`
`Preliminary Ineligibility Contentions - U.S. Patent No. 10,518,177 to Suzuki
`
`The following chart contains Supercell’s Preliminary Ineligibility Contentions demonstrating that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No.
`10,518,177 (the “’177 patent”) are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 pursuant to Judge Gilstrap’s Standing Order Regarding
`Subject Matter Eligibility Contentions. Because the Court has yet to issue a claim construction in this case and, to the extent GREE
`contends that there are factual disputes that relate to eligibility of the asserted claims of the ’177 patent, fact and expert discovery is
`ongoing, these contentions are preliminary only and Supercell reserves the right to supplement or modify these contentions in accordance
`with the agreed patent-disclosure procedures and the Docket Control Order in this case. Additionally, and in further consideration of
`the preliminary stages of the case, Supercell notes that the pinpoint citations referenced in this chart are not exhaustive, and Supercell
`reserves the right to rely on additional citations within the asserted patent and any cited reference. Furthermore, citations to any figure,
`table, or chart are meant to encompass the language describing the respective figure, table, or chart, and vice versa. To the extent
`applicable, Supercell incorporates by reference its citations in its ineligibility contentions for the other patents-in-suit, which are related
`to the ’177 patent.
`
`Further, these charts incorporate GREE’s apparent interpretation of the breakdown of elements within the asserted claims, as reflected
`in GREE’s infringement contentions to date. Supercell does not concede that such interpretation is correct, and reserves its right to
`supplement these contentions accordingly.
`
`Supercell reserves its right to supplement these contentions based on further discovery, including any supplemental infringement
`contentions or any interrogatory response provided by GREE purporting to rebut these ineligibility contentions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 1 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`’177 Claim Element
`
`Exception to Eligibility
`
`Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10,
`12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 of
`the ‘177 Patent
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 (“the asserted claims”) of the ’177 patent were well
`understood, routine and conventional in the game industry no later than February 25, 2014.1 On
`or around February 25, 2014, games with different rules for different phases of the game were
`well understood, routine and conventional. For example, Jeopardy! organizes itself into three
`game phases with different rules: Jeopardy!, Double Jeopardy!, and Final Jeopardy!
`(https://web.archive.org/web/20140222052504/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy!) Similarly,
`National Football League games have different rules for the first 28 minutes of each half, the two-
`minute warning, and overtime
`(http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2013%20-%20Rule%20Book.pdf),
`FIFA World Cup soccer games in the knock-out rounds had different rules for regular time, extra
`time, and penalty kicks (https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/golden-goal-rule-applied-for-the-
`first-time-the-world-cup-finals-71652), and Olympic hockey had 5-v-5 regular time, 4-v-4
`overtime, and shoot-out terms (http://www.nhl.com/ice/m_news.htm?id=513766). Video “battles
`games” also includes this ubiquitous, abstract concept. Games such as “Wartune”
`(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AmJJ6SdPqs ), “Arena of Heroes”
`(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mzqKZGbSHA), Bloodline Champions (MMOHuts)
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vu70sWL2pA) use the same concepts. For example,
`gameplay, in “Wartune,” is organized into time periods using a timer and rules change (e.g.,
`damage increases by 50%) when a new time period begins. Further, a three round card
`tournament, for example Eucre, where the winner of each round advances to a new “table” to play
`against new opponents (with new partners), would be organized into three phases with different
`conditions (https://www.printyourbrackets.com/how-to-run-euchre-tournament.html). Thus, the
`asserted claims of the ’177 patent amount to nothing more than well understood, routine and
`conventional aspects of managing a game. Aspects of managing a game have been held abstract,
`at least because the steps for managing a game can be “done mentally” and/or “using pen and
`
`1 Supercell reserves the right to dispute that the asserted claims of the ’177 patent are entitled to a priority date of February 25, 2014.
`However, for purposes of its ineligibility contentions, Supercell contends that the asserted claims were well understood, routine and
`conventional as of (and following) this date.
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 2 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`’177 Claim Element
`
`Exception to Eligibility
`paper.” Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see
`generally Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
`
`In addition, the asserted claims of the ’177 patent recite only conventional components (e.g., non-
`transitory computer-readable medium, computer, and display) without disclosing an improvement
`to computers or mobile gaming technology. The ’177 patent simply takes the abstract idea of
`“dividing” he time slot of the battle game into a plurality of time slots and setting a battle
`condition for each time slot,” and implements it on generic computer technology, including a
`“server” and “general purpose communication terminal device.” See ’177 patent, Fig. 1, 1:20-23,
`2:65-3:2, 3:58-60, 4:4-7. Thus, there is nothing in the claims that would make the abstract idea
`patent eligible as the claims require nothing other than “off-the-shelf, conventional computer and
`display technology for playing a game”, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Elec. Power
`Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth,
`Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`In fact, the independent claims of the ’177 patent do not recite even conventional computer steps,
`but instead recite a conventional framework for playing a game. See ’177 patent at claim 1 (“A
`non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing instructions to be executed by one or
`a plurality of computers capable of being used by a player conducting a battle game, the
`instructions causing the one or a plurality of computers to execute steps of: during a first term of
`the battle game, conducting a battle to a first opponent character based on a parameter set on a
`card selected by a player's operation under a first battle condition, wherein the first battle
`condition is not changed during the first term; at a conclusion of the first term of the battle game,
`automatically initiating a second term of the battle game, and during the second term of the battle
`game continued from the first term, conducting the battle to a second opponent character based
`on the parameter set on the card selected by the player's operation under a second battle
`condition, wherein the second battle condition is different from the first battle condition and is
`predetermined independent from a battle result of the first term, and the first opponent character
`and the second opponent character are same or different, and wherein the second battle condition
`is not changed during the second term; and during a third term of the battle game continued from
`the second term, conducting the battle to a third opponent character based on the parameter set
`on the card selected by the player's operation under a third battle condition, wherein the third
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 3 of 36
`
`

`

`’177 Claim Element
`
`Exception to Eligibility
`battle condition is different from the second battle condition and is dependent on a battle result of
`the second term, and the second opponent character and the third opponent character are same or
`different, and wherein the third battle condition is not changed during the third term.”) Claim 1 is
`representative of the asserted claims.
`Furthermore, managing a game, which is an abstract idea itself, is a concept similar to other
`concepts found to be abstract. See, e.g., In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(concluding that ‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game’ are
`abstract); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“method of
`playing a dice game” is patent ineligible); Planet Bingo LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (managing a gamem the steps of which can be “done mentally” is patent
`ineligible); see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
`(Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”) (“managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between
`people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” constitutes
`abstract idea).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 4 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`Pursuant to Judge Gilstrap’s Standing Order Regarding Subject Matter Eligibility Contentions, Supercell provides the following chart
`identifying a description of the industry, at the relevant time, in which the Challenged Claims are alleged to be well understood,
`routine, and conventional, and the factual and legal basis therefor; and a description of how each element of each Challenged Claim,
`both individually and in combination with the other elements of that claim, was well understood, routine, and conventional, in the
`relevant industry at the relevant time, and the legal and factual basis therefor.2
`
`
`’177 Claim Element
`
`Exception to Eligibility
`
`The asserted claims of the ’177 patent were well understood, routine and conventional in the
`games industry no later than February 25, 2014. On or around February 25, 2014, battle games on
`electronic apparatuses, such as computers, smart phones and tablets, were well understood, routine
`and conventional. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. ’177 patent (Background Art, Patent Literature). Supercell
`incorporates by reference the prior art games and other prior art identified in the ’177 and ’362
`patents, the prosecution history of the ’177 and ’362 patents, and/or related prosecution and patent
`office proceedings. Supercell further incorporates by reference any games and other prior art
`identified or to be identified in its invalidity contentions and/or expert reports that will be provided
`according to the schedule provided by the Court’s Docket Control Order.
`
`[Element 1-Pre]
`A non-transitory
`computer-readable
`recording medium storing
`instructions to be
`executed by one or a
`plurality of computers
`capable of being used by
`a player conducting a
`battle game, the
`instructions causing the
`one or a plurality of
`computers to execute
`steps of:
`
`
`To the extent the preamble is limiting: a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium
`storing instructions to be executed by one or a plurality of computers capable of being used by a
`player conducting a battle game, the instructions causing the one or a plurality of computers to
`execute steps, was well understood, routine and conventional in the relevant industry at the
`relevant time period.
`For example, the intrinsic record, including the specification of the ’177 patent, establishes that
`the preamble was well understood, routine and conventional. See, e.g., ’177 patent at 1:21-24
`
`2 Supercell notes that under Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent, the Court need not, and should not, consider whether each
`and every element of each Challenged Claim was well understood, routine, and conventional. Rather, the only elements which should
`be considered under Alice step 2 are the elements that fall outside the scope of the abstract idea. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208, 221-224 (2014); BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since
`Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders
`the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”).
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 5 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`’177 Claim Element
`
`[Element 1-A]
`displaying, on a first
`field, a plurality of cards
`selected from a deck
`which is a stack of virtual
`cards;
`
`Exception to Eligibility
`(specification describing online game services that were “provided to client devices by a server
`device over a communication network.”)
`The specification of the ’177 patent discloses that the game employs general-purpose servers and
`computers. See, e.g., ’177 patent at 3:58-60, 4:4-7 (“The server device 10 is not, however, limited
`to this example and may be configured using a general-purpose communication terminal device.”
`“The client device 30 is a network node having a function to receive provision of the battle game
`service and is, for example, configured using a general-purpose communication terminal device.);
`id. at Fig. 1 (showing standard server and client device); id. at 3:62-4:3.
`Such conventional computer components cannot make a claim patent eligible. See e.g., Alice
`Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223 (2012) (“the mere recitation of a generic
`computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”); In
`re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 614 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“server fails to add
`an inventive concept because it is simply a generic computer”). Further, the functions performed
`by the off-the-shelf hardware are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Berkheimer v.
`HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding claims reciting known components
`performing known functions non-inventive at step two of Alice).
`
`Displaying, on a first field, a plurality of cards selected from a deck which is a stack of virtual
`cards was well understood, routine and conventional in the relevant industry at the relevant time
`period.
`
`Selecting from a deck which is a stack of virtual cards is conventional. See, e.g., ‘362 patent 1:20-
`24 (“[c]onventionally, in a battle game server, each user’s deck is formed by a plurality of battle
`cards or the like stored for each user…”). See U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2013028117 (discussing
`virtual objects including cards). See also U.S. Pat. No. 7,905,769 (discussing various types of
`cards including force cards and standing cards which can be part of an electronic game).
`
`Furthermore, displaying a plurality of cards selected from a deck which is a stack of cards can be
`performed with “pen and paper” or using a standard deck of cards in a table card game (e.g., a
`player can draw the cards on pieces of paper – or buy a standard deck of cards – and arrange them
`in a particular order). Thus, Element 1-A of the ’177 patent is abstract because it amounts to
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 6 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`’177 Claim Element
`
`Element 1-B]
`
`during a first term of the
`battle game, conducting a
`battle to a first opponent
`character based on a
`parameter set on a card
`selected by a player's
`operation under a first
`battle condition, wherein
`the first battle condition
`
`Exception to Eligibility
`nothing more than to an aspect of managing a game, which can be done “using pen and paper”.
`See Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see generally
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Displaying those cards on a field
`does not make the abstract idea patent eligible. See, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“selecting information, by content or source, for collection,
`analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental
`process” and thus constitutes patent ineligible subject matter).
` In addition, components needed to display virtual cards (e.g., display) are conventional. See
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1097–98 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the practices
`of collecting, analyzing, and displaying data, with nothing more, are practices whose implicit
`exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas”). See, e.g.,
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding that the “basic
`concept of displaying two sets of information, using any means to display them without overlap”
`was abstract and failed to contribute an inventive concept); Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921
`F.3d 1378, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (finding that the arrangement of display information “does not
`improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any
`technological problem”).
`
`During a first term of the battle game, conducting a battle to a first opponent character based on a
`parameter set on a card selected by a player's operation under a first battle condition, wherein the
`first battle condition is not changed during the first term was well understood, routine and
`conventional in the relevant industry at the relevant time period.
`
`Element 1-B is merely a mechanism for managing a game that can be fully performed using “pen
`and paper”. For example, a player can draw one or more cards on one or more pieces of paper and
`write down a parameter (e.g., attack value and/or defense value) on each drawn card or assign a
`value or parameter to a card in a table card game. The player may select (pick up) one of the
`drawn cards to “conduct a battle” with an opponent card. A first battle condition may be any rule
`that does not change during a first term of the battle, as the first battle condition is only limited to
`not being changed during the first term. For example, opposing players may agree on/write down
`
`7
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 7 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`’177 Claim Element
`is not changed during the
`first term;
`
`Element 1-C.i]
`
`at a conclusion of the first
`term of the battle game,
`automatically initiating a
`second term of the battle
`game, and
`
`Exception to Eligibility
`a rule about which cards can be played during the first term.
`
`Thus, Element 1-B of the ’177 patent is abstract because it amounts to nothing more than to an
`aspect of managing a game, which can be done “using pen and paper.” Planet Bingo, LLC v.
`VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see generally Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
`Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
`
`In addition, the specification of the ’177 patent recites that “[b]y dividing the time slot of the battle
`game into a plurality of time slots and setting the battle condition for each time slot, a battle game
`that has conventionally been played under certain rules can be changed during the set time.” See
`’177 patent at 2:65-3-02. Thus, the ’177 patent acknowledges that managing a battle game with
`certain rules is conventional. Element 1-B is nothing more than a different way to manage a battle
`game under certain rules (e.g., a rule enabling selection of a card to conduct a battle during a
`round of gameplay and a rule that sets a battle condition for that round), which has been found to
`be abstract. See Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see
`generally Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); See, e.g., In re Smith, 815
`F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that ‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for
`conducting a wagering game’ are abstract); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157
`(Fed. Cir. 2018) (“method of playing a dice game” is patent ineligible).
`
`At a conclusion of the first term of the battle game, automatically initiating a second term of the
`battle game, was well understood, routine and conventional in the relevant industry at the relevant
`time period.
`
`During the relevant time period various games were designed to automatically initiate a next
`round at a conclusion of a previous round including “Arena of Heroes” “Wartune”, “Bloodline
`Champions (MMOHuts)”, “Jeopardy!”, National Football League, FIFA World Cup soccer,
`Olympic hockey games, and other games such as a Eucre card tournament. Therefore, Element 1-
`C.i was well understood, routine and conventional.
`
`In addition, Element 1-C.i is merely another mechanism for managing a game using rules (i.e.,
`splitting the game into timed rounds). Steps of managing a game have been found to be abstract.
`
`8
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 8 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`’177 Claim Element
`
`[Element 1-C.ii]
`
`during the second term of
`the battle game continued
`from the first term,
`conducting the battle to a
`second opponent
`character based on the
`parameter set on the card
`selected by the player's
`operation under a second
`battle condition,
`
`
`Exception to Eligibility
`See Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see generally
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); See, e.g., In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816,
`818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that ‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a
`wagering game’ are abstract); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir.
`2018) (“method of playing a dice game” is patent ineligible). Therefore, Element 1-Ci is an
`abstract game mechanism.
`
`During the second term of the battle game continued from the first term, conducting the battle to a
`second opponent character based on the parameter set on the card selected by the player's
`operation under a second battle condition, was well understood, routine and conventional in the
`relevant industry at the relevant time period.
`During the relevant time period various battle games using cards were designed to have multiple
`rounds, including “Arena of Heroes” “Wartune”, “Bloodline Champions (MMOHuts)”, and
`others.
`
`Furthermore, element 1-C.ii is yet another mechanism for managing a game that can be fully
`performed “mentally” and/or using “pen and paper”. For example, the player that has selected
`(picked up) another one of the drawn cards may “conduct another battle” to another opponent
`character using parameters (e.g., using attack parameter) written on the card, which could be done
`in a table card game format. Elements that can be fully performed “mentally” and/or using “pen
`and paper” have been found to be abstract. See Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x
`1005, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see generally Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208
`(2014).
`
`In addition, the ’177 patent acknowledges that managing a battle game with certain rules is
`conventional. See ’177 patent at 2:65-3-02. Similar concepts have been found to be abstract as
`well. See Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see
`generally Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); See, e.g., In re Smith, 815
`F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that ‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for
`conducting a wagering game’ are abstract); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157
`(Fed. Cir. 2018) (“method of playing a dice game” is patent ineligible). Therefore, Element 1-C.ii
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 9 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`’177 Claim Element
`
`Exception to Eligibility
`
`is an abstract game mechanism.
`
`[Element 1-C.iii]
`
`wherein the second battle
`condition is different
`from the first battle
`condition and is
`predetermined
`independent from a battle
`result of the first term,
`and the first opponent
`character and the second
`opponent character are
`same or different, and
`wherein the second battle
`condition is not changed
`during the second term;
`and
`
`Wherein the second battle condition is different from the first battle condition and is
`predetermined independent from a battle result of the first term, and the first opponent character
`and the second opponent character are same or different, and wherein the second battle condition
`is not changed during the second term, was well understood, routine and conventional in the
`relevant industry at the relevant time period.
`
`Element 1-C.iii is just another mechanism for managing a game that can be fully performed
`“mentally” and/or using “pen and paper”. For example, the player that has selected (picked up)
`one of the drawn cards may “conduct another battle” with to another opponent character using
`parameters (e.g., attack force) written on the card. A second battle condition, like the first battle
`condition may be any rule that does not change during a second term of the battle as long as the
`second battle condition is different from the first battle condition. For example, opposing players
`may agree on/write down another a rule about which cards may be played during the second term,
`which could be done in the same manner in a table card game. Thus, Element 1-C.iii of the ’177
`patent is abstract because it amounts to nothing more than to another aspect of managing a game
`step, which can be done “mentally” and/or “using pen and paper.” Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS
`LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see generally Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank
`Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
`
`In addition, as discussed with respect to other elements, the ’177 patent acknowledges that
`managing a battle game with certain rules is conventional. See ’177 patent at 2:65-3-02. Similar
`concepts have been found to be abstract as well. See Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F.
`App’x 1005, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see generally Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
`U.S. 208 (2014); See, e.g., In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that
`‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game’ are abstract); In re Marco
`Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“method of playing a dice game” is
`patent ineligible). Therefore, Element 1-C.iii is an abstract game mechanism.
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 10 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`’177 Claim Element
`
`[Element 1-D.i]
`
`during a third term of the
`battle game continued
`from the second term,
`conducting the battle to a
`third opponent character
`based on the parameter
`set on the card selected
`by the player's operation
`under a third battle
`condition,
`
`Exception to Eligibility
`
`During a third term of the battle game continued from the second term, conducting the battle to a
`third opponent character based on the parameter set on the card selected by the player's operation
`under a third battle condition, was well understood, routine and conventional in the relevant
`industry at the relevant time period.
`
`
`Element 1-D.i is yet another mechanism for managing a game that can be fully performed
`“mentally” and/or using “pen and paper”. For example, the player that has selected (picked up)
`another one of the drawn cards may “conduct another battle” to another opponent character using
`parameters (e.g., using attack parameter) written on that card, which could be accomplished in a
`table card game. Elements that can be fully performed “mentally” and/or using “pen and paper”
`have been found to be abstract. See Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005, 1006
`(Fed. Cir. 2014); see generally Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
`
`In addition, the ’177 patent acknowledges that managing a battle game with certain rules is
`conventional. See ’177 patent at 2:65-3-02. Similar concepts have been found to be abstract as
`well. See Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see
`generally Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); See, e.g., In re Smith, 815
`F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that ‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for
`conducting a wagering game’ are abstract); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157
`(Fed. Cir. 2018) (“method of playing a dice game” is patent ineligible).
`
`[Element 1-D.ii]
`
`wherein the third battle
`condition is different
`from the second battle
`condition and is
`dependent on a battle
`result of the second term,
`
`Wherein the third battle condition is different from the second battle condition and is dependent
`on a battle result of the second term, and the second opponent character and the third opponent
`character are same or different, and wherein the third battle condition is not changed during the
`third term, was well understood, routine and conventional in the relevant industry at the relevant
`time period.
`
`Element 1-D.ii is just another mechanism for managing a game that can be fully performed
`“mentally” and/or using “pen and paper”. A third battle condition, like the first battle condition
`and the second battle condition can be any rule that does not change during a third term of the
`
`11
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 11 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`’177 Claim Element
`and the second opponent
`character and the third
`opponent character are
`same or different, and
`wherein the third battle
`condition is not changed
`during the third term.
`
`Exception to Eligibility
`battle as long as the third battle condition is different from the second battle condition and is
`dependent on a battle result of the second term. For example, opposing players may agree to/write
`down another rule about that states that only cards that are allowed to be played during the third
`term are cards that were not played during the second term, which could be accomplished in a
`table card game. Thus, Element 1-D.ii of the ’177 patent is abstract because it amounts to nothing
`more than to another aspect of managing a game, which can be done “mentally” and/or “using pen
`and paper.” Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see
`generally Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
`
`In addition, as discussed with respect to other elements, the ’177 patent acknowledges that
`managing a battle game with certain rules is conventional. See ’177 patent at 2:65-3-02. Similar
`concepts have been found to be abstract as well. See Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F.
`App’x 1005, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see generally Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
`U.S. 208 (2014); See, e.g., In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that
`‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game’ are abstract); In re Marco
`Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“method of playing a dice game” is
`patent ineligible).
`
`
`Claim 3
`’177 Claim Element
`
`[Element 3]
`
`The non-transitory
`computer-readable
`recording medium
`according to claim 1,
`
`Description of the Industry and
`Description of How Each Element was Well Understood, Routine, and Conventional
`
`The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein a start
`timing and an end timing of each of the first term and the second term are predetermined using a
`start timing of the battle game as a reference was well understood, routine and conventional in the
`relevant industry at the relevant time period.
`
`Various games, including battle games, at the relevant time period employed timed terms. For
`example, Jeopardy! organizes itself into three timed game phases: Jeopardy!, Double Jeopardy!,
`
`12
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 12 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`’177 Claim Element
`
`wherein a start timing and
`an end timing of each of
`the first term and the
`second term are
`predetermined using a
`start timing of the battle
`game as a reference.
`
`
`Claim 5
`
`Description of the Industry and
`Description of How Each Element was Well Understood, Routine, and Conventional
`and Final Jeopardy! Similarly, National Football League games have two timed halves, and a
`timed overtime, and Olympic Hockey and FIFA World Cup soccer matches have varying rules for
`regular time, over time, and shoot outs. Video “battles games” also includes this ubiquitous,
`abstract concept. For example, “Wartune” released more than a year prior to February 25, 2014
`uses timed periods for battles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AmJJ6SdPqs ).
`
`Thus, Element 3 of the ’177 patent is abstract because it amounts to nothing more than to another
`aspect of managing a game. See Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005, 1006 (Fed.
`Ci