. Front Row Techs. LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., 697 F. App'x 701 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Listingbook, LLC v. Mkt. Leader, Inc., 144 F.Supp.3d 777, 789 (M.D.N.C. 2015) ("Each of these dependent claims narrows the method of Claim 1 by adding details and functions to improve the information exchange and collaborative process, but none of these claims changes the concept at the core of the claimed method."). IV. Patentability Under Alice
204 F. Supp. 3d 1190, 1268, 1273-74 (D.N.M. 2016), aff'd sub nom., Front Row Techs., LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., 697 F. App'x 701 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
); Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“[T]he system claims are no different from the method claims in substance”); Front Row Techs., LLC v. NBA Media Ventures, LLC, 204 F.Supp.3d 1190, 1265 (D.N.M. 2016) (“After comparing the various independent system claims, the Court concludes that they are substantially similar[.]”), aff'd sub nom., Front Row Techs. LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., 697 Fed.Appx. 701 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Further, the remaining claims pertain to secondary aspects of a game or gaming platform.
Taken together, the "swiping limitation" simply "append[s] [a] conventional step[ ], specified at a high level of generality," which is "not enough to supply an inventive concept." Alice , 573 U.S. at 222, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (internal quotation marks omitted); see alsoFront Row Techs., LLC v. NBA Media Ventures, LLC , 204 F. Supp. 3d 1190, 1274 (D.N.M. 2016), aff'd sub nom.Front Row Techs. LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P. , 697 F. App'x 701 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding that the limitations of a "cellular telecommunications network," a "server," a "touch-sensitive display screen," and a "802.11 wireless module" were insufficient to recite an inventive concept).See Sept. 1, 2020 Applicant's Arguments and Remarks Made in an Amendment, ’685 Patent File History, at 10 (citing ’321 Patent at 8:26-43); see alsoDror v. Kenu, Inc. , 2019 WL 5684520, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2019) ("[t]he court can take judicial notice of patent-prosecution histories as a matter of public record") (citing Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC , 906 F.3d 999, 1008 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ).