Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MULLEN INDUSTRIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2025-00745
`U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2
`Issue Date: May 30, 2017
`
`Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LOCATION BASED GAMES AND
`EMPLOYMENT OF THE SAME ON LOCATION ENABLED DEVICES
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,662,582 B2
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER §42.8(A)(1) ......................................... 1 
`A. 
`Real Party-In-Interest under §42.8.(b)(1) ............................................. 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters under §42.8(b)(2) ....................................................... 1 
`C. 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under §42.8(b)(3) .................................... 2 
`D. 
`Service Information .............................................................................. 2 
`FEE PAYMENT ............................................................................................. 3 
`II. 
`III.  REQUIREMENTS UNDER §§ 42.104 AND 42.108 AND
`CONSIDERATIONS UNDER §§ 314(A) AND 325(D) ............................... 3 
`A.  Grounds for Standing ........................................................................... 3 
`B. 
`Identification of Challenge and Statement of Precise Relief
`Requested ............................................................................................. 3 
`Considerations Under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) ........................................ 3 
`C. 
`IV.  OVERVIEW OF THE PATENT .................................................................... 4 
`A. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill ........................................................................ 4 
`B. 
`Specification Overview ........................................................................ 5 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 5 
`V. 
`VI.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ........................... 6 
`A.  Overview of Ground ............................................................................. 6 
`B. 
`Prior Art Status of Relied-Upon References ........................................ 9 
`C. 
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 12, and 13 are Obvious Over Levine ............. 9 
`Independent Claim 1: “A non-transitory computer-
` 
`readable medium having program logic provided thereon
`for providing a location-based game comprising:” (Claim
`1[pre]) ......................................................................................... 9 
`(a) 
`“a virtual playfield,” (Claim 1[a]) ................................ 20 
`
` 
`
`
`
`-i-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(b) 
`
`(c) 
`
`(d) 
`
`“a first character, wherein the location of said first
`character in said virtual playfield is displayed on a
`display and is determined utilizing a first control
`signal from a first locating device that is based, at
`least in part, on a physical location determined by
`said first locating device; and” (Claim 1[b]) ................ 29 
`“a second character, wherein said second character
`is computer controlled via artificial intelligence
`and said artificial intelligence utilizes said first
`control signal from said first locating device for
`controlling, at least in part, said second character;
`and” (Claim 1[c]) .......................................................... 42 
`“an impenetrable object, wherein said first locating
`device is operable to travel through a physical
`location that correlates to a virtual location of said
`impenetrable object on said virtual playfield, and
`said first character is impacted when said first
`character contacts said impenetrable object.”
`(Claim 1[d]) ................................................................... 49 
`Independent Claim 2: “A non-transitory computer-
`readable medium having program logic provided thereon
`for providing a location-based game comprising:” (Claim
`2[pre]) ....................................................................................... 57 
`(a) 
`“a virtual playfield,” (Claim 2[a]) ................................ 57 
`(b) 
`“a first character, wherein the location of said first
`character in said virtual playfield is displayed on a
`display of a portable device and is determined
`utilizing a first control signal from a first locating
`device of said portable device that is based, at least
`in part, on a physical location determined by said
`first locating device” (Claim 2[b]) ............................... 58 
`
`-ii-
`
` 
`
`
`
`  
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`(c) 
`
`“a second character, wherein said second character
`is computer controlled via artificial intelligence
`and said artificial intelligence utilizes said first
`control signal from said first locating device for
`controlling, at least in part, said second character”
`(Claim 2[c]) ................................................................... 61 
`“a virtual object, wherein said virtual object is
`operable of being picked up by said first character;
`and” (Claim 2[d]) .......................................................... 61 
`“an impenetrable object, wherein said first locating
`device is operable to travel through a physical
`location that correlates to a virtual location of said
`impenetrable object on said virtual playfield, and
`said first character is impacted when said first
`character contacts said impenetrable object.”
`(Claim 2[e]) ................................................................... 63 
`Dependent Claim 11: “The non-transitory computer-
`readable medium of claim 1, wherein said first locating
`device comprises an accelerometer.” ....................................... 63 
`Dependent Claim 13: “The non-transitory computer-
`readable medium of claim 2, wherein said first locating
`device comprises an accelerometer.” ....................................... 64 
`VII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 64 
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 67 
`
`
`(d) 
`
`(e) 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`  
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2 to Jeffrey David Mullen (filed Aug. 20,
`2007, issued May 30, 2017) (“’582” or “’582 patent”)
`1002 Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D. (“Cooperstock”)
`1003 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0177187 A1 to David A. Levine et al.
`(filed Feb. 20, 2003; published Sept. 18, 2003) (“Levine”)
`1004
`’582 Patent File History
`1005 Proof of Service of Complaint
`1006 Mullen Industries LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-354-
`DAE, Dkt. 64, Order (1) Adopting Report And Recommendation And
`(2) Granting In Part And Denying In Part Defendant’s Partial Motion
`To Dismiss (W.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2025)
`
`‐i‐ 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER §42.8(A)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest under §42.8.(b)(1)
`Meta Platforms, Inc. is the real party-in-interest to this IPR petition.
`
`B. Related Matters under §42.8(b)(2)
`The ’582 patent was the subject of pending litigation involving Petitioner:
`
`Mullen Industries LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00354-DAE (W.D.
`
`Tex.). Petitioner was served on April 5, 2024. (EX1005, p.003.) The ’582 patent
`
`was dismissed with prejudice from the pending litigation against Petitioner on
`
`January 29, 2025. (EX1006, pp.009-013.)
`
`Petitioner is filing IPR petitions against twelve related patents asserted by
`
`Patent Owner in the pending litigation involving Petitioner:
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`8,585,476 B2
`9,744,448 B2
`10,179,277 B2
`10,828,559 B2
`10,967,270 B2
`11,033,821 B2
`11,376,493 B2
`11,904,243 B2
`11,947,716 B2
`12,019,791 B2
`9,662,582 B2
`
`IPR Case
`IPR2025-00737
`IPR2025-00738
`IPR2025-00739
`IPR2025-00740
`IPR2025-00702
`IPR2025-00703
`IPR2025-00741
`IPR2025-00742
`IPR2025-00743
`IPR2025-00744
`IPR2025-00745
`
`-1-
`
` 
`
` 
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2
`
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`10,974,151 B2
`
`IPR Case
`IPR2025-00746
`
`
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under §42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Heidi L. Keefe (Reg. No. 40,673)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`Phillip E. Morton (Reg. No. 57,835)
`pmorton@cooley.com
`
`Andrew C. Mace (Reg. No. 63,342)
`amace@cooley.com
`
`Mark R. Weinstein (Admission pro hac
`vice to be requested)
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`
`Lowell D. Mead (Admission pro hac vice
`to be requested)
`lmead@cooley.com
`
`Patrick Lauppe (Admission pro hac vice to
`be requested)
`plauppe@cooley.com
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`
`
`
`D.
`Service Information
`This Petition is being served by Federal Express to the attorney of record for
`
`the ’582 patent, 32733 - JEFFREY D. MULLEN, 2212 Hassinger Lane, Glenshaw,
`
` 
`
`
`
`-2-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2
`
`PA 15116. Petitioner consents to electronic service at the addresses provided above
`
`for lead and back-up counsel.
`
`II.
`
`FEE PAYMENT
`Petitioner requests review of four claims, with a $51,875 payment.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER
`42.104 AND
`§§
`CONSIDERATIONS UNDER §§ 314(A) AND 325(D)
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ’582 patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`42.108 AND
`
`is not barred or otherwise estopped.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge and Statement of Precise Relief
`Requested
`Petitioner requests IPR institution based on:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`1
`
`1, 2, 11, and 13
`
`Basis for Challenge under §103
`Obvious over Levine
`
`Submitted with this Petition is the Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock, Ph.D.
`
`(EX1002) (“Cooperstock”), a qualified technical expert. (EX1002, ¶¶1-18, App. A.)
`
`C. Considerations Under §§ 314(a) and 325(d)
`§314(a): The General Plastic factors are not relevant as this is the first and
`
`only IPR petition filed by Petitioner with respect to the ’582 patent.
`
`Nor do the Fintiv factors support discretionary denial under §314(a). First, as
`
`noted above, there is no parallel litigation involving Petitioner and the ’582 patent
`
` 
`
`
`
`-3-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2
`
`because the ’582 patent was dismissed with prejudice from the pending litigation
`
`against Petitioner on January 29, 2025. (EX1006, p. 009-013.) Second, in addition
`
`to the dismissal of the ’582 patent, the pending litigation is in a relatively early stage,
`
`with little substantive discovery having taken place to date and claim construction
`
`proceedings ongoing. Trial is scheduled to start October 5, 2026—over eighteen
`
`months from now—and a motion to transfer the case by Petitioner to the Northern
`
`District of California is currently pending, which if granted would likely result in an
`
`even later trial date. Petitioner also intends to move to stay the litigation pending
`
`resolution of the IPRs. Additionally, to allay concerns over duplication of efforts,
`
`Petitioner represents that, in the event of institution, it will not pursue in litigation
`
`any invalidity defense that was or could have been raised in IPR.
`
`§325(d): This Petition does not raise a § 325(d) issue because the Levine prior
`
`art reference was not cited or otherwise identified during prosecution.
`
`Petitioner reserves the right to address and respond to any assertions that
`
`Patent Owner may raise regarding discretionary factors.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PATENT
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill
`A person of ordinary skill would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years combined
`
`experience in designing and/or developing interactive location-based computer
`
` 
`
`
`
`-4-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2
`
`systems/software, such as video games or other simulations incorporating location
`
`information. A person could also have qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art with some combination of (1) more formal education (such as a master’s of
`
`science degree) and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more
`
`technical or professional experience. (Cooperstock, ¶¶21-25.)
`
`B.
`Specification Overview
`The ’582 patent purports to provide “an actual, reality-based video game in
`
`which a user’s physical (actual) location on a playfield, reflects a virtual game
`
`character’s virtual location in a video game environment.” (’582, 2:28-33.) A user
`
`may play the game on devices such as a “wireless telephone” or other devices such
`
`as “laptops, Personal Digital Assistants (e.g., PDAs), Blackberries, Personal
`
`Electronic Device (PED), iPODs, or any other portable electronic device.” (’582,
`
`7:21-27.) Each player may choose from one of a variety of “characters” to play.
`
`(’582, 11:51-57.) In addition to human players who control characters, the game
`
`may include “software-controlled gaming characters (e.g., video game characters
`
`with artificial intelligence).” (’582, 14:48-51.)
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Petitioner does not believe express claim construction is necessary at this
`
`time. The prior art cited herein, as demonstrated below, renders the challenged
`
` 
`
`
`
`-5-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2
`
`claims obvious under any reasonable construction. Petitioner therefore respectfully
`
`submits that, for purposes of this IPR, express constructions are not required.
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Overview of Ground
`This petition relies upon Levine (EX1003), which discloses and/or renders
`
`obvious every element of the challenged claims. Levine teaches a location-based
`
`online multi-player game with the same relevant features as the ’582 patent,
`
`described in terms that are strikingly similar to the ’582 patent’s description. Much
`
`like the ’582 patent, Levine describes “a distributed, platform-sensitive, location-
`
`based, contextual system, method and computer program product for bridging
`
`activities in real and virtual environments within the context of multi-user gaming”
`
`and other applications. (Levine, ¶0163.)1 Levine’s online game system “accounts
`
`for both the physical and virtual location and context of the participating devices and
`
`people” to serve “the purpose of coordinating activities in the real (i.e., physical) and
`
`virtual worlds.” (Levine, ¶0158.)
`
`Like the ’582 patent, Levine describes that a user may play its online game
`
`with a wireless telephone (a mobile phone) or various other type of devices. (Levine,
`
`¶0187 (“client devices 112 would include, for example, a mobile phone 112a, a
`
`video game console (with Internet connection) 112b, a personal digital assistant
`
`
`1 All underlining added to quoted material unless noted.
` 
`-6-
` 
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2
`
`112c, a personal area network with retinal projection displays and/or ear piece 112d;
`
`a laptop 112e, and a desktop computer 112f”).)
`
`Like the ’582 patent, Levine describes that each player may play a character
`
`in the game, which is represented by an “avatar.” (Levine, ¶¶0224, 0244, 0324-
`
`0327.) Like the ’582 patent, Levine also describes characters in the game that are
`
`controlled by the system as opposed to being controlled by a human player, such as
`
`“non-player character” (NPC) entities which are controlled with “artificial
`
`intelligence.” (Levine, ¶¶0394 (describing “Active Objects (NPCs)—non-player
`
`controlled objects”), 0629 (describing “Non-Player Characters (NPCs) that may
`
`have an independent life of their own; that walk and talk, or run and hide, or perform
`
`other changes of state actively of their own accord” with “[s]ome sort of Artificial
`
`Intelligence (AI)”), 0186 (describing “elements of the application not directly
`
`controlled by users, such as artificial intelligence or aspects of a simulation that run
`
`on their own internal logic and react to other aspects of the simulation”).)
`
` 
`
`
`
`-7-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2
`
`Levine provides extensive description and discussion of its location-based
`
`online gaming system throughout its disclosure, including architectural and system-
`
`level components and features as well as example
`
`illustrations of games. Among the example illustrations
`
`are a location-based game where players interact with a
`
`“monster” and a location-based game with a “sniper” that
`
`is illustrated in Figures 45-47 (Figure 47 excerpted at
`
`right, illustrating sniper gameplay on Palm Pilot device).
`
`(Levine, ¶¶0659-0673 (“monster” game), 0556-0573 &
`
`Figs. 45-47 (“sniper” game).)
`
`Levine also describes features matching the claimed ’582 patent features that
`
`a virtual object can be “picked up” by a character. (Levine, ¶¶0211 (“When a player
`
`picks up a sword, the database 104 must record this fact and store it . . .”), 0574
`
`(discussing character “picking up a gold coin”).) Finally, Levine discloses the
`
`“impenetrable object” claimed in the ’582 patent, describing objects such as a wall,
`
`rubble, trees, and weapons that a player may “collide” with in the game. (Levine,
`
`¶¶0386, 0681, 0568.) Each character may also have “health points” in the game,
`
`which may be impacted by actions such as a character “striking a sword blow” or
`
`other impacts that may determine a “damage” metric. (Levine, ¶¶0574, 0255, 0633.)
`
`Such features were well-known in prior art games and disclosed by Levine as well.
`
` 
`
`
`
`-8-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2
`
`B.
`Prior Art Status of Relied-Upon References
`Pre-AIA law applies to the challenged claims. Levine (EX1003) qualifies as
`
`prior art under § 102(e) because it is a published U.S. patent application that was
`
`filed before the priority date.2
`
`C. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 12, and 13 are Obvious Over Levine
`
`Independent Claim 1: “A non-transitory computer-readable
`medium having program
`logic provided thereon for
`providing a
`location-based game comprising:” (Claim
`1[pre])
`The preamble of claim 1 recites “[a] non-transitory computer-readable
`
`medium having program logic provided thereon for providing a location-based
`
`game comprising.” Levine discloses a system for a multiplayer online game that
`
`
`2 The ’582 patent claims priority to a provisional application (no. 60/499,810) filed
`
`September 2, 2003. For purposes of this Petition only, Petitioner has assumed a
`
`priority date of September 2, 2003. Petitioner at this time expresses no opinion on
`
`whether the ’582 patent is actually entitled to the benefit of the provisional
`
`application filing date. This issue is not relevant here because all of the prior art
`
`references relied upon pre-date September 2, 2003. In the event entitlement to the
`
`provisional filing date or another earlier priority date may later become relevant,
`
`Petitioner reserves the right to respond at that time.
`
` 
`
`
`
`-9-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2
`
`renders obvious claim 1 as referenced in the summary of Levine above and discussed
`
`further below.
`
`To the extent the preamble is a limitation, Levine discloses and renders
`
`obvious the preamble. Levine discloses and renders obvious “a location-based
`
`game.” (Cooperstock, ¶58.) Levine describes an online game system for playing
`
`multiplayer games:
`
`The present invention is directed to a system, method and computer
`program product for a computing grid for massively Multiplayer on-
`line games and simulations that substantially obviates one or more of
`the problems and disadvantages of the related art.
`
`(Levine, ¶0021.) Levine describes a system architecture for hosting games, such as
`
`a Game Server, a Grid, and a database that maintains game-related information:
`
`A Gateway Server (hereafter usually referred to as “Gateway”), a
`Hosting Environment (a “Game Server” in the case of a gaming
`application, an “Application Server” in more generic contexts, a
`“Collaborative Engineering Environment Server” in other contexts, or
`a “Context Server” if the application were to be thought of as a
`“context”), and a Daemon Controller (all discussed in detail below) are
`examples of processes, each of which may be multi-threaded, and each
`of which runs on a physical host. These processes, which collectively
`comprise a single application (e.g., a game) or multiple applications,
`may run on a single host, or may be distributed across multiple hosts.
`
`(Levine, ¶0176.)
`
` 
`
`
`
`-10-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2
`
`The Grid is a collection of hosts that decouples semantic and syntactic
`context in a packet that is exchanged between clients (and that relates
`to the game itself) from information that is in some sense “essential” to
`the Grid itself. In other words, the Grid can mediate the state of the
`object(s) without knowing what the states actually means. The Grid
`thus becomes a host for the context of the application (i.e., game) while
`being agnostic about the context itself.
`
`(Levine, ¶0179.)
`
`Thus, at the center of every persistent-state, massively multi-player
`game lies its database 104. The database 104 manages the persistence
`of object state across the game world: from login to login, session to
`session, Avatar to Avatar, property to property, it keeps a record of all
`significant state changes.
`
`(Levine, ¶0211.)
`
`The analysis for purposes of analyzing a “location-based game” considers
`
`the features and functions that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood and found obvious to be present in a game in Levine’s system, in view
`
`of Levine’s teachings. (Cooperstock, ¶59.) Levine’s disclosure is not limited to any
`
`one or more specific games. Instead, Levine broadly teaches a variety of features,
`
`functions, and components to be used in implementing a multiplayer online location-
`
`based game system. Levine describes, for example, (1) design features generally
`
`applicable to the system’s online games, (2) a “Gaming Example” with a “monster”
`
`character
` 
`
`
`
`that players can “kill” (Levine, ¶¶0656-0666), (3) “Alternate
`-11-
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2
`
`Embodiments” of the “monster” game including functions such as running away
`
`from the “monster” (Levine, ¶¶0668-0673), (4) a “sniper” game that is provided for
`
`“illustration” and reflected in Figures 45-47 (Levine, ¶¶0556-0558, 0569-0573, Figs.
`
`45-47), and (5) additional examples of features, characters, and objects that may be
`
`present in a game, such as a “Dragon or a Troll,” a “dog” that “brushes against [a]
`
`flower,” actions of “picking up a gold coin, striking a sword blow, losing stamina,”
`
`and others (e.g., Levine, ¶¶0394, 0574, 0628, 0652). In view of these teachings, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that each disclosed game
`
`and feature is a non-limiting illustration of how Levine’s teachings may be applied.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered ways to apply Levine’s
`
`teachings when implementing a game. For example, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood that features present in the “monster” game may be
`
`implemented in the “sniper” game and vice versa. This interchangeability of
`
`gameplay features would be particularly appreciable given the similarities between
`
`the “monster” and “sniper” games, including the location-based gameplay of
`
`characters approaching and retreating from each other and the roles of the characters
`
`being adversarial with “shooting” capability (for example, a “monster” versus other
`
`players that can “shoot” and “kill” the monster, and a “victim” versus a “sniper”
`
`having “a rifle scope” consistent with the capability to shoot the rifle). (E.g., Levine,
`
`¶¶0676 (“shooting a ‘monster’”), 0666 (mobile user character can “kill the ‘monster’
`
` 
`
`
`
`-12-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2
`
`character”), 0571-0573 (“sniper” and “victim” characters, where victim may be “in
`
`range” of the sniper because “the sniper may have a rifle scope”), Figs. 45-47
`
`(showing sniper character pointing a rifle), ¶0252 (“A PROPERTY_VECTOR state
`
`could represent the direction in which a game character’s gun is pointed.”).)
`
`“Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent
`
`does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis
`
`Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`For example, each of the “monster” and “sniper” games discloses a location-
`
`based game. (Cooperstock, ¶60.) In the “monster” game, a mobile user playing the
`
`game is physically located on Wall Street in New York City and in the game a
`
`“monster” is created at a corresponding nearby “location” in the game:
`
`In step 5806, the PC user would register the new “monster” character
`with Grid system 100. That is, the communications flow described with
`reference to FIG. 2 would allow the server 102 to centrally store the
`attributes of the new character in application database 104.
`In step 5808, server 102 would cause the new “monster” character to
`be delivered to all other users playing the same instance of the
`interactive multi-user gaming application as the PC user. Such
`deliver[y] would be affected by translator 108, under the control of
`server 102, via transportation network 103. Further, the server would
`place the new “monster” character in a PC user-dictated location within
`the synthetic environment, say for example, the Wall Street area of New
`York City. . . .
`
` 
`
`
`
`-13-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2
`
`In step 5810, a user on a laptop client device 112e (“laptop user”) would
`now “see” the new “monster” character on their laptop. More
`specifically, the laptop user would see the “monster” character on the
`synthetic representation of Wall Street in New York City. Grid system
`100 ensures that the “monster” character is properly rendered for each
`user utilizing a different type of client device 112.
`In step 5812, the laptop user sends a message to a user on a mobile
`phone client device 112a (“mobile user”). Such message, for example,
`would convey that “a new ‘monster’ character is two blocks from you.”
`This message may be sent because the mobile user is represented in the
`synthetic environment as being on Wall Street in New York City
`because in the physical world, they are. . . .
`In step 5816, the mobile user can interact with “monster” character (i.e.,
`manipulate the “monster” character entity). Such interaction would
`involve, for example, pressing *9999 on their mobile phone client
`device 112a to kill the “monster” character. In step 5818, the synthetic
`representation of the “monster” character would disappear from the PC
`user’s, laptops user’s and mobile user’s client devices. Again, Grid
`system 100 would ensure that the “monster” character’s death would
`be properly rendered (using the proper signal) for each player’s
`different type of client device.
`
`(Levine, ¶¶0661-0666.)
`
`Levine further illustrates how the “monster” game is a location-based game
`
`because players may move locations in the physical world, such as by taking a taxi
`
` 
`
`
`
`-14-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2
`
`to “run away” from the “monster” for example, that result in corresponding changes
`
`of location within the game:
`
`In one embodiment, users of Multi-User Bridging system 100 may
`further bridge
`the synthetic environment with
`the physical
`environment. More specifically, in step 5816 of flow 5800, the mobile
`user may have taken a taxi in order to “run away” from (i.e., interact
`with) the “monster” character. . . .
`In another embodiment of the present invention, as one skilled in the
`relevant art(s) will appreciate after reading the description herein, if the
`mobile user’s taxi ride takes them outside of the Wall Street area of
`New York City, then the synthetic representation of the mobile user
`would disappear from the PC user’s and laptops user’s client devices.
`In another embodiment of the present invention, as one skilled in the
`relevant art(s) will appreciate after reading the description herein, a user
`may create an MP3 file that includes audio content (e.g., a recorded
`voice message) that is played on a registered client device owned by
`another player when that player enters a specific area of the synthetic
`or physical environment. For example, the PC user could specify that
`the “monster” character speaks each time another player enters a
`specific building located on Wall Street in New York City. That sound
`would be played, for example, on a player’s mobile phone 112a when
`they walk into the physical building, or on a player’s PC 112f speaker
`when a player’s synthetic representation walks into the specified
`building.
`
`(Levine, ¶¶0670-0672.)
`
` 
`
`
`
`-15-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2
`
`The “monster” game is thus a “location-based” game. (Cooperstock, ¶62.)
`
`Gameplay depends on location—for example, as shown above, the mobile user is
`
`physically located on Wall Street in New York City, the game determines a location
`
`for the “monster” which is two blocks away from the mobile user, and the mobile
`
`user can “interact” with the “monster” located nearby and/or “run away” from the
`
`“monster” by changing locations in the physical world (for example, taking a taxi).
`
`Levine’s exemplary “sniper” game is also a “location-based” game. For
`
`example, the “sniper” and other characters such as “bicyclist” or “courier” and
`
`“victim” interact with each other—including the ability to “see” each other and
`
`“collide” with each other—based on the location of each, as determined for example
`
`by the “POSITION” of each Avatar within its “Locale” of record. (Levine, ¶¶0569
`
`(“In the example shown in FIG. 45, the area-of-interest of the ‘sniper’ Server Thing
`
`is the region centered about the POSITION of the embodiment-of-record of that
`
`Avatar on its Server-of-Record in its Locale.”), 0556, 0557 (“FIG. 46 shows a Game
`
`Server of Record 4601 that includes a Locale of Record 4602 with a sniper standing
`
`inside the Locale of Record 4602. Box 4603 represents the sniper’s region of
`
`presence, and box 4604 represents the sniper’s region of interest.”), 0571-0573,
`
`0232-0236 (“Each object in every game has an entry in the Thing table. The Thing
`
`table controls the behavior of objects across the Grid, and maintains their common
`
`basic states: position, orientation, range, presence, region of interest type, whether
`
` 
`
`
`
`-16-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,662,582 B2
`
`they are active or passive in nature. . . . Position—where this object is located in the
`
`game world.”), 0198-0204 (OAP device in each client device participating in the
`
`game determines and provides position information).) (Cooperstock, ¶63.)
`
`Turning
`
`to
`
`the non-transitory computer-readable medium having
`
`program logic provided thereon for providing the location-based game, Levine
`
`broadly teaches that its disclosed invention may be implemented with hardware
`
`and/or software implemented on one or more computer systems, such as a computer
`
`system running applications as illustrated by computer system 5900:
`
`The present invention may be implemented using hardware, software
`or a combination thereof and may be implemented in one or more
`computer systems or other processing systems. An example of a
`computer system 5900 is shown in FIG. 59. The computer system 5900
`represents any single or multi-processor computer. In conjunction,
`single-threaded and multi-threaded applications can be used. Unified or
`distributed memory systems can be used. Computer system 5900, or
`portions thereof, may be used to implement the present invention. For
`example, the system 100 of the present invention may comprise
`softw