`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
` Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
` Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: June 19, 2019
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
`CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPERCELL OY:
`MICHAEL J. SACKSTEDER, ESQUIRE
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, California 94104
`msacksteder@fenwick.com
`JENNIFER R. BUSH, ESQUIRE
`GEOFFREY MILLER, ESQUIRE
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`
`Mountain View, California 94041jbush-ptab@fenwick.com
`
`
`
`
`
` ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GREE, INC.:
`JOHN C. ALEMANNI, ESQUIRE
`STEVEN D. MOORE, ESQUIRE
`ANDREW W. RINEHART, ESQUIRE
`ARNEITA F. GRAY
`NICK VAIL
`
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`1001 West 4th Street
`Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
`jalemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`smoore@kilpatricktownsend.com
`arinehart@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, June 19,
`2019, commencing at 1:00 PM ET, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600
`Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`1
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE KIM: Good afternoon. Please be seated.
`
`
`Bear with us for a minute. Welcome. This is the oral argument
`for two cases PGR2018- 00029 and 0 0047. I'm Michael Kim. On
`the screen we have Judge Lynne Browne and we also have Judge
`Carl DeFranco joining us as well remotely.
`
`
`A few housekeeping things. One, as you know the
`judges online can't see the slides so if you refer to a slide or
`exhibit or paper, please reply to them and try to provide as much
`of a pinpoint cite as you can. As far as in and out goes for
`counsel as well as for the audience if we just limit that to when
`counsel is changing. So with that, I will start with appearances
`starting with Petitioner's counsel.
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`Michael Sacksteder of Fenwick & West. I'm actually back-up
`counsel for Supercell Oy and I'm here with lead counsel Jennifer
`Bush and another back- up counsel Geoffrey Miller.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Great. Welcome.
`
`
`MR. ALEMANNI: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`My name is John Alemanni with Kilpatrick Townsend. I'm lead
`counsel for Patent Owner Gree. With me at table is Steve
`Moore, back-up counsel. Arneita Gray will be helping us with
`demonstratives today. Also with us are Andrew Rinehart who's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`back-up counsel, and one of our summer associates Nick Vail
`(phonetic) is here also.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Welcome. All right. So I believe each
`side has 60 minutes. Petitioner will go first as they have the
`burdens, then Patent Owner, then Petitioner gets to reply, Patent
`Owner gets to sur-reply. So Mr. Sacksteder, about how much
`time roughly would you like to reserve for rebuttal?
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I'm planning to reserve 20
`minutes, Your Honor. I'll see how that goes.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Okay. That's good.
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: The slide deck's pretty fat.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Okay.
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I'll try and get through it
`expeditiously.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Okay. You can begin when you're
`ready.
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Thank you, Your Honor. The
`
`
`claims of the patents that are at issue here look a lot like an
`incomplete version of the inside of the top of the box of a game
`of Monopoly or the card with the rules that go into a deck of Uno
`or Go Fish or Old Maid cards. What they don't do is recite
`patentable inventions. They also, as we'll discuss in a little bit,
`have some problems with reciting claim limitations that are
`supported by the written description. The patent in one instance
`they recite a claim limitation that is not definite.
`
`
`
`
` 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
`25
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`So we'll start with the S ection 101 issue and go to
`
`
`slide 2, please. So just to recap how we got here, the Institution
`decision stated that the Board was persuaded by the Petitioner
`that the claims of the 583 patent are directed to displaying a
`video game based on stored panel information.
`
`
`Slide 3, and that the same conclusion was reached
`with regard to the claims in the 659 patent being directed to
`controlling the display of a video game based on a received
`selection of panel information.
`
`
`Slide 4, please. As we'll see, the claims of the two
`patents, the independent claims of the two patents are very
`similar. We've done a little (indiscernible) diagram with what
`appears in both and what appears in the 583 on the left and what
`appears in the 659 on the right.
`
`
`The same is true in slide 5 for the dependent claims.
`There are some transpositions of numbering in the claims in the
`overlapping claims in the middle. There's one dependent claim
`in the 583 and one dependent claim in the 659 that don't appear
`in the other patents.
`
`
`Slide 6, please. The Board found that the claims were
`directed to an abstract idea. I'm not going to go into a lot of
`detail because of time. Slide 7. The same conclusion was
`reached regarding the lack of an inventive concept in addition to
`the abstract idea with regard to both patents and it's a little
`tricky here because we have two patents that are not completely
`
`
`
`
` 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
`25
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`identical and so when I'm talking about both I'll try to make it
`clear that I'm talking about both but there are a few cases where
`we'll have to talk about one or the other.
`
`
`Slide 7, please. I'm sorry, slide 8. Okay. So let's
`talk first about the abstract idea to which the claims are directed,
`and it's displaying -- this is the 583 displaying a video game
`based on stored panel information. That occurs at step 140 in
`figure 1 which is sort of shown almost identical to the claim
`language.
`Slide 9. And the way that those functions are recited
`
`
`in the claim is in purely functional language. It talks about a
`data storage function and then it just stores a panel, it stores a
`second panel and a second panel database, panel storage, a panel
`selection function, a panel layout function and a screen display
`control function. That's kind of the way the board's set up, and
`then you get to slide 10 which is some but not all of the rules of
`a game that you can play in this context. The data storage
`function stores points set for the first user and there is a little bit
`of dispute, I don't know that it matters whether points set is a set
`of points or the points that were set. Then the panel selection
`function selects a panel from the database. You pull a card out.
`We've had analogies in this case of panels being analogous to
`cards and the specification talks about that as well. You know,
`you have a hand of cards, you pull a card out and then you put it
`some place, you dispose it some place on the board where you
`
`
`
`
` 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
`25
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`are allowed to dispose it and we'll discuss that with regard to
`written description and indefiniteness a little later on, and then
`the panel layout function actually disposes the panel and that's
`claim 1 of the 583.
`
`
`Slide 11, please. Okay. The claims of the 583 patent
`are abstract because those claims first recite only result-oriented
`functions without a non- abstract means of achieving the results.
`They recite no --
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Well actually, Mr. Sacksteder, let's
`start with that one.
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Yes.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: So obviously the guidance is issued.
`Where do you want us to evaluate that within the guidance?
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I think it's, well, fair point. I
`think it goes both in 2A and, I'm sorry, first prong and second
`prong of 2A.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Okay.
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: And then it's something that
`Federal Circuit case law has recognized as being a problem. So
`it goes to both to whether there's an abstract idea and whether
`there is a practical application of the abstract idea.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: So which abstract idea would it be
`under?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I'm sorry sir?
`JUDGE KIM: Which abstract idea would it be under?
`
` 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
`25
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I'm not sure I understand the
`
`
`question, the abstract idea that --
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Sure. So you're saying that the No. 1
`recites only function, result-oriented functions. You're saying it
`can go to either prong one or prong two of the USPTO guidance.
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I think it goes to both.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Prong one -- yes, that's fine. So under
`prong one it has to recite either a mental process, mathematical
`formula --
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Oh, I see.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: -- or certain method of organizing
`
`
`human activity, at least facially functional oriented results
`doesn't seem -- and that's what Patent Owner argues -- it doesn't
`fit into any of those categories.
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I think we'll see that it's a
`method of organizing human activity in general and that's
`supported by the case law that we'll bring in and discuss later.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Well, okay. Well then we'll get to that,
`but that's No. 3 isn't it? That's not No. 1. So that's fine, you
`know, they object to this new argument and we'll get to that but I
`guess I just want to be clear on No. 1 there. What do you want
`us to do with it?
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Yes. Well I think that it is -- I
`understand the point, Your Honor. I think we are following
`Federal Circuit case law. The Two -Way Media case, for
`
`
`
`
` 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
`25
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`example, says specifically that this claim is not eligible because
`it recites just functional steps and does not contain anything
`regarding how they are to be implemented and I think that that is
`still good Federal Circuit law. The guidance does not purport to
`overrule or change Federal Circuit law. So I understand that this
`is a template that has to be used in this context but yes, I think it
`is still a method of organizing human activity.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Okay.
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Okay. So, and there's more
`discussion in subsequent slides as well. There's no specific
`structured user interface that is recited in the claims. They, as
`we've discussed, recite a way of managing a game and playing a
`game, and the rules for playing the game and they don't provide
`any improvement in computer functionality.
`
`
`Slide No. 12, please. Okay. So this is sort of the way
`that the claims recite the result-oriented functions. The red is
`sort of the name of the function and then the blue is the
`functions that are actually accomplished by those.
`
`
`Slide 13. And in the specification there's no further
`information about what those functional claim limitations are.
`You know, there's a control unit and a data storage unit and there
`are just sort of these places that do what the claim limitation
`says without providing any additional information. Slide 14.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: So counsel, yes, let's start with that.
`How specific -- because at some point there should be enough
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`specificity where the function itself is enough. If it's not
`generic, it gets around Two- Way Media, Affinity Labs. How
`specific do you have to be and why does the patent not meet that
`statement?
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Yes. I think we have, again I'd
`like to answer your question briefly here. I think it has to
`provide specific technological solutions that are recited in detail
`in the claims and we actually will discuss sort of the spectrum
`between Two- Way Media on one hand and McRO on the other
`and sort of show how this one falls on the Two- Way Media end
`of the spectrum rather than on the McRO end of the spectrum.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Okay. And then the second part is --
`this is why I'm asking is, you know, we have to write this up at
`the end of the day so let's say that we agree with you, we have to
`write these arguments up in a template so we need some advice
`from you. Where do you want us to put these arguments in the
`template?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Uh-huh. No, I understand and I
`
`
`think that again they can be referenced both in prong one and
`prong two.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: So, I guess how would we reference it
`in prong one?
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: In prong one you would say that
`these are simply functionally stated methods for organizing
`human activity and specifically methods for managing a 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
`25
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`and in prong two you would say that there is no sort of detail or
`specificity, as Your Honor had mentioned, that implements those
`or provides a practical application of those. So, you know, the
`absence of any technological implementation, which I think is a
`crucial point as admitted by the expert for Patent Owner, the
`testimony from Exhibit 1010 page 218, lines 11 through 24 is on
`slide 14.
`Can we go to slide 15. More testimony, again no
`
`
`details for the technological implementation. There's no
`practical application because there's no technological
`implementation. There's additional testimony from page 224 of
`Mr. Crane's deposition. Slide --
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: So they do talk some about, let's say
`we agree with you on the independent claims, they do talk about
`the dependent claims --
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Yes.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: -- and particularly dependent claim 4
`emphasized display and there's some testimony there that well,
`you know, one way you could this is a movie. Why is a movie
`not technological?
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Well I think just saying you
`have a movie is not a technological implementation and I don't
`understand them to be basing their primary argument on claim 4
`as emphasizing a display. I don't think that's what emphasizing a
`display means. You know, there's testimony from Mr. Crane
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`talking about emphasizing a display by changing the color of the
`frame and things like that. So I don't think that's what claim 4 is
`referring to.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Well, okay, so getting broader though I
`mean in their Patent Owner view the technical problem is user
`boredom of the game and the solution is a high visual effect,
`right, and they're saying some of these high visual effects are
`technical.
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I understand that they say that
`
`
`and we have lots of, again we have lots of slides on that and we
`disagree. You know, all they do is say go do this, go use an
`animation, go and put text that overlaps with a panel, things like
`that are not inventive and are not a technical solution in the
`sense that that is intended by the Federal Circuit precedent.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: What relevance does the level of skill
`have here?
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I think that always the level of
`skill has some relevance but I think that in order to claim an
`eligible invention that the claims have to recite some level, and I
`think this is consistent with the Federal Circuit precedent since
`Section 101 became an issue again, there has to be some level of
`technical implementation and not just saying do this, do this, do
`this, not just saying have this result occur on the screen and I
`think that's a problem that they have.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`JUDGE KIM: Well with some of the limitations like,
`
`
`for example, the data storage function they are storing it in a
`database, right?
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Yes.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: So I mean is that something a person
`can really do?
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: That is something that every
`computer does.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Okay.
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Yes. I think that at some point
`it can't be user database and when databases have existed for
`decades and they store information. I don't think you can say
`this is a technical implementation, it's just store a thing in a
`place where you store things.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Okay. What about placing a panel on a
`screen?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I think that's another thing
`
`
`where it's been around forever. You put things from one place to
`another on a computer screen.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: But what about panels specifically?
`Why is that not specific?
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Panels are, in the admitted prior
`art, panels can be cards as the specification says and the
`admitted prior art which is actually described as being familiar
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 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
`25
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`to many users today does exactly that. You take cards and you
`put them in a particular place in a grid on a screen.
`
`
`Let's go to slide 16. Okay. Here's where we are
`addressing the specificity issue. We have McRO on one end and
`Two-Way Media on the other end.
`
`
`Slide 17, please. The McRO case says the patent was
`focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer
`animation. It made the computer better and that I think is a key
`point. It creates desired results which were a sequence of
`synchronized animated characters and provided detailed genus
`level instructions for doing that.
`
`
`Slide 18. On the other end is Two- Way Media which
`claimed functional results like converting, routing, controlling,
`monitoring and accumulating records and those are similar to
`data storage functions and panel selection functions. You can
`select a thing in a computer program. Slide 19.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: I'm sorry. So in the sur-reply Patent
`Owner goes through a bunch of cases, the Trading Technologies
`case, Ancora, DDR and they do a claim method. So they say in
`Ancora you have claim limitations when you map our claim
`against them they kind of do the same thing. What's wrong with
`that?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I think that, to take Ancora as
`
`
`an example, Ancora actually claims doing something different in
`the BIOS of the computer. This is not simply storing a particular
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`set of information, this is not putting a visual element at a
`particular place on the screen, this is not outlining how the rules
`of the game are going to go. This is actually changing what
`happens within the computer.
`
`
`The same thing is true with DDR. DDR, although it's
`mentioned in Patent Owner's papers, is sort of affecting the look
`and feel of the screen. What's really happening, what happens
`when you click on a hyperlink and you have technical detail
`regarding what happens there that you just don't have in this
`case. Here you have mostly what you see on the screen and then
`sort of trivial additional things like you store it in a database,
`which is not the same as what's in those cases.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: I mean isn't display function, isn't that
`a look and feel?
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: It just says display. All it says,
`you know, the claims say that you select a panel and you dispose
`a panel and then you have something that shows it on a screen.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: But isn't that what they did in DDR,
`you know, because the whole point was you're creating a mirror
`website that looks like, whatever, Delta Airlines website even
`though it's not.
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: But it has some detail about
`how you do it. It doesn't just say show it and I think that's the
`difference.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`JUDGE KIM: You don't have to answer it now but if
`
`
`there's any specific limitation in DDR that you think makes it --
`puts it on the patent eligible end as opposed to this one, I'd
`appreciate it.
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: That may come in our rebuttal.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Yes. Thank you.
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I suspect that DDR will come
`up in Patent Owner's argument as well.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Sure.
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: So then the McRO claim has
`very detailed technical discussion about what the rules are that
`are applied, and what they affect, and how they are applied.
`That is not something that we see here.
`
`
`Slide 20. In Two -Way Media you have very similar
`functional language converting the streams of audio into a
`plurality of streams and routing the stream to one or more users
`and monitoring the reception of packets by the user. So those
`are, you know, sort of sound something like technical things but
`they are conventional technical things and all they show is the
`result and I think that is the place where this case is analogous.
`
`
`Slide 21, please. Okay. So and then in the 659 claim
`1 the result that's desired is a high visual effect and we have the
`panel indicating the character displayed as an animation when
`being disposed in the target division. Doesn't say anything about
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`how you do that. It just says you do it. Here's what you see on
`the screen.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Why isn't that enough because the
`argument would be you can't do an animation without a
`computer? I mean I can't do an animation sitting here, right,
`myself?
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I'm not saying that you can't .
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Okay.
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: But it is a very conventional
`
`
`thing that's been done in video games since I was a kid and since
`everybody in the room was a kid, and all it says is do it. It
`doesn't say anything else about particular way of doing it or any
`technological aspect of doing it.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: So where do we evaluate that then? Do
`we evaluation under Alice step one or Alice step two?
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: I think that, again, they do tend
`to blend. I think that this is part of the abstract idea.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Okay.
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: But I think that it is also
`something that does not add anything inventive under step two.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Okay. What's your evidence or support
`for the fact that this is a well-understood, routine or
`conventional thing?
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: We have testimony from Mr.
`Crane and this is specifically talking about -- sort of he gives a
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`list of the very few things that he thinks provide a high visual
`effect and one of them was use of animation. This is from page
`265 and 266 of Mr. Crane's deposition. It's in our reply at page
`19 is where it's cited.
`
`
`"Question: Was employing animation in a video game
`anything that was at all new at the time of the ‘583 and ‘659?"
`
`
`"Patent Owner's witness: Configuring a visual element
`to display a movie or animation is something that was done in
`video games prior to this patent, but I'm not aware of any
`situation where this element was applied to the inventive game
`play that I’ve described earlier in the section."
`
`
`So he's trying to add it. He's saying well, you know,
`everything that's in the claim now is somehow not conventional
`and is basically conceding that having a video that's displayed in
`a screen element is conventional. But the problem is that Alice
`says that you look at the additional limitations in addition to the
`abstract idea and what he's referring back to is the abstract idea.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Well you do also have to consider it as
`a whole, too, don't you, because I mean you could always parse
`each -- you could parse any claim into a thousand, well , slight
`exaggeration, a thousand well -understood, routine, conventional
`elements, but it's really the whole that matters.
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: As an ordered combination.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: That's true but what he's saying
`
`
`is the problem to be solved is avoiding boredom by providing a
`high visual effect. This is one of the few things that actually
`does that. The rest do not. Most everything else in the claims
`are not even asserted to provide a high visual effect. So in this
`case, although you do look at the claims as an ordered
`combination, I don't think that you get any higher visual effect
`based on where you would put the animation and I think that the
`rest of the claim is the abstract idea.
`
`
`Slide 22. Okay. So this relates to the lack of a
`structured user interface. The independent claims just have one
`or more divisions. The screen is divided in some way and in that
`division is some place where you put a panel and that's what the
`inventive claims say.
`
`
`Slide 23. So this is, and there should be -- I think this
`is the one where we go on to T rading Technologies. We're
`comparing sort of what is not a structured user interface in the
`583 where you just have divisions of a game screen. You have
`one or more places on the screen and they include a division
`where a panel is allowed to be disposed.
`
`
`Then you compare it to slide 24 where we have
`Trading Technologies where we have a lot more detail where
`each region, each location in the display region corresponds to a
`price level along a static price axis. The second indicator also
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`does the same thing where you have a lot more detail about what
`the interface does.
`
`
`I want to go to slide 25, and there's a whole lot more
`that's shown on slide 25. Slide 26. Also Core Wireless where
`you are actually, and this again sort of overlaps with the
`technological solution that makes a computer better. Core
`Wireless here is making it so on a smaller device you can jump
`through menus easier which is a solution to a technological
`problem and again, the blue is sort of specific information that
`the Federal Circuit relied on, specific claim limitations that the
`Federal Circuit relied on to say that is something different from
`the type of claim that we have in these matters.
`
`
`Slide 27. And the Board recognized that in its
`Institution Decision. Slide 28. Okay. This is kind of a busy
`slide and this is D ata Engine Technologies. Again, there were
`two sets of claims, two sets of patents with two different types of
`claims. One was just sort of for a spreadsheet with data and
`cells and one had this mechanism using tabs to go through the
`sheets that were in the spreadsheet and the latter was found to be
`patent eligible, the former was not, and I think that again there's
`a lot of text on this page but it is designed to show that when you
`have this sort of structured user interface you have a lot more of
`an actual technological user interface, and you don't have any
`here.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`Slide 29. So the other question of specificity is one
`
`
`that was asked in the Institution D ecision for the parties to
`address. The second one is whether an aesthetic benefit is an
`improvement in computer functionality. I'm not sure there's
`really a case that comes down directly on that. I think one that's
`relied on is DDR, and again, what is happening there is the result
`that a thing that you get is being able to have your look and feel
`still show up after the hyperlink is clicked but you have to have
`something happen when internally in the system that is not
`recited in the claims in these patents, and then in Data Engine
`Technologies, again I'm not sure that that was even -- Data
`Engine's really the issue was aesthetic benefit at all but in that
`case this was implementing an improvement in spreadsheet
`functionality so it was not an aesthetic benefit that was achieved
`at all. Slide 30.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Well it's aesthetic in that it's easier for
`the user, isn't it?
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: It's functionality though. It's
`easier for the user to use. You know, the claims that weren't
`found eligible also were probably easier for the user to see than
`prior art mechanisms. But what made the claims with the tabs
`patentable was the functionality was such that it made it easier
`for the user to use.
`
`
`In slide 30 the independent claims of the 583 patent I
`don't believe purport to accomplish any high visual effect. They
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00047 (Patent 9,770,659 B2)
`
`just have divisions of a screen where some cards or panels get
`put.
`Slide 31. And that is shown in the admitted prior art.
`
`
`You have divisions of the screen where these cards are placed,
`basically the same thing.
`
`
`Slide 32. So the only claim limitation that is
`purported to be directed toward a high visual effect in the
`independent claims of the 659 patent is the animation one. Slide
`33. Okay, go back. We'll address that a little bit and that one,
`as we will discuss, was conventional. It was something that had
`been done before.
`
`
`Slide 33. So then we have the way of managing a
`game and playing the game and this is I think, seeing the Patent
`Owner's arguments concerning this, I think this is an argument in
`support of the finding that the abstract idea that we originally
`identified is in fact abstract and this is a specific area that's
`identified in a footnote to the guidance as constituting a method
`of organizing human activity.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: Why is this not in the argument?
`
`
`MR. SACKSTEDER: Because it is an argument in
`support of the findings. It's also based on the testimony of Mr.
`Crane which we didn't have. He admitted, as we'll soon see, that
`that's what this patent claims.
`
`
`JUDGE KIM: I mean for the first one though, if
`you're saying any arguments to abstract idea support other
`
`
`
`
` 22
`
`
`
`Case PGR2018-00029 (Patent 9,636,583 B2)
`Case
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
