Patent No. 10,518,177 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`Filed on behalf of Supercell Oy
`
`By:
`BRIAN HOFFMAN, Reg. No. 39,713
`MICHAEL J. SACKSTEDER (pro hac vice)
`KEVIN X. MCGANN, Reg. No. 48,793
`JENNIFER R. BUSH, Reg. No 50,784
`GREGORY HOPEWELL, Reg. No. 66,012
`GEOFFREY MILLER (pro hac vice)
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street, 12th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: 415.875.2300
`Facsimile: 415.281.1350
`
`
`
`
`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 10,518,177 B2
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT 10,518,177
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,518,177 —Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 CFR § 42.8(a)(1)) ......................................... 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(1)) ....................................... 1
`B.
`Notice of Related Matters (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(2)) ................................. 1
`C.
`Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel
`(37 CFR § 42.8(b)(3) ............................................................................. 1
`Service of Information (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(4)) ...................................... 2
`D.
`III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ................................................................ 2
`A.
`Timing ................................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Grounds for Standing (37 CFR § 42.204(a)) ........................................ 2
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ’177 PATENT ........................................................ 2
`A.
`Specification .......................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 7
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER
`37 CFR § 42.204(b) AND RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................ 9
`A.
`Effective Filing Date of the Challenged Claims ................................... 9
`B.
`Claims for Which PGR Is Requested, Precise Relief
`Requested, and Specific Statutory Grounds on Which the
`Challenge Is Based .............................................................................. 10
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 10
`Claim Construction (37 CFR § 42.204(b)(3)) ..................................... 11
`1. The Claimed Invention ................................................................ 12
`2. Ordinary and Customary Meaning .............................................. 15
`
`C.
`D.
`
`V.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,518,177 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`VI.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT AT LEAST ONE
`OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’177 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................ 15
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-17 of the ’177 Patent Are Invalid
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 For Failing To Be Directed Toward
`Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ............................................................ 15
`1.
`Introduction ................................................................................. 15
`2. The ’177 Patent Claims Patent Ineligible Subject
`Matter Under the 2019 Eligibility Guidance and
`Gaming Cases ............................................................................. 20
`Step One, Prong One: The Claims of the ’177 Patent
`Are Directed to Managing and Playing a Game
`Involving Different Rules for Different Time Periods
`Within the Game ......................................................................... 23
`Step One, Prong Two: The Claims of the ’177 Patent
`Do Not Integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical
`Application .................................................................................. 27
`a.
`The Additional Elements Do No More than
`Generically Implement the Abstract Idea on a
`Computer ........................................................................ 27
`The Claims Are Not Directed to an
`Improvement in Computer Functionality or
`Other Technology ........................................................... 28
`5. Alice Step Two: The Claims of the ’177 Patent Provide
`No “Inventive Concept” .............................................................. 31
`a.
`The Claims Recite Purely Conventional and
`Functional Components .................................................. 33
`The Claims Do Not Capture Any Purported
`Technical Improvement .................................................. 35
`
`b.
`
`b.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,518,177 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`c.
`
`2.
`
`Beyond the Abstract Idea, the Claims Are
`Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional ............... 37
`The Dependent Claims Add Nothing Inventive ............. 39
`d.
`Ground 2: Claims 1-17 of the ’177 Patent Are Invalid Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as Obvious Over MH and Gilson ............................. 40
`1. Overview of the references ......................................................... 41
`a. Master Hearthstone in 10 Minutes! ................................ 41
`b.
`Gilson .............................................................................. 45
`Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-7. ......................... 47
`a. MH and Gilson disclose 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 claim 1. ................................................. 47
`b. MH discloses displaying, on a first field, a
`plurality of cards selected from a deck which is
`a stack of virtual cards of claim 1. .................................. 48
`c. MH discloses 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 of
`claim 1. ........................................................................... 49
`d. MH discloses at a conclusion of the first term of
`the battle game, automatically initiating a
`second term of the battle game of claim 1. ..................... 53
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,518,177 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`f.
`
`e. MH discloses 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 of claim 1. ............................................. 54
`MH discloses 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 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 of
`claim 1. ........................................................................... 56
`g. MH discloses the third battle condition is a
`condition for providing a reward to the player of
`claim 2. ........................................................................... 60
`h. MH discloses 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 of claim 3. ...................................... 60
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,518,177 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`l.
`
`3.
`
`MH discloses an attack strength to the opponent
`character under the second battle condition is
`higher than an attack strength to the opponent
`character under the first battle condition of
`claim 4. ........................................................................... 61
`MH discloses wherein the parameter includes an
`attack strength and a life force of claim 5. ..................... 63
`k. MH discloses wherein the battle is conducted on
`a second field different from the first field of
`claim 6. ........................................................................... 63
`MH and Gilson disclose the first field and the
`second field are included in a game screen of
`claim 7. ........................................................................... 64
`Independent claims 8, 14-17, and dependent claims 9-
`13, are obvious in view of MH and Gilson for the same
`reasons. ........................................................................................ 65
`4. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify and
`combine MH and Gilson. ............................................................ 67
`VII. THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED UNDER §§ 324 OR 325 ... 69
`A.
`Section 325(d) is Inapplicable Because Petition Does Not
`Assert Art Previously Evaluated by the Office ................................... 69
`The Board Should Not Deny Institution Under Section 324(a) .......... 70
`B.
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 72
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,518,177 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Int’l.,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) .....................................................................................passim
`Apple v. Fintiv,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ......................................... 70
`Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
`133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013) ........................................................................................ 16
`Audatex North Am., Inc. v. Mitchell Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 2016-1913, 2017 WL 3188451 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2017) ........................... 19
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................ 20, 31, 35, 36
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ................................................................................ 16, 19, 33
`BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 32
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 32
`Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Indus.,
`935 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 32
`Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services,
`859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 18, 22
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 30
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ............................................................................................ 30
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................ 16, 18, 23, 33
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,518,177 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 18, 28
`General Plastic Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 ................................................................................... 70
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) .............................................................................................. 25
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 40
`In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.,
`911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................. 23, 25, 26
`In re Smith,
`815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................passim
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................passim
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 23
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 40
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .................................................................................passim
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 21, 22
`Netflix, Inc. v. Rovi Corp.,
`114 F. Supp. 3d 927 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................................ 33
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................... 11, 12
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,518,177 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC,
`576 F. App’x. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................ 23, 25, 26, 35
`Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC,
`576 Fed. App’x. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................. 23
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 672 (2018) ................ 32
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2020) .......................................... 71
`SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.,
`727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 12
`Supercell Oy. v. Gree, Inc.,
`PGR2018-00047, Paper 39 ..................................................................... 27, 28, 37
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 32
`Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC,
`921 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............................................................. 29, 30, 37
`Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (U.S.) Inc.,
`664 Fed. App’x 968 (Fed. Cir 2016) .................................................................. 19
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... 19, 33
`Uniloc United States v. Avaya Inc.,
`Civ. No. 6:12-cv-01168, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168855 (E.D.
`Tex. April 19, 2017) ........................................................................................... 71
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,518,177 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .............................................................................................. 8, 41, 46
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................... 8, 9, 10, 40
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 70
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ................................................................................................... 70
`35 U.S.C. §§ 321-329 .......................................................................................... 1, 72
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ........................................................................................... 2, 9, 11
`
`Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims
`in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
`83 FR 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018) .............................................................................. 11
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, November 2019
`(U.S.P.T.O. Nov 20, 2019) ................................................................................. 69
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,518,177 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 CFR § 42.63(e))
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,518,177 to Suzuki
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,518,177
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,583,362
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,583,362
`
`Declaration of Steve Meretzky
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Steve Meretzky
`
`GREE’s Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`Contentions dated August 19, 2020 in Case No. 2:19-cv-00413-JRG-RSP
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`1008 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th Ed. (1999)
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`YouTube - Master Hearthstone in 10 Minutes! The Ultimate Beginner’s
`Guide (“MH”) (web page print out from
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVZ4qyx-c2o)
`
`“Master Hearthstone in 10 Minutes! The Ultimate Beginner’s Guide,”
`webpage as captured by The Internet Archive on January 2, 2014
`
`“Master Hearthstone in 10 Minutes! The Ultimate Beginner’s Guide” –
`Video File
`
`“Master Hearthstone in 10 Minutes! The Ultimate Beginner’s Guide” –
`Transcript
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0281173 to Gilson et al.
`
`US Patent Publication No. 2014/0349723 to Nakatani et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,662,332 to Garfield
`
`x
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,335,683 — PGR Petition Challenging Validity
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`“Dynamic game difficulty balancing,” Wikipedia page as captured by The
`Internet Archive on December 12, 2011
`
`“And That’s A Wrap! BlizzCon 2013 Has Officially Come to an End!”
`webpage as captured by the Internet Archive on Nov. 16, 2013
`
`“FAQ – Hearthstone” webpage as captured by the Internet Archive on
`Nov. 16, 2013
`
`“Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft Official Game Site” webpage as
`captured by the Internet Archive on Nov. 16, 2013
`
`GREE, Inc.’s Opposition to Defendant Supercell Oy’s Motion to Dismiss,
`Dkt. No. 34, Filed April 8, 2020, Case No. 2:19-cv-00413-JRG-RSP
`(E.D. Texas)
`
`
`
`xi
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,518,177 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 321-329 and 37 CFR §§ 42.200 et seq.,
`
`I.
`
`Petitioner Supercell Oy (“Supercell” or “Petitioner”) requests Post Grant Review
`
`(“PGR”) of claims 1-17 of United States Patent No. 10,518,177 to Suzuki, titled
`
`“Game Control Method, System, and Non-Transitory Computer-Readable
`
`Recording Medium” (the “’177 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 ’177 patent should be canceled as unpatentable.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 CFR § 42.8(a)(1))
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(1))
`The sole real party-in-interest for this Petition is Supercell Oy, Petitioner.
`
`B. Notice of Related Matters (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(2))
`The ’177 patent is the subject the following patent infringement lawsuit:
`
`GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, Civil Case No. 2:19-cv-00413-JRG-RSP (ED Tex.).
`
`C. Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner designates Brian M. Hoffman (Reg. No. 39,713) as lead counsel
`
`and as back-up counsel: Michael J. Sacksteder (pro hac vice to be filed), Kevin X.
`
`McGann (Reg. No. 48,793), Jennifer R. Bush (Reg. No. 50,784), Gregory A.
`
`Hopewell (Reg. No. 66,012), and Geoffrey Miller (pro hac vice to be filed).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,518,177 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`Service of Information (37 CFR § 42.8(b)(4))
`D.
`Service of any documents may be made at the postal mailing address of
`
`Fenwick & West LLP, 555 California Street, 12th Floor, San Francisco, CA
`
`94104, (Tel: (415) 875-2300 and Fax: (415) 281-1350), with courtesy copies to the
`
`email address bhoffman-PTAB@fenwick.com. Petitioner consents to electronic
`
`service to bhoffman-PTAB@fenwick.com.
`
`III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
`A. Timing
`The ’177 patent was granted on December 31, 2019 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 September 30, 2020. See Ex. 1001 at 1.
`
`B. Grounds for Standing (37 CFR § 42.204(a))
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.204(a) that the ’177 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 ’177 patent on the grounds identified in the Petition.
`
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ’177 PATENT
`Specification
`A.
`The ‘177 patent relates to setting battle conditions for time slots in a game.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Abstract; see generally Ex. 1005 at 19-36. To increase player
`
`participation and account for different player skill levels, the ‘177 patent purports
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,518,177 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`to provide an improved game that allows “a wide range of players to enjoy a group
`
`battle.” Id. at 2:38-39; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 20-21.
`
`To do so, the ‘177 provides a battle game in “a plurality of time slots” in
`
`which “a battle condition is changed” from one time slot to another. Id. at 2:43-
`
`3:13. The ‘177 patent describes setting a battle condition for each time slot, and
`
`changing the battle conditions in different time slots in ways that are advantageous
`
`for certain players, thereby increasing participation rates throughout the time slots.
`
`Id. at 2:61-3:13. Ex. 1005 ¶ 22.
`
`Fig. 4 illustrates an example game screen for a game:
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,518,177 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`Id., Fig. 4. In this example game, player characters for one group 300 may battle a
`
`second group 400 as shown in an event field 201. Id. at 6:58-65. In the “palette”
`
`202 section, a player has a virtual deck of cards 600 and cards 601, 602, and 603
`
`are selected from the deck 600. Id. at 7:4-7. These cards represent skills useable
`
`to attack opposing players and may indicate a type of skill, attack points, defense
`
`points, or other attributes. Id. at 7:7-14. Players “flips over” these cards to attack
`
`the opposing characters. Id. at 7:15-21. Ex. 1005 ¶ 23.
`
`The ‘177 patent discloses that a battle may be composed of several “time
`
`slots” with different battle conditions that affect the game. See id. 7:32-67. Fig. 6
`
`shows example time slots or “terms” for the battle having a first portion, middle
`
`portion, and a last portion:
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 6. The ‘177 patent describes that the battle condition for a portion of the
`
`battle “broadly includes additional conditions added on during a group battle.” Id.
`
`at 8:1-3. The ‘177 patent describes examples of battle conditions:
`
`While also described in detail below, a battle condition can
`include changing the ability value of an individual character,
`such as changing the parameters 70 (see FIG. 2) that allow a
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,518,177 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`character to exercise certain abilities during a battle, such as a
`character's attack strength, defense strength, or the like. Battle
`conditions also can include any sort of condition applied during a
`battle, such as providing a reward to the player controlling a
`character or tallying the battle result during the first portion of a
`subdivided time slot and reflecting the battle result in a
`subsequent portion of the subdivided time slot.
`
`Id. at 8:3-14; Ex. 1005 ¶ 24.
`
`The ‘177 patent provides two examples of changing a battle condition
`
`between portions of a game. “In the first example, the battle condition is changed
`
`randomly or by a predetermined setting in each of the subdivided time slots (see
`
`FIG. 7(a)). In the second example, among the subdivided time slots, battle
`
`participation and battle results are tallied during an earlier time slot, and the tallied
`
`results are reflected in the battle conditions of time slots after the earlier time slot
`
`(see FIG. 7(b)).” Id. 9:7-16. These two figures are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,518,177 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`
`
`
`The ‘177 patent includes various examples for changing battle conditions
`
`using these two techniques. Examples of changing conditions according to the
`
`technique of FIG. 7(a), which the ‘177 patent refers to as “changing the battle
`
`condition as time progresses” (Id. 9:18-19), include increasing the attack strength
`
`of lowest ranked characters of a group, increasing item attribute attack points,
`
`increasing attack points in accordance with a player attribute, and increasing a
`
`combo effect. See id. 9:17-54; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 24-26.
`
`Examples of changing conditions according to the technique of FIG. 7(b),
`
`which the ‘177 patent also refers to as “changing battle conditions in accordance
`
`with battle participation and battle results” (Id. at 9:63-64) include providing a
`
`reward card or other incentive based on an intermediate tally and changing a battle
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,518,177 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`condition such as the attack strength of a group based on an intermediate tally. Id.
`
`9:63-10:29; Ex. 1005 ¶ 27.
`
`The computer components described in the ‘177 patent for executing the
`
`game are generic and conventional. See id. FIGS. 1-3; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 28-29. Figure 1
`
`illustrates a generic client-server architecture, FIG. 2 illustrates an example server
`
`device, and FIG. 3 illustrates an example client device. The game server and client
`
`device are each described as including generic computing technologies such as a
`
`processor, memory, and wireless capability, and the software is similarly generic.
`
`See id. at 4:41-51, 5:49-61-9:6; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 28-29. The software executing on the
`
`server and client devices is also described in generic terms. See Ex. 1001 at 4:52-
`
`55, 4:62-5:8. The ‘177 patent omits detail on processing units other than the “battle
`
`processing unit” (Id. at 5:10-12) and generally describes the battle processing unit
`
`in functional terms. See id. at 7:32-9:6, Ex. 1005 at ¶ 29.
`
`Prosecution History
`B.
`The ’177 patent was filed on February 25, 2015 as Application Serial No.
`
`14/631,221 (“the ’221 application”), and claims priority to Japanese Patent
`
`application, JP 2014-034003, filed on February 25, 2014. See Prosecution History
`
`of U.S. Patent 10,518,177 (“Ex. 1002”), at 807-70.
`
`The ‘221 application was originally filed with claims 1-18. Id. at 838-41.
`
`On April 7, 2017, a non-final office action was issued in the ’221 application,
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,518,177 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`rejecting claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of US Pat. Pub.
`
`No. 2007/0066403 to Conkwright in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0344940 to
`
`Kurabayashi. The examiner commented that the claims were being interpreted as
`
`means plus function under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Id. at 658-87. In an amendment
`
`filed July 6, 2017, Applicant amended the claims to obviate the 112(f) rejection
`
`and argued that the amended claims were patentably distinct from the cited
`
`references. Id. at 584-89. The examiner disagreed and issued a Final Rejection on
`
`September 8, 2017 making a rejection based on Kurabayashi in view of U.S. Pub.
`
`No. 2007/0265046 to Sato. Id. at 556-64. On January 5, 2018, Applicant filed an
`
`amendment with a Request for Continued Examination and canceled claims 1-18
`
`and presented new claims 19-38. Id. at 540-48.
`
`The examiner issued a Non-Final Office Action on February 22, 2018. The
`
`examiner rejected claims 19-38 as directed towards unpatentable subject matter
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The examiner further rejected claims 19-28 and 31-38 as
`
`indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner further rejected claims 19, 26,
`
`35-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0054402 to
`
`Noguchi. The examiner further rejected claims 20 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`as obvious over Noguchi in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0295973 to Inagawa.
`
`The examiner rejected claims 21 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
`
`Noguchi in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0234849 to Nomura. Id. at 511-24. On
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,518,177 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`June 19, 2018, Applicant amended the claims and argued that the amended claims
`
`overcame the pending rejections. Id. at 417-31. The examiner issued a Notice of
`
`Allowance on September 24, 2018, without remarks. Id. at 356-58.
`
`Applicant proceeded to file several Information Disclosure Statements
`
`following the September 24, 2018 Notice of Allowance. See id. at 26, 99, 113,
`
`128. The examiner signed off on the references disclosed, noted several NPLs
`
`were not provided in English, and issued a Non-Final Office Action on June 10,
`
`2019. Id. at 59-69. The examiner rejected claims 19, 20, 22-30, 32-38 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 2004/0143852 to Meyers in view of
`
`Noguchi. No mention was made of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Id. Applicant canceled claims
`
`27-29 and amended several remaining claims in an Amendment filed on September
`
`10, 2019. Id. at 34-51. The examiner issued a final Notice of Allowance on
`
`November 1, 2019, again without Remarks. Id. at 8-12.
`
`The ‘177 patent has one issued continuation, U.S. Patent No. 10,583,362,
`
`which issued on March 10, 2020 (“the ‘362 patent”). The ‘362 Patent and its File
`
`History are included as Exhibits 1003 and 1004, respectively.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.204(b)
`AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Effective Filing Date of the Challenged Claims
`The ‘177 patent issued from the ‘221 application. The ‘221 application
`
`claims foreign priority to Japanese Application JP 2014-034003, filed February 25,
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,518,177 — Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`2014. Thus, the effective filing date of the ’177 patent is no earlier than February
`
`25, 2014. The ‘177 patent thus is available for Post Grant Review. The ‘177
`
`patent is subject to the post-AIA provisions of the Patent Statute; all statutory
`
`references in this Petition are to the applicable post-AIA provisions.
`
`B. Claims for Which PGR Is Requested, Precise Relief Requested,
`and Specific Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge Is Based
`Petitioner requests PGR of claims 1-17 of the ’177 patent. Claims 1-17 are
`
`challenged on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1
`
`Claims 1-17
`
`Ground 2
`
`Claims 1-17
`
`35 U.S.C. §101
`Unpatentable subject matter
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`Obvious over Mastering Hearthstone
`(“MH”) in view of Gilson
`
`
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`(“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree in game design/development,
`
`interactive media, computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with
`
`at least two years of professional experience working in computer game
`
`design/development. Ex