Patent No. 9,808,723 —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 9,808,723 B2
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT 9,808,723
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 2 
`
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES (37 CFR § 42.8(A)(1)) ....................................... 2 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(1)) ...................................... 2 
`
`Notice of Related Matters (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(2)) ................................ 2 
`
`Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(3)) ...... 2 
`
`Service of Information (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(4)) ..................................... 3 
`
`III.  ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................... 3 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Timing .................................................................................................. 3 
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 CFR § 42.204(a)) ....................................... 3 
`
`IV.  DESCRIPTION OF THE ’723 PATENT ....................................................... 4 
`
`A. 
`
`Specification ......................................................................................... 4 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Functionality ................................................................................ 4 
`
`System Description ...................................................................... 8 
`
`B. 
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................ 11 
`
`V. 
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.204(B)
`AND RELIEF REQUESTED ....................................................................... 12 
`
`Effective Filing Date of the Challenged Claims ................................ 12 
`
`Claims for Which PGR Is Requested, Precise Relief
`Requested, and Specific Statutory Grounds on Which
`the Challenge Is Based [37 CFR § 42.204(b)(1) &
`37 CFR § 42.204(b)(2)] ...................................................................... 13
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`C. 
`
`Claim Construction (37 CFR § 42.204(b)(3)) .................................... 13 
`
`1.  The Claimed Invention ............................................................... 14 
`
`VI. 
`
`IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT AT LEAST ONE
`OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’723 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE ....................................................................................... 29 
`
`Page
`
`A. 
`
`Claims 1-19 of the ’723 Patent Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 101 for Failing to Be Directed Toward Patent-Eligible
`Subject Matter .................................................................................... 29 
`
`B. 
`
`Legal Standard .................................................................................... 30 
`
`1. 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 Bars Claims that Recite Abstract
`Ideas and Lack an Inventive Concept. ....................................... 30 
`
`C. 
`
`Alice Step 1: The ’723 Patent Claims the Abstract Idea of
`Making Gameplay Less Boring.......................................................... 34 
`
`1.  The Claimed Idea is a Longstanding Method of
`Organizing Human Activity. ...................................................... 34 
`
`2.  The ’723 Patent Recites Only Generalized Steps and
`Fails to Claim a Technological Improvement. ........................... 36 
`
`D.  Alice Step 2: Claims 1-19 of the ’723 Patent Do Not
`Disclose an “Inventive Concept” Sufficient to Transform
`Their Ineligible Abstract Idea into a Patent-Eligible Invention. ........ 43 
`
`1.  The independent claims fail to disclose an “inventive
`concept” because the purported improvement over
`prior art is not captured in the claim language. .......................... 43 
`
`2.  The claim limitations, individually and as an ordered
`combination, are well-understood, routine, and
`conventional. .............................................................................. 47 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`The Dependent Claims Add Nothing Inventive. ................................ 51 
`
`Section 101 Was Not Properly Addressed During Prosecution. ........ 55 
`
`Claims 1-19 of the ’723 Patent Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112(a) for Lack of Written Description. ......................................... 58 
`
`Page
`
`1.  Claims 1-19 of the ’723 patent are invalid under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because the specification of the
`’723 patent fails to provide adequate written
`description of calculating a value to be applied to at
`least one of the first or a second game player's
`parameter based on a number of the game medium or a
`numerical value associated with the game medium. .................. 60 
`
`2.  Claims 1-19 of the ’723 patent are invalid under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because the specification of the
`’723 patent fails to provide adequate written description
`of applying the parameter to the at least one of the first or
`second game player’s parameter. ............................................... 66 
`
`H. 
`
`Claims 1-19 of the ’723 Patent Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112(b) as Indefinite ......................................................................... 68 
`
`V. 
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 75 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— 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) .......................................................................... 58
`BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 31
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................passim
`Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Cumberland Corp.,
`713 F.2d 774 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ............................................................................ 59
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................ 14, 15, 32, 36
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 39, 42, 49
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................passim
`In re Anderson,
`1997 U.S. App. Lexis 167 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 6, 1997) ............................................ 69
`In re Cohn,
`438 F.2d 989 (CCPA 1971) ................................................................................ 69
`In re Collier,
`397 F.2d 1003 (CCPA 1968) ........................................................................ 70, 74
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015), affirmed, Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .................................................................... 13
`In re Hammack,
`427 F.2d 1378 (CCPA 1970) .............................................................................. 69
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 58
`In re Mayhew,
`527 F.2d 1229 (CCPA 1976) ........................................................................ 70, 74
`In re Moore,
`439 F.2d 1232 (CCPA 1971) .............................................................................. 69
`In re Packard,
`751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................ 68, 69, 70, 74
`In re Paulsen,
`30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 13
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................... 31, 39, 47, 48
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 13
`In re Venezia,
`530 F.2d 956 (CCPA 1976) .......................................................................... 70, 74
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 31, 39
`Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 59
`Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`66 F. Supp. 3d 829 (E.D. Tex. 2014) ............................................................ 29, 30
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ........................................................................................ 31
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299,1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................... 39, 40
`Mortg. Grader v. First Choice Loan Services,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 48
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 59
`Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC,
`No. PGR2015-00018, 2016 WL 7985419 (PTAB Dec. 30, 2016) ..................... 69
`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) .......................................................................... 59
`Vehicle Intelligence & Safety, LLC v Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`635 Fed. App’x. 914 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................ 48
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 14
`Wang Labs. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`993 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................ 59
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 11
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................. 11, 12
`35 USC §112(a) ................................................................................................passim
`35 USC §112(b) ................................................................................................passim
`35 USC §§ 311-319.............................................................................................. 2, 75
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 CFR § 42.63(e))
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,808,723 to Keiya et al.
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,808,723
`
`USPTO Memorandum on Changes in Examination Procedure
`Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter
`Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) (April 19, 2018)
`
`Fine New Games and Toys, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 1, 1895.
`
`USPTO 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter
`Eligibility (December 16, 2014)
`
`USPTO July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility
`(July 30, 2015)
`
`Wikipedia, War (Card Game),
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_(card_game)
`
`Bulbapedia, Statistic,
`https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Statistic
`
`Rules & Strategies, Stratego,
`http://www.stratego.com/en/play/stratego-rules/
`
`History of Stratego, http://www.ultrastratego.com/history.php
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— 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 (“PGR”) of claims 1-19 of United States
`
`Patent No. 9,808,723 to Keiya et al., titled “Non-Transitory Computer-Readable
`
`Medium, Information Processing System, and Method” (the “’723 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 ’723 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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— 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 ’723 patent was granted on November 7, 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 August 7, 2018. See Ex. 1001.
`
`B. Grounds for Standing (37 CFR § 42.204(a))
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.204(a) that the ’723 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 ’723 patent on the grounds identified in the present
`
`petition.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ’723 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Specification
`1.
`The ’723 patent purports to provide an invention that can “make a game more
`
`Functionality
`
`interesting.” See Ex. 1001, 1:42-43. The “game” is a version of reversi, a strategy
`
`board game created sometime in the late 1800s. See Ex. 1004, Fine New Games
`
`and Toys, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 1, 1895. To achieve the stated goal of making the
`
`game more interesting, the specification describes a method, information processing
`
`system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium. 1 See Ex. 1001, 1:40-41.
`
`The method described in the specification roughly comprises the following series of
`
`steps: a first receive character selection step, a first store selected characters step, a
`
`second receive character selection step, a second store selected characters step, a
`
`designate attacking player step, a request designation step, a receive designation
`
`step, a store character and area step, a register skill information step, a specify
`
`specific areas step, a calculate hit points step, a change parameter state step, a check
`
`
`1 The method, information processing system, and non-transitory computer-
`readable medium are “provided” in the Background, and therefore are admitted to
`be prior art. See Ex. 1001, 1:40-43.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`hit points step, a switch designation step, and a decide winner step.2 See Ex. 1001,
`
`16:53-20:21. These steps are shown in Figure 13 below.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG 13.
`
`2 The independent claims recite significantly different steps, including a store game
`media step, a first control display step, a receive selection step, an allocate game
`medium step, a specify areas step, a control interface step, a calculate value step,
`an apply value step, a second control display step, and an identify areas step.
`Compare, e.g., Ex. 1001, 16:53-20:21, FIG. 13 with Ex. 1001, 26:2-52 (Claim 1).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`FIG. 13 shows “operations by the information processing device 100,”
`
`shown as steps S101 to S115, by which “offer[ing] a greater variety of game
`
`strategies and mak[ing] a game more interesting” is achieved. See Ex. 1001 FIG.
`
`13, 1:41-43, 16:53-17:55, 18:3-5.
`
`In the first step of the process, shown in FIG. 13 at S101, the information
`
`processing device “receives [] selection of characters to use in game” (S101).
`
`Ex. 1001, 16:58-60. The information processing device stores the selected
`
`characters (S102). The information processing device receives selection of
`
`characters for initial placement (S103) and stores these selected characters “for
`
`initial placement in field management data” (S104).
`
`“The game media are electronic data used in the game and include, for
`
`example, cards, items, characters, avatars, and the like. . . . In this disclosure, the
`
`game media are described as being characters.” See Ex. 1001 4:37-48. Game
`
`media is “electronic data that, in accordance with game progress, may be acquired,
`
`held, used, managed, traded, combined, strengthened, sold, discarded, and/or
`
`transferred by players in the game.” See Ex. 1001, 4:42-45. However, “the forms
`
`of use for the game media are not limited to the forms specified in this disclosure.”
`
`See Ex. 1001, 4:46-47. Also, “field management data” includes “information
`
`related to the character placed in each area on the field and the state of parameter
`
`of the character.” See Ex. 1001, 5:21-23. Parameters, in turn, are “indices or the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`like indicating combat strength such as attack points and defense points…, combat
`
`means…, skill information…, information on the avatar of the game medium…,
`
`[an] attribute…, and the rarity value of the game medium.” See Ex. 1001, 4:48-58.
`
`At S105, the information processing device designates the first attacking
`
`player “by any method.” See Ex. 1001, 17:1-3. The information processing device
`
`requests that the attacking player designate a character to place on the field and an
`
`area in which to place the character (S106). The information processing device
`
`receives the designation of the character and the area (S107) and stores the
`
`received character and area in the field management data (S108). When the
`
`designated character has a “skill,” the information processing device registers
`
`“skill information” for the skill in the “skill management data” (S109). “Skill
`
`information” is information related to a “unique ability (ability information)
`
`associated with each character” which is “not limited to skill information and may
`
`be any information related to a unique ability.” See Ex. 1001, 6:51-57.
`
`The information processing device “specifies specific area(s)” based on “the
`
`information stored in the field management data” (S110). See Ex. 1001, 17:22-24.
`
`A “specific area” is “an area in a predetermined positional relationship with respect
`
`to the area designated by the attacking player.” See Ex. 1001, 6:26-28. Based on
`
`the specified specific areas, the information processing device calculates hit points
`
`associated with the defending player (S111). The information processing device
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`“changes the state of parameter … of the character(s) associated with the specific
`
`area(s)” (S112). See Ex. 1001, 17:28-30.
`
`The information processing device determines whether the hit points
`
`associated with the defending player have fallen to zero or less (S113). When the
`
`information processing device determines the hit points are greater than zero, the
`
`information processing device switches the designation of the attacking player and
`
`the defending player (S114). The information processing device “repeats steps S106
`
`through S113 … [until] the hit points associated with the defending player have
`
`fallen to zero or less.” See Ex. 1001, 17:45-49. When the information processing
`
`device determines the hit points have fallen to zero or less, the information
`
`processing device “decides that the attacking player when the determination was
`
`made is the winner of the game” (S115). See Ex. 1001, 17:50-55.
`
`System Description
`
`2.
`The specification notes “the information processing system includes a server
`
`device 300 and a terminal device 400.” See Ex. 1001, 24:63-65. The devices
`
`comprise generic hardware and software which is not limited in any meaningful
`
`way. “The server device 300 includes a memory 310, field management data 320,
`
`control processor 330, specification module 340, calculation module 350,
`
`victory/defeat determination module 360, skill management data 370, and
`
`communication interface 305” which are “respectively similar” to the components
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`of the “information processing device” described with reference to FIG. 1. See Ex.
`
`1001, 24:66-25:10. The specification claims that these components “are software
`
`that execute particular, specific processing among the processing executed by the
`
`control processor 130.” See Ex. 1001, 4:32-35. The specification, however, does
`
`not delimit the “particular, specific processing” in any meaningful way. It,
`
`therefore, could be any processing, rather than a particular and specific
`
`processing.3 The control processor “is a processor that controls and manages the
`
`entire information processing device” and “is configured using a processor, such as
`
`a Central processing Unit (CPU) that executes a program in which control
`
`procedures for the game are prescribed.” See Ex. 1001, 5:47-53. These “control
`
`procedures” are not described at all, nor is the program described in any
`
`meaningful way. Similarly, “the memory” is described simply as “stor[ing] a
`
`variety of information used in game processing.” See Ex. 1001, 4:36-58.
`
`The “terminal device,” similarly, is composed of generic hardware “display
`
`480, input interface 490, communication interface 405, and control processor 430”
`
`that are “respectively similar to those of … the information processing device.”
`
`See Ex. 1001, 25:25-33. The specification describes its operation only in
`
`functional terms. For example, “a program containing a description of the
`
`
`3 “Particular and specific processing” is interpreted herein as the execution of
`executable code by a computer processor.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`processing for achieving the functions of the information processing device 100
`
`according to the embodiment is stored in memory” and “the functions [are]
`
`achieved by the CPU of the information processing device reading and executing
`
`the program.” See Ex. 1001, 25:48-57.
`
`The Summary of the patent and several claims include “circuitry”
`
`configured to perform one or more actions. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 Summary, 1:45-
`
`3:37, Claim 10, 27:50-28:33. The word “circuitry,” however, is not delimited
`
`anywhere within the specification. Further, other conjugations of the word, such as
`
`“circuit,” are not found anywhere within the Detailed Description.
`
`No particular program is disclosed that performs the claimed method steps.
`
`The functionality corresponding to the process of Figure 13 is described as being
`
`performed by “the information processing device” in general, and each step is
`
`described as performed by the generic “control processor” or by one of the above
`
`mentioned modules, such as the specification module and victory/defeat
`
`determination module. See Ex. 1001, 16:53-17:55. Although the Background of
`
`the specification says “[w]e provide a non-transitory computer-readable medium, an
`
`information processing system, and a method,” the body of the specification does
`
`not describe a non-transitory computer-readable medium. See Ex. 1001, 1:40-41.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The ’723 patent was filed on May 26, 2015 as Application Serial
`
`No. 14/721,894 (“the ’894 application”). The ’894 application was assigned to art
`
`unit 3714. See Prosecution History of U.S. Patent 9,808,723 (“Ex. 1002”), p. 123.
`
`The ‘894 application claimed priority to and the benefit of Japanese Patent
`
`Application No. 2014-108213, filed May 26, 2014.
`
` The ’894 application was originally filed with claims 1-19. See Ex. 1002,
`
`pp. 567-570.
`
`On October 3, 2016, a non-final office action was issued in the ’894
`
`application, rejecting claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial
`
`exception without significantly more. Furthermore, claims 1-5 and 8-19 were
`
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Sousumi (US 2003/0027615) and
`
`claims 6-7 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sousumi in
`
`view of Inagawa et al. (US 20140295972). See Ex. 1002, pp. 123-136.
`
`An interview took place on December 1, 2016 but no agreement was
`
`reached. See Ex. 1002, p. 121. All claims were amended in an amendment filed
`
`on December 27, 2016 and applicant argued that “[t]he pending claims comply
`
`with the requirements of § 101” and that “the amended independent claims 1, 12,
`
`and 16 recite novel features clearly not taught or rendered obvious by the applied
`
`references.” See Ex. 1002, p. 114.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`On April 10, 2017, a final rejection was issued in the ’894 application,
`
`rejecting claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to ineligible subject matter.
`
`Furthermore, claims 1-19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
`
`Sousumi in view of Alfaro et al. (US 2006/0223599) and Inagawa. See Ex. 1002,
`
`pp. 73-90.
`
`An interview took place on June 27, 2017, but again no agreement was
`
`reached. See Ex. 1002 p. 71. A request for continued examination and an
`
`amendment to the claims were filed on July 5, 2017. Applicant argued “that the
`
`Action has not met the burden for a prima facie case of subject matter ineligibility”
`
`and that “independent claims 1, 12, and 16 … recite novel features clearly not
`
`taught or rendered obvious by the applied references.” See Ex. 1002, pp. 38-63.
`
`On July 31, 2017, in response to the amendment of July 5, 2017, a Notice of
`
`Allowance was issued in the ’894 application. See Ex. 1002, p. 21. The ’894
`
`application issued as the ’723 patent on November 7, 2017.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.204(b)
`AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Effective Filing Date of the Challenged Claims
`The ’723 patent issued from the ’894 application, filed on May 26, 2015.
`
`The ’894 application claims the benefit of Japanese Patent Application No. 2014-
`
`108213, filed May 26, 2014. Thus, the effective filing date of the challenged
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`claims is no earlier than May 26, 2014. The ’723 patent is therefore 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 ’723 patent.
`
`Claims 1-19 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
`
`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).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`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 ’723 patent contains 19 claims. Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent.
`
`Each independent claim is directed to the same abstract concept of “mak[ing] a
`
`game more interesting” through “a greater variety of game strategies.” See Ex.
`
`1001, 1:42-43. Claim 1 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium,
`
`claim 10 is directed to an information processing system, and claim 16 is directed
`
`to a method. All three independent claims provide for substantially the same steps,
`
`which are nothing more than commands to be executed by a computer. Claim 1 is
`
`representative4 and reproduced below. Differences between the independent
`
`claims are addressed at the end of this section.
`
`
`4 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 under Section
`101 based on its analysis of two representative claims, even where the parties had
`not agreed beforehand on the set of representative claims. 776 F.3d 1343, 1348
`(Fed. Cir. 2014). The Federal Circuit rejected the patentee’s contention that the
`district court erred by failing to address each claim individually, finding that such
`an analysis was “unnecessary.” Id. The Federal Circuit found the claims of the
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,808,723— Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium including
`computer program instructions, which when executed by an
`information processing system, cause the information processing
`system to:
`store a