Supercell Oy (Petitioner)
`v.
`GREE, Inc. (Patent Owner)
`Case PGR2018-00055 / U.S. Patent 9,687,744
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives
`Thursday, June 27, 2019
`
`10:00 a.m. (EDT), Courtroom B
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 1
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 1
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`v.
`GREE, Inc. (Patent Owner)
`Case PGR2018-00055 / U.S. Patent 9,687,744
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives
`Thursday, June 27, 2019
`
`10:00 a.m. (EDT), Courtroom B
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives - 1
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 1
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`All Challenged Claims are Valid
`
`• The Challenged Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea
`
`• The Challenged Claims Satisfy Alice Step Two
`
`• The Challenged Claims Have Sufficient Written Description
`
`• The Challenged Claims Are Definite
`
`Patent Owner Response, Paper 14, at 18-80;
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, Paper 27, at 2-25.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 2
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`• U.S. 9,687,744 – claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,
`112(1), 112(2)
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 3
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`‘744 Patent – Claim 1
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:54-64.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 4
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Challenged Patent
`
`• The challenged patent identifies and addresses problems with online
`multiplayer battle games.
`
`Patent Owner Response, Paper 14, at 3-12.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 5
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Challenged Patents
`
`Ex. 1001, Figs. 4-6.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 6
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Claims Are Patentable Under the Revised Guidance
`
`• The challenged claims do not fall into any of the
`three groupings:
`– Mathematical concepts
`– Certain methods of organizing human activity
`– Mental processes
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, Paper 27, at 3-6.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 7
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Claims Solve a Problem Arising in Prior Art Card Games
`
`• The “claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in
`order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of
`computer networks.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d
`1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`•
`
`“It is this challenge of retaining control over the attention of the customer
`in the context of the Internet” that the challenged claims address. See
`id. at 1258.
`
`•
`
`“…these claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems,
`resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.” Core
`Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363
`(Fed. Cir. 2018).
`Patent Owner Response, Paper 14, at 22-23, 35-40.
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 8
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`Petitioner Changed The Alleged Abstract Idea
`
`Petition:
`“The ‘744 Patent Claims are Directed to the Abstract Concept of
`Controlling a video Game Effect According to Video Game Data.” Paper 1,
`at 32.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply:
`“Nevertheless, the challenged claims are directed to either a ‘purely
`mathematical concept’ or a ‘method of organizing human activity.’” Paper
`23, at 4.
`
`Paper 27, at 3-6.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 9
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Claims Provide a Solution to a Technical Barrier
`
`Ex. 2002 ¶ 24.
`
`Patent Owner Response, Paper 14, at 21-22.
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 10
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Claims Recite A Practical Application
`
`Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 27-28.
`
`Paper 27, at 7-8.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 11
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims are Analogous to Those Found
`Patentable
`
`‘744 Patent
`Core Wireless – USPN 8,434,020
`[1a] storing, by a server device,
`[1a] a display screen, the
`for each of a plurality of
`computing device being
`characters, a parameter
`configured to display on the
`that serves as an indicator for
`screen a main menu listing at
`developing the battle game; and
`least a first application,
`[1d] each function in the list
`being selectable to launch the
`first application and initiate the
`selected function,
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, Paper 27, at 8-10.
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 12
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims are Analogous to Those Found
`Patentable
`
`‘744 Patent
`[1b] controlling, by a processor
`of the server device, an effect of
`attack by a group,
`
`Core Wireless – USPN 8,434,020
`[1b] and additionally being
`configured to display on the
`screen an application summary
`window that can be reached
`directly from the main menu,
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, Paper 27, at 8-10.
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 13
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims are Analogous to Those Found
`Patentable
`
`‘744 Patent
`Core Wireless – USPN 8,434,020
`[1c] according to a difference in
`[1c] wherein the application
`the parameter between two
`summary window displays a
`characters belonging
`limited list of at least one
`to the same group and successive
`function offered within the first
`in attack order
`application,
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, Paper 27, at 8-10.
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 14
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims are Analogous to Those Found
`Patentable
`
`‘744 Patent
`[1d] and to a number of attacks
`within a predetermined time by
`any characters in
`the group.
`
`Core Wireless – USPN 8,434,020
`[1e] and wherein the application
`summary window is displayed
`while the application is in an un-
`launched state.
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, Paper 27, at 8-10.
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 15
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims are Analogous to Eligible Examples
`
`‘744 Patent
`[1a] storing, by a server device,
`for each of a plurality of
`characters, a parameter
`that serves as an indicator for
`developing the battle game; and
`
`Example 38
`initializing a model of an analog
`circuit in the digital computer,
`said model including
`a location, initial value, and a
`manufacturing tolerance range
`for each of the circuit
`elements within the analog
`circuit;
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, Paper 27, at 15.
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 16
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims are Analogous to Eligible Examples
`
`‘744 Patent
`[1c] according to a difference in
`the parameter between two
`characters belonging
`to the same group and successive
`in attack order
`
`Example 38
`generating a normally distributed
`first random value for each
`circuit element, using
`a pseudo random number
`generator, based on a respective
`initial value and manufacturing
`tolerance range; and
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, Paper 27, at 15.
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 17
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims are Analogous to Eligible Examples
`
`‘744 Patent
`[1b] controlling, by a processor
`of the server device, an effect of
`attack by a group,
`
`[1d] and [according] to a number
`of attacks within a
`predetermined time by any
`characters in
`the group.
`
`Example 38
`simulating a first digital
`representation of the analog
`circuit based on the first
`random value and the location of
`each circuit element within the
`analog circuit.
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, Paper 27, at 15.
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 18
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`Improvements on General Purpose Hardware are Not Abstract
`
`• “Moreover, we are not persuaded that the invention’s ability
`to run on a general-purpose computer dooms the claims.”
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016).
`
`• “Much of the advancement made in computer technology
`consists of improvements to software that, by their very
`nature, may not be defined by particular physical features
`but rather by logical structures and processes.” Id. at 1339.
`
`Patent Owner Response, Paper 14, at 32.
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 19
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Claims Satisfy Alice Step Two
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 20
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`Step Two Is Satisfied When the Claims are More than Well-
`Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity
`
`• “When the limitations…are taken together as an ordered
`combination, the claims recite an invention that is not
`merely the routine or conventional use of the Internet.”
`DDR, 773 F.3d at 1259.
`
`• “In short, the claimed solution amounts to an inventive
`concept for resolving this particular Internet-centric problem,
`rendering the claims patent-eligible.” Id.
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, Paper 27, at 11-13.
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 21
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Claims Require A New Type of Information
`
`Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 26, 29.
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, Paper 27, at 18-19.
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 22
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`Panels Are A “New Or Original Deck of Cards”
`
`“We could envisage, for example, claims directed to
`conducting a game using a new or original deck of cards
`potentially surviving step two of Alice.” In re Smith, 815 F.3d
`at 819.
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, Paper 27, at 19-20.
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 23
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`Petitioner Fails to Provide Any Evidence from a Skilled Artisan
`
`“The question of whether a claim element or combination of
`elements is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a
`skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact.”
`Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368.
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, Paper 27, at 20-22.
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 24
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`The Original Claims Provide Sufficient Written Description
`
`Original claim 1:
`
`“controlling, by a processor of the server device, an effect of
`attack by a group, according to a difference in the parameter
`between two characters belonging to the same group and
`successive in attack order and to a number of attacks within
`a predetermined time by any characters in the group.”
`
`Paper 14, at 59-60; Ex. 1002, at 273.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 25
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`Mr. Crane Understood the Claims
`
`Ex. 2002 ¶ 35.
`“What I mean by that is the specification informs a person of
`ordinary skill in the art of exemplary cases of how to calculate
`the differences in parameters as described in the claims.”
`
`Ex. 1011, at 44:4-7.
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, Paper 27, at 23-25.
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 26
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`Proposed Substitute Claim 13
`(if claim 1 is unpatentable) 13. A method for providing a battle game to each of a plurality of
`client devices via a network, comprising:
`
`storing, by a server device, for each of a plurality of characters, a parameter that serves as an
`indicator for developing the battle game; [and]
`
`determining a difference in the parameter between two characters belonging to a group and
`successive in attack order by subtracting the parameter of a first character from the parameter
`of a second character; and
`
`controlling, by a processor of the server device, an effect of attack by [a] the group, according
`to:
`[a] the difference; [in the parameter between two characters belonging to the same group and
`successive in attack order and to]
`a number of attacks within a predetermined time by any characters in the group; and
`a plurality of attack values, each of the plurality of attack values assigned to each attack of the
`number of attacks within the predetermined time by any characters in the group,
`
`wherein at least one of the plurality of attack values depends at least in part on the difference
`and/or the number of attacks.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 27
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`Proposed Substitute Claim 14
`(if claim 2 is unpatentable) 14. The method according to claim 13,
`[further comprising performing, by the processor of the server device,
`presentation processing of increasing the effect of attack by the group
`more when the difference in the parameter between the two characters
`successive in attack order is larger.] wherein controlling the effect of
`attack by the group further comprises, by the processor of the server
`device, changing at least one of the plurality of attack values by one of:
`
`adding to the attack value either the difference or a value
`corresponding to the difference, or
`
`multiplying the attack value by the difference or the value
`corresponding to the difference.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 28
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`Proposed Substitute Claim 15
`(if claim 3 is unpatentable) 15. The method according to claim 13, [further
`comprising performing, by the processor of the server device, presentation
`processing of increasing the effect of attack by the group more when the
`number of successive attacks by a plurality of characters belonging to the
`same group is larger.] wherein controlling the effect of attack by the group
`further comprises, by the processor of the server device, changing at least one
`of the plurality of attack values by one of:
`
`adding to the attack value either the number of successive attacks within the
`predetermined time or a value corresponding to the number of successive
`attacks within the predetermined time, or
`
`multiplying the attack value by the number of successive attacks within the
`predetermined time or the value corresponding to the number of successive
`attacks within the predetermined time.
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence – 29
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
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
