Patent No. 9,873,044 —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 9,873,044 B2
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT 9,873,044
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — 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)) .......................................................................... 1 
`
`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 ’044 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 ..................................... 11 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Effective Filing Date of the Challenged Claims ................................ 11 
`
`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)] ...................................................................... 11 
`
`C. 
`
`Claim Construction (37 CFR § 42.204(b)(3)) .................................... 11 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`1.  The Claimed Invention ............................................................... 12 
`
`2.  Construction of Certain Claim Terms ........................................ 18 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`“Incentive” ...............................................................................18 
`
`“Enable Invitation” ................................................................19 
`
`“Detect Access” ......................................................................20 
`
`“Specific Matter” ....................................................................23 
`
`VI. 
`
`IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT AT LEAST ONE
`OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’044 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE ....................................................................................... 24 
`
`A. 
`
`Claims 1-10 of the ’044 Patent Are Invalid Under
`35 U.S.C. § 101 for Failing to Be Directed Toward
`Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ........................................................... 24 
`
`B. 
`
`Legal Standard .................................................................................... 25 
`
`1. 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 Bars Claims that Recite Abstract Ideas
`and Lack an Inventive Concept. ................................................. 25 
`
`C. 
`
`Current Section 101 Guidance Was Not Addressed During
`Prosecution. ........................................................................................ 29 
`
`D.  Alice Step 1: The ’044 Patent Claims the Abstract Idea
`of Enabling a Player to Invite Another Player to a Social
`Game, Detecting Access to the Game, and Giving the Player
`“Incentive” Rewards........................................................................... 35 
`
`1.  The ’044 Patent Recites Only Generalized Steps and
`Fails to Claim a Technological Improvement. ........................... 35 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`2.  Enabling a Player to Invite Another Player to a Social
`Game, Detecting Access to the Game, and Giving
`the Player “Incentive” Rewards is a Longstanding
`Commercial Practice. ................................................................. 42 
`
`E. 
`
`Alice Step 2: Claims 1-10 of the ’044 Patent Do Not
`Disclose an “Inventive Concept” Sufficient to Transform
`Their Ineligible Abstract Idea into a Patent-Eligible Invention. ........ 44 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`1.  The independent claims fail to disclose an “inventive
`concept” because the purported improvement over
`prior art is not captured in the claim language. .......................... 44 
`
`2.  The claim limitations, individually and as an ordered
`combination, are well-understood, routine, and
`conventional. .............................................................................. 46 
`
`The Dependent Claims Add Nothing Inventive. ................................ 51 
`
`Claims 1-10 of the ’044 Patent Are Invalid Under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for Lack of Written Description. ......................... 54 
`
`1.  Claims 1-10 of the ’044 patent are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because the specification of the
`’044 patent fails to provide adequate written description
`of enabling a first terminal device to send invitation
`information to a second terminal device. ................................... 56 
`
`2.  Claims 1-10 of the ’044 patent are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because the specification of the
`’044 patent fails to provide adequate written description
`of detecting when the second terminal device is
`operated to access the landing screen. ....................................... 58 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`3.  Claims 1-10 of the ’044 patent are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because the specification of the
`’044 patent fails to provide adequate written description
`of giving incentives. ................................................................... 61 
`
`H. 
`
`Claims 1-10 of the ’044 Patent Are Invalid Under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as Indefinite ........................................................ 62 
`
`V. 
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 67 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — 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) .......................................................................... 54
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 48
`
`BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................passim
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`Appeal 2017-1437, 2018 WL 774096 (Fed. Cir. February 8, 2018) ...........passim
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 42
`
`Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Cumberland Corp.,
`713 F.2d 774 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ............................................................................ 55
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 13, 27
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 37, 40
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 25, 30, 40
`
`In re Anderson,
`1997 U.S. App. Lexis 167 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 6, 1997) ............................................ 63
`
`In re Cohn,
`438 F.2d 989 (CCPA 1971) ................................................................................ 63
`
`In re Collier,
`397 F.2d 1003 (CCPA 1968) ........................................................................ 64, 67
`
`v
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`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) .................................................................... 12
`
`In re Hammack,
`427 F.2d 1378 (CCPA 1970) .............................................................................. 63
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 54
`
`In re Mayhew,
`527 F.2d 1229 (CCPA 1976) ........................................................................ 64, 67
`
`In re Moore,
`439 F.2d 1232 (CCPA 1971) .............................................................................. 63
`
`In re Packard,
`751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................ 62, 63, 64, 67
`
`In re Paulsen,
`30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 12
`
`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) .......................................................................... 12
`
`In re Venezia,
`530 F.2d 956 (CCPA 1976) .......................................................................... 64, 67
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 42
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.,
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 44
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 25, 37
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 55
`
`Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`66 F. Supp. 3d 829 (E.D. Tex. 2014) .................................................................. 24
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ........................................................................................ 26
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................ 30, 31, 37, 38
`
`Mortg. Grader v. First Choice Loan Services,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 47
`
`Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 55
`
`Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC,
`PGR2015-00018, Paper 75 (PTAB Dec. 30, 2016) ............................................ 63
`
`Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States,
` 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................................... 33
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commnc’n LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................passim
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .......................................................................... 55
`
`Vehicle Intelligence & Safety, LLC v Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`635 Fed. App’x. 914 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................ 47
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 12
`
`Wang Labs. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`993 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................ 55
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 USC §101 .....................................................................................................passim
`
`35 USC §112(a) ................................................................................................passim
`
`35 USC §112(b) ................................................................................................passim
`
`35 USC §§ 311-319.............................................................................................. 1, 68
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 12
`
`37 CFR §§ 42.200 et seq. ..................................................................................... 1, 68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 CFR § 42.63(e))
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,873,044 to Ino
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,873,044
`
`Google Dictionary (selected terms)
`
`USPTO Memorandum on Recent Subject Matter Eligibility
`Decisions, dated May 19, 2016
`
`USPTO Memorandum on Recent Subject Matter Eligibility
`Decisions, dated November 2, 2016
`
`Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Business Methods
`(December 2016)
`
`Kornish & Li, Optimal Referral Bonuses with Asymmetric
`Information: Firm-Offered and Interpersonal Incentives, 29
`MARKETING SCI. 108 (2010)
`
`Schmitt, Skiera & Bulte, Referral Programs and Customer
`Value, 75 AM. MARKETING ASSOC. 46 (2011)
`
`USPTO Memorandum on Changes in Examination Procedure
`Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter
`Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) (April 19, 2018)
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In accordance with 35 USC §§ 311-319 and 37 CFR §§ 42.200 et seq.,
`
`Petitioner requests Post Grant Review of claims 1-10 of United States Patent No.
`
`9,873,044 to Ino, titled “Method for Controlling Server Device, Server Device,
`
`Computer-Readable Recording Medium and Game System” (the “’044 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 ’044 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.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`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 ’044 patent was granted on January 23, 2018, 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 October 23, 2018. See Ex. 1001.
`
`B. Grounds for Standing (37 CFR § 42.204(a))
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.204(a) that the ’044 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 ’044 patent on the grounds identified in the present
`
`petition.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ’044 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Specification
`1.
`The ’044 patent purports to provide an invention that can “enhance
`
`Functionality
`
`motivation of a player to invite another player to a social game, whereby the social
`
`game and a platform that provides the social game can be activated.” See Ex. 1001,
`
`3:52-55. To achieve the stated goal of enhancing the motivation of a player to
`
`invite another player to a social game, the specification describes a method for
`
`controlling a server device, a server device, a computer-readable recording medium,
`
`and a game system. Id. Each embodiment comprises roughly the same series of
`
`steps: an invitation step, an action (“access”) step, a first incentivization step, and a
`
`second incentivization step.1 See Ex. 1001, 11:19-13:32. These steps are shown in
`
`Figure 7 below.
`
`
`1 The “invitation” step is referenced throughout the specification, yet an enable
`invitation step is recited throughout the independent claims. The enable invitation
`step is not disclosed within the specification. Compare, e.g., Ex. 1001, 11:26-30,
`FIG. 7 with Claim 1. Likewise, the “action” step is referenced throughout the
`specification, yet a detect action step is recited throughout the independent claims.
`The detect action step is not disclosed within the specification. Compare, e.g., Ex.
`1001, 3:34-36, FIG. 7 with Claim 1.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG 7.
`
`FIG 7 shows the processing steps, shown as steps ST501 through ST514, by
`
`which incentives may be given to a player that invites another player to join the
`
`game. FIG 7 & 11:24-25.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`In the first step of the process, shown in FIG 7 ST501, one player invites
`
`another player to the game by sending an “invitation message” (ST501).2
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:29-39, 9:20-22, 11:26-38. The second user’s device displays the
`
`invitation message (ST502). The invitation message includes a URL. If the
`
`second player clicks the URL (ST503: YES), the second player’s device accesses a
`
`“landing screen.” Id. FIG 7, 12:4-7. When the second user accesses the landing
`
`screen, the server device acquires a “tracking code” included in the “invitation
`
`message” which is used to identify the player who operates the first terminal
`
`device (ST504). After the server acquires this information, a first incentive is
`
`given to the first player (ST505), and the landing screen is displayed to the second
`
`user (ST506).
`
`The “landing screen” displays two URLs to the second user: one URL for
`
`“member registration” and one URL for “player registration.” Ex. 1001, 12:23-31.
`
`
`2 Although the specification purports to provide a method for enhancing the
`motivation of a player to invite another player to a social game, the specification
`never describes how the player is informed that such an incentive program exists.
`In other words, the specification never discloses how the incentive information, i.e.,
`the incentives to be received for the players actions, is communicated to the player
`to instill such motivation. FIG 7 shows this obvious omission. The first step of the
`flowchart shown in Figure 7 above (step ST501) is transmission of the invitation
`mail by the first player. Nowhere does the specification explain how the player is
`made aware of the incentives he or she might receive.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`If the second user selects “player registration” (ST507: YES),3 the second user is
`
`brought to a “platform screen.” Ex. 1001, FIG 7, ST508. At the platform screen,
`
`the second user can register to become a member of the platform or game provider
`
`(ST509). Ex. 1001, FIG 7, ST509 & 12:36-46. If the second user registers as a
`
`member of the platform, a “second incentive” is given to a first player (ST510).4
`
`See Ex. 1001, 12:47-49.
`
`After member registration, the second user’s device displays a “home
`
`screen” (ST512). At the home screen, the second user can perform “player
`
`registration” (ST513). If the server registers the user as a player of the game, the
`
`first player is given a third incentive (ST514). The process is then complete.
`
`Figure 5 below further illustrates the process and represents the relationship
`
`among the invitation message, the landing screen, the platform screen, and the
`
`
`3 If “player registration” is selected or “member processing” is not performed
`(ST507:NO), the server “determines whether instruction of player registration is
`issued or not based on the acquired information from the second terminal device
`(ST511).” Ex. 1001, 12:59-61. If not, the process ends (ST511:NO). If it
`determines player registration is appropriate (ST11:YES), then the second user will
`proceed to the “home screen” (ST510).
`4 This language stands in contrast to the independent claims, such as Claim 1,
`which recites “giving a second incentive to the first player when a second player
`who operates the second terminal device participates in the game and achieves a
`specific matter that is predetermined in the game.” See Claim 1, Ex. 1001,
`16:17-20 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`home screen, and further illustrates the basic processing involved when one player
`
`invites another to play the game. See generally, Ex. 1001, FIG 5 & 9:20-10:30.
`
`A player who sends an invitation message to another (“inviter”) is given
`
`“incentives” by the game following actions of the invitee in response to the
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`invitation message. A first “incentive” is given to the inviter after the invitee
`
`accesses the landing page. A second “incentive” is given to the inviter after the
`
`invitee registers as a member with the provider of the game.5 A third “incentive” is
`
`given to the inviter after the invitee registers as a player in the game. See Ex. 1001,
`
`2:5-19, 12:4-13, 12:14-15, 12:47-49, 13:14-17.
`
`The specification does not provide information about how the incentives are
`
`provided to the user. Instead, it merely states that such incentives “are given” by the
`
`social game, without detailing how they are given. See Ex. 1001, 14:41-45.
`
`System Description
`
`2.
`The specification expressly notes that “the server device 100 and terminal
`
`devices 2 such as client computers 21 and mobile terminals 22 similarly connected
`
`to the network 200 in a wired or wireless manner are configured mutually-
`
`communicably, whereby a game system 1 is configured.” See Ex. 1001, 4:40-45.
`
`Also, “a server device 100 is a server computer that is connected to a network 200,
`
`and implements a server function through the operation of a predetermined server
`
`
`5 As noted above, the claims recite giving the second incentive for a different
`reason— “when a second player who operates the second terminal device
`participates in the game and achieves a specific matter that is predetermined in the
`game.” See Claim 1, Ex. 1001, 16:17-20. The phrase “specific matter” appears
`only once in the specification, and is defined only by example. See Ex. 1001,
`14:51-56. Furthermore, “specific matter” is used to refer to a third incentive, not
`the second incentive as described in the specification and figures.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`program in the server computer.” See Ex. 1001, 4:37-40. The devices are not
`
`described as limited in any meaningful way.
`
`The server device is described using purely generic hardware that is not
`
`limited in any meaningful way, including “an arithmetic processing unit 101 such
`
`as a CPU or a MPU, a ROM 102 and a RAM 103 as storage devices, an external
`
`interface 104 connected to an input unit 105…” and so on. See Ex. 1001, 4:57-5:4.
`
`Terminal devices are not described except in reference with the server device and
`
`are not limited in any meaningful way.
`
`No particular program is disclosed, nor are any individual components that
`
`perform the claimed method steps. The system description does not disclose any
`
`module providing an incentive giving function.6 The functionality corresponding
`
`to the process of Figure 7 is described as being performed by either the server
`
`device 100, a terminal device 2, or a user. See Ex. 1001, 11:19-13:20. The
`
`Abstract states that “the server device includes incentive giving means” that gives
`
`incentives to the player (Ex. 1001, Abstract), but the body of the specification does
`
`not describe an incentive giving means outside of purely functional steps recited in
`
`the Summary. See Ex. 1001, 2:47-60.
`
`
`6 Claim 10 recites an “incentive giving function” which is not referenced in the
`specification. See Ex.1001, 18:1-5.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The ’044 patent was filed on April 19, 2017 as Application Serial
`
`No. 15/491,349 (“the ’349 application”). The ’349 application was assigned to art
`
`unit 3714. See Prosecution History of U.S. Patent 9,873,044 (“Ex. 1002”), p. 37.
`
`The ‘349 application was a continuation of application No. 14/338,030, filed on
`
`July 22, 2014, which issued as Patent No. 9,662,573.
`
`The ’349 application was originally filed with claims 1-10. See Ex. 1002,
`
`pp. 286-290.
`
`On July 12, 2017, a non-final office action was issued in the ’349
`
`application, rejecting claims 1-10 for obviousness-type (non-statutory) double
`
`patenting over the parent case, application No, 14/338.030, which is now Patent
`
`No. 9,662,573.
`
`In an amendment dated September 8, 2017 (“Amendment A”), the Patent
`
`Owner remarks that a Terminal Disclaimer filed with Amendment A addresses the
`
`double patenting rejection and asserts that “this application is considered in good
`
`and proper form for allowance . . . .” See Ex. 1002, p. 32.
`
`On September 8, 2017, the Terminal Disclaimer was approved (See Ex. 1002,
`
`p. 25) and the ’349 application was allowed on October 3, 2017. See Ex. 1002, p. 7.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.204(b)
`AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Effective Filing Date of the Challenged Claims
`The ’044 patent issued from Application Serial No. the ’349 application,
`
`filed on April 19, 2017. The ’349 application claims the benefit of Patent
`
`Application No. 14/338,030 (“the ’030 application”), which issued as Patent
`
`No. 9,662,573. The ’030 application claims the benefit of Japanese Patent
`
`Application No. 2013-152162 filed on July 22, 2013, which published as
`
`JP 6,105,421. Thus, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is no earlier
`
`than July 22, 2013. The ’044 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 1-10 of the ’044 patent.
`
`Claims 1-10 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).
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`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 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 ’044 patent contains 10 claims. Claims 1, 9, and 10 are independent.
`
`Each independent claim is directed to the same abstract concept of enabling a
`
`player to invite another player to a social game, and giving “incentives” to the
`
`player responsive to the other player accessing a landing screen, registering for the
`
`game, and achieving a predetermined in-game “specific matter.” Claim 1 is
`
`directed to a method, claim 9 is directed to a server device, and claim 10 is directed
`
`to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. All three independent
`
`claims provide for essentially the same steps, which are nothing more than
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,873,044 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`commands to be executed by a computer. Claim 10 is representative7 and
`
`reproduced below. Differences between the independent claims are addressed at
`
`the end of this section.
`
`10. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium
`having a program that can be readable by a computer that provides a
`game, in which a plurality of players can participate, and that is
`connected to terminal devices operated by the players via a
`communication line and which program, when executed by said
`computer, provides an incentive giving function8 that:
`enables a first terminal device to send invitation information to
`a second terminal device, wherein the invitation information
`includes specific information to at least specify a landing
`screen associated with the game;
`detects when the second terminal device is operated to access
`the landing screen on a basis of the specific information; and
`
`
`7 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