Patent No. 9,770,659 —Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Filed on behalf of Supercell Oy
`
`By:
`JENNIFER R. BUSH, Reg. No 50,784
`MICHAEL J. SACKSTEDER
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone: 650.988.8500
`Facsimile: 650.938.5200
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Post Grant Review No. ___________________
`Patent 9,770,659
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT 9,770,659
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 CFR § 42.8(A)(1)) ....................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(1)) ...................................... 1
`
`Notice of Related Matters (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(2)) ................................ 1
`
`Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel
`(37 CFR § 42.8(b)(3)) .......................................................................... 2
`
`D.
`
`Service of Information (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(4)) ..................................... 2
`
`III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Timing .................................................................................................. 2
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 CFR § 42.204(a)) ....................................... 3
`
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ’659 PATENT ....................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`Specification ......................................................................................... 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Functionality ................................................................................ 3
`
`System Description ...................................................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................ 10
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER
`37 CFR § 42.204(B) AND RELIEF REQUESTED ..................................... 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Effective Filing Date of the Challenged Claims ................................ 12
`
`Claims for Which PGR Is Requested, Precise Relief
`Requested, and Specific Statutory Grounds on Which the
`Challenge Is Based [37 CFR § 42.204(b)(1) &
`37 CFR § 42.204(b)(2)] ...................................................................... 12
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction (37 CFR § 42.204(b)(3)) .................................... 13
`
`1. The Claimed Invention ............................................................... 13
`
`Page
`
`VI.
`
`IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT AT LEAST ONE
`OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’659 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE ....................................................................................... 16
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1-15 of the ’659 Patent Are Invalid Under
`35 U.S.C. § 101 for Failing to Be Directed Toward
`Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ........................................................... 16
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standard .................................................................................... 17
`
`1.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 Bars Claims that Recite Abstract
`Ideas and Lack an Inventive Concept. ....................................... 17
`
`C.
`
`Section 101 Was Not Addressed During Prosecution. ...................... 22
`
`D. Alice Step 1: The ’659 Patent Claims the Abstract Idea of
`Controlling a Video Game Display Based on a Received
`Selection of Panel Information. .......................................................... 24
`
`E.
`
`Alice Step 2: Claims 1-15 of the ’659 Patent Do Not
`Disclose An “Inventive Concept” Sufficient to Transform
`Their Ineligible Abstract Idea into a Patent-Eligible Invention. ........ 29
`
`1. The independent claims fail to disclose an “inventive
`concept” because the purported improvement over
`prior art is not captured in the claim language. .......................... 29
`
`2. The claim limitations, individually and as an ordered
`combination, are well-understood, routine, and
`conventional. .............................................................................. 31
`
`F.
`
`The Dependent Claims Add Nothing Inventive ................................. 36
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`G.
`
`Page
`
`Claims 1-15 of the ’659 Patent Are Invalid Under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for Lack of Written Description .......................... 38
`
`1. Claims 1-15 of the ’659 patent are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because the specification of the
`’659 patent fails to provide adequate written
`description of receiving a panel selection from the
`first user, disposing panels on the basis of the received
`panel selection, and receiving an instruction regarding
`|panel disposition. ....................................................................... 40
`
`2. Claims 1-15 of the ’659 patent are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of written description
`because the specification of the ’659 patent fails to provide
`adequate written description of a target division for
`disposing of a selected panel, the panel being allowed
`to be disposed in the target division, and the character
`displayed as an animation when disposed in the target
`division. ...................................................................................... 43
`
`H.
`
`Claims 1-15 of the ’659 Patent Are Invalid Under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as Indefinite ........................................................ 47
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 52
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................passim
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .................................................................................passim
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 32, 33
`
`Atl. Research Mtg. Says. v. Troy,
`659 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 38
`
`BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 19, 22
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`Appeal 2017-1437, 2018 WL 774096 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018) ..................passim
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ...................................................................................... 35, 38
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 14, 20
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 26, 28
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................passim
`
`GREE, Inc. v. Supercell K.K.,
`Case 2017 (Yo) No. 22165 ................................................................................... 2
`
`In re Anderson,
`1997 U.S. App. Lexis 167 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 6, 1997) ............................................ 48
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`In re Cohn,
`438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971) ........................................................ 48
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`In re Collier,
`397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968) .................................................... 49
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015), affirmed, Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .................................................................... 13
`
`In re Hammack,
`427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970) .................................................... 48
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 39
`
`In re Mayhew,
`527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976) .................................................... 49
`
`In re Moore,
`439 F.2d 1232 (CCPA 1971) .............................................................................. 47
`
`In re Packard,
`751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................passim
`
`In re Paulsen,
`30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 13
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................passim
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 13
`
`In re Venezia,
`530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976) ...................................................... 49
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank,
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 35
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 18, 26, 28
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 39
`
`Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`66 F. Supp. 3d 829 (E.D. Tex. 2014) .................................................................. 17
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ........................................................................................ 18
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................passim
`
`Mortg. Grader v. First Choice Loan Services,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 32
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`2017 WL 786431 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2017) ......................................................... 34
`
`Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC,
`PGR2015-00018, Paper 75 (PTAB Dec. 30, 2016) ............................................ 47
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commnc’n,
`LLC, 874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................... 24, 25
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .......................................................................... 39
`
`Vehicle Intelligence & Safety, LLC v Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`635 Fed. App’x. 914 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................ 32
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 13
`
`Wang Labs. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`993 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................ 39
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................. 11, 43
`
`35 USC §112(a) ................................................................................................passim
`
`35 USC §112(b) ................................................................................................passim
`
`35 USC §§ 311-319.............................................................................................. 1, 52
`
`Rule 42.204(a) ............................................................................................................ 3
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 13
`
`37 CFR §§ 42.200 et seq. ..................................................................................... 1, 52
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 CFR § 42.63(e))
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,770,659 to Atobe
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,770,659
`
`USPTO Memorandum on Recent Subject Matter Eligibility
`Decisions, dated May 19, 2016
`
`USPTO Memorandum on Recent Subject Matter Eligibility
`Decisions, dated November 2, 2016
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent 9,457,273
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application Serial No.
`15/686,268
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,636,583
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th Ed. (1999).
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In accordance with 35 USC §§ 311-319 and 37 CFR §§ 42.200 et seq.,
`
`I.
`
`Petitioner requests Post Grant Review of claims 1-15 of United States Patent
`
`No. 9,770,659 to Atobe, titled “Storage Medium Storing Game Program, Game
`
`Processing Method, And Information Processing Apparatus” (the “’659 patent”;
`
`“Ex. 1001”), owned by GREE, Inc. (“GREE” or “Patent Owner”). This Petition
`
`demonstrates that Petitioner is more likely than not to prevail in invalidating at
`
`least one of the challenged claims. The challenged claims of the ’659 patent
`
`should be canceled as unpatentable.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 CFR § 42.8(a)(1))
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(1))
`The sole real party-in-interest for this Petition is the Supercell Oy, Petitioner.
`
`Due to the related matter listed below having been filed against Supercell K.K.,
`
`Petitioner hereby discloses this related entity information out of an abundance of
`
`caution. Supercell K.K. is a fully-owned subsidiary of Supercell Oy, but does not
`
`exercise control over this PGR proceeding.
`
`B. Notice of Related Matters (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(2))
`The ’659 patent is a continuation of U.S. Ser. No. 15/253,964, which is a
`
`continuation of 14/291,358, that claims the benefit of Japanese Patent Application
`
`No. 2013-116039 filed on May 31, 2013, which published as JP 6,125,128.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`JP 6,125,128 is asserted by GREE against Supercell Oy and Supercell K.K. in the
`
`following patent infringement lawsuit: GREE, Inc. v. Supercell K.K., Case 2017
`
`(Yo) No. 22165 Petition for Provisional Disposition before Civil Department 29 of
`
`the Tokyo District Court. The ’659 patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent
`
`9,636,583, which is the subject of a Post Grant Review petition filed by Petitioner
`
`on February 1, 2018, assigned Post Grant Review No. PGR2018-00029.
`
`C. Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(3))
`Petitioner designates Jennifer R. Bush (Reg. No. 50,784) as lead counsel and
`
`Michael J. Sacksteder as back-up counsel.
`
`D. Service of Information (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(4))
`Service of any documents via hand-delivery may be made at the postal
`
`mailing address of Fenwick & West LLP, 801 California Street, Mountain View,
`
`CA 94041 (Tel: (650) 988-8500 and Fax: (650) 988-5200), with courtesy copies to
`
`the email address JBush-PTAB@fenwick.com. Petitioner consents to electronic
`
`service to JBush-PTAB@fenwick.com.
`
`III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
`A. Timing
`The ’659 patent was issued on September 26, 2017, and the present petition
`
`is being filed on or before the date that is nine months after the date of the grant of
`
`the patent, or June 26, 2018. See Ex. 1001.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`B. Grounds for Standing (37 CFR § 42.204(a))
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.204(a) that the ’659 patent is
`
`available for Post Grant Review (“PGR”) and that Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting a Post Grant Review challenging the validity of the
`
`above-referenced claims of the ’659 patent on the grounds identified in the
`
`Petition.
`
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ’659 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Specification
`1.
`The ’659 patent is directed to the idea of controlling a video game display
`
`Functionality
`
`based on a received selection of panel information. The specification describes a
`
`game program, a game processing method, and an information processing
`
`apparatus that controls a game in which two characters battle against one another.
`
`Each describes the same series of generalized steps: a data storage step, a panel
`
`selection step, a panel layout step, a screen display control step, and an emphasized
`
`display step.1 Ex. 1001, 6:20-43. These steps, shown in Figure 1 below, purport to
`
`provide a user of the battle video game with “a high visual effect” by displaying a
`
`
`1 The data storage steps and emphasized display step are referenced
`throughout the specification as a part of the claimed method, but are not recited in
`any of the independent claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:30-34; 2:52-56; 2:66-3:2;
`4:13-16; 6:15-19; 6:20-24, 6:37-41; 6:42-66; FIG. 1; FIG. 2.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`video game based on information in panels possessed by the characters. See
`
`Ex 1001, 1:47-50.
`
`
`
`In the game as described in the ’659 specification, each of the two characters
`
`possesses “panels.” These panels are stored as part of a “panel database.” Storage
`
`of the panel database is accomplished by the “storage function” shown in Step 110.
`
`See Ex. 1001, 5:35-40 (FIG. 1 flowchart description of storage step 110).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`The panels possessed by the characters are then “selected” in order to be
`
`disposed in the “frames” 2 of the game display screen. The selection of the panels
`
`is accomplished by the “selection function.” Ex. 1001, 5:41-48 (FIG. 1 flowchart
`
`description of storage step 120); see also Ex. 1001, 6:25-29, 6:58-63 (describing
`
`panel selection step as performed by the panel selection section).
`
`There is no mention of the user selecting the panels, nor the panel selection
`
`function receiving the panel selection. Indeed, the term “receiving” in conjunction
`
`with a user panel selection is never used in the specification.
`
`After being selected, the panels are “disposed” in the frames of the display
`
`screen. This is referred to in the specification as the “panel layout step.” The
`
`specification describes, as illustrated in Figure 3 below, the game display screen
`
`being divided into distinct “frames” where the panels are disposed. Ex. 1001,
`
`
`2 The term “frames” is used throughout the specification to refer to regions
`of the display screen where the panels are placed or disposed, but it is not recited in
`the independent claims of the ’659 patent. See, e.g. Ex. 1001, 2:11-14 (“a panel
`selection function of selecting panels to be disposed in frames of a game display
`screen including a display region formed by one or more frames, from the first and
`second panel databases”). Instead, the term “divisions” is used in the independent
`claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 10:31-50, 11:36-12:13. Dependent claims 2, 4, and 5
`recite a “division” execution function, dependent claim 10 recites that the
`“divisions” have a text portion, dependent claim 11 recites that the “divisions”
`have “frame portions,” and dependent claim 12 recites that configuration of the
`“divisions” is changed as the game progresses See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 10:51-54,
`10:58-67, 11:14-18, 11:19-25, 11:26-28.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`7:27-29; 7:37-44 (FIG. 3 description). The panels are described as being “disposed
`
`by the panel layout section, in predetermined order.” Ex. 1001, 2:1-2, 64, 3:32.
`
`
`In Figure 3 the display screen represents the “battle display region” 310
`
`where the characters battle one another. The battle display region is divided into
`
`frames A through G, into which the panels are to be disposed. Ex. 1001, 7:37-41;
`
`see also 6:30-32.
`
`After the panels are disposed in the frames, the game display screen is
`
`displayed on a screen display unit via a screen display control step. This step (140)
`
`is performed by the screen display control section. See Ex. 1001, 6:33-36. The
`
`screen display control section 221 displays a game display screen. See Ex. 1001,
`
`6:55-58.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Finally, using the emphasized display function, the panel that was disposed
`
`by the panel layout function in a frame is emphasized and displayed on the screen
`
`display unit according to information indicating characteristics of the panel.
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:37-41.
`
`The specification states that enhanced visual effect can be accomplished by
`
`executing these generalized steps. In a preferred embodiment, the emphasized
`
`display step executes the frames in a predetermined order and emphasizes the
`
`panels disposed in the executed frames. Ex. 1001, 6:63-66. In this embodiment,
`
`described with reference to Figure 3 above, the battle between the two players
`
`proceeds by executing the frames A through G, one after another, in alphabetical
`
`order. Ex. 1001, 7:45-49. The purported effect of executing the frames in a
`
`sequence is that the battle between the first and second characters will proceed
`
`“like a cartoon.” Ex. 1001, 7:50-55.
`
`Another enhanced effect purportedly achieved by executing these
`
`generalized steps is that the frames in which the panels are disposed are able to
`
`display text and produce sound effects. Ex. 1001, 8:55-64. According to the
`
`specification, “Preferably, these panels display a movie when the panels are
`
`emphasized and displayed. The movie is an animation that displays a plurality of
`
`still images consecutively.” Ex. 1001, 8:46-48. Figure 6 is an exemplary panel of
`
`frame F shown in Figure 3. Ex. 1001, 8:49-50.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`The specification notes that the frame in which the panel was disposed
`
`preferably has “a sound effect display portion,” shown as 20 in Figure 6, which can
`
`cause text associated with the panel to be displayed, a sound effect to occur or
`
`cause the processing apparatus to vibrate in conjunction with the sound effect.
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:55-64 (FIG. 6 description). Further preferred methods of achieving
`
`enhanced visual effect is moving the panel disposed of in the frame to the middle
`
`of the game display screen, and having the frames on the display screen be
`
`constructed in different colors associated with each player. Ex. 1001, 8:65-9:10.
`
`2.
`
` System Description
`
`No particular program, algorithm, or method is disclosed for accomplishing
`
`these effects. The specification states only that the frames will have a “portion”
`
`capable of producing the desired effect. Ex. 1001, 8:55-64.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`The specification expressly notes that the information processing apparatus
`
`that controls the claimed method is not limited in any meaningful way. It states
`
`that the information processing apparatus 200 shown in Figure 2 above, “can be a
`
`server apparatus or a user terminal such as a mobile phone or a smart phone, … [it]
`
`can also be configured to include a user terminal and a server apparatus.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:18-22. The same is true for the recording media storing the game
`
`program. The “[r]ecording media is not particularly limited” beyond the
`
`requirement that it can be read by a computer, such as a CD-ROM and/or a DVD.
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:10-12.
`
`Similarly, as shown below in Figure 2, the components of the apparatus are
`
`described in purely functional terms.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Figure 2 depicts “a block diagram showing an example of an information
`
`processing apparatus.” Ex. 1001, 6:45-46. The specification is devoid of technical
`
`explanation as to how the apparatus stores the data or executes the described
`
`functions. Instead, the specification describes the components of the apparatus as
`
`purely functional black boxes. Ex. 1001, 6:45-7:3. The data storage unit 210 is
`
`described merely as performing the function of storing panel databases. Ex. 1001,
`
`6:51-54. The control unit, which performs the panel selection step, panel layout
`
`step, screen display step, and emphasized display step, is described solely as
`
`containing its functionally described components: a screen display control section
`
`that “displays a game display screen”; a panel selection section that “selects panels
`
`to be disposed in the frames of the battle display region”; a panel layout section
`
`that “disposes the panels selected by the panel selection section in the frames”; and
`
`an emphasized display section that “emphasizes and displays the panels.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:55-66.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The ’659 patent was filed on December 27, 2016 as Application Serial
`
`No. 15/391,123 (“the ’123 application”), and is a continuation of U.S. Application
`
`Serial No. 15/253,964, filed on September 1, 2016, now issued as U.S. Patent
`
`9,636,583, which is a continuation of U.S. Application Serial No. 14/291,358, filed
`
`on May 30, 2014, now issued as U.S. Patent 9,457,273. The ’123 application was
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`prosecuted in art unit 3716. See Prosecution History of U.S. Patent 9,770,659
`
`(“Ex. 1002”), p. 94.
`
`The ’123 application was originally filed with claims 1-16. See Ex. 1002,
`
`pp. 279-83.
`
`On March 6, 2017, a non-final office action was issued in the ’123
`
`application, rejecting claims 1-15 under the judicially created doctrine of
`
`obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of
`
`U.S. Application Serial No. 15/253,964. See Ex. 1002, pp. 94-98.
`
`In an amendment dated April 27, 2017, claim 10 was cancelled, and other
`
`claim amendments were made, including adding the final limitation of claims 1,
`
`15, and 16. See Ex. 1002, pp. 81-87. Claims 15 and 16 were later renumbered as
`
`claimed 14 and 15.
`
`The ’123 application was allowed on May 26, 2017. See Ex. 1002, pp. 64-
`
`71.
`
`No other rejections were raised. Specifically, no rejections were made under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 or § 112 during prosecution of the ’123 application. See generally
`
`Ex. 1002.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`V.
`
`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.204(b)
`AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Effective Filing Date of the Challenged Claims
`The ’659 patent issued from Application Serial No. 15/391,123 (“the ’123
`
`application”), filed on December 27, 2016. The ’123 application is a continuation
`
`of Application Serial No. 15/253,964 (“the ’964 application”), filed on September
`
`1, 2016, now issued as U.S. Patent 9,636,583. The ’964 application is a
`
`continuation of Application Serial No. 14/291,358 (“the ’358 application”), filed
`
`on May 30, 2014, now issued as U.S. Patent 9,457,273. The ’358 application
`
`claims the benefit of JP 2013-116039, filed on May 31, 2013, JP 2013-268385,
`
`filed on Dec. 26, 2013, and JP 2014-42491, filed on Mar. 5, 2014. Thus, the
`
`effective filing date of the challenged claims is no earlier than May 31, 2013. The
`
`’659 patent is subject to the post-AIA provisions of the Patent Statute; all statutory
`
`references in this Petition are to the applicable post-AIA provision.
`
`B. Claims for Which PGR Is Requested, Precise Relief Requested,
`and Specific Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge Is Based
`[37 CFR § 42.204(b)(1) & 37 CFR § 42.204(b)(2)]
`
`Petitioner requests Post Grant Review of claims 1-15 of the ’659 patent.
`
`Claims 1-15 are challenged on the grounds that they relate to unpatentable subject
`
`matter under 35 USC §101, that they do not provide adequate written description
`
`under 35 USC §112(a), and are indefinite under 35 USC §112(b).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`C. Claim Construction (37 CFR § 42.204(b)(3))
`The terms in the challenged claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation (“BRI”), as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and
`
`consistent with the disclosure. See 37 CFR § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1276-77 (Fed. Cir. 2015), affirmed, Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016). Under that standard, claim
`
`terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special
`
`definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable
`
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994). Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the
`
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
`
`Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`The Claimed Invention
`
`1.
`The ’659 patent contains 15 claims. Claims 1, 14, and 15 are independent.
`
`Each is directed to the same abstract concept of controlling the display of a video
`
`game based on a received selection of panel information. Claim 1 is a directed to a
`
`game program, claim 14 is a method claim for a game, and claim 15 is directed to
`
`an apparatus for controlling a game. All three independent claims provide for the
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,659 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`same steps, which are nothing more than commands to be executed by a computer
`
`to control a video game. Claim 1 is representative3 and reproduced below:
`
`1. A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing
`game program code instructions for a game in which a first user and a
`second user do battle, and when the game program code instructions are
`executed by a computer, the game program code instructions cause the
`computer to perform:
`a panel selection function of receiving a selection by the first user, the
`selection being for one or more panels indicating characters to be
`disposed in one or more divisions of a game display screen including
`a display region formed by the divisions;
`a panel layout function of disposing the panels in the divisions on the basis
`of the selection received by the panel selection function; and
`a screen display control function of controlling the game display screen on
`a screen display unit on the basis of information regarding the layout
`by the panel layout function and layout of the panel in the divisions by
`the second user, wherein
`the panel layout function disposes the panel received by the panel selection
`function in a target division or receives an instruction that the panel is
`disposed in the target division, when the panel is allowed to be
`disposed in the target division, and
`
`3 In Alice, the Supreme Court considered a representative method claim and,
`after finding the method claim ineligible, found the asserted system claims invalid
`as “add[ing] nothing of substance to the underlying [] idea” without performing a
`claim-by-claim analysis. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct.
`2347, 2360 (2014). Following Alice, district courts and the Federal Circuit have
`done the same. In Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`N.A., the district court found 242 claims of four patents ineligible under Section
`101 based on its analysis of two representative claims, even where the