Patent No. 9,770,656 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Filed on behalf of Supercell Oy
`
`By:
`JENNIFER R. BUSH, Reg. No 50,784
`MICHAEL J. SACKSTEDER
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone: 650.988.8500
`Facsimile: 650.938.5200
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Post Grant Review No. ___________________
`Patent 9,770,656 B2
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT 9,770,656
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656 — 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.
`
`D.
`
`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
`
`Service of Information (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(4)) ..................................... 1
`
`III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Timing .................................................................................................. 2
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 CFR § 42.204(a)) ....................................... 2
`
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ’656 PATENT ....................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`Specification ......................................................................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Prior Art, Problem, and Functionality.......................................... 2
`
`System Description ...................................................................... 6
`
`3. Conventional Data Structures .................................................... 13
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................ 15
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.204(B)
`AND RELIEF REQUESTED ....................................................................... 18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Effective Filing Date of the Challenged Claims ................................ 18
`
`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)] ......................................... 18
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,700,793 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction (37 CFR § 42.204(b)(3)) .................................... 18
`
`1. The Claimed Invention ............................................................... 19
`
`Page
`
`VI.
`
`IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’656 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE ....................................................................................... 22
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1-6 of the ’656 Patent Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for
`Failing to Be Directed Toward Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ......... 22
`
`1. Legal Standard ........................................................................... 23
`
`a.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 Bars Claims that Recite Abstract
`Ideas and Lack an Inventive Concept. ...............................23
`
`2. Alice Step 1: The ’656 Patent Claims the Abstract Idea of
`Generating a Mission List in a Video Game, Retrieving a
`Second Mission from a Storage Unit Based on a Mission-Item
`Relationship and an Item Identifier Upon a User Clearing a
`Mission, and Updating the Mission List with the Second
`Mission. ...................................................................................... 25
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`The claims recite a series of generalized steps and fail
`to recite a non-abstract way of performing those steps. 25
`
`The claims fail to recite an improvement to computers
`or video game technology. ...................................................31
`
`The ’656 Patent Recites an Abstract Concept Relating
`to Tracking and Organizing Information. .........................32
`
`3. Alice Step 2: Claims 1-6 of the ’656 Patent Do Not Disclose
`An “Inventive Concept” Sufficient to Transform Their
`Ineligible Abstract Idea into a Patent-Eligible Invention. ......... 36
`
`a.
`
`The claim limitations, individually and as an ordered
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,700,793 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Page
`
`combination, are well-understood, routine, and
`conventional. ...........................................................................36
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`The Federal Circuit’s recent guidance on subject
`matter eligibility in Berkheimer confirms that the
`challenged claims of the ’656 patent fail under the
`second step of Alice. ..............................................................41
`The dependent claims are abstract and add nothing
`inventive. ..................................................................................43
`
`4.
`
`Section 101 Was Improperly Analyzed During Prosecution. .... 47
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1-6 of the ’656 Patent Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
`for Lack of Written Description ......................................................... 50
`
`1. Claims 1-6 of the ’656 patent are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because the specification of the ’656 patent
`fails to provide adequate written description of receiving an
`identifier of an item from the first user device. ......................... 51
`
`2. Claims 1-6 of the ’656 patent are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 112(a) because the specification of the ’656 patent
`fails to provide adequate written description of identifying a
`second mission in which the item specified by the received
`identifier can be acquired. .......................................................... 53
`
`C.
`
`Claims 1-6 of the ’656 Patent Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
`as Indefinite ........................................................................................ 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirectTV,
`838 F.3d 1253 (2016) .................................................................................... 24, 46
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .................................................................................passim
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 37
`
`Atl. Research Mkt. Sys. v. Troy,
`659 F.3d 1345 (2011) .......................................................................................... 50
`
`BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 24
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 41, 42
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 48
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 20
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 28, 31
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 24, 31, 49
`
`In re Anderson,
`1997 U.S. App. Lexis 167 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 6, 1997) ............................................ 56
`
`In re Cohn,
`438 F.2d 989 (CCPA 1971) ................................................................................ 56
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`In re Collier,
`397 F.2d 1003 (CCPA 1968) .............................................................................. 57
`
`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) .................................................................... 18
`
`In re Hammack,
`427 F.2d 1378 (CCPA 1970) .............................................................................. 56
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 50
`
`In re Mayhew,
`527 F.2d 1229 (CCPA 1976) .............................................................................. 57
`
`In re Moore,
`439 F.2d 1232 (CCPA 1971) .............................................................................. 55
`
`In re Packard,
`751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 55, 56
`
`In re Paulsen,
`30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 19
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................... 24, 29, 36, 37
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 19
`
`In re Venezia,
`530 F.2d 956 (CCPA 1976) ................................................................................ 57
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 32, 33
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................passim
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................passim
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 50
`
`Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`66 F. Supp. 3d 829, 845 (E.D. Tex. 2014) .......................................................... 22
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .................................................................................. 24, 40
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................ 16, 29, 30, 47
`
`Mortg. Grader v. First Choice Loan Services,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 37
`
`Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service,
`868 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017) ........................................................ 40
`
`Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC,
`PGR2015-00018, Paper 75 (PTAB Dec. 30, 2016) ............................................ 55
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commnc’n, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 25, 26
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir.1991) ........................................................................... 50
`
`Vehicle Intelligence & Safety, LLC v Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`635 Fed. App’x. 914 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................ 37
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 19
`
`Wang Labs. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`993 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................ 51
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. §101 ..................................................................................................passim
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) ............................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) ............................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 .......................................................................................... 1, 59
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 18
`
`37 C.F. R. § 42.204(a) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.200 et seq. .................................................................................. 1, 59
`
`MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) .....................................................................................passim
`
`MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) .......................................................................... 39, 44, 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 CFR § 42.63(e))
`
`Exhibit
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,770,656 to Nishimura
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,770,656
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fourth Edition
`
`USPTO Memorandum Dated April 19, 2018
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656— 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 1-6 of United States Patent No.
`
`9,770,656 to Nishimura, titled “Method for Providing a Game Recording Medium
`
`and Server” (the “’656 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 ’656 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 Supercell Oy, Petitioner.
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`the email address JBush-PTAB@fenwick.com. Petitioner consents to electronic
`
`service to JBush-PTAB@fenwick.com.
`
`III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
`A. Timing
`The ’656 patent was granted on September 26, 2017, and the present petition
`
`is being filed on or before the date that is nine months after the date of the grant of
`
`the patent, or June 26, 2018. See Ex. 1001.
`
`B. Grounds for Standing (37 CFR § 42.204(a))
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.204(a) that the ’656 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 ’656 patent on the grounds identified in the
`
`Petition.
`
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ’656 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Specification
`1.
`According to the specification, video games played through a
`
`Prior Art, Problem, and Functionality
`
`communications network on mobile devices have become popular and well known.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:19-20. Many of these mobile video games are “social games,” in
`
`which multiple users can participate in a cooperative game or battle against one
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`another. Ex. 1001, 1:21-24. The specification asserts that these types of games
`
`often include missions for each user to complete, and that a user will acquire a
`
`game item as a reward for completing each mission. Ex. 1001, 1:30-32.
`
`The problem, according to the specification, is that these games often “are
`
`not so interesting for the user” because the missions are the same for all users and
`
`the number of missions a user can select is limited. Ex. 1001, 1:36-44. The ’656
`
`patent, therefore, sets out to provide a solution which will “increase the chances for
`
`a user to select a mission, and [] maintain and increase the user’s interest in
`
`continuing a game.” Ex. 1001, 1:45-47.
`
`The ’656 patent specification describes a method, non-transitory recording
`
`medium, and server to effect the result of providing a mobile social game feature in
`
`which multiple missions can be presented each time a certain period has elapsed or
`
`when a user completes the missions he or she has been assigned. Ex. 1001, 1:48-
`
`52, 2:25-30, 2:39-41, 2:41-48.
`
`In the described game, a list of “missions” is presented to each user on a
`
`portable device. FIG. 5A of the ’656 patent shows an example of a list of missions
`
`displayed on a device screen.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 5.
`
`The specification describes a method in which, after a period of 24 hours, a
`
`new mission or group of missions will automatically be presented, updating the
`
`previously displayed missions. Ex. 1001, 3:20-32. In addition, the server will
`
`update a mission included in the mission list with a new mission in response to a
`
`request from the user’s portable device. Ex. 1001, 3:44-46. For example, if a user
`
`clears a mission, the cleared mission will be changed on the list to a new mission.
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:44-46. If a player completes a mission quickly he or she will have new
`
`missions to choose from without having to wait a pre-determined time period to
`
`elapse before new missions are presented. Ex. 1001, 3:46-48.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`The method, recording medium, and server, which purport to achieve this
`
`result, each are described as performing or causing to perform the same
`
`generalized steps:
`
`1. Generating a plurality of different missions for each of the plurality of
`
`users based on stored user information (Ex. 1001, 1:52-54, 2:31-35, 2:43-
`
`45);
`
`2. Presenting a list of the generated missions for each of the users on the
`
`user device (Ex. 1001, 1:55-56, 2:34-35, 2:46-47); and
`
`3. Presenting an operational element for updating a mission included in the
`
`presented list to another mission, regardless of the elapse of the period in
`
`accordance with the progress of presented missions (Ex. 1001, 1:56-59,
`
`2:35-38, 2:48-51).1
`
`The method also includes several preferred steps, including the step of
`
`updating a mission included in the presented list to another mission generated for a
`
`corresponding user in response to operation of the operational element. Ex. 1001,
`
`1:60-63.
`
`According to the specification, a game with such features, will purportedly
`
`“increase chances for a user to select a mission” and thereby increase the user’s
`
`interest in continuing the game. Ex. 1001, 1:45-47.
`
`1 This step is referred to as a preferred embodiment in the specification.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`System Description
`
`2.
`The game system described in the specification is performed using generic
`
`hardware used in a conventional manner. FIG. 1 is a schematic configuration of
`
`the described game system.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 1.
`
`FIG. 1 shows that the game system comprises conventional hardware and
`
`internet technology. The game system 1 comprises at least one portable device 2
`
`and a server 3. The portable device 2 and the server 3 are connected to each other
`
`via a communication network, and are connected to each other, for example, via a
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`base station 4, a mobile communication network 5, a gateway 6, and the Internet 7.
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 1 & 3:54-59.
`
`The specification confirms that the game system components are
`
`conventional computer components performing routine functions. The
`
`specification admits that the portable device can be any well-known portable
`
`device, while also noting the invention is not limited to any particular device. The
`
`specification expressly notes that the device is not limited in any meaningful way,
`
`stating that it may be presumed to be a “multifunctional mobile phone” or
`
`“smartphone,” but the device could also be “a personal digital assistant (PDA), a
`
`portable game machine, a portable music player, a tablet personal computer (PC)
`
`and the like, as long as the present invention is applicable thereto.” Ex. 1001,
`
`4:11-18 (emphasis added).
`
`The specification further admits that the portable device is not specialized.
`
`FIG. 2 shows that the components of the portable device are functional black
`
`boxes, described in the specification by their function or by non-limiting examples
`
`of conventional mobile phone or computer components.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 2.
`
`Each unit of the user device, the communication unit 21, device storage unit
`
`22, operation unit 23, display unit 24, device processing unit, and browsing
`
`executing unit 251, is described only by its function or performs its function in
`
`entirely conventional ways. The communication unit 21 provides wireless
`
`communication between portable device and the server using standard Internet
`
`technology. Ex. 1001, 4:19-31. The device storage unit 22 is described only by its
`
`function of storing “an operating system program, a driver program, an application
`
`program, data, and the like used for processing in the device processing unit,” and
`
`a semiconductor memory device is provided as an example. Ex. 1001, 4:32-46.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`The operation unit 23 “may be any device capable of operating the portable
`
`device.” Ex. 1001, 4:47-49. The display unit 24 “may be any device capable of
`
`displaying a video, an image and the like.” Ex. 1001, 4:54-57. The device
`
`processing unit 25 is described as a plurality of processors and their peripheral
`
`circuits and as, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a well-known
`
`processing unit of a computer. Ex. 1001, 4:60-64; Ex. 1003, Microsoft Computer
`
`Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1 (defining CPU). The browsing executing unit 251
`
`performs the basic function of outputting data to the display of the device. It
`
`retrieves and displays display data relating to the progress of the game, receives
`
`corresponding display data from the server via the device communication unit,
`
`generates drawing data based on the received display data, and outputs the
`
`generated drawing data to the display. Ex. 1001, 5:15-29.
`
`
`
`Similarly, the specification admits, by describing its component in entirely
`
`functional terms, that the server of the game system does nothing more than
`
`perform standard functions in well-known ways. FIG. 3 illustrates an example of a
`
`schematic configuration of the server. Ex. 1001, 2:66-67.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`
`The specification explains that the claimed server of the ’656 patent (3 in
`
`FIG 3) “proceeds the game in response to a request from the portable device.” Ex.
`
`1001, 5:32-33. The server generates display data relating to the progress of the
`
`game, and transmits that display data to the portable device. Ex. 1001, 5:32-38.
`
`To implement these video game functions, the server includes “a server
`
`communication unit” (31 in FIG 3), “a server storage unit” (32 in FIG 3), and a
`
`server processing unit (33 in FIG 3).
`
`Each unit of the server is referred to in the specification as common
`
`hardware or as a black box, described only by the function it performs. The server
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`communication unit 31 “communicates with the Internet” and “includes a
`
`communication interface circuit for connecting the server 3 to the Internet 7.” Ex.
`
`1001, 5:39-41. Its function is to supply the data received from the portable device
`
`to the server processing unit 33. Ex. 1001:5:41-42. The server communication unit
`
`31 transmits the data supplied from the server processing unit 33 to the portable
`
`device 2. Ex. 1001, 5:44-46. The server storage unit 32 is not meaningfully limited
`
`beyond its generic storage function. For example, according to the specification, it
`
`may include “at least one of a magnetic tape device, a magnetic disk device and an
`
`optical disk device,” and its function is to “store[] an operating system program, a
`
`driver program, an application program, data, and the like used for processing in
`
`the server processing unit 33.” Ex. 1001, 5:47-55. It may also store, “a game
`
`program and the like for advancing the game and generating display data relating
`
`to its result, as the application program,” and “as the data, a user table (FIG. 4A)
`
`for managing users, a mission table (FIG. 4B) for managing missions, and an item
`
`table (FIG. 4C) for managing items and the like,” and “temporary data relating to
`
`certain processing.” Ex. 1001, 5:52-60.
`
`According to the specification, the server processing unit 33 is a general
`
`purpose processor, and may be “for example, a CPU” which “integrally controls an
`
`overall operation of the server 3.” Ex. 1001, 6:29-32. It performs well-known
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`functions, such as “execut[ing] processing based on the programs stored in the
`
`server storage unit 32.” Ex. 1001, 6:33-42.
`
`To implement the functions described in the specification, “the server
`
`processing unit 33 includes a control unit 331, a mission generating unit 332, a
`
`listing unit 333, a mission executing unit 334, a mission exchanging unit 335, and a
`
`shared-mission specifying unit 336.” Ex. 1001, 7:53-57.
`
`Each unit is a functional module or firmware which relies on conventional
`
`data structures. Ex. 1001, 7:53-60. For example, the mission generating unit and
`
`the mission exchange unit each rely on a user table, shown in FIG. 4A.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 4A.
`
`The mission generating unit 332 generates a plurality of different missions
`
`for each user in response to a request issued by the mission exchanging unit 335.
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:37-39. The mission generating unit sets items acquirable in each of the
`
`missions. In the user table in the specification, the higher the degree of difficulty
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`of the mission corresponds with higher game items, which will be acquired when
`
`the user completes the mission. Ex. 1001, 8:57-64.
`
`The mission exchanging unit 335 exchanges a mission in the mission list
`
`500 (FIG. 5A above) for another mission generated by the mission generating unit
`
`332 for the target user. It also completes this function using the user table. Ex.
`
`1001, 9:50-55. To complete this function, after the user operates the exchange
`
`button 550 (FIG 5A), the mission exchanging unit 335 causes the mission
`
`generating unit 332 to generate a new mission for the user. The mission
`
`exchanging unit 335 first deletes the ID of the mission from the “presented mission
`
`ID” for the target user in the user table (FIG 4A), and adds the ID of the newly
`
`generated mission to the “uncleared mission ID” and the “presented mission ID”
`
`for the target user. Ex. 1001, 9:56-63.
`
`Conventional Data Structures
`
`3.
`The data structures described in the specification, such as the user table in
`
`FIG 4A, are conventional tables comprising game and user data.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG 4A-4C.
`
`The specification admits that the data structures described in the
`
`specification are not necessary to perform the claimed invention and are only
`
`“examples” of data structures that may be used to effect the claimed result of the
`
`’656 patent. Ex. 1001, 5:61-62 (FIG. 4A to 4C), 5:63-64 (FIG. 4A), 6:21-22 (FIG.
`
`4B), 6:26-28 (FIG. 4C). Moreover, the databases described in the specification are
`
`entirely conventional data structures. As shown above, they are conventional
`
`tables, which include data related to game users (FIG. 4A), missions (FIG. 4B),
`
`and game items (FIG. 4C). Nothing in the specification describes the tables as
`
`anything but conventional data structures, and the specification admits that the
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`structure of the data tables is no necessary for the claimed invention. See
`
`generally, Ex. 1001, 5:61-6:58.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The ’656 patent was filed on January 4, 2016 as Application Serial No.
`
`14/987,412 (“the ’412 application”) as a continuation of application No.
`
`14/109,704, filed on December 17, 2013, now Pat. No. 9,272,222. The ’412
`
`application was assigned to art unit 3717. See Prosecution History of U.S. Patent
`
`9,770,656 (“Ex. 1002”), p. 132. The ’412 application was originally filed with
`
`claims 1-7. See Ex. 1002, pp. 200-203.
`
`On December 29, 2016, the examiner issued a non-final office action for the
`
`’412 application, rejecting claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(b) and 101. Claims
`
`1-7 were also rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being
`
`unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,272,222. Ex. 1002, pp. 69-88.
`
`On April 12, 2017, the applicant and examiner participated in an applicant-
`
`initiated interview regarding the Section 101 rejection. Ex. 1002, p. 66.
`
`According to the examiner, the applicant “has discussed the 101 issue and pointed
`
`out the significantly more or the improvement within the game which makes the
`
`claim eligible for 101. Examiner has acknowledged the argument and suggested
`
`small changes to the claim limitation for the clarification purpose.” Ex. 1002, p.
`
`66.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`On April 27, 2017, in its response to the non-final rejection, applicant
`
`cancelled claim 3 and amended each of the remaining claims. Ex. 1002, pp. 38-43.
`
`Applicant also argued that the amended claims were patent eligible and were not
`
`directed to an abstract idea.
`
`First, applicant argued that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea
`
`because “the claims are specific to a narrow area of application . . . . Therefore, the
`
`amended claims do not ‘tie up’ or pre-empt others from using the general concept
`
`of games or sharing general activities on a computer.” Ex. 1002, pp. 44-45. Next,
`
`without reference to the claim language, applicant argued that the claims were not
`
`unpatentable under § 101 in view of McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) because the claims were limited to a “narrow area
`
`of a computer network-based game with certain specific and narrow limitations.”
`
`Ex. 1002, pp. 47-48.
`
`Second, applicant argued that the “amended claims are neither related to an
`
`idea of itself nor are they related to a method of organizing human activity.” Ex.
`
`1002, p. 48. Applicant then listed several limitations of claim 1 and asserted
`
`without analysis, “It is evident that none of the claim limitations . . . is ‘a method
`
`of organizing human activity.’” Ex. 1002, p. 48. The applicant goes on to assert
`
`without reference to the claim language, “the amended independent claims do not
`
`recite a basic concept that is similar to any abstract idea previously identified by
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,656— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`the courts, that is, the claim does not recite any mathematical concept or a mental
`
`process such as comparing or categorizing information that can be performed in
`
`the