PTAB

CBM2015-00106

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 methods and systems for a lottery game where a player acquires a physical "game piece" containing a pre-determined, encoded outcome. The player inputs the code into a generic personal computer, which then generates an interactive "amusement game" (e.g., a simulated card game or horse race) to reveal the pre-determined win or loss in an entertaining fashion.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Petitioner cited prior art not for anticipation or obviousness, but to establish that the underlying abstract idea was a long-standing, conventional practice. Key references included: Tauton (Patent 5,641,167) and Goldman (Patent 5,037,099).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that all challenged claims were patent-ineligible by applying the two-step framework from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l. The argument also established that the ’082 patent qualifies as a Covered Business Method (CBM) patent and is not exempt as a "technological invention."
    • CBM Qualification: Petitioner asserted the patent qualifies for CBM review because its claims are directed to a financial product or service. The specification explicitly describes financial activities, such as players purchasing game tickets for a chance to win monetary awards. The claims require "acquiring" a game piece and receiving an indication of a "win or loss," which the patent links directly to financial transactions and cash prizes.
    • Alice Step 1 (Abstract Idea): Petitioner contended that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of "using an amusing game to reveal the results of a lottery game." This concept, Petitioner argued, is a fundamental, long-standing business practice that was previously performed using physical media. The Tauton and Goldman patents were cited as evidence, disclosing physical instant lottery tickets that simulated games like bingo and poker to reveal a pre-determined outcome. The ’082 patent claims were framed as simply taking this abstract practice and implementing it on a generic computer.
    • Alice Step 2 (No Inventive Concept): Petitioner argued that the claims lack an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The claims merely recite a collection of generic, conventional computer components (e.g., "processor," "display," "magnetic media") performing their well-understood and routine functions. For example, acquiring a game piece with a code amounts to basic electronic record-keeping, and using a processor to generate a game on a display based on that code is a conventional use of a computer.
    • Not a Technological Invention: As a threshold for CBM review, Petitioner argued the claims do not recite a technological invention. The patent does not solve a technical problem but rather a business problem—the "low level of excitement" in traditional lotteries. The solution proposed is not a technical improvement to computer functionality but rather the application of conventional computer technology to automate a known business method. The claims as a whole, including dependent claims adding generic features like card games or data storage types, do not recite a novel and unobvious technological feature.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "game piece" / "gaming piece": Petitioner argued 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...which includes a paper ticket, plastic piece, a magnetic storage medium or laser readable medium (e.g., floppy disk or CD-ROM)." This construction was based on the specification's consistent reference to physical "game mediums" and, critically, on statements made by the applicant during prosecution to distinguish prior art. Petitioner asserted these statements constituted a clear disavowal of any non-tangible or virtual embodiments that are not independent of the gaming machine.
  • "amusement game": Petitioner contended this term should be given its broad, ordinary meaning, encompassing "any type of game that provides a result in an 'interesting and fun fashion.'" The patent specification supports this broad interpretation by listing varied examples (slot machine, adventure game, horse race, card game) and stating that "many different types of compatible games will be developed." This broad scope was used to reinforce the argument that the claims were abstract and not tied to any specific, technical implementation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of a Covered Business Method review and cancellation of claims 1-17 of Patent 5,569,082 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.