STATS LLCv.HOCKEYLNE INC.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2015

10011482 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 33
571-272-7822 Entered: September 15, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

STATS LLC,
Petitioner,

v.

HOCKEYLINE, INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

____________

Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRIAN P. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

2

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 9, 2014, STATS LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a corrected Petition
requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 8, 10–12, and 30 of U.S. Patent No.
6,725,107 B2 (“the ’107 patent”). Paper 4 (“Pet.”). Hockeyline, Inc. (“Patent
Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response to the Petition. On September 25,
2014, we instituted inter partes review of (i) claims 1, 2, 8, 10–12, and 30 of the
’107 patent as anticipated by Hameen-Anttila pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(e);
1
(ii)
claims 1, 2, and 30 as anticipated by STATS Football pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
102(b);
2
and (iii) claims 8, 10–12, and 30 as obvious over STATS Football and
Reilly pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
3

Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 17, “PO Resp.”), and
Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 20, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Motion to
Exclude Exhibits 1013 and 1014 (Paper 23, “Mot.”), Petitioner filed an Opposition
to the motion (Paper 26, “Mot. Opp.”), and Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper 27,
“Mot. Reply”).
Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Jim Osborne (Ex. 1011) in support of
its Petition. Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of C. Douglass Locke, Ph.D.
(Ex. 2002), in support of its Response. Petitioner relies on the Declaration of
Anton T. Dahbura, Ph.D. (Ex. 1014) and deposition testimony of Dr. Locke (Ex.
1017) in support of its Reply.

1
U.S. Patent No. 7,037,198 B2 to Hameen-Anttila filed Dec. 7, 1999, issued
May 2, 2006. Ex. 1002 (“Hameen-Anttila”).
2
STATS 1995 Football Scoring Manual dated September 1995. Ex. 1005
(“STATS Football”).
3
U.S. Patent No. 5,740,549 to Reilly et al. issued April 14, 1998. Ex. 1008
(“Reilly”).
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

3

We heard oral argument on May 19, 2015. A transcript of the oral hearing is
entered as Paper 32 (“Tr.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written decision is
entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
We determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
(i) claims 1, 2, 8, 10–12, and 30 of the ’107 patent are unpatentable as anticipated
by Hameen-Anttila pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(e); (ii) claims 1, 2, and 30 are
unpatentable as anticipated by STATS Football pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b);
and (iii) claims 8, 10–12, and 30 are unpatentable as obvious over STATS Football
and Reilly pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.

A. Related Proceeding
The parties identify a pending patent infringement action, Hockeyline Inc. v.
STATS LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-cv-1446 (S.D.N.Y.), filed March 4, 2013 and served
March 18, 2013, as a related proceeding involving the ’107 patent. Pet. 1; Paper 6.
B. The ’107 Patent
The ’107 patent, titled “Electronic Scorekeeping Device and System
Therefor,” issued April 20, 2004 from an application filed December 11, 2001.
Ex. 1001. The ’107 patent claims foreign application priority to CA 2328048, filed
December 11, 2000. Id. The electronic scorekeeping device described in the ’107
patent is directed to gathering, processing, and distributing statistical information
related to a sports game. Id. at Abstract, 1:56–61.
Figure 2, reproduced below, shows the overall system.
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

4

In Figure 2, above, electronic scorekeeping device 100 includes
processor 104 and several conventional hardware components coupled to the
processor: input means 102, memory 106, and display means 108. Id. at 2:56–
3:12. A user inputs “statistical data” related to events of a sports game, and the
statistical data is stored in memory 106. Id. Display means 108 facilitates data
entry during the game and displays screen menus that may be customized to reflect
the desired statistical data to be gathered and input for a particular sports game.
Id.; see id. at 5:54–6:19. Information transfer means 112 transmits information
variously described as “statistical information,” “game information,” and “data
transmission” of “game statistics,” via communication means 206 to central
database 204 for distribution to public users 212. Id. at 3:25–28, 3:64–65, 4:5–17,
4:53–55, 6:20–67.
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

5

Claim 1 of the ’107 patent, the only independent claim challenged by
Petitioner, is illustrative and reproduced below (emphasis added).
1. An electronic scorekeeping device for gathering, processing and
distributing statistical information related to a sports game,
comprising:
a processor;
input means coupled to said processor for inputting data related to events
of said sports game in real-time;
memory means coupled to said processor for storing such inputted data;
display means coupled to said processor for facilitating the entry of such
data by a user;
information transfer means for transferring statistical information based
on such inputted data to a central database via communication means;
wherein the display means displays a plurality of hierarchical menu-
based screens that may be customized by the user to reflect desired
data that is to be gathered for said sports game.
Ex. 1001, 8:11–27.

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms of an unexpired patent
according to their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the patent
specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d
1268, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
4
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation
standard, we assign claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire patent

4
Patent Owner’s argument, that application of the broadest reasonable construction
standard in an inter partes review proceeding exceeds the USPTO’s rule making
authority (PO Resp. 24–25), has been considered and rejected by the Federal
Circuit. In re Cuozzo, 793 F.3d at 1278–79.
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

6

disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with
reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
1. Means-plus-function Claiming
Independent claim 1 of the ’107 patent includes a series of means-plus-
function limitations. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
5
A means-plus-function limitation “shall
be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
specification and equivalents thereof.” Id. The claim limitations in the ’107 patent
are drafted using the accepted “means for” construct followed by a specified
function, without further recitation of structure to achieve the recited function.
Triton Tech of Texas, LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 753 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2014); see Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(en banc). “In exchange for using this form of claiming, the patent specification
must disclose with sufficient particularity the corresponding structure for
performing the claimed function and clearly link that structure to the function.”
Triton Tech, 753 F.3d at 1378 (citation omitted). We construe the following claim
limitations for purposes of this decision, in accordance with the principles stated
above.
2. “display means coupled to said processor for facilitating the entry
of such data by a user”
The ’107 patent specification links a touch display screen, computer screen,
or other electronic screen with the claimed function of “facilitating the entry of

5
Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C. §
112(f). Because the ’107 patent has a filing date before September 16, 2012, the
effective date of section 4(c) of the AIA, we refer to the pre-AIA version of § 112,
¶ 6.
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

7

such data by a user.” Ex. 1001, 2:62–67 (“In the case of a touch display screen, the
screen may function both as a display means and an input means. In the case of a
keyboard or mouse, the operation thereof would normally be carried out in
conjunction with display means 108, and/or a computer screen or other electronic
screen.”); Pet. 11. During a game, the electronic screen display prompts the device
user (game scorer) to enter sports game event data related to the progress of the
game. Id. at 3:7–12. The data being entered, “such data” in the claim language
under consideration, has antecedent basis in the “input means . . . for inputting data
related to events of said sports game in real time.” Accordingly, we conclude that
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “display means coupled to
said processor for facilitating the entry of such data by a user,” consistent with the
’107 patent specification, is “a touch screen, computer screen, or other electronic
screen coupled to the processor for facilitating the entry of data related to events of
a sports game by a user in real time, and equivalents thereof.”
3. “wherein the display means displays a plurality of hierarchical
menu-based screens that may be customized by the user to reflect
desired data that is to be gathered for said sports game”
a. “hierarchical menu-based screens”
Petitioner argues that “hierarchical menu-based screens” refers to multiple
electronic screens with menus organized in a hierarchy. Pet. 13. Patent Owner
does not address the construction of the quoted phrase. The ’107 patent
specification does not define menu-based screen displays expressly as
“hierarchical,” apart from the claim language. Pet. 13. The ’107 patent does,
however, describe menu-based screens organized according to a “hierarchy” — “a
system in which people or things are placed in a series of levels with different
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

8

importance or status.” Ex. 3001.
6
The ’107 patent describes sports such as
“softball, soccer, baseball, basketball, and football, [which] can be scored by
modifying the displays on the device as well as the software which provides the
prompts and system options to the user.” Ex. 1001, 5:40–43. The ’107 patent
describes a hockey game embodiment, but notes that “data related to other sports
may also be recorded.” Id. at 5:37–38. Software-generated prompts are displayed
on an electronic screen to provide a device user with menus of options, organized
in a series of levels for inputting data related to sports game events. Id. at 5:48–
8:5.
A main menu displays a series of options for setting up a game, entering,
deleting, or importing game statistics, setting up a particular application, and
inputting end-of-game statistics. Id. at 5:48–53. Each option is broken down into
sub levels of display prompts corresponding to additional data entry options. For
example, a user’s electronic device displays a main statistics menu such that, when
a goal is scored in a hockey game, the user presses the goal button, which leads to
a series of related sub-level display prompts for entering, inter alia, the time and
period of the goal, the player who scored, the player(s) who assisted, and from
where the shot was taken. Id. at 6:20–41. Similar menu-based display hierarchies
are described for inputting penalties, shots, face-offs, turnovers, and goalie
changes. Id. at 6:42–67.
In view of the claim language, written description, and the plain and
ordinary meaning of “hierarchical” in the context of claim 1, we conclude that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “wherein the display means
displays a plurality of hierarchical menu-based screens” is “wherein the touch

6
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hierarchy (last visited August 11,
2015).
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

9

screen, computer screen, or other electronic screen displays multiple images of
data input options for sports game events, organized in a series of levels with
different importance or status.”
b. “customized by the user to reflect desired data that is to be
gathered for said sports game”
Patent Owner argues the plain meaning of the quoted phrase is menu-based
screen displays that “may be customized, such as through modifications or
changes, by the user so as to collect only specific data that the user desires to
gather once the game begins.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner cites the description of
user customization in column 7 of the ’107 patent in support of the argument.”
7
Id.
at 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:44–57). Patent Owner then relies on an argument in Dr.
Locke’s Declaration that the plain meaning of “customized” in the context of the
’107 patent “‘requires that the display means include a capability for the user to
actually change the menus to collect less (or perhaps more) data regarding a
particular sport than the default menus provided on the practicing screens’.” Id.
(quoting Ex. 2002 ¶ 23). Petitioner disagrees. Pet. Reply 7–8 (citing Ex. 1001,
7:45–49, 55–56; Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 20–21). We consider the parties’ claim construction
arguments below.
We begin with the claim language itself. Independent claim 1 defines a
“user” of the electronic scorekeeping device as one responsible for “entry of such
data.” Ex. 1001, 8:20. The phrase “entry of such data” finds antecedent basis in
the “input means for inputting data related to events of said sports game in real-

7
Patent Owner provides a web-link to a dictionary definition of “customize,”
meaning “to change (something) in order to fit the needs or requirements of a
person, business, etc.” PO Resp. 12 n.1 (citing Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary, Merriam-Webster.com (Dec. 12, 2014),
http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/customize. The web-link was not
filed as an exhibit in accordance with our rules. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (c).
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

10

time.” Id. at 8:15–16. Thus, the “display means” facilitates entry of sports game-
related data in real time by displaying “menu-based screens” to the device user in a
“hierarchical” arrangement. Id. at 8:19, 20, and 24–25. The menu-based screen
displays may be “customized by the user to reflect desired data that is to be
gathered” in real time by the user for “said sports game.” Id. at 8:19–20, and 24–
25.
8
The claim language does not recite a particular means by which a device user
may customize the menu-based screen displays or otherwise limit the way the
“desired data” is to be gathered by the user.
Patent Owner and Petitioner both analyze the description of user
customization of menu-based screen displays under the rubric “Application Setup”
in the ’107 patent. PO Resp. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:44–57); Pet. 13–14 (citing
Ex. 1001, 7:44–57). The Application Setup window “will allow the user to
configure which statistics are gathered by the electronic scorekeeping device.” Pet.
Reply 7 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:45–47). The Application Setup window allows the
device “to be configured in such a way as to gather either only a single statistic or
multiple statistic types.” Ex. 1001, 7:47–49. The ’107 patent further states that a
device user may “block out any sub-section of a statistic” so that the device “will
not display that particular screen to the user.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:52–
57); see also Exhibit 1001, Abstract (“The user may further customize the menu-
based screens displayed on the device in order to eliminate the prompting for any
extraneous data that is not desired by the particular user.”). For example, if a

8
The antecedent basis for “said sports game” is in the preamble, which recites a
device for gathering, processing, and distributing statistical information related to
“a sports game.” In a patent claim, “a” means “one or more.” See 01 Communique
Lab., Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc., 687 F.3d 1292, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“As a general
rule, the words ‘a’ or ‘an’ in a patent claim carry the meaning of ‘one or more.’”)
(citation omitted). Thus, “a sports game” means one or more sports games.
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

11

device user wants to keep track of face-offs won or lost during a hockey game, but
not the particular circle in which the face-offs occurred, the user may “customize”
the device by blocking out the face-off circle default menu. Id.
Petitioner also references the more general description of how a device user
may score one or more sports games (input data) by “modifying the displays on the
device,” as within the scope of the claim phrase at issue. Tr. 12:21–13:5 (citing
Ex. 1001, 5:40–43). Petitioner further notes that independent claim 16 (not subject
to challenge) contains two “wherein” clauses directed to user customization. Id. at
20:15–21:3. The first wherein clause in claim 16 is very similar to the wherein
clause in claim 1, but the second wherein clause recites “wherein the user is able to
further customize the menu-based screens in order to determine which specific data
is to be collected at said sports game.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 9:41–43). Petitioner
argues the second wherein clause in claim 16 adds a limitation that corresponds to
the preferred embodiment, where a user blocks out unselected menus to be able to
input only specific desired data. Id. at 21:4–10; Ex. 1001, 7:49–57. Petitioner
argues that the more limiting second wherein clause of claim 16 should not be read
into the wherein clause of claim 1, as effectively urged by Patent Owner. Tr. 21:4–
21.
We agree with Petitioner. Patent Owner’s argument does not reflect the
plain meaning of “customize” or the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
language at issue, but rather implies a limitation from the preferred embodiment
that is not found in the claim language. In particular, nothing in the language of
claim 1 limits the actions of a user “to collect only specific data that the user
desires to gather once the game begins,” as argued by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 11.
Patent Owner’s construction would, in effect, read the preferred embodiment
described in column 7 of the ’107 patent into the claim without sufficient
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

12

justification in the claim language, specification, or prosecution history. Ex. 1001,
7:44–57. Such a construction also does not take into account the more limiting
wherein clause of claim 16 or the broader description of customization in column
5, which describes “modifying the displays on the device” to permit a user to score
one or more sports games from a programmed list, such as “softball, soccer,
baseball, basketball, and football.” Id. at 5:40–43.
Similarly, nothing in the claim language or specification states, suggests, or
infers a construction that “requires” a display means that allows a user to change
the menu-based screen displays “to collect less (or perhaps more) data regarding a
particular sport than the default menus provided” on the device. PO Resp. 12
(quoting Ex. 2002 ¶ 23) (emphasis added). Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Locke
explains persuasively why such a limitation is required by the claim language or
consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in light of the
description in the ’107 patent. Pet. Reply 4. For example, Patent Owner and Dr.
Locke do not explain how a user could modify the menu-based screen displays to
gather “more” data without re-programming the device. Therefore, we do not give
any weight to Dr. Locke’s testimony on this point.
For the reasons given above, we conclude that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the limitation “customized by the user to reflect desired data that
is to be gathered for said sports game” is “any action by the user to configure the
hierarchical menu-based screen displays to permit desired data to be gathered for
one or more sports games,” as recited in claim 1.
B. Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, 8, 10–12, and 30 by Hameen-Anttila
Petitioner argues that Hameen-Anttila (Ex. 1002) discloses every limitation
of claims 1, 2, 8, 10-12, and 30 of the ’107 patent and, therefore, anticipates the
claims pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 24-31. Petitioner notes Hameen-
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

13

Anttila was not considered during prosecution of the ’107 patent. Id. at 15.
Hameen-Anttila qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it was filed
on December 7, 1999, prior to the December 11, 2000 priority date of the
’107 patent, and issued on May 2, 2006. Id. at 15.
Patent Owner argues that Hameen-Anttila does not disclose screens “that
may be customized by the user to reflect desired data that is to be gathered for said
sports game.” PO Resp. 9. Patent Owner asserts, based on its inferred claim
construction for “customized by the user,” that Hameen-Anttila’s disclosure of
“[s]electing a pre-defined menu option is not screen customization in any sense.”
Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 24). Patent Owner further argues that Hameen-Anttila
does not disclose the recited transfer of “statistical information based on such
inputted data,” as opposed to disclosing only the transfer of inputted data, because
Hameen-Anttila does not disclose any processing of the inputted data or
calculation of “statistical information.” Id. at 3–4, 17, 20–22 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶
40–42).
Petitioner responds that Hameen-Anttila discloses a device that first prompts
a user to select one sports game, e.g. golf, from a list of several sports games,
followed by a second prompt for only golf-specific data “such as course name,
hole, score, player ID, and player handicap.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002, 3:51–54,
5:16–27, Figs. 4a, 4b); Pet. Reply 6. Petitioner argues that Hameen-Anttila, like
the ’107 patent, discloses hierarchical menu-based screen displays customized by
the user because the user’s selection of a particular sports game will cause
“subsequent data gathering screens to be displayed or not displayed.” Pet. Reply
7–8. Petitioner also argues that Hameen-Anttila discloses transfer of the claimed
“statistical information based on such inputted data,” because the quoted claim
phrase includes transfer of user-inputted sports game data of the type disclosed in
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

14

Hameen-Anttila and does not require a separate calculation. Id. at 11–12 (citing
Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 25–28). We address the parties’ arguments below.
1. Hameen-Anttila (Ex. 1002)
Hameen-Anttila discloses a system for managing sports data. Ex. 1002,
Abstract. Figure 3, reproduced below, is illustrative.

Figure 3, above, shows sport server 10 connected to sport databases 12a, 12b
for storing sports game event data received from a variety of input devices, such as
mobile phone 200.
9
Ex. 1002, 4:14–20, 4:59–5:15. The sports game event data is
input into mobile phone 200, for example by an automatic scoring device at a
bowling alley or a golf player entering a score after each hole, and transmitted via
communications network 202, 204 to server 10 while the sports game is ongoing.
Id. at 2:40–51, 2:57–3:13. Sport server 10 communicates the sports game event
data to various output devices, such as a web browser, digital scoreboard, news
wire, television, personal digital assistant (“PDA”), smart phone, or cell phone. Id.
at 4:21–28, 5:34–47.
Menus displayed on the mobile phone prompt users to input data related to
events occurring during a sports game. Id. at 5:16–27; Figs. 4a–4b. In one

9
Input devices also may comprise a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), pager, two-
way radio, or smart phone. Ex. 1002, 4:14–20.
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

15

example, a first display menu provides a list of various sports from which to
choose, as shown in Figure 4a below.

Figure 4a, above, shows a display menu on a scorekeeping device that
prompts the device user to select “the sport for which data is to be input” from
among multiple sports games, such as hockey, golf, bowling, and baseball. Id. at
5:16–21. Based on the user’s selection, a second display menu prompts the user to
input specific data for the selected sport. Id. at 5:21–24. If the game of golf is
selected, the display menu prompts the user to input the course name, hole, score,
player’s ID, and player’s handicap, as shown in Figure 4b below. Id.
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

16

In Figure 4b, above, the display menu includes prompts for only “Golf Data”
based on the user’s selection. If baseball is selected, the display screen menu
prompts the user to input the teams, score, stadium, and inning or period of the
latest update. Id. at 5:24–27. The sports game event data is transmitted to the
sports server, saved in the sport database, and transmitted to multiple output
devices that are either continuously connected to the server (e.g., scoreboard, news
wire, or television) or selectively connected to it (e.g., web browser, PDA, smart
phone, or cell phone). Id. at 5:34–47.
2. Analysis
Petitioner provides a claim chart that correlates specific disclosures from
Hameen-Anttila to each and every limitation of claims 1, 2, 8, 10–12, and 30 of the
’107 patent. Pet. 24–31. For the reasons discussed below, we are persuaded by
Petitioner’s claim chart analysis that Hameen-Anttila discloses every limitation in
claims 1, 2, 8, 10–12, and 30 of the ’107 patent.

IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

17

a. Claim 1 – “input,” “memory,” “display,” and “processor”
Independent claim 1 of the ’107 patent recites an “input means”, a “memory
means,” and a “display means,” each of which is “coupled” to the processor for
inputting, processing, and storing sports game data. Ex. 1001, 8:15–18. The
’107 patent describes the input, memory, and display means as part of an integrated
electronic device containing a processor, such as a general purpose computer. Id.
at 2:56–3:12, Fig. 1. In such a device, where the display facilitates the input of
sports game event data that is processed and stored in memory, the need to couple
the processor to the input, memory, and display means is understood. Id.
Hameen-Anttila discloses an integrated electronic game scoring device, such
as a PDA, cell phone, or smart phone used to input sports game event data. Pet.
25–26 (citing Ex. 1002, Abstract, 3:25–26, 3:51–54, 3:59–4:20, 5:2–8, 5:16–27,
Figs. 1, 4a, 4b). Figures 4a and 4b show an example of a mobile phone used as a
golf game scoring device, with input keys and display menus for facilitating entry
of golf event data to be processed and stored in memory. Id. at 26 (citing Ex.
1002, 3:51–54, 5:16–27, Figs. 4a, 4b). To connect the mobile phone to the server,
the server’s connection database stores specifications for the mobile phone — the
“display . . . , the processor power, the amount of memory, and a key for accessing
the sport database.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 5:2–8) (emphases added). Thus,
Hameen-Anttila discloses a mobile phone (or other integrated electronic display
device) that contains a display, input keys, and memory connected to a processor.
The need to “couple” the mobile phone input means, memory means, and display
means to the processor to permit the described data input, processing, storage, and
transmission to the server, is an inherent part of such an integrated electronic
communication device. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1002, 3:25–26, 5:2–8).

IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

18

b. Claim 1 – “hierarchical menu-based screens”
Figures 4a and 4b of Hameen-Anttila (Ex. 1002) illustrate the same type of
hierarchical display menus described in the ’107 patent (Ex. 1001, 5:54–8:5). The
mobile phone screen in Figure 4a of Hameen-Anttila displays a drop-down menu
of different sports games to prompt the user to select the sport of interest. Pet. 27–
28 (citing Ex. 1002, 3:51–54, 5:16–27, Fig. 4a). When golf is selected, the next
menu displayed on the mobile phone screen (Figure 4b) prompts the user to enter
“Golf Data,” such as course name, hole, score, player ID, and player handicap. Id.
(citing Ex. 1002, 5:21–24, Fig. 4b). We note Figure 4b shows a drop-down menu
arrow next to each of the “player,” “completion,” “hole,” “handicap,” and “score”
menu options, suggesting additional levels of data input options may be available.
Id. Similar hierarchical display menus are disclosed for the game of baseball. Id.
(citing Ex. 1002, 5:24–27). We are persuaded, therefore, that Hameen-Anttila
discloses an electronic screen that displays multiple images of input options for
facilitating entry of sports game event data, organized in a series of levels with
different importance or status, in accordance with our construction of “hierarchical
menu-based screens” recited in claim 1 of the ’107 patent.
c. Claim 1 – “customized by the user to reflect desired data”
We are further persuaded that Hameen-Anttila discloses hierarchical menu-
based screen displays that may be “customized by the user to reflect desired data,”
in accordance with our claim construction. We agree with Petitioner, that the setup
menu in Hameen-Anttila (Fig. 4a) allows a user to select desired display menus
(e.g., for golf) that will cause other menus not to be displayed (e.g., for hockey,
bowling, and baseball) during a user’s input of golf-specific data in real time. Pet.
Reply 7–8 (citing Ex. 1002, 5:21–24; Ex. 1014 (Dahbura Dec.) ¶¶ 20–21). As Dr.
Dahbura notes, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Locke, agrees that choosing not to
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

19

display a menu screen is a form of user customization. Ex. 1014 ¶ 21 (citing Ex.
1017, 72:19–73:3). We further agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proffered
distinction between Hameen-Anttila’s “mere usage” of hierarchical menu-based
screen displays and “customizing” such displays is illusory and not consistent with
the description of user customization in the ’107 patent. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex.
1014 ¶ 22). The individual drop-down arrows in Figure 4b further suggest the
ability of a user to change the menu-based screen displays to permit the user to
input desired data for the illustrated golf game. Therefore, we determine Hameen-
Anttila discloses an action by the user to configure the hierarchical menu-based
screen displays to permit desired data to be gathered for one or more sports games.
d. Claim 1 – “transferring statistical information based on
such inputted data”
Patent Owner’s argument asserting Hameen-Anttila does not disclose the
transfer of “statistical information based on such inputted data” also is off the
mark. As noted above, Hameen-Anttila discloses that sports game event data is
input into an electronic scorekeeping device and transmitted via a communications
network to a server while the sports game is ongoing. Ex. 1002, 2:40-51, 2:57–
3:13. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the transfer of
statistical information “based on” inputted data requires some form of calculation
that necessarily excludes inputted data as part of the transferred “statistical
information.” PO Resp. 17–19.
Patent Owner does not offer a claim construction or request construction of
quoted claim phrase at issue, even though Patent Owner’s argument presumes a
specific definition of the phrase without explaining why it is consistent with the
broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Pet. Reply 2. The language in claim 1
of the ’107 patent recites “a processor,” but it does not recite a calculation function
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

20

performed by the processor on inputted data. Pet. Reply 11. The claim language
also does not exclude inputted data from “statistical information” or limit
“statistical information based on such inputted data” only to statistics calculated
from the inputted data. Id. The preamble of claim 1, recites “gathering,
processing and distributing statistical information.” Ex. 1001, 8:11–12 (emphasis
added); see also PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:56–60 (“The present invention
advantageously provides an electronic scorekeeping device for gathering,
calculating and distributing statistical information.”)). Gathering statistical
information, when read in light of the ’107 patent specification, refers to inputting
sports game event data into the scorekeeping device for transmission to a central
database as part of the statistical information transfer. Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex.
1001, Abstract (“This [inputted] data is transferred in real-time in a system
according to the invention via a communications means to a central database.”);
Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 25–28).
The ’107 patent does not define “statistical information” or “statistical
information based on such inputted data.” The ’107 patent also does not exclude
inputted data from the description of statistical information. Pet. Reply 12 (citing
Ex. 1014 ¶ 27). To the contrary, and consistent with the understanding in the art,
the ’107 patent uses the words “data,” “statistics,” “statistical data,” and “statistical
information” interchangeably and with significant areas of overlap. Id.; see also
id. at 4 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 30 (“The terms ‘statistics,’ ‘data,’ and ‘statistical
information,’ are widely used in computer systems, but they are often used in very
general ways with broad meanings in which their meanings have significant areas
of overlap.”)).
We further credit Dr. Dahbura’s testimony, that a person of ordinary skill in
the art reading the ’107 patent would not understand the term “statistical
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

21

information” to exclude the “actual data inputted by the user.” Ex. 1014 ¶ 27. For
example, the ’107 patent describes (i) a device for “gathering . . . statistical
information” (Ex. 1001, 1:63–64), (ii) a processor that “provides all computational
functions related to the calculation of various statistics based on the statistical data
input during the game” (id. at 2:67–3:2), (iii) a “game time” option that allows a
user to “enter the game time manually” before uploading (transferring) the game
time to the central database (id. at 5:5–12), (iv) how a device user may “Enter
Game Statistics” into the scorekeeping device (and “Delete Game Statistics”) by
pressing “statistic buttons” to enter a goal scored, penalty incurred, shot attempted
et cetera. (Ex. 1001, 6:19–7:25), (v) how “game information” and “game statistics”
may be periodically uploaded (transferred) to the central database, a process styled
“Data Transmission” of “game statistics” (id. at 3:64–65, 4:5–7, 4:54–55), and (vi)
how the Application Setup window allows a user to configure “which statistics are
gathered” by the device user (id. at 7:45–47). Pet. Reply 11–12. The ’107 patent,
therefore, variously describes “statistical information,” “data,” “statistical data,”
and “game statistics” or “statistics” as being gathered and input into the
scorekeeping device by the user during a sports game.
When a user gathers “statistical information” and inputs a “game time” or
“game statistics” (or “statistical data”) into the device by pushing “statistic
buttons” to record a goal, a penalty, or a shot attempt, the user is inputting game
data that forms part of the statistical information that is periodically uploaded
(transferred) to the central database. As Dr. Dahbura notes, the Abstract of the
’107 patent describes “data” input by a device user as being “transferred in real-
time” to a central database. A calculation is not required to qualify the information
being transferred as “statistical information based on such inputted data.”
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

22

The ’107 patent also does not describe any calculation “based on” inputted
data to generate statistical information, beyond inferring that such calculations are
known in the art. Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:67–3:2). While such calculations
may have been known to generate various statistics, there is no description of any
calculation being made in the ’107 patent. Nor is there an indication in the ’107
patent that “statistical information” and “inputted data” are intended to be mutually
exclusive. We conclude that “statistical information based on such inputted data”
transferred to the central database, as described and claimed in the ’107 patent,
does not exclude the inputted data itself.
Petitioner cites additional evidence to support its position, in the form of an
amendment made to the claimed “processor” limitation during prosecution of a
Canadian patent corresponding to the ’107 patent. Pet. Reply 12–13 (citing Ex.
1016, 19, 54). Although the ’107 patent claims “a processor,” the Canadian patent
claims “a processor, said processor calculating statistical information based on
inputted data.” Id. Although the more limiting language in the Canadian claim is
consistent with Patent Owner’s argument here, that statistical information should
be limited to statistics generated from calculations based on inputted data, the
unadorned “a processor” language in the ’107 patent is not.
10

Therefore, for the reasons given above, we conclude Petitioner has satisfied
its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Hameen-Anttila
anticipates claim 1 of the ’107 patent.

10
Petitioner also cites supplemental infringement contentions of Patent Owner,
from the co-pending patent infringement litigation, to the effect that the accused
STATS devices satisfy the transfer of “statistical information based on such
inputted data” by transferring “the collected data” from the scorekeeping device at
the stadium or arena to the STATS database. Pet. Reply 13.
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

23

e. Claims 2 and 30
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the transfer of statistical
information is performed automatically.” Ex. 1001, 8:29–29. Petitioner provides
evidence that Hameen-Anttila discloses automatic transfer of game results to the
game server, for example, with “an automatic scoring device in a bowling alley
which depicts pins left standing and after each turn records the result.” Pet. 28
(citing Ex. 1002, 2:44–47). Claim 30 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein
the central database is arranged to receive data from a plurality of electronic
scorekeeping devices, each of said devices being located at a separate sports
game.” Id. at 10:33–36. Petitioner provides evidence that Figure 3 of Hameen-
Anttila discloses two sport databases, “each storing sport data for a different sport
and/or a different region.” Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1002, 4:62–65). Petitioner provides
further evidence that a sport server connected to the sport databases “may transmit
scores for all games being played or that have been played on a present day . . . or
may transmit only the scores as they are updated. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 5:40–44).
Patent Owner does not rebut the cited evidence, choosing to rely on its
arguments that Hameen-Anttila does not anticipate claim 1. PO Resp. 24.
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence and conclude Petitioner has
satisfied its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Hameen-
Anttila anticipates claims 2 and 30 of the ’107 patent.
f. Claims 8 and 10–12
Claim 8 of the ’107 patent depends from claim 1 and further recites “the
central database is further coupled to a server computer that provides access to the
information in the central database to a plurality of public users.” Ex. 1001, 8:41–
44. Petitioner provides evidence that Hameen-Anttila discloses “sport server 10
may comprise . . . a world wide web server for communicating via the internet and
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

24

the world-wide web.” Pet. 28–29 (citing Ex. 1002, 3:67–4:1). Hameen-Anttila
further discloses a plurality of public users who access the information on the sport
databases through the sport web-server. Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1002, 4:12–13). The
sports game event data in Hameen-Anttila’s sport databases, which are connected
to the sport web-server, also “may be transmitted to one or more output devices”
such as newswires, televisions, and smart phones. Ex. 1002, 5:34–47.
Claims 10–12 all depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 8. Petitioner
provides evidence that Hameen-Anttila discloses the limitations of claims 10–12.
Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1002, 3:67–4:1, 4:12–13, 4:21, 4:56–58, 5:8–15, 5:31–33).
Patent Owner does not rebut the cited evidence, choosing to rely on its
arguments that Hameen-Anttila does not anticipate claim 1. PO Resp. 24.
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence and conclude Petitioner has
satisfied its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Hameen-
Anttila anticipates claims 8 and 10–12 of the ’107 patent.
For the reasons given above, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 8, 10–12, and 30 of the ’107 patent
are anticipated by Hameen-Anttila under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
C. Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, and 30 by STATS Football
Petitioner argues that STATS Football (Ex. 1005) discloses every limitation
of claims 1, 2, and 30 of the ’107 patent and, therefore, anticipates those claims
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 38–41. Petitioner notes STATS Football
was not considered during prosecution of the ’107 patent. Id. at 19, 21. STATS
Football qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it was published no
later than September 1995, more than one year prior to the December 11, 2000
priority date of the ’107 patent. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1011); Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 6–8; Ex.
1005 (cover page).
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

25

1. STATS Football (Ex. 1005)
STATS Football discloses a computer-operated software program
(“Kickoff”) for entering “events of a football game into a computer,” such as an
IBM PC. Ex. 1005, 13.
11
The Kickoff program downloads a game file, in which
scoring and other information are input by the user. Id. The football game event
data is sent via modem to a STATS VAX computer. Id. at 13 and 17. The IBM
PC computer used to operate Kickoff includes a processor, memory, keyboard, and
screen (monitor) (“an IBM PC or compatible computer is required.”). Id.
A game scorer uses the computer keyboard and software-generated screen
prompts to enter football game event data in accordance with the Kickoff software
application. Id. at 14–17. The “FB Live” function allows the user “to enter play-
by-play information for a game while the game is in progress.” Id. at 17 VII. (“FB
Live”). For each play from scrimmage, the Kickoff program prompts the user via
the computer screen, e.g., “follow the instructions on the screen” (id. at 14 ¶ 7),
“carefully input each item when prompted” (id.), and “KICKOFF will provide a
menu of options for entering your game account” (id. at 15 ¶ 4). The Kickoff
program also prompts the user to enter, inter alia, a “formation” (id. at 16 ¶ 4), if
there was “motion” (id.), the “direction” of a run or pass (id. at ¶ 7), “how many
defenders are on the line of scrimmage” (id. at ¶ 5), “blitzes” (id. at ¶ 8), “broken
tackles” (id. at ¶ 9) and who made the “tackle” (id. at 17 ¶ 1).
The Kickoff software stores game data on a “diskette.” Id. at 14 VI. ¶ 1.
After a game ends, the user transmits the game data to the STATS VAX computer
via modem. Id. at 2 E. ¶ 4, 17 VI. ¶ 5. Alternatively, the FB Live function
automatically sends “play-by-play information for a game while the game is in

11
Citations are to the original pagination of the document, not the exhibit
pagination added to the footer of Exhibit 1005.
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

26

progress” to “STATS On-line and other on-line services,” using a modem and
telephone communication system. Id. at 17 VII.
2. Analysis
Petitioner provides a claim chart that correlates specific disclosures from
STATS Football to each and every limitation of claims 1, 2, and 30 of the ’107
patent. Pet. 38-41. Patent Owner argues that STATS Football does not disclose
menu-based screen displays “that may be customized by the user to reflect desired
data that is to be gathered for said sports game,” because, like Hameen-Anttila,
STATS Football discloses “selection of the predetermined menu options, not
customization of the screens to reflect desired data.” PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner
asserts that, although STATS Football allows a device user to enter information
either as a “head scout” or “assistant scout,” STATS Football does not identify
“any differences in the nature of the information that the respective scouts collect.”
Id. at 14–15. Patent Owner further argues that STATS Football does not disclose
the transfer of “statistical information based on the inputted data,” again arguing a
calculation is required, which excludes transfer of inputted data. Id. at 18–20 and
23.
a. Anticipation of Claim 1 – “a plurality of hierarchical menu-
based screens that may be customized by the user to reflect
desired data”
The Kickoff software allows each user to enter information under the role of
“Head Scout” or “Assistant Scout.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1005, 18 B. 7). The menu
selections for each scout are hierarchically ordered depending on the role selected.
Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 18 B. 1–9). For example, during a play from scrimmage,
there is a hierarchy of display prompts for entering “which team has the ball” (Ex.
1005, 10 IV. (“Scoresheet”) ¶ 2), “down/distance/yardline” (id. at ¶ 3), “formation”
(id. at ¶ 5), “motion” (id.), “direction” of a play (id. at 16 ¶ 7), “defenders” in the
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

27

box (id. at 10 IV. ¶ 6), “run” or “pass” (id. at 11 ¶¶ 1–2), “blitzes” (id. at 11 ¶ 3),
“broken tackles” (id), who made the “tackle” (id.), and other specifics. Ex. 1005,
10–12, 16–17. Kickoff, however, “will only ask for the specific information that
each scout is required to track.” Pet. 20, 39 (citing Ex. 1005, 17 VI. ¶ 3); Pet.
Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1005, 17 VI. ¶ 3). STATS Football states:
For example, the Running Back Scout will only be asked for the
formation, shotgun, play action and the number of broken tackles on
the play above. The Receiver Scout will be asked for the direction of
the play, roll out, and the yardline where the ball was caught. The
Defensive Scout will be asked for defenders at the line, who was the
defensive target, and blitz/hurry/knockdown information. The Head
Scout will be prompted for every appropriate item for every play.

Pet. Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1005, 17 VI. ¶ 3) (emphasis added). STATS Football
further states that “[s]ome data will be missing depending on which scout you are.”
Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 15 ¶ 9 (“Option 3”)).
Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, STATS Football does identify
“differences in the nature of the information that the respective scouts collect,” and
STATS Football does disclose user customization as described and claimed in the
’107 patent. PO Response 14–15. We agree with Petitioner that STATS Football
discloses that a device user can modify the hierarchy of menu-based screens
displayed to a Running Back Scout, Receiver Scout, or Defensive Scout in order to
reflect desired data to be gathered and input by the user. Pet. 20, 39; Pet. Reply 9.
STATS Football discloses that a user’s selection of an assistant scout level will
cause the Kickoff program to display “only” certain menu-based screens for
inputting the desired data corresponding to the user-selected assistant scout level.
STATS Football expressly notes that some screen displays will be “missing”
depending on which scout level is selected. STATS Football underscores the point
by distinguishing the menu-based screens displayed to a Head Scout, who is
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

28

prompted with displays “for every appropriate item for every play,” from the more
limited menu-based screens displayed to the Running Back, Receiver, and
Defensive Scouts. Thus, the Kickoff program permits a user (Running Back,
Receiver, or Defensive Scout) to configure the hierarchical menu-based screen
displays to permit desired data to be gathered for a football game, in accordance
with our claim construction.
b. Anticipation of Claim 1 – “transferring statistical
information based on such inputted data”
Patent Owner asserts that transfer of “statistical information based on such
inputted data” requires a calculation and, therefore, excludes STATS Football’s
disclosure of transferring inputted data to a central database. Id. at 18–20 and 23
(citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 43–44). Patent Owner’s argument is the same argument it
raised with regard to Hameen-Anttila. Therefore, for the same reasons provided in
section II.B.2(d), above, we conclude that “transferring statistical information
based on such inputted data” to a central database, as described and claimed in the
’107 patent, does not exclude transfer of inputted data. We also agree with
Petitioner that, even if we were to accept Patent Owner’s restriction on what
qualifies as “statistical information based on such inputted data,” STATS Football
“maintains a ‘Game State’ (e.g., 3rd and 5 from the team’s own 27 yard line) that
is calculated based on data input by the user (e.g., run for 5 yards).” Pet. Reply 10
(citing Ex. 1005, 21–22), 13–14 (citing Ex. 1005, 22; Ex. 1014 ¶ 30).
Therefore, for the reasons given above, we conclude Petitioner has satisfied
its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that STATS Football
anticipates claim 1 of the ’107 patent.

IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

29

c. Anticipation of Claims 2 and 30
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites the transfer of statistical
information to a central database “is performed automatically.” Ex. 1001, 8:28–29.
The FB Live function of STATS Football automatically sends “play-by-play
information for a game while the game is in progress” to STATS On-line and other
on-line services, using a continuously connected modem and telephone
communication system. Pet. 19, 40 (citing Ex. 1005, 17 VII. (“FB Live”). Claim
30 depends from claim 1 and recites the central database is arranged to receive data
“from a plurality of electronic scorekeeping devices, each of said devices being
located at a separate sports game.” Ex. 1001, 10:33–36. STATS Football
discloses a computerized scoring system for “reporters,” and “all reporters” are
instructed to send their game accounts to STATS “by Wednesday at 12:00 noon
CST following the game.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1005, 13. A reporter is “in the
stands at the stadium” or “watching the game on TV.” Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005, 2).
Mr. Jim Osborne declares that the 1995 STATS Football manual was “distributed
to scorers prior to the start of the 1995 National Football League season.” Ex.
1011 ¶ 7 (emphasis added). The references to “all reporters” in the manual and to
“scorers” in Mr. Osborne’s declaration, given the reality of multiple NFL football
games being played on the same day in different stadiums around the country,
indicate a plurality of STATS Football computers in use at separate sports games.
Pet. 41. The instruction for all reporters to send their play-by-play game accounts
via modem to a VAX computer by the Wednesday following a Sunday or Monday
night game’s end (Ex. 1005, 2, 17), further indicates the capability of the VAX
database computer to receive data from a plurality of STATS Football
scorekeeping computers located at separate game locations. Patent Owner does
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

30

not rebut the cited evidence, choosing to rely on its arguments that STATS
Football does not anticipate claim 1. PO Resp. 24.
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence and conclude Petitioner has
satisfied its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that STATS
Football anticipates claims 2 and 30 of the ’107 patent.
D. Obviousness of Claims 8, 10–12, and 30 over STATS Football and
Reilly
Petitioner relies on Reilly in combination with STATS Football to support
its argument that claims 8, 10–12, and 30 would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Pet. 47–50. Petitioner notes that
Reilly qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) but was not considered during
prosecution of the ’107 patent. Pet. 21. Patent Owner does not respond to
Petitioner’s obviousness argument. We address Petitioner’s argument below.
As stated above, Claim 8 of the ’107 patent depends from clam 1 and recites
“the central database is further coupled to a server computer that provides access to
the information in the central database to a plurality of public users.” Ex. 1001,
8:41–44. Petitioner emphasizes Figure 1 of Reilly, which discloses an information
distribution system where information server 104 includes information database
134 connected to a server computer comprised of at least CPU 110, Internet
Interface 118, and RAM 112. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1008, Figs. 1, 5, 4:21–38). A
plurality of client (subscriber) computers 102 have access to information stored in
database 134 through Internet Interface 118, and the server computer. Ex. 1008,
4:2–7, 4:21–38, 4:53–65. Database 134 includes sports news feed information that
may be accessed by subscribers. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1008, 4:21–31). Petitioner
argues it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

31

information server of Reilly to provide a plurality of public users with access to the
STATS Football database of game event information. Pet. 49–50.
The disclosure in STATS Football, that FB Live game event data “will be
appearing on STATS On-line and other on-line services” and “will be available
soon on the Internet,” suggests the desirability and capability of providing database
access to on-line users or subscribers via the Internet. Reilly describes an
information distribution system where a server computer with an Internet interface
connects multiple subscribers to an information database that accepts data and
information from various sources. The sources of data and information include
sports information broken down into subcategories of information of interest to a
subscriber. Ex. 1008, Fig. 5, 9:35–58. Use of Reilly’s information server in the
STATS Football FB Live system, with a central database coupled to a server
computer for providing multiple public users or subscribers with Internet access to
information in the database, would have been an obvious use of a known device
according to its known function to yield a predictable result. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
12

Claims 10–12 all depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 8. Petitioner
provides evidence that Reilly discloses the limitations of claims 10–12 in further
support of its obviousness argument. Pet. 48–49 (citing Ex. 1008, Figs. 1, 4, 7:45–

12
Petitioner’s detailed and thorough description of prior art to the ’107 patent is
sufficient to reflect the level of ordinary skill in the art of the claimed electronic
scorekeeping device. Pet. 14–23. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art
does not give rise to reversible error “where the prior art itself reflects an
appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.” (citation omitted));
Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 963 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (excusing failure to make express findings as to the level of ordinary skill
where there is no showing that the court's failure to make such a finding influenced
the ultimate determination).
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

32

8:18). The evidence is sufficient to establish the disclosure and obvious use of a
server to give “an external web site . . . access to information in the central
database” (claim 10), where “public users’ access to the information in the central
database is regulated by a security measure” (claim 11), such as “a username and a
password” (claim 12). Id.
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence and conclude Petitioner has
satisfied its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that STATS
Football in combination with Reilly would have rendered claims 8 and 10–12 of
the ’107 patent obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 30 recites a “plurality of electronic scorekeeping devices, each of said
devices being located at a separate sports game.” Ex. 1001, 10:33–36. Reilly’s
system, shown in Figure 1 (Ex. 1008), also accepts information from various input
sources: “one or more news wire interfaces 120 for receiving news feeds from
information transmission services . . . and various sports news feeds.” Pet. 49
(quoting Ex. 1008, 4:21-38); Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1008, Fig. 1, 4:21–38). As
stated above, use of Reilly’s information server in the STATS Football FB Live
system, with a central database coupled to a server computer for providing multiple
public users or subscribers with Internet access to information in the database,
would have been an obvious use of a known device according to its known
function to yield a predictable result. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
For the reasons given above, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claims 8, 10-12, and 30 would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the ’107 patent priority
application was filed, over the combination of STATS Football and Reilly.
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

33

E. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
Patent Owner seeks to exclude Exhibits 1013 and 1014 filed by Petitioner
with Petitioner’s Reply. Mot. 1 (Paper 23). Patent Owner’s objections to Exhibits
1013 and 1014 were timely filed within five (5) business days of service of the
exhibits. Id. (citing Ex. 2005); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) (“Once a trial has been
instituted, any objection must be filed within five business days of service of
evidence.”). Petitioner opposes the motion to exclude. Mot. Opp. (Paper 26).
13

We rule as follows.
Exhibit 1013 is a copy of U.S. Patent No. 5,779,566 to Wilens (“Wilens”).
Patent Owner seeks to exclude Wilens as irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 402
because Petitioner did not request review over Wilens and, in its Reply, Petitioner
argues that Wilens discloses claim elements of the ’107 patent. Mot. 1, 3. We do
not rely on Wilens as evidence in support of any part of our Decision. Therefore,
Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 1013 is dismissed as moot.
Exhibit 1014 is the Declaration of Dr. Dahbura submitted with Petitioner’s
Reply to Patent Owner’s Response. Patent Owner objects to Dr. Dahbura’s
testimony regarding Wilens, Exhibit 1004 (“STATS Baseball”), and Exhibit 1006
(“ScorePAD”) in paragraphs 23, 33, and 32, respectively, of Dr. Dahbura’s
Declaration. PO Mot. Excl., 7–8. We do not rely on Wilens, STATS Baseball, or
ScorePAD as evidence in support of any part of our Decision. Therefore, Patent

13
Petitioner and Patent Owner dispute whether Patent Owner’s motion is
procedurally proper. Mot. Opp. 1–2 (citing Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V.,
Case IPR2013-00052, Paper 88, 22 n.15 (PTAB May 1, 2014) (“A motion to
exclude is not an appropriate vehicle for challenging a reply or supporting
evidence as of improper scope.”)); Mot. Reply (Paper 27), 1 (citing The Scotts Co.
LLC v. Encap LLC, Case IPR2013-00110, Paper 79 (PTAB June 24, 2014). We
need not decide the issue given Patent Owner’s reliance on Fed. R. Evid. 402, 702
in support of its motion. Mot. 4, 8.
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

34

Owner’s motion to exclude paragraphs 23, 32, and 33 of Exhibit 1014 is dismissed
as moot.
Patent Owner also objects to Dr. Dahbura’s Declaration testimony in
paragraphs 21, 26, and 28 as asserted “new evidence” necessary for Petitioner to
make out a prima facie case for unpatentability of the ’107 patent. Id. at 6–7.
Patent Owner argues, in particular, that Petitioner did not construe the claim terms
“customized” or “statistical information based on such inputted data” in the
Petition. Id. Patent Owner further argues Petitioner should have requested Board
authorization before submitting Dr. Dahbura’s testimony to address the quoted
claim terms in reply to Patent Owner’s arguments. Id. at 7.
The Petition includes six pages of claim language analysis and construction,
including the limitations “information transfer means for transferring statistical
information based on such inputted data” and “customized by the user to reflect
desired data.” Pet. 12–14. We discern nothing improper in the Petition’s treatment
of claim construction in support of Petitioner’s several grounds challenging
patentability of the ’107 patent. We agree with Petitioner that Dr. Dahbura’s
Declaration testimony in the challenged paragraphs responds directly to the
arguments made by Patent Owner and by Dr. Locke concerning the proper
construction and scope of “customized” and “statistical information based on such
inputted information.” Mot. Opp. 3–6. Dr. Dahbura’s Declaration testimony, in
paragraphs 20–30, addresses arguments and evidence raised by Patent Owner in
the Response, and the Declaration testimony cannot be characterized reasonably as
anything other than appropriate reply evidence. The record before us, moreover,
indicates that Patent Owner did not cross-examine Dr. Dahbura or file a motion for
observations on cross-examination of a reply witness, as permitted in the
Scheduling Order. Paper 13, 5–6. In sum, we will not impose an impractical
IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

35

obligation on a petitioner to anticipate every claim construction argument a patent
owner might make in response to an inter partes review petition, even if the parties
have been engaged in co-pending district court litigation.
For the reasons given above, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude paragraphs
21, 26, and 28 of Exhibit 1014 is denied.
III. CONCLUSION
We determine Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence
that claims 1, 2, 8, 10–12, and 30 of the ’107 patent are anticipated by Hameen-
Anttila pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), claims 1, 2, and 30 are anticipated by
STATS Football pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and claims 8, 10–12, and 30 are
obvious over STATS Football and Reilly pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.

IV. ORDER
For the reasons given above, it is
ORDERED that claims 1, 2, 8, 10-12, and 30 of the ’107 patent have been
shown by a preponderance of the evidence to be unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is
denied-in-part and dismissed-in-part as moot.
This is a final written decision. Parties to the proceeding seeking judicial
review of the decision must comply with the notice and service requirements of
37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2014-00510
Patent 6,725,107 B2

36

FOR PETITIONER:
Aaron R. Feigelson, Lead Counsel
David M. Airan, Backup Counsel
LEYDIG, VOIT & MAYER, LTD.
afeigelson@leydig.com
dairan@leydig.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:

Jason S. Angell, Lead Counsel
Daniel Weinberg, Backup Counsel
Robert E. Freitas, Backup Counsel
FREITAS TSENG & KAUFMAN LLP
jangell@ftklaw.com
dweinberg@ftklaw.com
rfreitas@ftklaw.com