`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 28, 2018
`______________
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, and
`AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JENNIFER BUSH, ESQ.
`MICHAEL SACKSTEDER, ESQ.
`GEOFF MILLER, ESQ.
`Fenwick & West, LLP
`Silicon Valley Center
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`650-335-7213 (Bush)
`415-875-2450 (Sacksteder)
`650-335-7943 (Miller)
`jbush@fenwick.com
`msacksteder@fenwick.com
`gmiller@fenwick.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JOHN C. ALEMANNI, ESQ.
`ANDREW RINEHART, ESQ.
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP
`4208 Six Forks Road
`Suite 1400
`Raleigh, NC 27609
`919-420-1724 (Alemanni)
`jalemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`arinehart@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`
`November 28, 2018, commencing at 1:00 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE KIM: So, welcome. This is an oral hearing for PGR-
`2018-00008, U.S. Patent Number 9,597,594, Supercell Oy, Petitioner versus
`GREE, Incorporated. My name is Michael Kim. To my left I have Judge
`Amanda Wieker, and on the screen we have Judge Tim Goodson, out in our
`Silicon Valley office.
`So, with that, can we start with appearances, starting with Petitioner,
`please?
`MS. BUSH: Thank you, Your Honors. Jennifer Bush, lead
`counsel for Petitioner Supercell Oy. I'm joined by our backup counsel of
`record, Michael Sacksteder and Geoffrey Miller. And Mr. Sacksteder will
`be arguing today.
`JUDGE KIM: Great. Thanks.
`For the Patent Owner?
`MR. ALEMANNI: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon.
`My name is John Alemanni. I'm here on behalf of Patent Owner GREE.
`With me today are backup counsel, Andy Rinehart, Steve Moore, and Ms.
`Arneita Gray will be helping us with the monitor today. Thank you.
`JUDGE KIM: All right. So a few housekeeping things. I
`believe 60 -- each side gets 60 minutes. The order is going to be Petitioner,
`Patent Owner, Petitioner, Patent Owner, with the last two sessions being
`reserved for rebuttal. As we know, rebuttal sessions really need to respond
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`to something said previously. Nothing new really should be brought up at
`that time.
`As far as in and out, if people need to do it, we ask that you restrict it
`to when the speakers are changing, to be as minimally disruptive as possible.
`And of course, because Judge Goodson is remote, he does have the slides in
`front of him, so if you could please refer to the slides or any exhibits or
`papers, he can readily find them, if necessary.
`So with that, Mr. Sacksteder, how much time would you like to
`reserve for rebuttal, approximately?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Your Honor, I'd like to reserve 15 minutes,
`
`please.
`
`JUDGE KIM: Okay. And Mr. Alemanni, about how much time
`for sur-rebuttal?
`MR. ALEMANNI: I would guess it's probably 15 to 20 minutes for
`sur-rebuttal.
`JUDGE KIM: Okay. We'll say 15. All right. So Mr.
`Sacksteder, you can begin when you're ready.
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Thank you, Your Honor. And I initially
`have to begin with an apology. I picked up a cold on the airplane --
`JUDGE KIM: Oh yes?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: -- on the way out, and so I sound pretty
`terrible right now. So I hope that what I say is both substantively and
`audibly understandable today.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`
`The Board got it right on its institution decision in this case. The
`Board determined that the claims are directed to creating and applying a
`template, that that's an abstract idea, that there was nothing additional in the
`claims that would make those claims patentable.
`I'd like to briefly, since this came up on the call, address the, what
`the claims are directed to, issue for a moment, and then it's addressed
`throughout our slides.
`The point that I'd like to raise initially is that there's an argument in
`Patent Owner's sur-reply that says, quote, all of the claims of the ‘594 patent
`are directed to the movement of game contents from first positions to second
`positions, and the claim template is how those results are achieved. That's
`at Page 21 of the Patent Owner's sur-reply.
`And I would like to point out that that is a completely new position.
`It's a new argument that was raised for the first time in the sur-reply. I
`would have handled the deposition of Patent Owner's expert differently had I
`known that this was a position they were going to take. I think obviously,
`first of all I would ask whether moving game pieces from one place to
`another on a board is a, is something other than an abstract idea. So I think
`that, that argument and the positions that are based on it should be
`disregarded in this situation.
`JUDGE KIM: Okay. I get your point there.
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Sure.
`JUDGE KIM: But I do think Patent Owner has argued that they
`want to limit this to in-game environment, and perhaps they did not say that
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`as explicitly as they said in the sur-reply, but one thing they did say is, you
`know, your position has been, well there's no video game, there's no city-
`building in the claim, and they're saying well, game contents, that's what it
`means. And so I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say what they're
`saying is well, we're creating and applying templates, but in a game space.
`MR. SACKSTEDER: And we have, and we'll address it as we go
`through, I think we've addressed that argument with, you know, games such
`as the bingo and Planet Bingo, with games such as correspondence chess,
`augmented by the shatranj predecessor to both live and correspondence
`chess, and that those are in a game environment. We will address sort of
`the other portions of what we view as the specification being imported into
`the claims in a sort of an ill-defined way as we go along.
`Can we go to Slide 2, please Geoff?
`Just briefly, to recap the Board's decision, which I'm sure you're well
`aware of, the Board determined that the claims are directed to an abstract
`idea.
`
`Slide 3, please.
`That there was no additional inventive concept on top of the abstract
`idea of creating and applying templates.
`Slide 4.
`That Claim 12 is representative. We'll get into that a little bit more,
`but I think that what Patent Owner does now is just re-raise the argument
`that was already rejected by the Board and the decision-granting institution.
`Slide 5.
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`
`And this is that argument. The Patent Owner based its argument in
`its preliminary Patent Owner's response on language from Claim 11, which
`the Patent Owner argued added something beyond representative. Claim
`12, the Board determined that that wasn't the case, that that was included in
`the limitation of applying a template in Claim 12.
`And so Patent Owner raised the argument again but they raised it
`with Claims 1 and 10. But if you look at the language of Claims 1 and 10,
`they are virtually identical -- and it's shown in Slide 5. They're virtually
`identical to the language that the Board rejected reliance on in Claim 11
`during the institution decision.
`JUDGE KIM: Okay, hold on for a second. What is a template?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I beg your pardon?
`JUDGE KIM: What is a template?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: What is a template?
`JUDGE KIM: Yes.
`MR. SACKSTEDER: It is -- I actually have not proposed a claim
`construction except as in our petition. I'd actually have to refresh my
`recollection about that, but it is -- in layperson's terms, it's something that
`you, where you save information to be applied later on in a computer
`context.
`The example that Mr. Crane, Patent Owner's expert, gave in the
`deposition that we took, was that, something like it was something that you
`could use to format a memo, or a letter in Microsoft Word. And it
`establishes, as do the templates in this claim, in the claims of this patent, it
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`establishes where something goes on the computer screen. And it is
`applied after it's created. So you create it, and then you apply it to show
`where things are going to be in the future on the screen.
`JUDGE KIM: Are templates limited to computer areas?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I don't think so. I think that templates can
`be used in -- you know, they -- obviously, the use of the word predated the
`use of the word in computer technology. And as we will discuss, there are
`templates in the postcards that computer chess players send back and forth.
`There are templates in the bingo technology of Planet Bingo. There are
`templates -- and I'll explain this as well -- in the tabi’at, the battle positions
`of the chess predecessor, shatranj.
`Slide 6.
`Just again, and I'm not going to belabor this, a number of the
`arguments that are raised by Patent Owner in its response and in its sur-reply
`have already been rejected by the Board in the institution decision.
`Slide 7.
`JUDGE GOODSON: Mr. Sacksteder, can I take you back to your
`Slide 4, about the representative claim?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Yes, sir.
`JUDGE GOODSON: Is there any guidance from the federal circuit
`on how one chooses which claim will be analyzed as representative in the
`Section 101 context?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Okay. We will find that during our -- and
`bring it up in our sur-reply, if that's acceptable.
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Sure.
`MR. SACKSTEDER: It has been --
`JUDGE GOODSON: Okay. Can you also --
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Sure.
`JUDGE GOODSON: Can you just let me know how the Petitioner
`chose Claim 12? Apart from the legal standard, why did Petitioner select
`Claim 12 to be the representative claim?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I think it's largely because it was the clearest
`claim, and it was one that we thought encompassed the whole thing, and was
`one that we could demonstrate our arguments regarding them in a way that
`would be meaningful to the Board.
`JUDGE GOODSON: Thanks.
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Slide 6, please. Slide 7, I apologize.
`Okay. Just -- there are new arguments that have come up since the
`institution decision that are relied on by Patent Owner. The problem is that
`the -- as Judge Rich said long ago, the name of the game is the claim. And
`these are not included or recited in the claims, and that's the problem with
`their attempt to rely on these arguments.
`Slide 8, please.
`Just, here's the representative claim, just for reference purposes,
`focusing on the abstract idea of creating and applying a template.
`Slide 9.
`It's abstract for several reasons. It consists of mental steps that
`could be carried out by a human being, either mentally, or with pen and
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`paper, or with real-world game pieces. It automates a manually achievable
`process, as the Patent Owner's expert conceded in his deposition. And it
`does nothing to improve computer technology.
`Slide 10.
`Okay. First, the mental steps or manual process -- and looking at
`correspondence chess, the illustration on the right, which is from our exhibit,
`I forget if it's 1003 or 1004, but it shows the beginning position before a
`template is applied by a correspondence chess player.
`In correspondence chess, you aren't necessarily limited to a move-
`by-move exchange with the other side. You can submit multiple moves if
`the individual moves are forced, as they say in chess, or you can submit
`if/then moves. There might be an opening sequences, for instance, the
`Sicilian Defense is pawn to king four, pawn to queen bishop four, knight to
`king bishop three, pawn to queen three, pawn to queen four, pawn takes
`pawn, knight takes pawn.
`You might do that all as one sequence, saying if you do this, I do
`this. And you end up at the template that is the position after you have had
`those, what would be individual moves that you are skipping. You just go
`straight to that position. That's what happened, and it happened
`erroneously, it turned out, in the example that's given in the exhibit, that one
`side got it wrong, thought the moves were forced and they weren't, and -- but
`were held to the template that they had applied to have a position be set later
`on in the game.
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Mr. Sacksteder, is it enough that we have an
`example of humans doing something? I mean, is that all really, we really
`need to have something be an abstract idea? I mean, isn't there sort of a
`point of absurdity where, you know, I could do, I could write a spreadsheet
`with 10,000 digits on it, and in theory, perform all those calculations, pen
`and paper, however I'm not so sure that that's an abstract idea.
`(Simultaneous speaking.)
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Well I think that automating the manual
`process, or the mental steps -- in this case, the player is performing the
`mental steps to get to that separate template position that is later in the game.
`JUDGE KIM: No, I understand your position.
`MR. SACKSTEDER: And not -- yes.
`JUDGE KIM: I guess I'm thinking more philosophically because, I
`mean, the whole point of judicial exception is we're doing basic building
`blocks of ingenuity, human thought, et cetera. I mean here, arguably, you
`had to go all the way to correspondence chess, which I'll be frank, I didn't
`know about this until this case started. I mean, is that really a building
`block of human ingenuity, when we have to -- not even chess, but go to
`correspondence chess to say well, humans can do this?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: There's no reason you couldn't do this in
`regular chess, by the way. You could be -- for instance, there are players
`who play blindfold, and don't view the board. And they could be again
`offering the same sort of position in the future and saying, if you do this,
`let's go to this position and save some time. But it isn't the only thing.
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`You know, we're going to talk about Planet Bingo in a minute, which
`actually does it on a computer.
`But the idea here is that computers just naturally can speed up certain
`processes. And just doing that, taking this concept that exists in the real
`world, and just taking a computer, because it just thinks faster, making the
`application of that concept faster, I think, is an abstract idea.
`JUDGE KIM: So your position is, I mean, pretty much anything a
`human can do is abstract?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I don't know that I would go that far, but I
`would say that this falls on that side of the line. And I'd say that if it is
`something that is sort of a common thing for humans to do, and because a
`computer can do it using the, different use of the term, basic building blocks
`of a computer to do it faster, I think, at a certain extent, that is not something
`that is patent-eligible and is an abstract idea.
`JUDGE KIM: So your view is, correspondence chess is common
`enough to be considered an abstract idea?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Yes. I think it's something that's existed
`for centuries.
`JUDGE KIM: Okay.
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Claim 11.
`That's just the same thing, the same diagram. This is not -- again,
`the argument that was made was that it is, correspondence chess is iterative.
`The example there shows that it is not always iterative, and that you can use
`a template to change the position of the game.
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`
`And by the way, regarding your previous question, one thing is, this
`is -- you know, had to go to correspondence chess because this is a game.
`You know, there's an argument that this doesn't exist in the world of games.
`It does. And so that's one reason why we're talking about chess.
`There's also an argument that all the pieces start from the exact same
`beginning board positions. That doesn't matter. The template is later on
`in the game, when you are doing the if/then or the forced moves, and you
`end up at a certain position, which is the template that you have set up.
`Claim 12 -- Claim 12. Not Claim 12. Slide 12.
`Slide 12, this is from one of the exhibits regarding shatranj.
`Shatranj is a very, couple of millennia old game. And this was how you
`did it. You said, I want -- you have this template in mind, one of these
`positions or many others, these sort of battle arrays. And each player just
`sets his pieces up there at the beginning of the game.
`There is an anecdote where a regular chess player and a shatranj
`player are playing each other. The shatranj player moves all his pieces
`really fast to get into his battle array, and the regular chess player moves one
`piece. And the regular chess player says, why are you moving all your
`pieces at once? The shatranj player says, why aren't you moving all your
`pieces at once? But the idea is that the shatranj player has a template in
`mind, and goes to it in one step.
`JUDGE KIM: So obviously, I don't know if you were going to get
`to this, but Patent Owner challenges this in their motion to exclude. And --
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Understood. Yes.
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: -- that, you know, it's a website, it's hearsay, there's
`no authentication. And I guess this sort of also gets to that point, right, is
`two things. So in Alice and in Bilski, the federal circuit relied on treatises
`to show something was old, well-known, for fundamental economic
`concepts. Here -- I mean, you're saying it's old, but it's on a website. It's
`like, well if it's old, couldn't we find something better?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: It's older than -- significantly older than the
`patent filing date itself, in any event.
`JUDGE KIM: Is that enough?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: And it's talking about it being old in that,
`you know, about being predecessor to chess in this case. And that's in --
`JUDGE KIM: And how much weight should we give a website?
`I mean, the bar to putting up a website's pretty low, isn't it? And I -- so if I
`put something on a website and say, this is old, that's enough?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: It shows what was known at the time, and
`the dates on the comments to one of the websites are in 2008. So it shows
`that people knew that this existed. People knew that this was something
`that had existed for a long time, at that point. It shows the mental state of
`the people on the -- you know, who were familiar with this area.
`JUDGE KIM: Well the comments are even worse, though, aren't
`
`they?
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: That's just -- well the comments show the
`date, you know, because they're automatically stamped with the date. So
`you know that the website at least existed at that point.
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Right, but I mean, how much weight should we give
`just a comment on a website? Again, I mean, it's not like it went to peer
`review. It's not like there's publishers who edited this. I mean, it's just
`someone putting their opinion on a website.
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Well, I understand what you're saying. I
`think that in this case it is a number of people who are talking about a well-
`established game, and talking about how it was well-established at the time.
`JUDGE KIM: Okay.
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Slide 13, briefly, there's reference to the
`SimCity and Clash of Clans games, which are admitted to permit movement
`of one piece at a time. As we'll discuss later on, that's part of, that's --
`according to the language of the claim, if you use a template to do that, you
`have practiced the claim in the view of the Patent Owner.
`And then finally, patent -- Planet Bingo, which the Board relied on
`as well in its institution decision. Just, you know, considered that the set of
`preferred bingo numbers, which are then applied to the actual numbers that
`are drawn, probably electronically drawn, are considered a template. And
`they are something that you could easily write out on a piece of paper. It's
`a manner of organizing human activity. It's a mental process that is
`performed electronically in this case. That's the same as what is happening
`here.
`
`Slide 15.
`So some arguments about why Planet Bingo shouldn't apply,
`according to Patent Owner. First, the claims aren't limited to city-building
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`games. There's nothing in the claims -- and I'm going to come back to it
`over and over. There's -- a lot of the arguments the Patent Owner relies on
`have nothing to do with what's in the claims, and try to rely on materials
`from the specification. But in cases like two-way media, the court says, the
`federal circuit says, you don't do that. You know, you have to look at
`what's in the claims.
`Slide 16.
`And by the way, Slide 15 just had an admission from Patent Owner's
`expert that city-building games are not in the claims.
`Same thing with --
`JUDGE GOODSON: What about if we were to agree with Patent
`Owner that the claims are, whether it's Claim 12 or another claim in the
`patent, is limited to the context of competitive games or computer games,
`would that remove it from the ambit of an abstract idea?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I don't think it would, because for one thing,
`chess is a competitive game. Planet Bingo is a competitive game that is
`performed on a computer. But in any event, their expert admits that that
`isn't the case. You know, their expert says, there's nothing in there that
`says this is limited to a competitive game. There's nothing in there that is
`limited to a city-building game. Again, the testimony is on Slide 16 there,
`and Slide 15 previously.
`Next slide, Slide 17.
`JUDGE KIM: I'm sorry. I did have a question regarding that
`point. So Claim 5 says, when the number of game contents arranged within
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`a game space is smaller than the number of game contents for which a
`second positions are defined by the template, the computer moves the game
`contents arranged at the first position within a game space to the second
`position in the game context defined by the template to which the moving
`direction is the smallest. Doesn't that provide more meat to the bone of
`what you do?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I don't think so. I think that describes the
`function of the template, rather than the manner in which the template
`operates. And --
`JUDGE KIM: What's the difference between the two? I mean --
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Well it describes what the template
`accomplishes. It's the result, or the function as opposed to how it actually
`works. This is again something that Patent Owner's expert said, when I
`asked him -- I went through, and we'll see it later on, I asked him, anything
`in any of these claims about how you apply a template, about how the
`template is created? He said no, there's nothing there. So he didn't view it
`that way here.
`JUDGE KIM: Well be that as it may, though, but it does tell you,
`right, that basically if you have conflicting pieces, it tells you what to do.
`MR. SACKSTEDER: It does explain what happens when the
`template is applied. I think that is still functional language regarding what
`happens when the template is applied and the result that comes out of it, as
`opposed to the how question that Patent Owner's expert conceded.
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: So I understand that it doesn't say exactly -- well it
`does say how it's done though, that when you have a conflict, this is what
`you do. And it is expressed claim language. I mean, I think it's
`something that needed to be supported in the -- accounted for in the analysis
`one way or the other.
`MR. SACKSTEDER: It's something also that I don't believe Patent
`Owner has ever raised, except it is addressed in our petition. And Patent
`Owner said that we didn't sufficiently address it, but the Board determined
`that we had.
`JUDGE KIM: Well for the purposes of institution, when we're only
`talking about one claim for trial.
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Understood. Understood.
`The next slide, Slide 17, there's a lot of discussion by Patent Owner
`about how this is a user interface patent. There's nothing about user
`interfaces in the patent itself. And the -- actually, I think the cases that are
`relied on, particularly the Data Engine case is a very helpful case, very sort
`of instructive case, because Data Engine has sort of a claim that shows,
`here's what -- you know, here's the structure, you know, the structural user
`interface on the screen. Here's, you know, here's where this tab goes, here's
`what happens with this tab, here's how you show this on the screen.
`And then there's the other patent that was found not patent-eligible,
`that is more like the patent in this case, which is, you know, sort of directed
`toward the general, I think the counsel in that case described it as being more
`generally claimed or something like that, where here is something that just
`
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`allows you to split cells in a spreadsheet. And I think that case is a very
`helpful matter.
`Again, Trading Technologies talks about the requirement for a
`specific structured graphical user interface that's paired with a prescribed
`functionality. And that does not appear in the claims of the ‘594 patent.
`JUDGE KIM: Well I think Patent Owner would argue that you
`have first position, then second positions on the screen. I mean, that's --
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Well, that --
`JUDGE KIM: Is it really that different from two different display
`regions?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: That moves something from one place on
`the screen to another --
`JUDGE KIM: Sure.
`MR. SACKSTEDER: -- as they argued in, at the end of their sur-
`reply which, you know, again had we had the opportunity, I think we would
`have said that's a very abstract idea, and that's something that has existed
`since the dawn of computers. And that's just a function that occurs, as the
`Board said in its institution decision, that's sort of a function that, or result
`that occurs when you apply this template. And it's part of applying the
`template.
`Slide 18, please. So that's more of the same. Let's go to Slide 19.
`The future use of templates, I already mentioned. And Patent
`Owner's expert said yes, of course you -- I mean, what reason you create a
`template is to use it in the future. And Slide 20, there is nothing specific,
`
`19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`there -- I think in the sur-reply there is also mentioned Claim 20, which
`recites a table. For one thing, tables are not anything that haven't existed
`for a long time. Had that appeared in the sur-reply, maybe I would have
`asked the Patent Owner's expert about that.
`But just saying there's a table does not reflect what I think I
`understand Patent Owner to be saying, you know, is sort of the additional
`information or the non-abstract portion, it's a little hard to tell sometimes, of
`what is in the claims.
`Slide 21.
`Again, Patent Owner's expert admitted that the templates of the
`claims automate a manually achievable process. I gave a hypothetical
`about, I'm going to move some things manually, you're going to use a
`template to move them. They end up in the same place. Slide 22 just
`shows the -- sorry. Go to Slide 23, please.
`The other thing is, they rely on simultaneous movement of the game
`pieces. That's not a requirement of the claims. Every claim has the
`movement of the positions of one or more of the game contents. So you
`can practice this claim according to its terms by just moving one of the game
`contents.
`Let's go to 24.
`Patent Owner's expert said that would be -- if you only moved one,
`that would be within the scope of the claims.
`Twenty-five.
`
`20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`
`There is illustration from the specification that shows that in Figure
`9, Slide 26. Again, that's more of the same. That's another example from
`the same figure.
`Slide 27.
`And then Patent Owner's expert said yes, the -- if you just move one
`thing, that's not simultaneous. So their basis for saying that this is not an
`abstract idea based on simultaneous movement is not, it's not required by the
`claims.
`Slide 28.
`JUDGE KIM: Well they -- I mean, yes. So they preface it on,
`based on a command. And sure, so okay, I see the scenario where if there's
`one, it happens. But I guess you could also read it that, you know, all the
`pieces, however many they are, we want them moved based on a command,
`and that happens simultaneously. So if there's one, okay there's one. But
`it sort of needs a capability to do all of them at the same time.
`MR. SACKSTEDER: But you can practice the claim according to
`the language of the claim. You can practice that claim all day by moving
`one. And so that is not a requirement of the claims, which I think is
`something that has to be taken into account in determining whether this is an
`abstract idea.
`No improvement in computer technology. The Board correctly, in
`its decision-granting institution, pointed out that solving a monotony of
`game play is a mental or a business problem, and not a technical one.
`
`21
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case PGR2018-00008
`Patent 9,597,594 B2
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: I have another question here. So they cite Core
`Wireless, and Core Wireless does say that, you know, there's sort of this
`confusion about moving between multiple programs and screens, and by
`doing the configurations they did in Core Wireless it makes it more user-
`friendly, if you will. So what's the line between a technical problem,
`business problem, mental problem? I mean, there it seemed like well yes,
`it's better for the user. I don't think the computer really cares how you
`move between programs themselves.
`MR. SACKSTEDER: In Core Wireless, the means for doing that
`was actually claimed. You know, it related to a user interface. It showed
`that here is where you go from this point in this menu, and here's what
`happens to the other applications while that's going on. That's different
`from here.
`JUDGE KIM: Well, okay. That's the solution aspect, but the
`problem aspect though, it's still fundamentally a user interface problem,
`right. It matters what the user thinks.
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I don't agree that what is in the ’594 patent
`is a user interface problem. That may be -- in the Core Wireless c
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
