. 2023 and 2024. It is therefore
`
`
`1 In Menon v. Water Splash, Inc., No. 14-14-00012-CV, pages 9-11 (14 Cir. Jan.
`9, 2018), the Court of Appeals for the 14th Circuit held that service by mailing
`of a summons and complaint by a legal assistant was not "authorized under
`otherwise-applicable law" because the legal assistant is a person "interested in
`the outcome of the suit." However, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 103 is more
`restrictive than F.R.C.P. 4(c) , reciting “But no person who is a party to or
`interested in the outcome of a suit may serve any process in that suit" (emphasis
`added).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`very clear that these companies are alter-egos of one another and mailing to one
`
`company is effectively mailing to the other company, as provided by California
`
`and the Ninth Circuit to which the underlying litigation has been transferred. See
`
`Automotriz Del Golfo De California S. A. De C. V. v. Resnick, 47 Cal.2d 792, 797
`
`(Cal. 1957) regarding the test for whether one company is an alter ego of another
`
`company that “(1) that there be such unity of interest and ownership that the
`
`separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist and (2)
`
`that, if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, an inequitable result
`
`will follow” (emphasis added).
`
`The mailing of the summons and complaint addressed to Wargaming.net
`
`LLP is also effective service on Wargaming.net LLP. Wargaming Group Limited
`
`and Wargaming.net LLP are alter egos of one another and service by mail of a
`
`complaint addressed to Wargaming.net LLP that is received by Wargaming Group
`
`Limited should be considered proper service.
`
`E. Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Petitioner alleges that dismissal of the underlying infringement action
`
`against Wargaming.net LLP nullifies the effect of the service of the complaint.
`
`Petitioner’s Brief on Service (Paper 24) at 2. However, Patent Owner maintained
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`the lawsuit against parent company Wargaming Group Limited instead of its
`
`subsidiary, Wargaming.net LLP. See Ex[1013],[1026].
`
`In Board has consistently looked to whether a dismissal leaves “the parties
`
`as though the action had never been brought," and whether the parties may "pursue
`
`courses of action available to them before the action had been brought." See, for
`
`example, Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc., IPR2015-
`
`00826, Paper 12 at 13 (PTAB Sept. 1, 2015) (Decision on Institution). In LG
`
`Electronics, Inc. v. Mondis Technology Ltd, IPR2015-00937, Paper 8 at 5-6 (PTAB
`
`Sept. 17, 2015) (Decision Denying Institution) (Precedential), the Board
`
`determined whether, after a dismissal, "the parties are in the same legal position as
`
`if the action … had never been brought."
`
`In its Reply Brief (Paper 28), Petitioner seems to assert that Atlanta Gaslight
`
`supports the proposition that a litigation that continues against one company, but is
`
`dismissed with respect to another company, should have the same effect as
`
`dismissal of the lawsuit. However, the Board decisions consistently involve
`
`dismissals of the litigation against a party and related companies. For example,
`
`Macauto U.S.A. v. BOS GmbH Co. KG, IPR2012-0004, Paper 18 at 14-16 (PTAB
`
`Jan. 24, 2013), referenced in Atlanta Gas Light, involve voluntary dismissals of the
`
`litigation. Macauto, IPR2012-0004, Ex[2016].
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`
`Because of the substitution of Wargaming Group Limited, the order granting
`
`dismissal (Ex[1026]) cannot be considered as having the same effect as a dismissal
`
`of a lawsuit without prejudice, which is the circumstance in Petitioner’s cited
`
`Oracle Corp. v. Click-to-Call Techs. LP, IPR2013-00312, Paper 52 at 12–13
`
`(PTAB Oct. 28, 2014) (Final Written Decision). As a result, the dismissal of one
`
`party (Wargaming.net LLP) in favor of a related party (Wargaming Group
`
`Limited) cannot preclude the bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`III. RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY
`
`The '243 patent is directed to an online Role Playing Game (RPGs). In an
`
`RPG, a player adopts the role of a player character (PC) to participate in an
`
`adventure, which in the conventional tabletop form may be narrated and directed
`
`by another player acting as the dungeon master (DM). Typically, a number of
`
`players will participate as PCs. Dungeon’s and Dragons (D&D) is conventionally
`
`believed to be first RPG. Ex[2032],24-25.
`
`In an RPG, a player typically leverages their own imagination and creativity
`
`to define the role of the PC. For example, in D&D, players may select from among
`
`various races and classes. Each race and class differs, thereby providing a
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`customized base from which the player may develop their PC during each D&D
`
`session. Ex[2032],26-27. With the advent of computing, the tabletop world of
`
`D&D naturally morphed into electronic form. Ex[2032],28.
`
`
`
`IV. THE ‘243 PATENT
`
`The ‘243 Patent is directed to an online RPG. [Ex. 1001], 3:31-40. Like the
`
`role playing games above, the ‘243 Patent is inspired by D&D and its
`
`computerized progeny, in which a player takes the role of “player character.”
`
`Ex[1001], 3:7-9. As the player character progresses through the game (Ex[1001],
`
`4:25-42, 6:47-54, 7:14-20) and gains a “level” (Ex[1001],5:62-67), the “ability
`
`information” of the player character, represented as a pilot, may increase
`
`(Ex[1001], 6:58-7:13). Ex[2032],29.
`
`In the background, the ‘243 Patent describes: “while the ability of the player
`
`character grows, the ability of the unit does not change. That is, results by
`
`operations of the player character do not affect the unit associated with the player
`
`character. Ex[1001],1:48-52. Accordingly, the player would feel a disconnect
`
`between the progress of the player character and a unit associated with the player,
`
`as the player character progresses through the RPG. Ex[1001],1:50-60.
`
`Ex[2032],30.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`
`Thus, the ‘243 Patent is directed to method and system for 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],1:20-24.
`
`For example, the player character takes the role of a pilot, and “the gamer may
`
`control a player character and a unit (a robot character or a vehicle character)
`
`associated therewith through the player character.” Ex[1001],1:37-40. The “gamer
`
`may control motions of a unit through the pilot.” Ex[1001],3:9-10. In the context
`
`of the ‘243 Patent, the unit is a form of vehicle, for example a robot that is piloted
`
`or flown by the player performing the role of the pilot. Ex[1001],1:37:44, 6:47-54.
`
`Ex[2032],31.
`
`An embodiment of the game providing system 100 includes a unit
`
`information database 300 and a pilot information database 400. Ex[1001],FIGS.
`
`3,4. The unit information database 300 may include fields for the ability of the
`
`unit (e.g., attack power 305, evasion power 306, etc.) and for a sync point 304.
`
`Ex[1001], 4:60-5:36. The pilot information database 400 may include fields for a
`
`unit identifier 404 indicating a unit associated with the pilot, level 405 indicating
`
`level information of the pilot, and an ability value 407 of the pilot with respect to
`
`the unit. Ex[1001], 5:37-6:36, FIG. 4. Ex[2032],33.
`
`In an embodiment, if the pilot’s level 405 increases, the sync point 304 also
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`increases. Ex[1001],2:14-185,62-66;8:29-44( “an object of online game providing
`
`method and system such above is to make the growth of a pilot affect the growth of
`
`a unit.”) When there is a request to update the pilot ability, a database updating unit
`
`750 updates the unit ability information in accordance with the sync point
`
`information. Ex[1001],8:29-9:3. In this way, the pilot ability information is
`
`proportionally linked with unit ability information via the sync point 304.
`
`Ex[1001], 6:58-67. Ex[2032],33.
`
`
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A claim subject to Inter Partes Review is given its “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms are assigned their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, as understood the skilled artisan at the time of the invention, in the
`
`context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Two exceptions: are when “1) when a patentee sets out a
`
`definition and acts as his own lexicographer,” and “2) when the patentee disavows
`
`the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.”
`
`Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd., IPR 2015-014557, Paper 38 at 8
`
`(PTAB, Dec. 15, 2016); quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). When an inventor chooses to act as his own
`
`lexicographer, the inventor must define specific terms "with reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision” and must "set out his uncommon definition in some
`
`manner within the patent disclosure so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`notice of the change." In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Intellicall, Inc.
`
`v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation is not the "broadest possible
`
`interpretation." In re Smith, 871 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “A claim
`
`construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one
`
`that does not do so.” See Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364,
`
`1372; (Fed. Cir. 2005). When determining how a skilled artisan would have
`
`understood a claim term, the Board may refer to a dictionary definition. Xilinx,
`
`Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2013–00112, Paper 51 at 9–10 (June 26,
`
`2014).
`
`The skilled artisan at the time of the invention would have had (1) a
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in computer science or commensurate degree or five
`
`years of professional experience in the field of computer game development, and
`
`(2) significant familiarity with role playing game mechanics.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`A. “pilot”
`
`The Petitioner asserts that “pilot” means “a player character representing a
`
`gamer.” Petition[Paper 1], 8. Specifically, in light of the context of the
`
`specification, the Petitioner asserts that the skilled artisan in the art “would have
`
`understood ‘pilot’ to encompass any ‘player character representing a gamer.’”
`
`Petition[Paper 1],9 (emphasis added) citing ‘243 Patent Ex[1001],3:4-10 and
`
`Kitchen Declaration Ex. [1003], 95. Ex[2032],34.
`
`The Petitioner’s proposed construction of “pilot” as encompassing any
`
`player character is overly broad because the Petitioner’s proposed construction is
`
`taken out of proper context of the ‘243 Patent and is divorced from the
`
`understanding that would have been ordinarily gleaned by the skilled artisan in the
`
`art in light of the ‘243 Patent. Ex[2032],35.
`
`The ‘243 Patent discloses that “the gamer may control a player character and
`
`a unit (e.g., a robot character or a vehicle character) associated therewith through
`
`the player character.” Ex[1001],1:37-40, 3:12-15. The ‘243 Patent also discloses
`
`that “the gamer may control motions of a unit through the pilot.” Ex[1001],3:9-10.
`
`Ex[2032],36.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of “pilot” involves the control of motion,
`
`for example of a ship, aircraft, etc. Dictionary definitions of “pilot” that are closest
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`to the use of “pilot” in the context of the specification of the ‘243 Patent are: “one
`
`employed to steer a ship” or “one who handles or is qualified to handle the controls
`
`of an aircraft or spacecraft.” See Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,
`
`Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1983 (1990) at 892 (Ex. 2003). Ex[2032],37.
`
`More importantly, the ‘243 Patent provides the proper context for the “pilot”
`
`from the perspective of its associated “unit.” The inventor of the ‘243 Patent is
`
`listed as Byoung Wook Kim of the Republic of Korea. Ex. 1001] at 1. In addition
`
`to drawing inspiration from D&D, the ‘243 Patent draws inspiration for the player
`
`character from the popular television series Mazinger Z, which was a Japanese
`
`animation character featured on Korean children’s television programming in the
`
`late 1970s, in which movements of a pilot were matched with those of robots.
`
`Mazinger Z formed the basis for Taekwon V, the first Korean animation feature
`
`film in 1976 showing the same Taekwon V robot character. Ex[2032],30.
`
`The ‘243 expressly references these distinctive robot characters as the units
`
`associated with the pilot. Ex[1001],6:47:54. Ex[2032],39.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`Case IPR2017-01082
`
`
`
`
`Like D&D, which has been adapted over time, the concept of the pilot-robot
`
`relationship of Mazinger Z and Taekwon V has been similarly adapted over time,
`
`for example in the United States with respect to