PTAB

CBM2015-00105

Intl Internet Technologies LLC v. SweepSTakes Patent Co LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Personal Computer Lottery Game
  • Brief Description: The ’082 patent discloses a system and method for operating lottery-style games on a personal computer. The invention involves a player acquiring a physical game piece with a pre-determined, encoded outcome, entering the code into a computer, and playing an interactive "amusement game" that reveals the pre-determined win or loss result.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-17 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: While not a traditional obviousness ground, Petitioner cited contextual prior art to demonstrate the underlying abstract idea was well-known before the patent's filing date. Key references included: Patent 5,641,167 and Patent 5,037,099.
  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that all challenged claims are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea and lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the idea into a patent-eligible application, following the two-step framework from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l.
    • Abstract Idea Mapping: Petitioner contended that claims 1-17 are directed to the abstract idea of using an amusing game to reveal the outcome of a lottery. This concept, Petitioner argued, was a long-standing practice implemented in physical form, such as scratch-off tickets that simulate bingo (as disclosed in the ’167 patent) or poker (as disclosed in the ’099 patent). The claims of the ’082 patent merely take this pre-existing concept and apply it using generic computer components. Independent claim 1 (method) and its counterpart independent claim 10 (system) were identified as broadly reciting the steps of acquiring a game piece with a hidden code, entering the code into a processor, and having the processor generate a game to display the predetermined outcome.
    • Lack of Inventive Concept: Petitioner argued that the claims fail the second step of the Alice test because they do not add "significantly more" to the abstract idea. The claims recite only generic, conventional computer hardware—a "processor," a "display," and data storage media—performing their well-understood, routine functions. Petitioner asserted that computerizing a known business practice does not constitute an inventive concept. The dependent claims were argued to add only trivial limitations, such as specifying well-known storage media (magnetic, laser optical, paper) or generic types of amusement games (horse race, card game), which do not confer patentability. The claims were also argued to fail the "machine-or-transformation" test, as they are not tied to a specific, novel machine and only involve the manipulation of data.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Game Piece" and "Gaming Piece": Petitioner contended these terms should be construed as "a separate physical, tangible component that is portable by a player, and used by a player with the lottery type game." This construction was supported by arguments based on the prosecution history, where the applicant allegedly distinguished the invention from prior art by emphasizing the portability of the "ticket" and its independence from the gaming machine. Petitioner also noted the specification’s use of "game mediums" like physical tickets.
  • "Amusement Game": Petitioner proposed that this term should be given its broad, ordinary meaning of "any type of game that provides a result in an 'interesting and fun fashion.'" This interpretation was based on the patent's specification, which states the game is "purely for player enjoyment" and provides a wide variety of examples, including slot machines, adventure games, and card games, without limiting the scope.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Invention is Not Technological: A central argument of the petition was that the ’082 patent does not claim a "technological invention" and is therefore eligible for Covered Business Method (CBM) review. Petitioner argued the claims do not recite a novel or unobvious technological feature but instead describe the automation of a known business method using conventional, off-the-shelf computer technology.
  • Solves a Business Problem, Not a Technical One: Petitioner contended that the patent’s stated purpose is to solve non-technical business problems, such as the "low level of excitement" in traditional lottery games. The patent's proposed solution—using a computer to display results in a "fun and interesting manner"—was argued to be a commercial or business solution, not a technical solution to a technical problem. This was presented as further evidence of both patent ineligibility under §101 and qualification for CBM review.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of CBM review and cancellation of claims 1-17 of the ’082 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.