Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 31
`Entered: September 3, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case PGR2018-00036
`Patent 9,662,580 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
`CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`GREE, Inc. (“GREE”) is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,662,580 B2
`(“the ’580 patent”). Supercell Oy (“Supercell”) filed a petition for post-
`grant review of claims 1–10 of the ’580 patent. Paper 1 (“Pet.”). We
`instituted post-grant review of all the claims as challenged in the petition.
`Paper 7 (“Inst. Dec.”). GREE filed a response. Paper 9 (“PO Resp.”).
`Supercell replied. Paper 17 (“Pet. Reply”). And GREE had the last word in
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 31
`Entered: September 3, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case PGR2018-00036
`Patent 9,662,580 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
`CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`GREE, Inc. (“GREE”) is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,662,580 B2
`(“the ’580 patent”). Supercell Oy (“Supercell”) filed a petition for post-
`grant review of claims 1–10 of the ’580 patent. Paper 1 (“Pet.”). We
`instituted post-grant review of all the claims as challenged in the petition.
`Paper 7 (“Inst. Dec.”). GREE filed a response. Paper 9 (“PO Resp.”).
`Supercell replied. Paper 17 (“Pet. Reply”). And GREE had the last word in
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00036
`Patent 9,662,580 B2
`
`a sur-reply. Paper 19 (“PO Sur-Reply”). In addition, GREE moved to
`exclude certain of Supercell’s evidence, namely, Exhibits 1010–1012. Paper
`21 (“PO Mot. Exclude”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. An oral hearing was
`conducted on June 20, 2019. Paper 30 (“Tr.”). After considering the
`parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we determine that Supercell has
`proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–10 of the ’580
`patent are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e). We also deny GREE’s motion
`to exclude as moot.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’580 Patent
`The ’580 patent, titled “Video Game in Which Groups of Players Earn
`Reward Boxes,” issued May 30, 2017, and claims priority to a foreign
`application filed August 21, 2013.1 Ex. 1001, cover [30]. The ’580 patent
`begins by describing a conventional “social game” in which players operate
`player characters and attack one or more enemy characters. Id. at 1:9–27.
`Notably, in these conventional games, each player is “a member of a specific
`group.” Id. at 1:27–28. If a player within the group defeats the enemy
`characters, “various rewards such as points or items . . . can be given to each
`individual player or the group to which these players belong.” Id. at 1:28–
`31. According to the ’580 patent, however, the rewards available in these
`
`
`1 Because Supercell’s petition was filed within nine months of the
`’580 patent’s issue date and the earliest possible priority date for the ’580
`patent is after March 16, 2013 (the effective date for the first inventor to file
`provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act), the ’580 patent is
`eligible for post-grant review. See 35 U.S.C. § 321. GREE does not contest
`that the ’580 patent qualifies for post-grant review.
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00036
`Patent 9,662,580 B2
`
`conventional social games “are fixed to some extent.” Id. at 1:35–37. These
`fixed rewards, the ’580 patent reports, “cause a reduction in the player’s
`motivation to participate in the game or continue the game,” such as “in
`come-from-behind victory in relation to the other players.” Id. at 1:38–44.
`To address this problem, the ’580 patent provides a method and
`system of “improving unexpectedness, dramatic impact, and taste when
`medals, game items, or the like as a reward are provided to a player.” Id. at
`1:45–53 (emphasis added). As described, this purported improvement is
`achieved by an “information storage unit” that stores information relating to
`“a reward providing condition, rewards, and [a] reward box” and a control
`unit that accesses the stored information and “allocates at least one reward”
`to a “reward box.” Id. at 1:62–66 (emphasis added). As part of allocating
`the reward, the reward box is “displayed on the terminal device . . . to let the
`player know that the reward can be acquired by defeating [an] enemy
`character.” Id. at 7:21–26, Fig. 5. The control unit then “determines
`whether the reward providing condition is met based on match-up situations
`or match-up results between the players and first game characters [i.e.,
`enemy game characters] in the game.” Id. at 1:65–2:2 (emphasis added); see
`also id. at Fig. 3. If the condition is met, then the allocated reward is
`provided to the player. Id. at 2:2–5.
`GREE’s expert illustrates Figure 3 of the ’580 patent, reproduced
`below, to illustrate the operation of the game. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 63–64.
`
`3
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00036
`Patent 9,662,580 B2
`
`
`
`As explained by GREE’s expert in annotated Figure 3 above, the
`reward is “displayed” in allocating step S3 “before match . . . begins,” and
`then reward is “provided to player” in determining steps S6–S9 as a result of
`the player “meeting reward providing condition.” Id.
`
`B. The Challenged Claims
`Of the challenged claims, five are independent—claims 1 and 7–10.
`Claim 1 is directed to a “control method,” claim 7 is directed to a “non-
`transitory computer-readable recording medium recording process,” claims 8
`
`4
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00036
`Patent 9,662,580 B2
`
`and 10 are directed to a “control apparatus,” and claim 9 is directed to a
`“game system.” Common across these claims are the following steps for
`execution by a computer:
`“storing” game information that defines “a plurality of
`groups to which . . . players belong,” “rewards,” “a reward
`providing condition,” and a “reward box
`. . . associated
`exclusively with a respective one of said groups,”
`“allocating” a reward into a reward box,
`“determining” if a reward providing condition is met
`based on match-ups between players and game characters,
`“displaying” the reward in the reward box, and
`“providing” the reward from the reward box to a player
`who meets the reward providing condition.
`
`See Ex. 1001, claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 10.
`
`Supercell asserts that claim 1 is “representative” of the independent
`claims. Pet. 19. Although GREE disputes that assertion (PO Resp. 13–14),
`it nonetheless limits its arguments to claim 1 without arguing the other
`independent claims separately (id. at 18–61).2 Given the significant overlap
`in the steps recited by the independent claims, we agree with Petitioner that
`claim 1 is representative. Claim 1 recites:
`1. A control method for a computer network, comprising:
`storing, by a memory for storing information related to a
`game in which a plurality of players can participate, information
`defining a plurality of groups to which said players belong, a
`reward providing condition, rewards, and reward box
`information for a plurality of reward boxes each associated
`exclusively with a respective one of said groups, as part of the
`information related to the game; and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 GREE does argue the dependent claims separately. See Pet. 50–53; PO
`Resp. 22–23, 61–65.
`
`5
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00036
`Patent 9,662,580 B2
`
`
`
`
`by an arithmetic processor, performing computation on the
`game, and
`displaying images of the game on terminal devices
`operated by the players[,]
`allocating at least one reward out of the rewards to at least
`one of the reward boxes,
`determining whether the reward providing condition is
`met based on match-up situations or match-up results between
`the players and first game characters in the game, and
`displaying, on the terminal devices, a screen for providing
`the reward allocated to at least part of one of the reward boxes
`to at least one player in the group associated with the one of the
`reward boxes based on the determination results.
`
`Ex. 1001, 11:12–35 (emphases added).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`In its petition, Supercell asserts that claims 1–10 of the ’580 patent are
`unpatentable, first, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35
`U.S.C. § 101 (Pet. 26–53), and, second, as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112(b) (id. at 54–58).
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`Neither Supercell nor GREE proposes a construction for any
`particular claim term. See Pet. 17–26; PO Resp. 13–14, 20–23, 31–35. With
`one exception, we confirm that no express constructions are necessary. The
`exception relates to the terms “allocating” and “allocates” recited throughout
`the claims. The ’580 patent does not ascribe any special meaning to those
`terms. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:65–66, 3:10–11, 8:30–53, 11:25–26. As such,
`we construe the terms “allocating” and “allocates” in accordance with their
`
`6
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00036
`Patent 9,662,580 B2
`
`plain and ordinary meaning3—“to place,” “to apportion for a specific
`purpose or to particular persons or things : distribute,” “to set apart or
`earmark : designate.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 30 (10th
`ed. 2000) (Ex. 3001).
`During the hearing, however, GREE argued for a narrower
`construction of “allocating rewards” in the context of claim 1. See Tr.
`92:15–25. Pointing to the specification of the ’580 patent (Ex. 1001, 8:41–
`53), GREE proposed that “allocating rewards” includes consideration of
`“multiple factors,” such as “the game elapsed time, number of enemy
`characters, state [of] the player, progress of the game, kind of treasure box,
`items possessed by the player, and the kind of predetermined event.” Id.
`But those factors are recited in dependent claim 3 of the ’580 patent. Ex.
`1001, 11:48–55. In that regard, GREE conceded during the hearing that it is
`“not asking for the limitations to be read into [claim 1].” Tr. 93:6–17. Thus,
`to the extent GREE maintains a narrower construction of the term
`“allocating rewards,” we reject it, first, as improperly reading limitations
`from the specification into the claim, and, second, as contrary to the doctrine
`of claim differentiation.
`Moreover, GREE’s argument for a narrower construction is distinctly
`at odds with the understanding of its own expert that “allocating” means not
`only placing the reward in, or designating the reward to, a rewards box but
`also “displaying” the reward to inform players of the reward before the
`
`
`3 We apply the “broadest reasonable construction” standard per 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b) (2017), which was in effect at the time of filing the instant
`petition. A recent amendment to that rule does not apply here. See 83 Fed.
`Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), effective
`November 13, 2018).
`
`7
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00036
`Patent 9,662,580 B2
`
`match begins. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 63–64. We agree with that understanding of
`GREE’s expert, as it is consistent with the ’580 patent specification, which
`explains that, as part of allocating the reward, the reward box is “displayed
`on the terminal device . . . to let the player know that the reward can be
`acquired by defeating [an] enemy character.” Id. at 7:21–26, Fig. 5. As
`such, in addition to construing the term “allocating” in accordance with its
`plain and ordinary meaning as “placing” or “designating,” as reflected by the
`above dictionary definition, we construe it as also encompassing
`“displaying” the reward.4
`
`B. Supercell’s Challenge Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`Supercell asserts that claims 1–10 do not recite patent eligible subject
`matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Pet. 26–53. GREE disagrees. PO Resp. 13–
`65. The United States Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101
`to exclude from patenting “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomenon, and
`abstract ideas.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014)
`(“Alice”) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566
`U.S. 66, 77–78 (2012) (“Mayo”)). Here, we are concerned with the judicial
`exception of abstract ideas. In evaluating whether the challenged claims are
`
`
`4 To avoid any confusion, we note that the “displaying” step at the end of
`claim 1 is not part of the allocating step. Rather, the final “displaying” step
`speaks to “a screen” for “providing” the “allocated” reward to the player at
`the end of the match. Ex. 1001, 11:31–35. It is not the “introduction
`screen” that “let[s] the player know” of the reward before the match begins,
`but rather it is a “providing screen” for rewarding the player with the
`allocated reward after the match ends. Compare id. at 7:21–26, Fig. 5, with
`id. at 9:28–35, Fig. 8.
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00036
`Patent 9,662,580 B2
`
`“directed to” a patent-ineligible abstract idea, we are guided by the
`framework set out by the Supreme Court in Alice and Mayo. Alice, 573 U.S.
`at 217–227 (citing and quoting Mayo throughout).5
`In accordance with the Alice/Mayo framework, we determine first
`whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea.6 Id. If so, we then consider
`whether “additional features” beyond the abstract idea itself transform the
`claim into a “practical application” of the idea.7 Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77–78,
`84–85 (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71 (1972)); see also
`Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (evaluating whether computer implementation of a
`mathematical formula is “the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any
`‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed
`to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself’”) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77);
`Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981) (“It is now commonplace that
`an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known
`structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”). As a final
`safeguard, we analyze whether the additional features, either individually or
`
`
`5 We are also guided by Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
`Eligibility Guidance (“Office Guidance”), which frames the Alice/Mayo test
`in terms of a three-part inquiry. 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53–56 (Jan. 7, 2019)
`(outlining “Step2A,” which includes “Prong One” and “Prong Two,”
`followed by “Step 2B”).
`6 This step of the Alice/Mayo inquiry is recounted in the Office Guidance as
`“Revised Step 2A . . . Prong One: Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a
`Judicial Exception.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
`7 This step of the Alice/Mayo framework is recounted in the Office Guidance
`as “Revised Step 2A . . . Prong Two: If the Claim Recites a Judicial
`Exception, Evaluate Whether the Judicial Exception is Integrated Into a
`Practical Application.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
`
`9
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00036
`Patent 9,662,580 B2
`
`in combination, amount to an “inventive concept,” in other words,
`something “significantly more” than “well-understood, routine, conventional
`activities previously known to the industry.”8 Alice, 573 U.S. at 221–222,
`225 (internal quotations, brackets, and citations omitted).
`
`1. Whether the Claims Recite an Abstract Idea
`Supercell asserts that the claims of the ’580 patent are directed to the
`abstract idea of a “method of organizing human activity,” which it
`characterizes as “the idea of providing a reward to a video game player from
`a player group reward box if a reward condition is met.” Pet. 26, 42,
`respectively. In conforming to the “groupings” of abstract ideas provided in
`the Office Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. at 51–52), which issued after the filing of
`the petition here, Supercell further argues that the claims “broadly recite[]
`rules governing a game (i.e., allocating rewards to a reward box,
`determining [if] a condition is satisfied, [and then] providing the allocated
`reward to the player).” Pet. Reply 4 (emphasis added); see also id. at 5
`(further contending that the claims “are directed to providing a simple ‘game
`mechanic’ . . . which is nothing more than a way of managing a video
`game.”). As such, Supercell surmises that such rules for playing a game fall
`squarely within the excepted group of abstract ideas that the U.S. Court of
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held to be methods of organizing human
`activity. Id. at 5; see also Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.13.
`
`
`8 This aspect of the Alice/Mayo framework is recounted in the Office
`Guidance as “Step 2B: If the Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception,
`Evaluate Whether the Claim Provides an Inventive Concept.” 84 Fed. Reg.
`at 56.
`
`10
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00036
`Patent 9,662,580 B2
`
`
`In support, Supercell compares the claims of the ’508 patent to claims
`held to be abstract in In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016),9 and In re
`Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Pet. Reply
`4–5. In each case, the Federal Circuit explained that the claims recite a
`patent-ineligible abstract idea because they are directed to nothing more than
`“a set of rules for a game,” Smith, 815 F.3d at 819, or “rules for playing a
`dice game,” Guldenaar, 911 F.3d at 1160–61. The Guldenaar court further
`observed that rules for a game are a “method of organizing human activity,”
`which is a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Id. at 1160. Supercell takes a
`similar position here. Pet. 26–27; Pet. Reply 5.
`In response, GREE argues that Supercell’s articulation of the abstract
`idea “indicate[s] a fundamental misunderstanding of what is claimed and
`how the claimed subject matter improves the computational flexibility of
`multiplayer online battle games.” PO Sur-Reply 3. In particular, GREE
`contends that Supercell “improperly oversimplifies the challenged claims by
`cherry-picking elements” to summarily conclude that the claims are directed
`to an abstract idea. Id. at 5. According to GREE, the claims do not recite
`simply rules for playing a game, but rather “recite a specific storage
`archetype with paired computer processing functionality that enables more
`flexible and nuanced reward-giving.” Id. at 7 (emphasis added). GREE
`points to the claimed “storing,” “allocating,” and “determining” steps as
`capturing this increased flexibility. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 11:13–30.
`
`
`9 The Office Guidance cites In re Smith as an example of “[c]ertain methods
`of organizing human activity.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.13 (quoting In re
`Smith’s conclusion that “[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for
`conducting a wagering game’ are abstract).”).
`
`11
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00036
`Patent 9,662,580 B2
`
`
`We disagree that the above-recited limitations remove the challenged
`claims from the realm of an abstract idea. Instead, we determine that these
`limitations are typical of a rule for competitive gameplay—namely, if a
`player meets a certain condition of gameplay, then the player receives a pre-
`defined reward. More specifically, as claimed in the ’580 patent, a reward is
`allocated to a “box” so as to inform a group of players in advance of the
`reward to be received if they meet a condition of gameplay. Whichever
`player meets that condition is then presented with that reward. Virtually any
`game in which players compete against each other for a designated prize
`incorporates that “if-then” rule. The ’580 patent itself recognizes as much in
`the “Background” section—“there is known, for example, a system” in
`which “if the player defeats the enemy characters, various rewards such as
`points or items available in the game can be given to each individual player
`or the group to which these players belong.” Ex. 1001, 1:22–31.
`Furthermore, merely reciting the “if-then” rule of gameplay in terms
`of “allocating” a reward to a display box, “determining” whether a reward
`providing condition is met, and “providing” the displayed reward to the
`player meeting that condition, does not save the claims from being a rule for
`playing a game. That is because those claimed steps compare substantively
`to the steps of “placing at least one wager” and “paying a payout amount if
`the at least one wager occurs” found to be abstract “rules for playing a dice
`game” in Guldenaar, 911 F.3d at 1160–61, and the steps of “accepting at
`least one first wager” and “resolving any player versus dealer wagers” found
`to be an abstract “set of rules for a game” in Smith, 815 F.3d at 819.
`
`12
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00036
`Patent 9,662,580 B2
`
`
`Moreover, in describing how the video game is played, the
`specification of the ’580 patent underscores the abstract nature of the idea
`embodied in the claims:
`[A]n image indicating what kind of event is taking place is
`displayed in a lower part of Fig. 4. For example, as shown in the
`lower part of Fig. 4, the player knows that a winner-take-all
`reward event is taking place, and that 300 medals are potentially
`acquired as the reward the winner can take . . .
`As the event introduction screen displayed on the terminal device
`2, for example, a string of characters such as “Winner-take-all
`chance against enemy character A” is displayed on the terminal
`device 2 . . . to let the player know that the reward can be
`acquired by defeating enemy character A. . . .
`As shown in Fig. 6, a group A to which at least one player
`character belongs, a treasure box A, and an enemy character A
`are associated with one another. . . . [W]hen a player (player
`character Ca) belonging to the group A defeats the enemy
`character A associated with the group A, the player can acquire
`a reward stored in the treasure box A.
`Ex. 1001, 7:8–49 (emphases added).
`Those descriptions support that the idea underlying the claims is
`nothing more than an “if-then” rule or instruction for playing the game,
`namely, if a player from a group of players defeats an enemy character, then
`that player receives a reward from a “box.” As described and claimed, the
`“box” is nothing more than a display “to let the player know” what the
`reward is before the game begins. Id. at 7:21–26. GREE’s expert admits as
`much. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 63–64 (explaining that “allocation of the rewards
`happens before the actual match starts . . . in which event S3 [in flowchart in
`Fig. 3 of the ’580 patent] displays the reward boxes on the ‘introduction
`screen,’ before the match [and game screen in Fig. 4] shows ‘an image
`indicating what kind of event is taking place’ and what the reward for the
`
`13
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00036
`Patent 9,662,580 B2
`
`winner is (e.g., ‘300 medals’).”) (emphasis added). That the allocating step
`may include the selection and display of the reward does not, without more,
`take the claims outside the realm of the abstract idea of one of certain
`methods of organizing human activity (i.e. “allocating” a reward to a reward
`box, “determining” if a condition of game play is met, and then “providing”
`the allocated reward to the player). See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772
`F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that a process of “selecting an ad”
`and “facilitating display of the ad” on the Internet is a “combination of steps
`[that] recites an abstraction—an idea.”).
`GREE’s expert likewise acknowledges that the claims are directed
`simply to “the mechanics of the game.” See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 44–52. In
`explaining his use of that phrase, GREE’s expert testifies that the step of
`“allocating” a reward to a box is a game mechanic and that game mechanics
`include rules for playing a game—
`Q [by Supercell’s Counsel]: Mr. Crane, will you turn to
`paragraph 48 of your declaration, please. The first sentence there
`says, “The ’580 Patent explains that the arithmetic processing
`unit of the server allocates rewards to respective boxes . . . This
`mechanic is different from conventional social games . . . .”
`What are you referring to when you say “this mechanic”?
` [by GREE’s Expert]: I’m referring to the way in which the
`’580 Patent allocates rewards to what they call reward boxes.
`Q: And . . . you’ve used that term, in your declaration in various
`places, “game mechanic,” so is the allocation of rewards to a
`reward box a game mechanic?
`A: Game mechanic is a term of the art in the video games
`referring to the way in which the player interacts with a game.
`Q: Can anything else be a game mechanic? [Objection by
`GREE’s Counsel].
`
` A
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00036
`Patent 9,662,580 B2
`
`
`A [by GREE’s Expert]: It’s actually pretty much all inclusive of
`how a game operates, how it operates, and accessed by a game
`player. It covers just about everything. . . .
`Q: Does it include the rules of the game?
`A: It does.
`
`Ex. 1009, 77:20–79:2 (emphasis added).
`That testimony, as well as the ’580 patent’s own description, support
`that the steps of simply displaying a reward for players to know what they
`will get if they win the match, and then giving the displayed reward to the
`player upon winning the match, are nothing more than basic rules or
`instructions for playing a game. See Smith, 815 F.3d at 818–819;
`Guldenaar, 911 F.3d at 1160–61; see also Planet Bingo LLC v. VKGS LLC,
`576 F. App’x 1005, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The district court correctly
`concluded that managing the game of bingo consists solely of mental steps
`which can be carried out by a human using pen and paper.”) (quotation
`omitted). That being the case, we determine that the independent claims
`here recite the abstract idea of one of certain methods of organizing human
`activity (i.e., following the rules or instructions for playing a video game).10
`In reaching this determination, we have considered GREE’s
`arguments that Guldenaar and Smith are distinguishable, but remain
`persuaded Supercell is correct. See PO Sur-Reply 8. For instance, GREE
`attempts to distinguish Smith and Guldenaar by arguing that the claims in
`
`
`10 Our determination is consistent with the Office Guidance’s identification
`of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between
`people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or
`instructions)” among the types of “certain methods of organizing human
`activity” that are abstract ideas. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.13 (citing Smith).
`
`15
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00036
`Patent 9,662,580 B2
`
`those cases are drawn to “a wagering game—a fundamental economic
`practice.” PO Sur-Reply 8. But to the extent GREE relies on the claimed
`“wager” in Smith and Guldenaar as being monetary in nature, nothing
`precludes the claimed “reward” here from being monetary or otherwise.
`Moreover, similar to the “resolving the wagers” based on winning a hand of
`cards in Smith or the “paying a payout amount” based on winning a roll of
`dice in Guldenaar, the claimed “providing the reward” here depends on
`winning a match of game characters. They all recite rules for winning a
`game—if you meet this condition of gameplay, then you win this reward.
`As such, we are not persuaded that the claims found to be abstract in Smith
`and Guldenaar are meaningfully distinguishable from the claims here. Like
`the claims in those cases, the claims here recite an abstract idea because they
`amount to rules or instructions for playing a game—display a reward in a
`box for a group of players to see before the match begins, determine if any
`player meets a reward-providing condition (such as winning the match), and
`then give the reward to the player who wins the match.
`
`2. Whether the Claims Integrate the Abstract Idea Into a Practical
`Application
`Having determined that the claims recite an abstract idea, we now
`decide whether any “additional features” of the claims integrate the abstract
`idea into a “practical application.” Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77–78, 84–85 (quoting
`Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71 (1972)). Additional features may
`give rise to a practical application if they reflect a “specific improvement to
`the way computers operate” or otherwise apply the abstract idea in a
`meaningful way beyond invoking a computer “merely as a tool.” Enfish,
`LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`16
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00036
`Patent 9,662,580 B2
`
`
`Here, GREE contends that additional features transforming the claims
`into a practical application include the “storing” and “processor” steps
`because they “establish[] reward distribution specific to individual players
`and battles.” PO Sur-Reply 10–11 (citing Ex. 1002, 71; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 45–49);
`see also PO Resp. 24–27. According to GREE, “[t]he ’580 patent improved
`the way that data objects associated with a multiplayer online battle game
`were stored in computer memory by providing flexibility regarding rewards
`that other multiplayer online battle games did not provide.” PO Resp. 24
`(citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 31, 45) (emphasis added). That increased flexibility in
`allocating rewards, GREE contends, is achieved “in part, by using a control
`method to perform computation on data structures stored in an information
`storage unit.” Id. at 25. In support of these assertions, GREE analogizes the
`’580 patent to the claims found not to be abstract in Core Wireless Licensing
`S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and Data Engine
`Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`We disagree that the storing and processing limitations represent a
`technological improvement in computer capability or a meaningful
`application of the abstract idea beyond generic computer hardware. See
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir.
`2017) (“[I]neligible claims generally lack steps or limitations specific to [a]
`solution of a problem, or improvement in the functioning of technology.”);
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (“The patent in this case is not directed to the solution of a
`‘technological problem’ . . . nor is it directed to an improvement in computer
`or network functionality. Instead, it claims the general concept of out-of-
`region delivery of broadcast content through the use of conventional devices,
`
`17
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00036
`Patent 9,662,580 B2
`
`without offering any technological means of effecting that concept.”). If
`anything, the Core Wireless and Data Engine cases relied on by GREE
`highlight the abstract nature of the claims of the ’580 patent.
`For instance, in Core Wireless, the claims recited an improved user
`interface for small-screen computing devices. Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at
`1362. As held by the Federal Circuit, the claimed invention improved the
`“efficient functioning of a computer” by increasing the speed at which a user
`could navigate through images on a display screen by reciting specific
`implementation details of the GUI including specific graphical
`characteristics, a limited set of displayed data, and specific requirements for
`the state of the device applications. Id. at 1359. Likewise, in Data Engine,
`the Federal Circuit found the claims not abstract because they recited a
`specific, user interface solution to known problems with computerized
`spreadsheets, in particular, “a specific structure (i.e., notebook tabs) within a
`particular spreadsheet display that performs a specific function (i.e.,
`navigating within a three-dimensional spreadsheet).” Data Engine, 906 F.3d
`at 1010–11.
`In contrast, the claims here are not directed to specific implementation
`details of user interface technology despite their recitation of “displaying”
`steps. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363,
`1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that, rather than reciting “the ‘interactive
`interface’ is a specific application of the abstract idea, . . . the interactive
`interface limitation is a generic computer element.”); Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d
`at 1261 (holding that “graphical user interface [] used to display a menu of
`options to the user” was “conventional” and “used in conventional ways”).
`Nor are the claims directed to specific implementation details of any
`
`18
`
`
`
`PGR2018-00036
`Patent 9,662,580 B2
`
`computer functionality. Although the ’580 patent purports to improve the
`“unexpectedness, dramatic impact, and taste” of the game, the claims are
`devoid of any specific means or technological detail for achieving that
`desired result. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:35–53. Instead, the claims merely
`employ result-oriented functional language, in which the recited functions
`are executed on general purpose computer components such as “a memory,”
`“an arithmetic processor,” and “terminal devices.”
`More specifically, the claimed “storing” step, which GREE argues is a
`technological improvement, recites nothing more than “a memory for storing
`information” that includes “groups to which [] players belong,” “a reward
`providing condition,” “rewards,” and a “reward box” for each group. Id. at
`11:14–24. And the “arithmetic processor
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
