Supercell Oy (Petitioner)
`v.
`GREE, Inc. (Patent Owner)
`Case PGR2018-00008 / U.S. Patent 9,597,594
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives
`Wednesday, November 28, 2018
`
`1:00 PM, Courtroom B
`
`PGR2018-00008
`Ex. 3002
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 1
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 1
`
`
`v.
`GREE, Inc. (Patent Owner)
`Case PGR2018-00008 / U.S. Patent 9,597,594
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives
`Wednesday, November 28, 2018
`
`1:00 PM, Courtroom B
`
`PGR2018-00008
`Ex. 3002
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 1
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 1
`
`
`
`All Challenged Claims are Valid
`
`• The Challenged Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea
`
`• The Challenged Claims Survive Alice Step Two
`
`Patent Owner Response, Paper 24, at 22, 40; Patent Owner Sur-Reply,
`Paper 34, at 8, 19.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 2
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`• U.S. 9,597,594 – claims 1-20 are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 101
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 3
`
`
`
`‘594 Patent – Claim 12
`
`Ex. 1001, 28:10-25.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 4
`
`
`
`The Challenged Patent
`• The ‘594 patent identifies and addresses problems in the city-building
`game art that are unique to these games.
`
`Ex. 1001, at 1:42-60; Patent Owner Response, Paper 24 at 3.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 5
`
`
`
`The Challenged Patent
`
`Ex. 1001, Figs. 2B-2D, 4.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 6
`
`
`
`The Claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea
`
`• The challenged claims do not fall into any of the
`traditional categories of abstract ideas:
`– Mathematical algorithm
`– Purely mental process
`– Method of organizing human activity
`– Fundamental economic or commercial practice
`
`P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at 8.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 7
`
`
`
`The Claims Solve a Problem Arising in GUIs for the Genre of
`Video Games
`
`• The “claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in
`order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of
`computer networks.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d
`1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“It is this challenge of retaining control over the attention of the customer
`in the context of the Internet” that the challenged claims address. See
`id. at 1258.
`
`“…these claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems,
`resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.” Core
`Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363
`(Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 23-24; P.O.
`Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at 12.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 8
`
`
`
`The Claims Solve a Problem Arising in GUIs for the Genre of
`Video Games
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 29 (cited in P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 26.
`
`P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 26.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 9
`
`
`
`The Claims Recite Improvements to the Usability of a GUI
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 31 (cited in P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 26).
`
`See, e.g., claim 1:
`“…moving, by the computer, the game contents arranged at the first
`positions within the game space to the second positions of the game
`contents defined by the template within the predetermined area.”
`
`P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 26; P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at
`14.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 10
`
`
`
`Petitioner Admits the Disclosed Problem and Solution
`Provided by the ‘594 Patent
`
`• The “problem identified by the patent is that manually
`moving each individual game piece is cumbersome.”
`Petition, Paper 1, at 24.
`
`• “When a template is applied, facilities arranged within the
`game space are automatically changed to the facilities
`defined in the template, and they are automatically moved
`to the defined positions.” Petition, Paper 1, at 24 (emphasis
`in original).
`
`P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at 10.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 11
`
`
`
`Petitioner Argues…
`
`• Creating and applying a template…
`– …has been performed in Planet Bingo and correspondence chess.
`Petition, Paper 1, at 21.
`
`– …is manually achievable. Petition, Paper 1, at 23.
`
`– …can be performed on a general purpose computer. Petition, Paper
`1, at 26.
`
`P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at 10.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 12
`
`
`
`Neither Planet Bingo nor Correspondence Chess are
`Analogous
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 52 (cited in P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 32)
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 60 (cited in P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 37)
`
`P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 31-37; P.O. Sur-
`Reply, Paper 34, at 15-18.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 13
`
`
`
`Allegedly Analogous Examples Are Irrelevant and Insufficient
`to Meet Petitioner’s Burden
`
`“It is not enough, however, to merely trace the invention to
`some real-world analogy. The eligibility question is not
`whether anyone has ever used tabs to organize information.
`That question is reserved for §§ 102 and 103. The question of
`abstraction is whether the claim is ‘directed to’ the abstract
`idea itself.”
`
`Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2017-1135, 2018
`WL 4868029, at *8 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2018).
`
`P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at 15-16.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 14
`
`
`
`The Claimed Improvements are Not Manually Achievable
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 47 (cited in P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at 10).
`
`P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 39; P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at 9.
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 15
`
`
`
`Improvements on General Purpose Hardware are Not Abstract
`
`• “Moreover, we are not persuaded that the invention’s ability
`to run on a general-purpose computer dooms the claims.”
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016).
`
`• “Much of the advancement made in computer technology
`consists of improvements to software that, by their very
`nature, may not be defined by particular physical features
`but rather by logical structures and processes.” Id. at 1339.
`
`P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 27, 40; P.O. Sur-
`Reply, Paper 34, at 19.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 16
`
`
`
`The Claims Survive Alice Step Two
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 17
`
`
`
`Step Two Is Satisfied When the Claims are More than Well-
`Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity
`
`• “When the limitations…are taken together as an ordered
`combination, the claims recite an invention that is not
`merely the routine or conventional use of the Internet.”
`DDR, 773 F.3d at 1259.
`
`• “In short, the claimed solution amounts to an inventive
`concept for resolving this particular Internet-centric problem,
`rendering the claims patent-eligible.” Id.
`
`P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at 12.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 18
`
`
`
`The Claims are Patentable Under Alice Step Two
`
`Ex. 2004 § 31 (cited in P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 41).
`
`P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 41.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 19
`
`
`
`The Specification’s Improvements are Captured in the Claims
`
`Ex. 1001, at 3:30-34.
`
`P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 42; P.O. Sur-
`Reply, Paper 34, at 20.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 20
`
`
`
`Petitioner Fails to Provide Any Evidence from a Skilled Artisan
`
`“The question of whether a claim element or combination of
`elements is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a
`skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact.”
`Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368.
`
`P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at 4.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 21
`
`
`
`There is No Evidence Templates Were Well-Understood,
`Routine, or Conventional in Video Games
`
`Ex. 1001, at 1:27-38.
`
`P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 43.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 22
`
`
`
`Mr. Crane’s Testimony Stands Unrebutted
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 34 (cited in P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at 6).
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 42 (cited in P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 44.
`P.O. Response, Paper 24, at 44; P.O. Sur-Reply, Paper 34, at
`6.
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 23
`
`
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
