Patent No. 9,770,664 —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 9,770,664 B2
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT 9,770,664
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — 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 ’664 PATENT ....................................................... 3 
`
`A. 
`
`Specification ......................................................................................... 3 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Functionality ................................................................................ 3 
`
`System Description ...................................................................... 6 
`
`B. 
`
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 9 
`
`V. 
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.204(B)
`AND RELIEF REQUESTED ....................................................................... 10 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Effective Filing Date of the Challenged Claims ................................ 10 
`
`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)] ......................................... 10 
`
`C. 
`
`Claim Construction (37 CFR § 42.204(b)(3)) .................................... 10 
`
`1.  The Claimed Invention ............................................................... 11 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`VI. 
`
`IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’664 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE ....................................................................................... 18 
`
`Page
`
`A. 
`
`Claims 1-19 of the ’664 Patent Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for
`Failing to Be Directed Toward Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ......... 18 
`
`B. 
`
`Legal Standard .................................................................................... 19 
`
`1. 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 Bars Claims that Recite Abstract Ideas and
`Lack an Inventive Concept. ....................................................... 19 
`
`C. 
`
`Section 101 Was Not Addressed During Prosecution. ...................... 24 
`
`D.  Alice Step 1: The ’664 Patent Claims the Abstract Idea of Detecting
`Enemy Characters Within a Range and Determining an Enemy
`Character for Tracking. ...................................................................... 25 
`
`1.  The ’664 Patent Recites Only Generalized Steps and Fails to
`Claim a Technological Improvement. ........................................ 25 
`
`2.  Detecting and Tracking Enemies in a Shooting Game Is a
`Manually Achievable Purpose. .................................................. 32 
`
`E. 
`
`Alice Step 2: Claims 1-19 of the ’664 Patent Do Not Disclose an
`“Inventive Concept” Sufficient to Transform Their Ineligible Abstract
`Idea into a Patent-Eligible Invention. ................................................. 34 
`
`1.  The independent claims fail to disclose an “inventive concept”
`because the purported improvement over prior art is not
`captured in the claim language. ................................................. 34 
`
`2.  The claim limitations, individually and as an ordered
`combination, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. .. 37 
`
`F. 
`
`The Dependent Claims Add Nothing Inventive. ................................ 41 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`V. 
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 45 
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................ 21, 25, 29, 44
`
`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) .......................................................................... 39
`
`Audatex N.A., Inc. v. Mitchell Intl., Inc.,
`703 Fed. App’x. 986 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................ 33
`
`BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 21, 24
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................passim
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 22
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 27, 30
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 20, 29, 30
`
`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) .................................................................... 10
`
`In re Nuijten,
`500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 31
`
`In re Paulsen,
`30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 11
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................... 20, 27, 37, 38
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 11
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank,
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 33
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 20, 27
`
`Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`66 F. Supp. 3d 829 (E.D. Tex. 2014) .................................................................. 19
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .................................................................................. 20, 37
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................passim
`
`Mortg. Grader v. First Choice Loan Services,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 38
`
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
`873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 33
`
`Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (U.S.), Inc.,
`664 Fed. App’x 968 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................. 32
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commnc’n,
`LLC, 874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................... 25, 26, 29, 44
`
`Vehicle Intelligence & Safety, LLC v Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`635 Fed. App’x. 914 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................ 38
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 11
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 USC §§ 311-319.............................................................................................. 1, 45
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 10
`
`37 CFR §§ 42.200 et seq. ..................................................................................... 1, 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 CFR § 42.63(e))
`
`Exhibit
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,770,664 to Jo et al.
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,770,664
`
`USPTO Memorandum on Recent Subject Matter Eligibility
`Decisions, dated November 2, 2016
`
`Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Business Methods
`(December 2016)
`
`Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351
`OG 212 (January 26, 2010).
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — 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 1-19 of United States Patent No.
`
`9,770,664 to Jo et al., titled “Method and Apparatus for Providing Online Shooting
`
`Game” (the “’664 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 ’664 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.
`
`D. Service of Information (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`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 ’664 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 ’664 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 ’664 patent on the grounds identified in the present
`
`petition.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ’664 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Specification
`1.
`The ’664 patent purports to provide an invention that can “provide a method
`
`Functionality
`
`and apparatus for finding a target and aiming at targets with ease in shooting
`
`games… for increasing convenience for shooting games based on skill levels of the
`
`players.” Ex. 1001, 2:6-14; see also Ex. 1001, 3:42-49. To achieve the stated goal
`
`of easing finding a target and aiming at targets in shooting games for increasing
`
`convenience based on skill levels of the players, the specification describes a
`
`method, a game server, and a computer-readable recording medium. Id. Each
`
`embodiment comprises roughly the same series of steps: selecting a basic
`
`identification range, detecting an enemy character within the range, tracking via an
`
`automatic tracking object, and applying damage accordingly. See Ex. 1001, 13:43-
`
`16:24. These steps are shown in Figure 3 below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG 3.
`
`FIG. 3 shows the processing steps, shown as steps S302 through S308, for
`
`providing an online shooting game. Ex. 1001, FIG. 3; 9:4-10:5.
`
`In the first step of the game, shown in FIG. 3 S302, a selected basic
`
`identification range may be displayed on a player terminal (S302). Ex. 1001, 9:20-
`
`29. FIG. 4 also describes that multiple basic identification ranges having different
`
`areas may be provided and one selected based on a skill level of the player, where
`
`players may have different ranks and different basic identification ranges may be
`
`provided for the respective ranks. Ex. 1001, 10:18-32; see also 12:50-13:18; FIG.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`7.1 The specification describes the benefit of providing of the different ranges as
`
`helping the junior player adapt to and be immersed in the game, while the senior
`
`player is provided with a higher level of shooting experience. Ex. 1001, 6:39-53.
`
`In particular, in prior art games where the user aims manually, “a clumsy or novice
`
`junior player has more difficulty in hitting a target with a bullet.” Ex. 1001, 1:46-
`
`50.
`
`Next, enemy characters that are within the basic identification range are
`
`detected and an automatic tracking object is identified (S304). Ex. 1001, 9:30-43.
`
`If multiple enemy characters exist within the range, a priority for attack on the
`
`enemy characters may be established, based on a level of damage that a player can
`
`cause to each of the enemy characters, a level of risk of each of the enemy
`
`characters to the player, or other predetermined criteria. Ex. 1001, 9:39-43; 11:7-
`
`15. Thereafter, automatic tracking may be initiated and an aiming point may track
`
`movement of the tracking object and be moved with the tracking object (S306).
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:44-57.
`
`If there is a shooting by the player, damage to be inflicted on the tracking
`
`object may be determined and applied to the game (S308). Ex. 1001, 9:58-10:5.
`
`The damage may be determined based on an attack range and firepower of a
`
`
`1 Neither “skill levels” nor “ranks” are recited in the claims.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`weapon of the player, and a location relationship between the tracking object
`
`character and the player at the time when there is a shooting. Ex. 1001, 9:63-10:2.
`
`A loss of firepower of the player who performed the shooting may be also
`
`calculated. Ex. 1001, 11:63-67.
`
`System Description
`
`2.
`The specification expressly notes that “the game system 1000 may include
`
`one or more player terminals 100 a to 100 n, a communication network 200, a
`
`shooting game server 300, and a database 400.” See Ex. 1001, 4:23-26. Also, a
`
`“shooting game server 300 may, at least in part, perform data exchange in real-time
`
`with each of the player terminals 100 a to 100 n and the database 400 via the
`
`communication network 200.” See Ex. 1001, 5:12-15. The devices are not
`
`described as limited in any meaningful way.
`
`The system is described as including purely generic hardware that is not
`
`limited in any meaningful way, including the computer-readable recording medium
`
`storing data in the form of “a ROM, a RAM, a CD-ROM,” etc. as storage devices,
`
`and “may also be implemented in the form of a carrier wave.” See Ex. 1001,
`
`13:22-31.
`
`The shooting game server 300 is described, as shown in FIG. 2 below, as
`
`including a data communication unit 310, a game progress control unit 320, a basic
`
`identification range selecting unit 330, a tracking object determining unit 340, an
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`automatic tracking processing unit 350, and a shooting determining and processing
`
`unit 360. Ex. 1001, 5:39-45.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 2.
`
`
`
`The data communication unit 310 is described as a communication interface
`
`for facilitating exchange of game progress data between each of the player
`
`terminals and/or the database under control of the game progress control unit 320.
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:46-60. The game progress control unit 320 performs authentication of
`
`the player terminals, various controls related to the progress of the shooting game,
`
`and controls the flow of various game information. Ex. 1001, 5:61-6:10.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`The basic identification range selecting unit 330 provides for selection of a
`
`basic identification range, e.g., per step S302 of FIG. 3 as described above,
`
`including providing different basic identification ranges according to the player's
`
`ranks (junior player versus senior player). Ex. 1001, 6:11-58. In particular, in prior
`
`art games where the user aims manually, “a clumsy or novice junior player has
`
`more difficulty in hitting a target with a bullet.” Ex. 1001, 1:47-48. The
`
`specification describes the benefit of providing of the different ranges as “the
`
`junior player can be helped to adapt to and be immersed in game environments
`
`with more ease while the senior player can be provided with a higher level of
`
`shooting experience and a sense of immersion”; in other words, as providing the
`
`purported advance of the ’664 patent as discussed above. Ex. 1001, 6:39-53.2 The
`
`rationale is that by automating the typically manual process of aiming, the
`
`unskilled player is assisted is shooting accuracy.
`
`
`
`The tracking object determining unit 340 may determine whether an enemy
`
`character capable of being automatically tracked exists in the selected basic
`
`identification range, e.g., per step S304 of FIG. 3 as described above. Ex. 1001,
`
`6:59-7:12.
`
`
`2 None of the claims recite varying the range according to skill level or player rank.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`
`
`The automatic tracking processing unit 350 may perform automatic tracking
`
`processing for the tracking object determined by the tracking object determining
`
`unit 340, e.g., per step S306 of FIG. 3 as described above. Ex. 1001, 7:13-42.
`
`
`
`The shooting determining and processing unit 360 may determine whether
`
`there is a shooting from a player, and if so, determine a damage to be inflicted on
`
`the tracking object character, e.g., per step S308 of FIG. 3 as described above. Ex.
`
`1001, 8:15-23.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The ’664 patent was filed on April 29, 2014 as Application Serial
`
`No. 14/355,166 (“the ’166 application”). The ’166 application was assigned to art
`
`unit 3716. See Prosecution History of U.S. Patent 9,770,664 (“Ex. 1002”), p. 37.
`
`The ’166 application was a National Stage Entry of PCT Application No.
`
`PCT/KR2013/002844, filed on April 5, 2013.
`
`The ’166 application was originally filed with claims 1-22. See Ex. 1002,
`
`pp. 344-47.
`
`On August 18, 2016, a non-final office action was issued in the ’166
`
`application, rejecting claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See Ex. 1002, pp.
`
`168-77. On March 1, 2017, a final office action was issued in the ’166 application,
`
`rejecting claims 1-3, 5-15, 17-20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and indicating
`
`that claims 4, 16, and 21 recited allowable subject matter. See Ex. 1002, pp. 72-82.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`A Notice of Allowance was issued on June 5, 2017. See Ex. 1002, pp. 30-37.
`
`No rejection was raised under 35 U.S.C. § 101 during prosecution of the ’166
`
`application. See generally Ex. 1002.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.204(b)
`AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Effective Filing Date of the Challenged Claims
`The ’664 patent issued from the ’166 application, filed on April 29, 2014.
`
`The ’166 application claims the benefit of PCT Application No.
`
`PCT/KR2013/002844, filed on April 5, 2013. Thus, the effective filing date of the
`
`challenged claims is no earlier than April 5, 2013. The ’664 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 1-19 of the ’664 patent.
`
`Claims 1-19 are challenged on the grounds that they relate to unpatentable subject
`
`matter under 35 USC §101.
`
`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
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`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 ’664 patent contains 19 claims. Claims 1, 12, and 16 are independent.
`
`Each independent claim is directed to the same abstract concept of providing an
`
`online shooting game. Claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 12 is directed to a
`
`game server, and claim 16 is directed to a computer-readable recording medium.
`
`All three independent claims provide for essentially the same steps, which are
`
`nothing more than commands to be executed by a computer.
`
`Claim 1 is reproduced below. Differences between the independent claims
`
`are addressed at the end of this section.
`
`1. A method of providing an online shooting game performed
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`by a game server communicatively connected to a player terminal and
`a database storing information on enemy characters in the game, the
`method comprising:
`selecting a basic identification range within a virtual online
`shooting game environment displayed on the player
`terminal;
`detecting one or more enemy characters that are within the
`basic identification range;
`determining an attack priority on each of the detected one or
`more enemy characters based on at least one of a level of
`expected damage capable of being inflicted on a
`corresponding enemy character by a shooting from the
`player terminal and a level of risk of the corresponding
`enemy character to the player terminal based on the
`information on the enemy characters; and
`determining one of the detected one or more enemy characters
`as an automatic tracking object based on the determined
`attack priority.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 13:43-61.
`
`There is no disclosure provided as to how these method steps are performed;
`
`and thus they can be enabled by anything, including technology that has not yet
`
`been developed, so long as it performs the required steps.
`
`Although claimed as performed by a computer, the claim language is
`
`agnostic as to how the computer actually performs these steps, which recite purely
`
`functional steps that purport to solve a problem, and standard computer operations
`
`to perform the steps.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Claim 12 is a game server claim reciting the same steps as claim 1, except
`
`that the steps are explicitly performed by a server device. Claim 12 is copied
`
`below, showing in bold the limitations not included in claim 1:
`
`12. A game server for an online shooting game, the game
`server configured to be communicatively connected to a player
`terminal, and a database storing information on enemy characters in
`the game, the game server comprising:
`a processor configured to
`select a basic identification range within a virtual online shooting
`game environment displayed on the player terminal;
`detect one or more enemy characters that are within the basic
`identification range;
`determine an attack priority on each of the detected one or more
`enemy characters based on at least one of a level of expected
`damage capable of being inflicted on a corresponding enemy
`character by a shooting from the player terminal and a level of
`risk of the corresponding enemy character to the player terminal
`based on the information on the enemy characters; and
`determine one of the detected one or more enemy characters as an
`automatic tracking object based on the determined attach
`priority.3
`Claim 16 recites a computer-readable recording medium.4 Claim 16 is
`
`copied below, showing in bold limitations not included in claim 1.
`
`16. A computer-readable recording medium recording one or
`more instructions that, when executed by a computing system,
`cause the computing system to perform a method of providing an
`
`3 Each step of claim 12 is recited without the -ing of the method step verbs.
`4 Claim 16 does not recite “non-transitory” as a modifier of the computer-readable
`recording medium, and the specification describes the medium as including
`implementation in the “form of carrier wave[s].” Ex. 1001, 13:29-31.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`online shooting game by a game server communicatively connected to
`a player terminal and a database storing information on enemy
`characters in the game, the method comprising:
`selecting a basic identification range within a virtual online shooting
`game environment displayed on a player terminal;
`detecting one or more enemy characters that are within the basic
`identification range;
`determining an attack priority on each of the detected one or more
`enemy characters based on at least one of a level of expected
`damage capable of being inflicted on a corresponding enemy
`character by a shooting from the player terminal and a level of
`risk of the corresponding enemy character to the player terminal
`based on the information on the enemy characters; and
`determining one of the detected one or more enemy characters as an
`automatic tracking object based on the determined attack
`priority.
`
`
`As can be seen from the above, there are no substantive differences between
`
`the various independent claims; the differences are merely whether the claim is
`
`recited as a system, method, or computer-readable medium. The basic elements
`
`are substantially identical between the independent claims.
`
`Like the independent claims, the dependent claims are written in non-
`
`specific and functional terms that cover any system that provides for the claimed
`
`result.
`
`Claim 2, which depends from the method of claim 1, recites “the basic
`
`identification range is movable within the virtual online shooting game
`
`environment in response to a manipulation input from the player terminal.” Ex.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`1001, 13:62-65. Claims 13 and 17 recite the same limitation, dependent on claims
`
`12 and 16, respectively. Ex. 1001, 14:66-15:2; 16:9-13. Claims 2, 13, and 17
`
`recite this limitation without disclosing how the range is movable “in response to a
`
`manipulation input.”
`
`Claim 3, which depends from the method of claim 1, recites “wherein
`
`selecting the basic identification range comprises selecting one of a plurality of
`
`basic identification ranges having different areas, respectively, according to a
`
`setting on the player terminal or a selection from the player terminal.” Ex. 1001,
`
`13:66-14:3. Claims 14 and 18 recite the same limitation, dependent on claims 12
`
`and 16, respectively. Ex. 1001, 15:3-7; 16:14-19. Claims 3, 14, and 18 recite this
`
`limitation without disclosing any information about how the different ranges differ,
`
`or what kind of setting or selection the range is selectable based upon.
`
`Claim 4, which depends from method claim 1, recites “further comprising
`
`allowing an aiming point to track the automatic tracking object according to a
`
`movement of the automatic tracking object within the basic identification range.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:4-7. Claims 15 and 19 recite the same limitation, dependent on
`
`claims 12 and 16, respectively. Ex. 1001, 15:8-12; 16:20-24. Claims 4, 15, and 19
`
`recite this limitation without disclosing how the aiming point tracks the movement
`
`of the automatic tracking object.
`
`Claim 5, which depends from method claim 4, recites “wherein the
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`automatic tracking object is movable within the virtual online shooting game
`
`environment, and wherein allowing the aiming point to track the automatic
`
`tracking object comprises allowing the aiming point to be automatically moved
`
`toward the automatic tracking object according to the movement of the automatic
`
`tracking object within the basic identification range.” Ex. 1001, 14:8-15. Claim 5
`
`combines the movable limitation of claims 2, 13, and 17 with the tracking of claim
`
`4, without elucidating either of those steps further as to how the actions take place.
`
`Claim 6, which depends from method claim 5, recites “wherein allowing the
`
`aiming point to track the automatic tracking object comprises allowing the aiming
`
`point to be automatically moved toward an obstacle when the automatic tracking
`
`object is invisible on the player terminal due to the obstacle in the basic
`
`identification range as the automatic tracking object is moved within the basic
`
`identification range.” Ex. 1001, 14:16-22. Claim 6 provides a specific scenario for
`
`the tracking object being behind an obstacle, without disclosing any information
`
`about how the system identifies the obstacle or further elucidating how the tracking
`
`(e.g., as recited in claims 4 and 5) works; i.e., how the aiming point tracks the
`
`movement of the automatic tracking object.
`
`Claim 7, which depends from method claim 5, recites “wherein a movement
`
`trajectory of the aiming point is visible on the player terminal.” Ex. 1001, 14:23-
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,770,664 — Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`24. Claim 7 merely recites further detail as to the visual display of the player
`
`terminal.
`
`Claim 8, which depends from method claim 5, recit