Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.
`PGR2018-00029 (9,636,583)
`PGR2018-00047 (9,770,659)
`
`June 19, 2019
`
`Jennifer Bush
`Michael Sacksteder
`Geoffrey Miller
`Attorneys for Petitioner Supercell Oy
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00029 (“[29]”)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,636,583 (“’583 patent”)
`
` “We are persuaded by Petitioner
`that the claims are directed to
`“displaying a video game based
`on stored panel information”
`
`Decision Granting Institution [29], 8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00047 (“[47]”)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,770,659 (“’659”)
`
` “We are persuaded by Petitioner
`that the claims are directed to
`“‘controlling the display of a
`video game based on a received
`selection of panel information’”
`Decision Granting Institution [47], 8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Shared Specification and Independent Claim Limitations
`
`‘583 Patent
`
`‘659 Patent
`
`“data storage”
`“points set”
`“first division”
`“second division”
`
`Abstract
`Detailed Description
`“panel layout function”
`“panel selection function”
`“screen display control
`function”
`
`“the character is
`displayed as an
`animation”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 [29]; Ex. 1001 [47].
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Shared Dependent Claims
`
`‘583 Patent
`
`‘659 Patent
`
`Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
`11=10, 12=11, 13=12
`
`Claim 10:
`“each of the
`panels displays
`a still image
`
`Claim 13:
`“the panels indicate
`characters that the first
`user and the second
`user use for attack or
`defense in the game.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 [29]; Ex. 1001 [47].
`
`5
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Petitioner arguments found persuasive by Board
`
`Claims are directed to an abstract idea
`
`Decision Granting Institution [29], 8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Petitioner arguments found persuasive by Board
`
`Claims contain no “inventive concept”
`
`Decision Granting Institution [29], 13 (text omitted).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`’583 Patent
`Step One: Claims are directed to an abstract idea
`
`The claims are directed on the
`abstract idea of:
`
`“displaying a video game based on
`stored panel information”
`Decision Granting Institution [29], 8.
`
`Ex. 1001 [29], FIG. 1.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`’583 Patent
`Step One: Claims are directed to an abstract idea (cont.)
`
`1. A non-transitory computer readable recording
`medium . . . the game program code instructions
`cause the computer to perform:
`a data storage function of storing a first panel
`database that includes a plurality of panels that
`the first user possesses, and a second panel
`database that includes a plurality of panels that
`the second user possesses;
`a panel selection function of selecting one or more
`panels to be disposed in one or more divisions of
`a game display screen including a display region
`formed by the divisions, from the first panel
`database and the second panel database;
`a panel layout function of disposing the panels
`selected by the panel selection function in the
`divisions; and
`a screen display control function of displaying the
`game display screen on a screen display unit,
`
`Ex. 1001 [29], Claim 1, FIG. 1.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`’583 Patent
`Step One: Claims are directed to an abstract idea (cont.)
`
`. . . wherein
`the data storage function further stores
`points set for the first user, which are
`decreased by disposing a panel,
`the panel selection function selects a panel
`from the first panel database according to
`the points set for the first user,
`the divisions include a division where a panel
`selected from the first panel database is
`allowed to be disposed and a division
`where a panel selected from the second
`panel database is allowed to be disposed,
`and
`the panel layout function disposes the panel
`selected by the panel selection function in
`a target division when the panel is allowed
`to be disposed in the target division.
`
`Ex. 1001 [29], Claim 1, FIG. 1.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`’583 Patent
`Step One: Claims are directed to an abstract idea
`
`The ‘583 patent is abstract because the claims:
`
`(1) Recite only result-oriented functions without a non-abstract means of
`achieving those results;
`
`(2) Recite no specific, structured user interface;
`
`(3) Recite a way of managing a game and playing a game; and
`
`(4) Provides no improvement in computer functionality.
`
`Reply [29], p. 1-10; Reply [47], p. 1-11.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`(1) The Claims Recite Only Result-Oriented Functions
`
`1. A non-transitory computer readable recording
`medium . . . the game program code instructions
`cause the computer to perform:
`a data storage function of storing a first panel
`database that includes a plurality of panels that
`the first user possesses, and a second panel
`database that includes a plurality of panels that
`the second user possesses;
`a panel selection function of selecting one or more
`panels to be disposed in one or more divisions of
`a game display screen including a display region
`formed by the divisions, from the first panel
`database and the second panel database;
`a panel layout function of disposing the panels
`selected by the panel selection function in the
`divisions; and
`a screen display control function of displaying the
`game display screen on a screen display unit,
`
`Ex. 1001 [29]; Reply [29], p. 2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`(1) The Claims Recite Only Result-Oriented Functions
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`Ex. 1001 [29]; Reply [29], p. 2-3.
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`(1) The Claims Recite Only Result-Oriented Functions
`
`PO’s Expert: No details for technological implementation
`of recited functions:
`
`Ex. 1010, 218:11-24; Reply [29], p. 3 (objections omitted).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`(1) The Claims Recite Only Result-Oriented Functions
`
`PO’s Expert Again: No details for technological implementation
`of recited functions:
`
`Ex. 1010, 224:6-22; Reply [29], p. 3 (objections omitted).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`The Claims Lack Specificity
`
`Specific
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`Result
`Based
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’n,
`LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir 2017)
`
`Reply [47], p. 4-6.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`The Claims Lack Specificity
`
`Specific
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`• The patent “is focused on a specific asserted
`improvement in computer animation, i.e.,
`the automatic use of rules of a particular
`type.”
`“The claimed process uses a combined order
`of specific rules that renders information into
`a specific format that is then used and
`applied to create desired results: a sequence
`of synchronized, animated characters.”
`
`•
`
`Reply [47], p. 4-6.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`The Claims Lack Specificity
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’n,
`LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir 2017)
`
`The claim recited only functional results of
`“converting,” “routing,” “controlling,”
`“monitoring,” and “accumulating records,” but it
`did not sufficiently describe how to achieve
`these results in non-abstract way
`
`Result
`Based
`
`Reply [47], p. 4-6.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`The Claims Lack Specificity
`
`Specific
`
`Compare McRO
`A method for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expression of
`three-dimensional characters comprising:
`
`obtaining a first set of rules that define output morph weight set stream as
`a function of phoneme sequence and time of said phoneme sequence;
`
`obtaining a timed data file of phonemes having a plurality of sub-sequences;
`
`generating an intermediate stream of output morph weight sets and a plurality of
`transition parameters between two adjacent morph weight sets by evaluating said
`plurality of sub-sequences against said first set of rules;
`
`generating a final stream of output morph weight sets at a desired frame rate from
`said intermediate stream of output morph weight sets and said plurality of
`transition parameters; and
`
`applying said final stream of output morph weight sets to a sequence of animated
`characters to produce lip synchronization and facial expression control of said
`animated characters.
`Reply [47], p. 4-6.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`The Claims Lack Specificity
`
`With Two-Way Media:
`
`1. A method for transmitting message packets over a communications
`network comprising the steps of:
`
`converting a plurality of streams of audio and/or visual information
`into a plurality of streams of addressed digital packets complying with
`the specifications of a network communication protocol,
`
`for each stream, routing such stream to one or more users, controlling
`the routing of the stream of packets in response to selection signals
`received from the users, and
`
`monitoring the reception of packets by the users and accumulating
`records that indicate which streams of packets were received by which
`users, wherein at least one stream of packets comprises an audio and/or
`visual selection and the records that are accumulated indicate the time
`that a user starts receiving the audio and/or visual selection and the
`time that the user stops receiving the audio and/or visual selection.
`
`Reply [47], p. 4-6.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`Result
`Based
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`The Claims Lack Specificity
`
`With ‘659 Patent Claim 1
`Desired result: “High visual effect” Ex. 1001 [47], 1:47-50
`
`Claims limitation directed toward the effect:
`
`“the panel indicating the character is displayed as an animation
`when being disposed in the target division.”
`
`Result
`Based
`
`Ex. 1001 [47], Claim 1;
`Reply [47], p. 4-6 .
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`(2) The Claims Recite No Specific, Structured User Interface
`
`. . .
`a panel selection function of selecting one or
`more panels to be disposed in one or
`more divisions of a game display screen
`including a display region formed by the
`divisions, from the first panel database
`and the second panel database;
`. . .
`the divisions include a division where a
`panel selected from the first panel
`database is allowed to be disposed and a
`division where a panel selected from the
`second panel database is allowed to be
`disposed, and
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`Ex. 1001 [29]; Reply [29], p. 4-7.
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`(2) The Claims Recite No Specific, Structured User Interface
`
`Compare the ‘583 patent
`. . .
`a panel selection function of selecting one or
`more panels to be disposed in one or
`more divisions of a game display screen
`including a display region formed by the
`divisions, from the first panel database
`and the second panel database;
`. . .
`the divisions include a division where a
`panel selected from the first panel
`database is allowed to be disposed and a
`division where a panel selected from the
`second panel database is allowed to be
`disposed, and
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`Ex. 1001 [29]; Reply [29], p. 4-6
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`(2) The Claims Recite No Specific, Structured User Interface
`With Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, INC., 675 F. App’x 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`A method for displaying market information relating to and facilitating
`trading of a commodity being traded in an electronic exchange having an
`inside market with a highest bid price and a lowest ask price on a
`graphical user interface, the method comprising;
`
`dynamically displaying a first indicator in one of a plurality of locations
`in a bid display region, each location in the bid display region
`corresponding to a price level along a common static price axis, the
`first indicator representing quantity associated with at least one order
`to buy the commodity at the highest bid price currently available in
`the market;
`
`dynamically displaying a second indicator in one of a plurality of
`locations in an ask display region, each location in the ask display
`region corresponding to a price level along the common static price
`axis, the second indicator representing quantity associated with at
`least one order to sell the commodity at the lowest ask price currently
`available in the market.
`Reply [29], p. 4-6; Institution Decision [47], p. 13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`(2) The Claims Recite No Specific, Structured User Interface
`
`Trading Techs. (cont.)
`displaying the bid and ask display regions in relation to fixed price levels
`positioned along the common static price axis such that when the
`inside market changes, the price levels along the common static price
`axis do not move and at least one of the first and second indicators
`moves in the bid or ask display regions relative to the common static
`price axis;
`
`displaying an order entry region comprising a plurality of locations for
`receiving commands to send trade orders, each location corresponding
`to a price level along the common static price axis; and
`
`in response to a selection of a particular location of the order entry
`region by a single action of a user input device, setting a plurality of
`parameters for a trade order relating to the commodity and sending
`the trade order to the electronic exchange.
`
`Reply [29], p. 4-6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`(2) The Claims Recite No Specific, Structured User Interface
`
`Compare also with Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs.,
`Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (italics in original).
`1. A computing device comprising a display screen,
`
`the computing device being configured to display on the screen a main
`menu listing at least a first application, and additionally being
`configured to display on the screen an application summary window
`that can be reached directly from the main menu,
`
`wherein the application summary window displays a limited list of at
`least one function offered within the first application, each function
`in the list being selectable to launch the first application and initiate
`the selected function, and
`
`wherein the application summary window is displayed while the
`application is in an un-launched state.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`Reply [29], p. 7-8
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`(2) The Claims Recite No Specific, Structured User Interface
`
`Institution Decision [47], p. 13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`An Aesthetic Benefit Must Be Tied to an Improvement in Computer
`Functionality - Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999,
`1008-11 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`12. In an electronic spreadsheet system for storing and manipulating information, a computer-implemented method of
`representing a three-dimensional spreadsheet on a screen display, the method comprising:
`displaying on said screen display a first spreadsheet page from a plurality of spreadsheet pages, each of said
`spreadsheet pages comprising an array of information cells arranged in row and column format, at least some of
`said information cells storing user-supplied information and formulas operative on said user-supplied information,
`each of said information cells being uniquely identified by a spreadsheet page identifier, a column identifier, and a
`row identifier;
`while displaying said first spreadsheet page, displaying a row of spreadsheet page identifiers along one side of said
`first spreadsheet page, each said spreadsheet page identifier being displayed as an image of a notebook tab on
`said screen display and indicating a single respective spreadsheet page, wherein at least one spreadsheet page
`identifier of said displayed row of spreadsheet page identifiers comprises at least one user-settable identifying
`character;
`receiving user input for requesting display of a second spreadsheet page in response to selection with an input device
`of a spreadsheet page identifier for said second spreadsheet page;
`in response to said receiving user input step, displaying said second spreadsheet page on said screen display in a
`manner so as to obscure said first spreadsheet page from display while continuing to display at least a portion of
`said row of spreadsheet page identifiers; and
`receiving user input for entering a formula in a cell on said second spreadsheet page, said formula including a cell
`reference to a particular cell on another of said spreadsheet pages having a particular spreadsheet page identifier
`comprising at least one user-supplied identifying character, said cell reference comprising said at least one user-
`supplied identifying character for said particular spreadsheet page identifier together with said column identifier
`and said row identifier for said particular cell.
`Reply [47], p. 8-9.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Aesthetic Benefit ≠ Improvement in Computer Functionality
`
`“We conclude that, when read as a whole,
`in light of the specification, claim 12 is
`directed to more than a generic or
`abstract idea as it claims a particular
`manner of navigating three-dimensional
`spreadsheets, implementing an
`improvement in electronic spreadsheet
`functionality.
`
`Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC,
`906 F.3d 999, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply [47], p. 8-9.
`
`29
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`‘583 Recites No Improvement in Computer Functionality Tied to UI
`‘583 Patent Claim 1
`The claims do not purport to accomplish any “high visual effect”
`Ex. 1001 [29], 1:48-51
`. . .
`a panel selection function of selecting one or
`more panels to be disposed in one or
`more divisions of a game display screen
`including a display region formed by the
`divisions, from the first panel database
`and the second panel database;
`. . .
`the divisions include a division where a
`panel selected from the first panel
`database is allowed to be disposed and a
`division where a panel selected from the
`second panel database is allowed to be
`disposed, and
`
`Result
`Based
`
`Ex. 1001 [29]; Reply [29], p. 4-6.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`‘583 Recites No Improvement in Computer Functionality Tied to UI
`‘583 Patent Claim 1
`Claims do not purport to accomplish “high visual effect” Ex. 1001
`[29], 1:48-51
`
`“Division” concept same as in the admitted prior art:
`
`Result
`Based
`
`Ex. 1001 [29], FIG. 3; Ex. 2003, p. 30;
`Reply, p. 11-12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`‘659 Recites No Improvement in Computer Functionality Tied to UI
`
`‘659 Patent Claim 1
`The only claim limitation asserted to be directed toward “high
`visual effect” :
`
`“the panel indicating the character is displayed as an animation
`when being disposed in the target division.”
`
`Result
`Based
`
`Ex. 1001 [47], Claim 1, 1:47-50;
`Reply [47], p. 4-6.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`(3) Prong 1: “Way of Managing a Game and Playing the Game”
`
`Certain methods of organizing human activity:
`
`“Applicants' claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering
`game” are abstract. In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818 (Fed Cir. 2016)
`
`Ex. 2008 [29], 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, p. 10 n.13;
`Reply [29] 9-10.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`(3) Prong 1: “Way of Managing a Game and Playing the Game”
`
`In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818 (Fed Cir. 2016)
`• Method of conducting a wagering games using a deck of cards
`
`Planet Bingo LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 Fed. App’x. 1005, 1007-08 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`• Method and system for conducting a game of bingo
`
`In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`• Method of playing a dice game
`
`Ex. 2008 [29], 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, p. 10 n.13; Reply [29] 9-10.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`(3) Prong 1: “Way of Managing a Game and Playing the Game”
`
`PO’s distinctions as to these cases fail and are unsupported:
`≠ Must be Rules for Wagering Games (Contra Planet Bingo; 2019 Revised Patent Subject
`Matter Eligibility Guidance, p. 10 n.13)
`≠ Must Be Known Game (Contra In re Guldenaar; In re Smith)
`≠ Must Be Known Game Device (Contra In re Guldenaar)
`
`Sur-reply [29], p. 19-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`(3) Prong 1: “Way of Managing a Game and Playing the Game”
`
`“Game mechanics”
`
`Claim 1
`. . . wherein
`the data storage function further stores
`points set for the first user, which are
`decreased by disposing a panel,
`the panel selection function selects a panel
`from the first panel database according to
`the points set for the first user,
`the divisions include a division where a panel
`selected from the first panel database is
`allowed to be disposed and a division
`where a panel selected from the second
`panel database is allowed to be disposed
`. . .
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`Ex. 1001 [29], Claim 1.
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`(3) Prong 1: “Way of Managing a Game and Playing the Game”
`PO’s Expert Admission:
`
`Ex. 1011 [29], 90:7-25 (objections omitted).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Prong 2: No Practical Application
`
`The ‘583 patent is directed to “displaying a video game based on
`stored panel information.”
`
`The ‘659 patent is directed to “controlling the display of a video
`game based on a received selection of panel information.”
`
`1. No improvement in computer functionality;
`2. No additional element implements the judicial exception
`with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with a
`particular machine or manufacture;
`3. No additional elements that apply the judicial exception
`beyond a generic video game environment.
`
`Reply [29], p. 7-10.
`Reply [47], p. 1-12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`(4) No Improvement in Computer Functionality
`
`No new techniques recited in the ‘583 improve upon prior art:
`
`Compare the ‘583 patent
`. . . storing a first panel database that
`includes a plurality of panels that the first
`user possesses, and a second panel
`database that includes a plurality of
`panels that the second user possesses;
`. . . selecting one or more panels to be
`disposed in one or more divisions of a
`game display screen;
`. . . disposing the panels selected by the
`panel selection function in the divisions;
`and
`. . . displaying the game display screen on a
`screen display unit,
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply [29], p. 7-10.
`
`39
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`(4) No Improvement in Computer Functionality
`
`With the Admitted Prior Art Ex. 2003
`
`Reply [29], p. 7-10; Ex.
`2003 [29], p. 30;
`Ex. 1001 [29], 1:34-44.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`(4) No Improvement in Computer Functionality
`
`Displaying characters in panels, displayed in divisions was
`disclosed in the admitted prior art:
`
`Reply [29], p. 7-12;
`Ex. 1010 [29], 254:21-255:7 (objections omitted).
`
`Ex. 2003 [29], p. 30;
`Ex. 1001 [29], 1:34-44.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`(4) No Improvement in Computer Functionality
`A “Boring” Game is Not a Technical Problem
`
`Decision Granting Institution [29], p. 6;
`Decision Granting Institution [47], p. 20.
`
`42
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`(4) No Improvement in Computer Functionality
`A “Boring” Game is Not a Technical Problem
`
`• Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`The patent was not abstract because it relied on a specific “verification technique.”
`•
`
`• DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`Inventive in how they “specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a
`•
`desired result—a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events
`ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.”
`
`•
`
`‘583 and 659 Patents
`• Neither the ‘583 nor ‘659 patent recite any new specific technical techniques to improve the
`prior art. See Ex. 1001, 1:34-44 (referencing admitted prior art Ex. 2003).
`
`Reply [29], p. 7-8
`Reply [47], p. 9-11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Step Two: No Inventive concept
`
` The recited components are entirely generic and conventional
`
`Ex. 1001 [29], Claim 15; e.g. Petition [29], 26-29.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Step Two: No Inventive concept
`
` PO argues the independent claims recite an
`inventive data storage function:
`
`POR [29], p. 37; Ex. 2002 ¶ 30.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Step Two: No Inventive concept
`
` This argument falls apart under even the slightest
`scrutiny:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`Ex. 1009 [29], 135:9-136:10;
`Ex. 1010 [29], 138:13-142:19.
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Step Two: No Inventive concept
`The “mechanics” and recited “visual” elements of the independent claims were
`well-understood, routine and conventional.
`
`Ex. 2003 [29], p. 30; Ex. 1001 [29], 1:34-44.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Step Two: No Inventive concept
`
`Panels = Cards
`
`Ex. 1010 [29], 254:9-20 (referring to Ex. 1001 [29], 9:2-5) (objections omitted);
`Reply, p. 12, 17;
`Decision on Request for Rehearing [29] (agree Petitioner showed cards correspond with claimed “panels”).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Step Two: No Inventive concept
`
`PO’s Expert Admits Disposing Panels in Battle Display Region Not Inventive:
`
`Reply [29], p. 7-10;
`Ex. 2002, ¶22-28;
`Ex. 1009 [29], 112:14-20 (objections omitted).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Step Two: No Inventive concept
`No “new source of type of information”
`
`Patent & PO Expert Admits Card-Based Game Mechanics are Conventional:
`
`Reply [29], p. 7-10;
`Ex. 1010 [29], 253:24-255:7 (objections, names, and text omitted);
`Ex. 1001 [29], 1:28-44.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Step Two: No Inventive concept
`“High visual effect” is not recited in the independent claims
`
`Ex. 1009 [29], 131:1-5.
`
`Ex. 1010 [29], 184:6-11; Reply [29], p. 15.
`.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Step Two: No Inventive concept
`
`“Rule-based set of specialized
`game mechanics to control the
`flow of the battle game” such
`that “each row indicates a turn
`of battle” (POR [29], p. 9) is not
`recited in the independent
`claims:
`
`Ex. 1001 [29], FIG. 3;
`POR [29], p. 9.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Dependent Claims: Same Abstract Idea; No Inventive Concept
`
` Obvious, Conventional Game Concepts; Automation; No Recited Mechanism
`• Claim 2 “a division execution function of executing the divisions in which the panels are
`disposed by the panel layout function in predetermined order”
`• Claim 3 “The recording medium according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined order is
`determined based on arrangement, shapes, and/or sizes of the panels.”
`
`Ex. 1010 [29], 209:8-210:18
`(objections omitted);
`Ex. 1001 [29], Claims 2-3.
`
`53
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Dependent Claims: Same Abstract Idea; No Inventive Concept
`
`• Claim 4: . . . an emphasized display function of emphasizing and displaying the panels
`disposed in the divisions executed by the division execution function.
`
`Ex. 1009 [29], 126:9-25
`(objections omitted);
`Ex. 1001 [29], p.15-18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`54
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Dependent Claims: Same Abstract Idea; No Inventive Concept
`
` Obvious, Conventional Game Concepts; Automation; No Recited Mechanism
`• Claims 5: perform a division execution function of executing the divisions in which
`the panels are disposed by the panel layout function, based on panel information
`indicating characteristics of the panels disposed in the divisions.
`• Claim 6: wherein the panel information includes information regarding a size of
`each panel.
`• Claim 7: wherein the panel information includes information regarding a
`capability of each panel, and
`strength of the capability corresponds to the size of each panel.
`
`Ex. 1001 [29], Claim 5-7;
`Reply [29]; p. 16-17.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Dependent Claims: Same Abstract Idea; No Inventive Concept
`Claims 5, 6, and 7 (cont.)
`Panels = Cards (see supra)
`Prior art cards associated capabilities, such as strength, with cards:
`
`Ex. 1010, 255:9-19 (objections omitted);
`Ex. 2003, p. 30;
`Reply [29]; p. 11-12, 16-17.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Dependent Claims: Same Abstract Idea; No Inventive Concept
`
`• Claim 8: the plurality of panels are given according to progress of the game.
`1. Extra-solution activity
`2. Not related to “high visual effect”
`3. Conventional, obvious choice
`
`Ex. 1001 [29], Claim 8;
`Ex. 1010, 258:22-25;
`Reply [29]; p. 18-19.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`57
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Dependent Claims: Same Abstract Idea; No Inventive Concept
`
`• Claim 9: “. . . wherein the display region is divided by a plurality of turns.”
`• Claim 13 [‘583]: “. . . wherein a configuration of the divisions is changed according to
`progress of the game.”
`1. Extra-solution activity
`2. Not related to “high visual effect”
`3. Conventional, obvious choice
`
`Ex. 1001 [29], Claim 8;
`Reply [29]; p. 18-19.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Dependent Claims: Same Abstract Idea; No Inventive Concept
`
` Obvious, Conventional Game Concepts; No Recited Mechanism
`• Claim 10: “ . . . each of the panels displays a still image.”
`• Claim 11: “ . . . each of the divisions possesses a text display portion for displaying texts,
`and
`the text display portion is displayed to overlap the panel disposed in the division.”
`•
`• Claim 12: “ . . . each of the divisions has a frame portion of a division in which a panel
`selected from a first panel database is disposed, and a frame portion of a division in which
`a panel selected from a second panel database is disposed, are constructed in different
`colors
`• Claim 13 [‘659]: wherein the panels indicate characters that the first user and the second
`user use for attack or defense in the game.
`1. Extra-solution activity
`2. Not related to “high visual effect”
`3. Conventional, obvious choice
`
`Ex. 1001 [29], Claims 10-12;
`Ex. 1001 [47], Claim 13
`Reply [29], p. 18-19.
`Reply [47], p. 18-19.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`59
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Dependent Claims: Same Abstract Idea; No Inventive Concept
`
`Claims 10 & 13: PO’s expert admits, panels displaying images was conventional and using panels to
`indicate characters in attack or defense in battle was conventional:
`
`Reply [29], p. 17-18; Reply [47], p. 17-18;
`Ex. 1009 [29], 253:23-254:7 (objections omitted).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`60
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Dependent Claims: Same Abstract Idea; No Inventive Concept
`
`Claim 11: PO’s expert admits, displaying text in panels was conventional:
`
`Reply [29], p. 17-18
`Ex. 1009 [29], 132:18-133:7 (objections omitted)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`61
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Dependent Claims: Same Abstract Idea; No Inventive Concept
`
`Claim 12: PO’s expert admits, different frame colors was completely conventional:
`
`Reply [29], p. 17-18;
`Ex. 1009 [29], 126:19-25 (objections omitted).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`62
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Expert Testimony Is Not Required
` Expert testimony is unnecessary to invalidate a patent under §
`101
`• This issue can often be decided at the pleading stage in district court
`litigation. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`• It is proper to rely upon:
`• Intrinsic record
`• See Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir 2015).
`• Case law in conjunction with the specification
`In re TLI Commc’ns. LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 614 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Smith, 815 F.3d at 819.
`•
`
`• PO’s “attorney argument” positions do not apply.
`• Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
`• Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir.
`• 2017) (and collecting cases)).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply [29], 19-22.
`
`63
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Expert Testimony Is Not Required
`
` PO’s “expert testimony” amounts to just 10
`sentences for the ‘583 patent and just over a dozen
`for the ‘659, exclusive of direct quotes from the
`specification.
`
`Reply [29], 21;
`Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 22-30.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`64
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`

`

`Section 112(a) Petitioner arguments found persuasive by Board
` No written description for:
`
`• “the divisions include a division where a panel selected from
`the first panel