Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`Entered: September 26, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`
`
`Case PGR2018-00050
`Patent 9,675,886 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a)
`
`GREE, Inc. (“GREE”) is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,675,886 B2
`(“the ’886 patent”). Supercell Oy (“Supercell”) filed a Petition for post-
`grant review of claims 1–10 of the ’886 patent. Paper 1 (“Pet.”). After a
`preliminary review of Supercell’s Petition, we instituted post-grant review of
`all the challenged claims. Paper 8 (“Inst. Dec.”). GREE, in turn, opposed
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00050
`Patent 9,675,886 B2
`
`the Petition. Paper 11 (“PO Resp.”). Supercell replied. Paper 20 (“Reply”).
`And GREE filed a sur-reply. Paper 22 (“Sur-Reply”). In addition, as part of
`its response to the Petition, GREE filed a contingent motion to amend (Paper
`12), which Supercell opposed (Paper 21). An oral hearing was conducted on
`June 26, 2019. Paper 29 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. After considering the
`parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we determine that Supercell has
`not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–10 of the ’886
`patent are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e). As such, we need not reach
`GREE’s contingent motion to amend. We issue this Final Written Decision
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a).
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. The ’886 Patent’s Advancement Over Conventional Online Games
`The ’886 patent, titled “Method, Computer, and Program for
`Providing Game,” issued June 13, 2017, and claims priority to a foreign
`application filed January 28, 2014.1 Ex. 1001, codes [30], [45], [54]. The
`’886 patent begins by describing a conventional online game system in
`which a “server apparatus” communicates with a “user terminal,” such as a
`smartphone, to transmit game content for display on the user terminal. Id. at
`1:19–45. But, according to the ’886 patent, when the game content includes
`multiple rounds of play, conventional online games suffer from inefficient
`
`
`1 The ’886 patent is eligible for post-grant review because Supercell filed its
`Petition within nine months from the ’886 patent’s issue date, and the
`earliest possible priority date of the ’886 patent is after March 16, 2013 (the
`effective date for the first inventor to file provisions of the Leahy-Smith
`America Invents Act). See 35 U.S.C. § 321. GREE does not contest the
`eligibility of the ’886 patent for post-grant review.
`
`2
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00050
`Patent 9,675,886 B2
`
`transmission of game data. For instance, conventional online games that
`transmit game view data for all rounds at once incur long transmission and
`wait times before the user can commence gameplay (id. at 1:46–49, 10:15–
`24), while online games that transmit game view data for one round at a time
`disrupt smooth progress of gameplay due to wait times required to download
`the next round once a round is completed (id. at 1:52–54, 10:26–29).
`Transmitting round-based online games in this way results in inefficiency
`because the user’s wait time is increased either initially (where an entire set
`of rounds is transmitted at once) or between rounds (where only one round is
`transmitted at a time). Id.
`To address this problem, the ’886 patent provides “a method, a
`computer, and a program for efficiently providing game content through a
`web application.” Id. at 1:58–60. To do this, a “management server” is
`provided with a “controller” that determines a “predetermined number” of
`rounds for transmission to the user terminal. Id. at 1:60–2:5, 3:66–4:11,
`Fig. 1. The management server is connected to user terminals through a
`network such as the Internet. Id. at 4:1–3. As described, the predetermined
`number of rounds is a “subtotal” of the total number of rounds in the game.
`Id. at 2:31–42. In determining the predetermined number of rounds for
`transmission to the user terminal, the controller identifies a “terminal
`attribute” of the user terminal and sets the predetermined number of rounds
`based on the identified terminal attribute. Id. at 3:6–11, 11:6–44. For
`example, the identified terminal attribute may be “an information processing
`speed or a communication speed” of the user terminal, such that where the
`speed “is high, the number of rounds is set to be large.” Id. at 11:20–23.
`With this configuration—by transmitting a predetermined number of rounds
`
`3
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00050
`Patent 9,675,886 B2
`
`rather than an entire set of rounds at a time or a single round at a time—
`transmission and wait times for gameplay are reduced, which “allows the
`game to efficiently progress.” Id. at 2:40–42.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. The Challenged Claims
`Of the challenged claims, three are independent—claims 1, 9, and 10.
`The three independent claims essentially differ only as to the preamble, with
`claim 1 reciting a “method,” claim 9 reciting a “computer,” and claim 10
`reciting a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with a
`program stored therein for executing a method.” Common across the claims
`are the following steps for execution by “a controller”:
`(1) transmitting “game view data . . . corresponding to a
`first subset of rounds including a predetermined number of
`rounds,”
`(2) “identifying a terminal attribute of the user terminal,”
`
`(3) “determining the predetermined number based on the
`terminal attribute,” and
`(4) “detecting that the first subset of the rounds is
`completed [and] collectively transmitting, to the user terminal,
`game view data corresponding to a second subset of rounds
`including the predetermined number of rounds.”
`See Ex. 1001, claims 1, 9, 10.
`
`Given the identity of the limitations of the independent claims, we
`view claim 1 as representative.2 Claim 1 recites:
`1. A method comprising:
`by a controller, collectively transmitting game view data
`of a game involving multiple opponents and having a set of a
`
`2 The parties do not argue claims 1, 9, and 10 separately, but rather apply the
`same argument across all three independent claims. See Pet. 33–53; PO
`Resp. 7–38.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00050
`Patent 9,675,886 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`plurality of rounds to a user terminal, the game view data
`corresponding to a first subset of rounds including a
`predetermined number of rounds in the plurality of rounds;
`identifying a terminal attribute of the user terminal;
`determining the predetermined number based on the
`terminal attribute; and
`responsive to detecting that the first subset of the rounds
`is completed, collectively transmitting, to the user terminal,
`game view data corresponding to a second subset of rounds
`including the predetermined number of rounds subsequent to the
`completed rounds.
`Ex. 1001, 13:58–14:5 (emphases added).
`
`
`
`
`
`C. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Supercell asserts that claims 1–10 of the ’886 patent are unpatentable,
`first, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`(Pet. 26–54), second, as failing to comply with the written description
`requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (id. at 54–61), and, third, as being
`indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (id. at 62–66).
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`Neither Supercell nor GREE proposes a construction for any
`particular claim term. See Pet. 20–26; PO Resp. 6. We determine that no
`express construction of the claim terms is necessary for purposes of this
`decision, with one exception. We note that the Specification of the ’886
`patent describes the claimed “terminal attribute” as follows: “Examples of
`the attribute information may include the OS version, the browser type, the
`terminal type, the communication circumstance, and the like.” Ex. 1001,
`11:33–35. In that regard, the Specification also explains a communication
`
`5
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00050
`Patent 9,675,886 B2
`
`circumstance as follows: “For example, in a case where an information
`processing speed or a communication speed in the user terminal . . . is high,
`the number of rounds is set to be large.” Id. at 11:20–23. As such, we
`determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “terminal attribute”
`encompasses at least the examples listed in the Specification and should be
`read accordingly.3
`
`B. Supercell’s Challenge Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`Supercell asserts that claims 1–10 of the ’886 patent do not recite
`patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Pet. 26–53; Reply
`1–18. GREE disagrees. See PO Resp. 7–38; Sur-Reply 1–13. Section 101
`of the patent statute defines patent-eligible subject matter as “any new and
`useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
`and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of nature, natural
`phenomenon, and abstract ideas, however, are not patentable. 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, Supercell relies on the judicial exception of abstract ideas
`to argue that the challenged claims are ineligible for patenting. Pet. 33–42;
`Reply 1–11.
`In evaluating whether the challenged claims are “directed to” a patent-
`ineligible abstract idea, we are guided by the framework set forth in Alice
`and Mayo. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–227 (citing and quoting Mayo
`
`3 While not dispositive, we note that GREE’s expert testified extensively,
`not to mention persuasively, as to how a skilled artisan would have
`understood “terminal attribute” in light of the Specification. Ex. 1007,
`36:17–43:5, 44:20–45:22. Supercell offered no rebuttal testimony.
`
`6
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00050
`Patent 9,675,886 B2
`
`throughout).4 Under the Alice/Mayo framework, we consider first whether
`the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea and not a technological
`improvement in computer functionality that transforms the claim into a
`practical application of the idea.5 Alice, 573 U.S. at 221–224 (discussing
`Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), in which patent claims were held
`“patent eligible because they improved an existing technological process,
`not because they were implemented on a computer”). As a final safeguard,
`we consider whether any claim elements, either individually or in
`combination, amount to an “inventive concept,” in other words, something
`“significantly more” than “well-understood, routine, conventional activities
`previously known to the industry.”6 Alice, 573 U.S. at 221–222, 225
`(internal quotations, brackets, and citations omitted).
`
`Here, we resolve the patent eligibility issue at the first step of the
`Alice/Mayo framework and conclude that the claims are not directed to an
`abstract idea. Supercell asserts that the challenged claims are directed to an
`abstract idea because they recite a “method of organizing human activity,”
`
`
`4 We are also guided by Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
`Eligibility Guidance (“Office Guidance”), which outlines the Alice/Mayo
`framework in terms of a three-part inquiry. 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53–56 (Jan. 7,
`2019) (describing “Step2A” as including “Prong One” and “Prong Two,”
`followed by “Step 2B”).
`5 This step of the Alice/Mayo framework is recounted in the Office Guidance
`as “Revised Step 2A . . . Prong One: Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a
`Judicial Exception . . . [and] 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.
`6 This step 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.
`
`7
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00050
`Patent 9,675,886 B2
`
`which Supercell characterizes as “determining a number of rounds to be
`played in a game — in a video game environment using general-purpose
`computers.” Pet. 26; see also id. at 39 (“concept of identifying . . . a
`terminal attribute and determining the predetermined number [of rounds]
`based on that attribute, is no different than other methods of organizing
`human activity that have previously been found unpatentable”). In support
`of its argument that the claims are drawn to a method of organizing human
`activity rather than a technological improvement in the functionality of an
`online game system, Supercell characterizes the claims as “reciting only a
`series of result-oriented functions, rather than a means of achieving those
`results.” Reply 5 (citing Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns,
`LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017)); see also id. at 3 (“Claim 1 fails
`step one of Alice because it recites no detailed rules or steps to explain how
`the claimed functions are performed.”).
`GREE responds that, rather than being directed to an abstract idea,
`“the claims . . . are directed to a specific manner of transmitting video game
`data in a way that results in an improved system for executing the video
`game.” PO Resp. 8. The specific manner of transmission, according to
`GREE, includes the use of “a terminal attribute (e.g., communication speed,
`browser type, terminal type) . . . to set the predetermined number of rounds
`which are transmitted in each subset of rounds” between a management
`server and user terminal. Id. at 15. Controlling the transmission of rounds
`based on a terminal attribute, GREE contends, “improves the efficiency of
`game data transmission for each user terminal having different terminal
`attributes, compared to conventional systems which fail to consider a
`terminal’s attribute when determining how many rounds to transmit at a
`
`8
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00050
`Patent 9,675,886 B2
`
`time.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 3:6–11, 11:8–44; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 29–32); see also
`id. at 22–23 (same).
`We agree with GREE that the claims are drawn to a specific
`technological improvement in the transmission of online game content by
`using a terminal attribute to improve the efficiency and functionality of
`transmitting multiple rounds of an online game to a user terminal, and that
`this improvement is not an abstract idea.7 Although, as Supercell argues, the
`recited function of “transmitting game view data” may be result-oriented
`(see Pet. 33–37; Reply 4–6), the claims nonetheless recite a specific
`technique for achieving that result-oriented function—identifying a terminal
`attribute of the user terminal and determining the predetermined number
`based on the terminal attribute. That particular technique, as made clear by
`the ’886 patent, solves a specific technological problem with conventional
`online game systems—long wait times and interruptions in the transmission
`of multiple rounds of the game. See Ex. 1001, 1:46–54 (describing the
`problem with conventional online game systems).
`So, rather than reciting just result-oriented functions, the clear focus
`of the claims is on improving the capability of how game content is
`transmitted to a user terminal, that is, by identifying and using a particular
`attribute of the user terminal to efficiently control transmission of game
`content that includes a plurality of rounds. See Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP,
`LLC, 772 F. App’x 890, 897 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“It is true that . . . the goal of
`
`
`7 Our finding that the claims are directed to a specific technological
`improvement corresponds to “Prong Two” of the Office Guidance. See 84
`Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00050
`Patent 9,675,886 B2
`
`the claims is functional . . . . But the patent claims a particular improvement
`in how this is done . . . . This is the clear ‘focus’ of the claims . . . .”); see
`also SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 918 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`(claims held not abstract because they were “directed to using a specific
`technique . . . to solve a technological problem arising in computer
`networks.”).
`The Specification of the ’886 patent bolsters our conclusion that the
`claims are directed to a technological solution to a technological problem.8
`At the outset, the Specification explains that, prior to the claimed invention,
`users of conventional online game systems experienced long wait times
`before commencing play in games that transmitted all the rounds at a single
`time and discontinuity of play in games that transmitted one round at a time.
`Ex. 1001, 1:46–54, 10:15–36. According to the Specification, the claimed
`invention avoids those shortfalls by utilizing a controller that “identifies the
`terminal attribute of the user terminal and determines the subtotal round
`count based on the terminal attribute.” Id. at 3:6–11. Importantly, the
`Specification defines the “terminal attribute,” while explaining how it is
`used in execution of the “number of rounds determining process”:
`First, the controller 21 of the management server 20
`performs an identifying process of a terminal attribute of the user
`terminal (Step S4-1). Specifically, the game management
`section 212 of the controller 21 acquires attribute information of
`the user terminal 10 through the browser of the user terminal 10.
`Examples of the attribute information may include the OS
`
`
`8 We recognize that, while “helpful in illuminating what a claim is ‘directed
`to’ . . . the specification must always yield to the claim language” when
`identifying the “true focus of a claim.” Chargepoint, Inc. v. Sema-Connect,
`Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 766 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`10
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00050
`Patent 9,675,886 B2
`
`
`
`
`version, the browser type, the terminal type, the communication
`circumstance, and the like.
`Next, the controller 21 of the management server 20
`performs a specifying process of the predetermined number of
`rounds based on the terminal attribute (Step S4-2). Specifically,
`the game management section 212 of the controller 21
`determines the predetermined number of rounds 40 using the
`terminal attribute table.
`With this configuration, a plurality of pieces of battle view
`data can be collectively transmitted while taking the usability for
`the game user into consideration.
`Id. at 11:6–44 (emphasis added). Those passages support that the claim
`limitations directed to identifying a terminal attribute and using that terminal
`attribute to determine the number of rounds for transmission to the user
`terminal are clearly focused on providing a technological improvement to
`online game technology.
`Moreover, it is undisputed that, during prosecution of the ’886 patent,
`the addition of the limitations of “identifying a terminal attribute” and
`“determining the predetermined number of rounds based on the terminal
`attribute” was central to allowance of the claims. Ex. 1002, 20–21, 34. And
`consistent with the Specification and prosecution history of the ’886 patent,
`GREE’s expert explains that the use of a terminal attribute in determining
`the round count transmitted to the user terminal results in less memory usage
`and processing time, while at the same time optimizing the efficiency and
`functionality of the online game system. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 27–32. We find that
`unrebutted testimony persuasive. Thus, clearly the focus of the claims is on
`the use of the terminal attribute to improve the efficiency and functionality
`of transmitting game content that includes multiple rounds to a user
`terminal. The claims are therefore much like the claims held not to be
`
`11
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00050
`Patent 9,675,886 B2
`
`abstract in Uniloc, which were directed to “use of a file packet to enable the
`further functionality of initiating on-demand registration of the application
`[from an application server].” Uniloc, 772 F. App’x at 897.
`Also, we are unpersuaded by Supercell’s assertions that the claims at
`issue here comport with those held to be an abstract method of organizing
`human activity in In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823
`F.3d 607, 611, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital
`One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and Electric Power Group,
`LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351–52 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See Pet. 39–
`42; Reply 6–7. Each of those cases involved claims that were entirely
`functional in nature and said nothing about how to implement the recited
`functions. Indeed, the claims in Electric Power, which Supercell focuses on
`at length, were drawn to using a computer as a mere tool to collect, organize,
`and display power grid data, rather than improving the efficiency and
`functionality of the computer network itself. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at
`1353–54. As discussed above, that is not the case here.
`The challenged claims are patent eligible because they recite a
`specific means—the identification and use of a terminal attribute to
`determine a round count—to improve the efficiency and functionality of
`transmitting a plurality of rounds to user terminals of online game networks.
`As such, they are more akin to the claims held patent eligible in Data Engine
`Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1008–11 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`(holding claims patent eligible under Alice step one because they recited a
`specific improvement that “provide[d] rapid access to and processing of
`information in different spreadsheets, . . . [thereby] improving computers’
`functionality as a tool able to instantly access all parts of complex three-
`
`12
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00050
`Patent 9,675,886 B2
`
`dimensional electronic spreadsheets”), and Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding
`claims patent eligible under Alice step one because they “improve[] the
`efficiency of using the electronic device by bringing together ‘a limited list
`of common functions and commonly accessed stored data’”). For these
`reasons, we are not persuaded by Supercell’s assertion that the challenged
`claims are abstract as directed to a method of organizing human activity.
`In sum, the claims of the ’886 patent are not directed to an abstract
`idea, but rather are directed to a particular improvement in the efficient
`transmission of online game content to a user terminal. Because the claims
`are not directed to an abstract idea, we need not proceed to the next step of
`the Alice/Mayo framework. See Data Engine, 906 F.3d at 1007, 1011 (citing
`Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1361, 1363). After considering the entire record,
`we determine that Supercell fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 1–10 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`C. Supercell’s Challenge Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)9
`Supercell contends that claims 1–10 are unpatentable because the
`Specification lacks written description support for the claim recitation of
`“determining the predetermined number based on the terminal attribute.”
`Pet. 56–61. According to Supercell, “[t]he specification never describes
`how the system determines the predetermined number of rounds based on
`the terminal attribute.” Reply 19. We disagree.
`
`
`9 Supercell has chosen “not to continue with” its § 112(a) and § 112(b)
`challenges with respect to the limitation of “identifying a terminal attribute
`of the user terminal.” Reply 18 n.3. Accordingly, we do not consider
`Supercell’s assertions on these issues.
`
`13
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00050
`Patent 9,675,886 B2
`
`
`The Specification of the ’886 patent provides that the predetermined
`number of rounds is obtained from a “terminal attribute table” stored in the
`game server. More specifically, as described in the Specification,
`the predetermined number of rounds is not limited to a
`fixed value. For example, the predetermined number of rounds
`may vary according to the terminal attributes. In this case, the
`management server 20 stores a terminal attribute table. In the
`terminal attribute table, the predetermined number of rounds is
`recorded in association with the terminal attributes. In the
`terminal attribute table, the predetermined number of rounds in
`which usability such as a waiting time until the game starts is
`taken into consideration is recorded in a terminal status. For
`example, in a case where an information processing speed or a
`communication speed in the user terminal 10 is high, the number
`of rounds is set to be large. . . .
`First, the controller 21 of the management server 20
`performs an identifying process of a terminal attribute of the user
`terminal (Step S4-1). Specifically, the game management
`section 212 of the controller 21 acquires attribute information of
`the user terminal 10 through the browser of the user terminal 10.
`Examples of the attribute information may include the OS
`version, the browser type, the terminal type, the communication
`circumstance, and the like.
`Next, the controller 21 of the management server 20
`performs a specifying process of the predetermined number of
`rounds based on the terminal attribute (Step S4-2). Specifically,
`the game management section 212 of the controller 21
`determines the predetermined number of rounds using the
`terminal attribute table.
`Ex. 1001, 11:11–41.
`As explained by GREE’s expert, a skilled artisan would have known
`from that description how to determine the predetermined number of rounds
`using a terminal attribute table. See Ex. 1007, 57:20–62:10, 82:14–23, 87:7–
`90:22. That expert testimony, which we find persuasive, is unrebutted and
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00050
`Patent 9,675,886 B2
`
`stands in direct contrast to unsupported attorney argument from Supercell.
`See Pet. 58–61; Reply 19–21. Thus, we determine that Supercell has not
`established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–10 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking written description
`support.
`
`
`
`D. Supercell’s Challenge Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
`Supercell asserts that the claimed “determining” limitation is
`indefinite because
`[t]he specification does not elucidate . . . how the predetermined
`number is “predetermined” . . . how the predetermined number
`gets into the table . . . how the predetermined number is recorded
`. . . how the system determines the predetermined number of
`rounds . . . how the table is “used” for the determination, and . . .
`which of the various terminal attributes is identified as the basis
`for the number of rounds determination.
`Pet. 64–65; Reply 22–23. But aside from that conclusory assertion,
`Supercell’s Petition simply poses a series of rhetorical questions
`without further analysis or evidentiary support. See Pet. 65–66.
`GREE, on the other hand, offers expert testimony as to why the
`meaning of the claimed “determining” limitation is clear not only from the
`claim language itself but also in light of the Specification. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 40–
`42 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:20–41). We find that testimony persuasive. We also
`find persuasive GREE’s reasoning in response to each of the rhetorical
`questions raised by Supercell, even though it was under no obligation to do
`so. PO Resp. 47–49; Sur-Reply 17–19. And given the lack of argument, not
`to mention evidentiary support, in the Petition as to the purported
`indefiniteness of the challenged claims, we are not persuaded that Supercell
`
`15
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00050
`Patent 9,675,886 B2
`
`has carried its burden of showing that the claims are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 112(b).
`
`III. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Supercell has not shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 1–10 of the ’886 patent are unpatentable; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
`any party to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
`comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Jennifer Bush
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`jbush@fenwick.com
`
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Jesse Collier
`B. Graham Nelson
`OLIFF PLC
`jcollier@oliff.com
`bnelson@oliff.com
`
`16
`
`