Patent No. 9,737,816 —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 9,737,816 B2
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT 9,737,816
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,737,816 — 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)) ....................................... 2 
`
`IV.  DESCRIPTION OF THE ’816 PATENT ....................................................... 3 
`
`A. 
`
`Specification ......................................................................................... 3 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Functionality ................................................................................ 3 
`
`System Description ...................................................................... 9 
`
`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. 9,737,816 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`C. 
`
`Page
`
`Claim Construction (37 CFR § 42.204(b) (3)) ................................... 13 
`
`1.  The Claimed Invention ............................................................... 13 
`
`2.  Construction of Certain Claim Terms ........................................ 22 
`
`a. 
`
`“Control” ..................................................................................22 
`
`VI.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS HAVE AN EFFECTIVE
`FILING DATE OF NO EARLIER THAN DECEMBER 21, 2016. ........... 24 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Not Entitled to the Filing
`Dates of Any Related Applications That Fail to Disclose
`the Claimed Invention. ....................................................................... 25 
`
`The Subject Matter of Claims 1-8 Was Not Disclosed in
`Any Related Application. ................................................................... 26 
`
`1.  The ’903 application fails to disclose controlling,
`by circuitry of the electronic device, the communication
`interface to receive a position in the ranking list. ...................... 26 
`
`2.  The ’903 application fails to disclose controlling, by
`the circuitry, the communication interface to receive
`ranking data. ............................................................................... 29 
`
`3.  The ’903 application fails to disclose through adequate
`written description, configuring circuitry to display
`information when a user input is accepted. ................................ 31 
`
`VII. 
`
`IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT AT LEAST ONE
`OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’816 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE ....................................................................................... 32 
`
`A. 
`
`
`
`Claims 1-8 of the ’816 Patent Are Invalid Under
`35 U.S.C. § 101 for Failing to Be Directed Toward
`Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ........................................................... 32 
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,737,816 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Page
`
`Legal Standard .................................................................................... 33 
`
`1. 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 Bars Claims that Recite Abstract
`Ideas and Lack an Inventive Concept. ....................................... 33 
`
`Current Section 101 Guidance Was Not Addressed During
`Prosecution. ........................................................................................ 37 
`
`D.  Alice Step 1: The ’816 Patent Claims the Abstract Idea of
`Transmitting, Analyzing, and Displaying Data. ................................ 43 
`
`E. 
`
`Alice Step 2: Claims 1-8 of the ’816 Patent Do Not Disclose
`An “Inventive Concept” Sufficient to Transform Their
`Ineligible Abstract Idea into a Patent-Eligible Invention. .................. 50 
`
`1.  The independent claims fail to disclose an “inventive
`concept” because the purported improvement over
`prior art is not captured in the claim language. .......................... 50 
`
`2.  The claim limitations, individually and as an ordered
`combination, are well-understood, routine, and
`conventional. .............................................................................. 52 
`
`The Dependent Claims Add Nothing Inventive ................................. 57 
`
`Claims 1-8 of the ’816 Patent Are Invalid Under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for Lack of Written Description .......................... 60 
`
`1.  Claims 1-8 of the ’816 patent are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because the specification of the
`’816 patent fails to provide adequate written description
`of controlling, by circuitry of the electronic device,
`the communication interface to receive a position in the
`ranking list. ................................................................................. 61 
`
`iii
`
`
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,737,816 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Page
`
`2.  Claims 1-8 of the ’816 patent are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because the specification of the
`’816 patent fails to provide adequate written description
`of controlling, by the circuitry, the communication
`interface to receive ranking data. ............................................... 64 
`
`3.  Claim 4 of the ’816 patent is unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because the specification of the
`’816 patent fails to provide adequate written description
`of configuring circuitry to display information when a user
`input is accepted. ........................................................................ 65 
`
`H. 
`
`Claims 1-8 of the ’816 Patent Are Invalid Under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as Indefinite ........................................................ 67 
`
`V. 
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 72 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,737,816 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .................................................................................passim
`
`All. Research Mtg. Says. v. Troy,
`659 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 60
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 54
`
`BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................ 34, 38, 40, 71
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`Appeal 2017-1437, 2018 WL 774096 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018) ..................passim
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 14, 35
`
`Electric Power Group v. ALSTOM SA,
`830 F. 3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................passim
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................ 11, 33, 39, 48
`
`In re Anderson,
`1997 U.S. App. Lexis 167 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 6, 1997) ............................................ 68
`
`In re Cohn,
`438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971) ........................................................ 68
`
`In re Collier,
`397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968) .............................................. 69, 71
`
`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
`
`v
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,737,816 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`In re Hammack,
`427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970) .................................................... 68
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 60
`
`In re Mayhew,
`527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976) .............................................. 69, 71
`
`In re Moore,
`439 F.2d 1232 (CCPA 1971) .............................................................................. 68
`
`In re Packard,
`751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................. 67, 68, 71
`
`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) .......................................................... 34, 45, 52, 53
`
`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) ................................................ 69, 71
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 33, 45
`
`Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................ 60
`
`Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`66 F. Supp. 3d 829 (E.D. Tex. 2014) (Bryson, J.) .............................................. 32
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ............................................................................ 34, 55, 56
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,737,816 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................ 38, 39, 45, 46
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Mortg. Grader v. First Choice Loan Services,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 53
`
`Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC,
`PGR2015-00018, Paper 75 (PTAB Dec. 30, 2016) ............................................ 67
`
`Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States,
`850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 40
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commnc’n,
`LLC, 874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................... 34, 43, 47, 59
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .......................................................................... 60
`
`Vehicle Intelligence & Safety, LLC v Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`635 Fed. App’x. 914 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................ 53
`
`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, 26 USPQ2d 1767 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .............................................. 61
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 100 .................................................................................................. 25, 26
`
`35 USC §101 .....................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 11
`
`35 USC §112(a) ................................................................................................passim
`
`35 USC §112(b) ................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. §119(a) .................................................................................................... 29
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,737,816 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`35 USC §§ 311-319.............................................................................................. 1, 73
`
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011) ................................................................................ 12, 24, 25
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 13
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th Ed. ................................................................. 22
`
`MPEP §§ 2159.03–2159.04 ..................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,737,816 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 CFR § 42.63(e))
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,737,816 to Sawamura et al.
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,737,816
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th Edition
`
`USPTO Memorandum on Recent Subject Matter Eligibility
`Decisions, dated April 2, 2018
`
`USPTO Memorandum on Changes in Examination Procedure
`Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter
`Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.), dated April 19,
`2018
`
`USPTO Memorandum on McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v.
`Bandai Namco Games America Inc. and BASCOM Global
`Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC, dated November 2,
`2016
`
`July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility
`
`USPTO Memorandum on Recent Subject Matter Eligibility
`Decisions, dated May 19, 2016
`
`Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Business Methods of
`December 2016
`
`Certified Translation of Japanese Patent Application No. 2013-
`031903, filed on February 21, 2013, which published as
`Publication No. 2014-161352.
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,737,816 — 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 1-8 of United States Patent No.
`
`9,737,816 to Sawamura et al., titled “Ranking List Display Method in Game
`
`System, and System for Executing the Method” (the “’816 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 ’816 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.
`
`Out of an abundance of caution, Petitioner notes that Supercell K.K., which is a
`
`party to an unrelated litigation with Petitioner, 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))
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) (2), there are no related matters.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,737,816 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`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 ’816 patent was granted on August 22, 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 May 2, 2018. See Ex. 1001.
`
`B. Grounds for Standing (37 CFR § 42.204(a))
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.204(a) that the ’816 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 ’816 patent on the grounds identified in the
`
`Petition.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,737,816 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ’816 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Specification
`1.
`The ’816 patent purports to “easily execute ranking confirmation of a user,
`
`Functionality
`
`who is a ranking confirmation target, such as the user himself/herself, a friend or a
`
`rival” See Ex. 1001, 2:16-19. The specification describes a game system, user
`
`interfaces, and methods with the stated goal of easily executing ranking
`
`confirmation. Id. Each describes various embodiments of the purported invention,
`
`including the methods described in relation to figures 6 and 7, which together are
`
`closest to the independent claims (Claims 1, 2, and 8).1 See Ex. 1001, 5:9-7:9,
`
`Claims 1, 2, and 8. Figure 6 describes a generalized series of steps: a pointer rank
`
`acquisition step2, a display range computation step, a ranking data acquisition step,
`
`a transmission step, a first display range check step, a first pointer rotation step,
`
`and a display pointer step. These generalized steps are shown in Figure 6 below.
`
`
`1 Independent claims 1, 2, and 8 each recite similar series of generalized steps not
`taught together in the specification as a singular process. These generalized steps
`are a transmit request step, a first control receipt step, a display pointer step, a
`determine range change step, a determine user input step, a second control receipt
`step, and a display range step.
`2 The specification references a search step responsive to issuance of a request, and
`figure 6 references a pointer rank acquisition step, yet control receipt steps are
`recited throughout the independent claims. The control receipt steps are not
`disclosed within the specification. Compare, e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:9-18, with FIG. 6
`and Claim 1.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,737,816 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`
`The above Figure 6 is “the ranking list display method in the game system
`
`according to the embodiment of the invention.” See Ex. 1001, 5:60-62. In view of
`
`the independent Claims, the ranking list display method of Figure 6 includes
`
`portions of the purported invention, along with Figure 7, which also describes a
`
`series of generalized steps: a check for user operation step, a second display range
`
`check step, a second pointer rotation step, and a change pointer display step. These
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,737,816 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`generalized steps are shown in Figure 7 below.
`
`
`
`The above Figure 7 is “a flowchart for describing the ranking list display
`
`method in a case where a ranking display range has been changed.” See Ex. 1001,
`
`6:52-54. The Summary identifies the problem addressed by the purported
`
`invention as “the work of confirming the rankings of [users] is time consuming”
`
`and that “[t]he present invention has been made in consideration of the above
`
`circumstances, and the object of the invention is to provide a ranking list display
`
`method in a game system, which can easily execute ranking confirmation of a
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,737,816 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`user.” See Ex. 1001, 1:54-67. The various embodiments of the ranking list display
`
`method described in the specification purport to address the problem, and the
`
`various user interfaces described in the specification illustrate the various
`
`described embodiments.
`
`According to the specification, “ranking data” includes “rank data 42, a user
`
`name 43, a user ID 44, ranking detailed data 45, and a pointer setup target user ID
`
`46” that are “mutually associated and stored.” See Ex. 1001, 5:42-47.
`
`The embodiment of Figure 6 as described in the specification involves
`
`acquiring the rank of a pointer “if a display request for a ranking list has been
`
`issued from the mobile phone,” computing a display range, acquiring ranking data,
`
`transmitting the ranking data and display range to the mobile phone where it is
`
`displayed, determining whether the display range includes the rank indicated by
`
`the rank data, rotating the pointer based on the rank in relation to the display range,
`
`and displaying the pointer. See Ex. 1001, 6:9-51. The specification does not
`
`describe how a display range is computed, only that it “may be computed based on
`
`screen scroll on the mobile phone.” Id. Similarly, the specification does not
`
`describe how ranking data is acquired, how the ranking data and display range are
`
`transmitted, how the determination is performed, nor how the display range,
`
`ranking data, or pointer are displayed.
`
`The embodiment of Figure 7 as described in the specification involves
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,737,816 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`determining “whether the display range has been changed by a user operation,”
`
`determining whether the display range is above, below, or inclusive of the rank
`
`indicated by the ranking data, rotating the pointer accordingly, and changing the
`
`displayed pointer. See. Ex. 1001, 6:55-7:15. The specification does not describe
`
`how the determination (S11, S12, and S13 in the figure) is performed, nor how the
`
`pointer is rotated, nor how the pointer display is changed.
`
`The embodiment of Figure 10 as described in the specification involves
`
`determining “whether a pointer select operation (tap) has been executed” (See
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:19-32), acquiring ranking data (Id.), rotating the pointer sideward (Id.),
`
`and changing the display range (Id.). The specification does not describe how the
`
`determination (S21 in the figure) is performed, nor how the display range is
`
`changed, only that “the ranking display range is changed such that the rank of
`
`pointer setup target user is displayed at the center.” Id.
`
` The embodiment of Figure 12 as described in the specification involves
`
`determining “whether a pointer select operation (detail display) has been
`
`executed,” acquiring ranking data, and displaying a detailed information screen.
`
`See Ex. 1001, 8:51-63. The specification does not describe how any of these steps
`
`are performed and does not delimit them in any way, even stating “the pointer
`
`select operation (detail display) is, for example, a double-tap or a long-press of
`
`pointer, but is not limited to such examples.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,737,816 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`The embodiment of Figure 14 as described in the specification involves
`
`determining “whether a multiple pointer select operation (detail display) has been
`
`executed,” acquiring ranking data for “all of the pointers,” and displaying a
`
`detailed information screen. See Ex. 1001, 9:8-26. Again, the specification does
`
`not describe how any of these steps are performed.
`
`Figures 8, 9, 11, and 13-16 are “views” illustrating “cases” of the various
`
`embodiments above via “screens” where the processes are executed. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:21-22, Brief Description of the Several Views of the Drawing. Each
`
`“case” illustrates one or more pointers in the context of a user interface
`
`(a “screen”). However, as the specification describes:
`
`The shape of the pointer is not limited to the illustrated
`shape. For example, the pointer may have the shape of a
`finger, or may be a sign of inequality. It should suffice if
`the pointer is representative of the direction of the rank of
`the user of the pointer setup target user ID 46.
`
`In addition, the case has been illustrated that rank is
`displayed within the pointer. However, the information
`displayed within the pointer is not limited to this
`example, and a user name, for instance, may be displayed
`within the pointer. Besides, the color or shape of the
`pointer may be varied in accordance with the kind of
`user.
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:57-67. As such, the pointer is not delimited in the specification in any
`
`significant way.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,737,816 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`System Description
`
`2.
`Though purportedly involving a game system, the specification does not
`
`describe a game as part of the system. The specification describes “mobile phones
`
`4-1 and 4-2, which are used by users who play in the game system” (See Ex. 1001,
`
`3:35-37) but not what the users play or where such a game is located in the system.
`
`The specification expressly notes that Figure 1 “is a view for explaining an
`
`environment in which a server group 2, computers 3-1 and 3-2 and mobiles (sic)
`
`phones 4-1 and 4-2 for realizing the ranking list display method in the game
`
`system according to the embodiment of the invention are used.” See Ex. 1001,
`
`3:27-31. The server group, computers, and mobile phones are not described as
`
`limited in any meaningful way.
`
`The server group is described using purely generic terms that are not limited
`
`in any meaningful way, including a “front server group,” a “database server
`
`group,” and a “batch server group.” See Ex. 1001, 3:58-4:5; Figures 1-2. Servers
`
`are described using purely generic hardware that is not limited in any meaningful
`
`way, including “a CPU 12, a communication module 13, a memory 14 and a
`
`storage device 15 connected to a bus 11.” See Ex. 1001, 4:14-16; Figure 3.
`
`Similarly, the computers 3-1 and 3-2 are described in purely generic terms that are
`
`not limited in any meaningful way: “the computers 3-1 and 3-2 include a mobile
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,737,816 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`computer, a laptop computer, or a tablet terminal, as well as an ordinary desktop
`
`computer.” See Ex. 1001, 3:47-49.
`
`The mobile phones are also described using purely generic hardware that is
`
`not limited in any meaningful way, including “a CPU 32, a wireless
`
`communication module 33, a memory 34, an electronic compass 35, a camera 36, a
`
`storage device 37, a touch panel sensor 38 and a display controller 39 [] connected
`
`to a bus 31.” See Ex. 1001, 4:58-61; Figure 4.
`
`The claimed processes are described as being “realized” via a server-side
`
`ranking list display process program. See Ex. 1001, 4:39-41. However, “the
`
`process execution is not limited to this example, and a part or all of the ranking list
`
`display process, which is executed on the server side, may be executed on the
`
`client side.” See Ex. 1001, 4:39-49. The program for execution of the process is
`
`therefore not limited in any meaningful way. Furthermore, the “ranking list
`
`display process program” is not found in the Claims. Id.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The ’816 patent is a continuation of Application Serial No. 14/174,291
`
`(“the ‘291 application”) which issued as U.S. Patent 9,561,434. The ‘291
`
`application claims the benefit of Japanese Patent Application No. 2013-031903,
`
`filed on February 21, 2013, which published as Publication No. 2014-161352.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,737,816 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`The ’816 patent was filed on December 21, 2016 as Application Serial
`
`No. 15/386,971 (“the ’971 application”). The ’971 application was assigned to art
`
`unit 3717. See Prosecution History of U.S. Patent 9,737,816 (“Ex. 1002”), p. 80.
`
`The ’971 application was originally filed with one claim. See Ex. 1002, pp. 179.
`
`On January 19, 2017, a non-final office action was issued in the ’971
`
`application, rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and § 103. See Ex. 1002,
`
`pp. 72-76.
`
`In an amendment dated March 13, 2017 (“Amendment A”), claim 1 was
`
`amended and claims 2-8 were added. The Patent Owner made arguments
`
`responsive to the § 101 rejections including (1) the amendments in claim 1 are
`
`similar to those presented in the ’291 application which overcame a similar
`
`rejection, (2) the claimed invention “solves a particular problem” (Ex. 1002, p. 58)
`
`and is similar to Enfish, and (3) like Bascom, the claim features “provide an
`
`improvement in an on-line gaming experience by providing a solution to more
`
`efficiently confirm a target user’s ranking … this is much more than simply
`
`well-understood, routine, or conventional activities previously engaged in by those
`
`in the field.” (Ex. 1002, p. 62).
`
`Amendment A led to allowance. The examiner found the amendment
`
`convincing, and the ’971 application was allowed on April 13, 2017. See
`
`Ex. 1002, p. 12.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`V.
`
`Patent No. 9,737,816 — 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 ’816 patent issued from Application Serial No. 15/386,971, filed on
`
`December 21, 2016. The ’971 application claims the benefit of Patent Application
`
`No. 14/174,291 filed on February 6, 2014. The ’291 application claims the benefit
`
`of Japanese Patent Application No. 2013-031903, filed on February 21, 2013,
`
`which published as Publication No. 2014-161352. As shown in Section VI below,
`
`the challenged claims have an effective filing date of no earlier than December 21,
`
`2016 and are therefore eligible for post-grant review pursuant to Section 3(n) (1) of
`
`the America Invents Act. Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`
`§ 3(n) (1), 125 Stat. 284, 293 (2011). Accordingly, the ’816 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 1-8 of the ’816 patent.
`
`Claims 1-8 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. 9,737,816 — 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, 1275-76 (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 te