Patent
Right

Date
Case number

March 27, 2023
2022 (Gyo-Ke) 10092

Court

Intellectual Property
High Court, Third
Division- A case in which the JPO decision which dismissed an amendment due to violationof the provisions in Article 17-2, paragraph (3) of the Patent Act was rescinded bystating that it was found that the amendment was made within a scope of mattersdescribed in the initial description and the like and did not violate the provisions.
Case type: Rescission of Appeal Decision of Refusal
Result: Granted
References: Article 17-2, paragraph (3) of the Patent Act
Related rights, etc.: Application No. 2017-171341
Decision of JPO: Appeal against Examiner's Decision No. 2020-5296
Summary of the Judgment
1

This case is a suit against the JPO decision dismissing the request for appeal

against the examiner's decision of refusal for the invention of this application, titled"program, fighting game server, and control method thereof".
The Plaintiff, who is the applicant of the invention of this application, received theexaminer's decision of refusal and thus, made a request for appeal against theexaminer's decision of refusal, made an amendment to change a part of the scope ofclaims as of November 5, 2021 (first amendment), and further made an amendment tochange a part of detailed description of the invention and the scope of claims in thedescription (second amendment) as of May 18, 2022.

The second amendment

included limitation of the "strength" in the game in claims 1, 7, and 8 in the scope ofclaims after the first amendment to "strength, which is a predetermined parameter
enabling a state that the higher a numerical value is, the more advantageously thefighting game can be proceeded".
2

Regarding the limitation of the "strength" in 1 described above in the second

amendment, the JPO decision determined that, due to reasons such that (A) the
problem of the invention of this application described in the initial description and thelike is found to be that the user's interests in the game are extremely weakened by"deviation of a total value of offensive power and defensive power, and in view ofsuch problem, the "strength" is found to be only the "total value of offensive powerand defensive power"; (B) although the initial description and the like describes thatthe "strength" is the "total value of offensive power and defensive power", it does notdescribe that physical strength, quickness, number of held items, and the like are the"strength" or does not have description that it is "a predetermined parameter enablingia state that the higher a numerical value is, the more advantageously the fighting
game can be proceeded"; (C) in the "game" field, it is common general technicalknowledge that the "strength" of the "user" includes the physical strength, quickness,
the number of held items, and the like other than the offensive power and defensive
power, but it is not described in the initial description and the like that the physicalstrength, quickness, the number of held items, and the like solve the problem to besolved by the invention of this application, and even by considering the common
general technical knowledge at the application, it is not self-obvious and thus, the"strength, which is a predetermined parameter enabling a state that the higher anumerical value is, the more advantageously the fighting game can be proceeded"
described in claims 1, 7, and 8 is introduction of a new technical matter in therelationship with the technical matter led by integrating all the descriptions in theinitial description and the like, and the amendment made as above was not one madewithin the scope of the matters described in the initial description and the like and thatthe second amendment violates the provisions in Article 17-2, paragraph (3) of the
Patent Act and should be dismissed in accordance with the provisions in Article 53,
paragraph (1) which is applied mutatis mutandis in Article 159, paragraph (1) of thesame Act.
3

This judgment stated as follows, determined that the JPO decision dismissing thesecond amendment due to violation of the provisions in Article 17-3, paragraph (3) ofthe Patent Act was erroneous, and rescinded the JPO decision.
The technical meaning of the invention described in the initial description and thelike and the description and the like after the second amendment exist in that the
number of battles which are won or lost soon due to a big difference in the strength
among opponents can be reduced by extracting the opponent in a predetermined rangeof strength stages based on the strength stage of the user as a reference, as comparedwith a case where the opponent is extracted at random as in the conventional ones,
and that the user's interests in the game can be increased by changing difficulty of thefighting game by giving it a certain level of variation in the strength of the opponents.
Regarding the common general technical knowledge in the "game" field, there isno dispute between the parties that it was the common general technical knowledge at
the time of filing of this application that the "user's" "strength" includes the physicalstrength, quickness, the number of held items, and the like other than the offensive
power and the defensive power.
In view of the technical meaning of the invention of selecting not an opponent
with a big difference in the strength but an opponent appropriate for the user as aboveii

in the fighting game, it is reasonable to interpret that the "strength" described in theinitial description and the like is an index indicating the user's strength in the gameand is only necessary to be a parameter which would influence winning or losing of
the game and thus, even if it can be an embodiment of the invention to regard the"strength" as the "total value of offensive power and defensive power", there cannot
be any reason found for the limitation of the "strength" to the "total value of offensive
power and defensive power" by excluding the physical strength, quickness, thenumber of held items, and the like from the elements included in the "strength".

Inother words, whether or not to limit the "strength" to the "total value of offensive
power and defensive power" is found to be only an arbitrary additional matter that
may be done or not in light of the technical meaning of the invention.
Then, even though the initial description and the like only have the description ofthe "total value of offensive power and defensive power" in wording as theembodiment of the "strength", in view of the meaning of the invention and thecommon general technical knowledge, it is not found that the second amendment
amended as the "predetermined parameter enabling a state that the higher a numericalvalue is, the more advantageously the fighting game can be proceeded " without
limiting the "strength" to the "total value of offensive power and defensive power"
further added a technical matter, and it is not found that the second amendment
introduced the new technical matter.

Then, the second amendment is found to bemade within the scope of the matters described in the initial description and the likeand should be considered not to violate the provisions in Article 17-2, paragraph (3)of the Patent Act.
Therefore, the JPO decision which dismissed the second amendment (the decision2) by determining that the amendment of the "strength" in the invention after the firstamendment to the "strength, which is the predetermined parameter enabling a statethat the higher a numerical value is, the more advantageously the fighting game canbe proceeded" in the second amendment was introduction of a new technical matterand violation of the provisions in Article 17-2, paragraph (3) of the Patent Act isfound to be erroneous, and the grounds for rescission asserted by the Plaintiff areapproved in the JPO decision.

iii

Judgment Rendered on March 27, 2023
2022 (Gyo-Ke) 10092, Case of Seeking Rescission of JPO Decision
Date of Conclusion of Oral Argument: January 18, 2023
Judgment
Plaintiff: GREE, Inc.
Defendant: Commissioner of the Japan Patent Office
Main Text
1. The JPO decision on the case of Appeal against Examiner's Decision No.
2020-5296 rendered by the JPO on July 20, 2022 shall be rescinded.
2. The Defendant shall bear the court costs.
Facts and Reasons
No. 1

Claim
The same gist as Main Text

No. 2

Outline of the Case

1. Outline of procedures at the JPO(1) The Plaintiff made a part of a patent application (Japanese Patent Application No.
2013-544607) with an international application date of June 6, 2013 (the priority dateof June 7, 2012, Japan) into a new patent application (Japanese Patent Application No.
2014-238065, hereinafter referred to as "Parent Application".

Exhibit Ko 19) andwas granted registration of establishment on October 12, 2018 (Japanese Patent No.
6415270, Exhibit Ko 17).
The Plaintiff further divided a part of the parent application and filed a newpatent application of the invention titled "program, fighting game server, and control
method thereof" on September 6, 2017 (Japanese Patent Application No. 2017-171341,
hereinafter referred to as "the Application"; moreover, the description, scope ofclaims, and drawings attached to the Application are collectively called "Initial
Description and the Like".

Exhibit Ko 1).

Note that the Plaintiff made a part of the Application into a new patentapplication on April 20, 2020 (Japanese Patent Application No. 2020-74541,
hereinafter referred to as the "Child Application", Exhibit Ko 13) and was granted
registration of establishment on October 29, 2021 (Japanese Patent No. 6968928,
Exhibit Ko 14).
(2) The Plaintiff received a notification of reasons for refusal (Exhibit Ko 3) dated
October 4, 2018 for the Application and submitted a written amendment (Exhibit Ko14-1) dated February 4, 2019, but further received a notification of reasons for refusal(Exhibit Ko 5) dated July 30, 2019 and submitted a written amendment dated
September 20 of the same year (Exhibit Ko 6-1).
However, since the Plaintiff received a decision to dismiss the amendment(Exhibit Ko 7-1) and the decision of refusal (Exhibit Ko 7-2) dated January 31, 2020,
the Plaintiff made a request for appeal against the examiner's decision of refusal(Appeal against Examiner's Decision of Refusal No. 2020-5296) (Exhibit Ko 8-1) on
April 20 of the same year.
(3) The Plaintiff received a notification of reasons for refusal (Exhibit Ko 9) dated
September 29, 2021 and thus, submitted a written amendment which changes thescope of claims, dated November 5 of the same year (hereinafter, referred to as "theFirst Amendment".

Exhibit Ko 10-1).

But the Plaintiff further received anotification of reasons for refusal dated April 5, 2022 (Exhibit Ko 11), and thus
submitted a written amendment in which paragraphs [0004] and [0005] of thedescription are deleted, paragraph [0006] is changed, and the scope of claims ischanged, as of May 18 of the same year (hereinafter, referred to as "the Second
Amendment", Exhibit Ko 12-1).
(4) The JPO made the decision to dismiss the Second Amendment on July 20, 2022,
and then rendered the JPO decision with the conclusion that "the request for appeal is
not established." (hereinafter, referred to as "the JPO Decision", The JPO Decision isas in Attachment 1) and the certified copy thereof was delivered to the Plaintiff o nAugust 1 of the same year.
(5) The Plaintiff instituted this lawsuit seeking rescission of the JPO Decision on
August 30, 2022.
2. Description in Scope of Claims(1) Initial scope of claims of the Application
The initial scope of claims of the Application (Japanese Patent Application No.
2017-171341, application date of September 6, 2017) is as follows (Exhibit Ko 1).
[Claim 1]
A program characterized by causing a computer which provides a fighting
game to a plurality of communication terminals to execute:a step of managing identification information uniquely assigned to each user
who operates the communication terminal and user information for calculating
strength of the user in association for each of the users;
a step of automatically extracting some units in all the units held by the user tosatisfy a predetermined condition on the basis of the user information;2

a step of determining the strength according to the user information on thebasis of the extracted unit; andan opponent list transmission step of transmitting to the communication
terminal an opponent list related to one or more users selected on the basis of thestrength according to the user information associated with the identification
information when a fight request including one piece of the identification informationis received from the communication terminal.
[Claim 2]
The program according to Claim 1, wherein
the step of automatic extraction is executed at every predetermined timeinterval.
[Claim 3]
The program according to Claim 1 or 2, wherein
the user in the opponent list is selected when the user has a strength within apredetermined range from the strength according to user information associated with
the identification information.
[Claim 4]
The program according to Claim 3, wherein
the strength within the predetermined range is less than the strength according
to user information associated with the identification information.
[Claim 5]
The program according to Claim 3, wherein
the strength within the predetermined range is the strength or more according touser information associated with the identification information.
[Claim 6]
The program according to any one of Claims 3 to 5, wherein
when the strength according to user information associated with theidentification information is at a predetermined threshold value or more, a step ofmaking the predetermined range wider than in a case where the strength according to
the user information associated with the identification information is less than th epredetermined threshold value is included.
[Claim 7]
The program according to any one of Claims 1 to 6, wherein
the user information further includes offensive power and defensive power
related to a unit; andthe strength according to the user information is determined in accordance with3

a combination of units whose total value of the offensive power and the defensive
power becomes the maximum at an upper limit value or less of a cost.
[Claim 8]
The program according to any one of Claims 1 to 7, wherein
the fight request includes a unit ID of a unit which the user wishes to acquire;andat the opponent list transmission step, the opponent list including only the users
having the unit related to the unit ID is transmitted to the communication terminal.
[Claim 9]
A fighting game server which provides a fighting game to a plurality ofcommunication terminals, comprising:a storage portion which manages identification information uniquely assigned
to each user who operates the communication terminal and user information for
calculating strength of the user in association for each of the users;
a control portion which automatically extracts some units from all the units
held by the user to satisfy a predetermined condition and determines strength
according to the user information on the basis of the extracted unit in accordance withthe user information; anda communication portion which transmits to the communication terminal an
opponent list related to one or more users selected on the basis of the strength
according to the user information associated with the identification information whena fight request including one piece of the identification information is received fromthe communication terminal.
[Claim 10]
A control method of a fighting game server which provides a fighting game toa plurality of communication terminals and includes a storage portion, acommunication portion, and a control portion, comprising:a step at which the storage portion manages identification information uniqu ely
assigned to each user who operates the communication terminal and user information
for calculating strength of the user in association for each of the users;
a step at which the control portion automatically extracts some units from all
the units held by the user to satisfy a predetermined condition on the basis of the user
information;a step at which the control portion determines the strength according to the user
information on the basis of the extracted unit; anda step at which the communication portion transmits to the communication4

terminal an opponent list related to one or more users selected on the basis of thestrength according to the user information associated with the identification
information when a fight request including one piece of the identification informationis received from the communication terminal.
(2) Scope of claims after First Amendment
The scope of claims after the First Amendment of the Application is Claims 1
to 8, and the description thereof is as follows (underlined parts are parts amended by
the First Amendment, Exhibit Ko 10-1).
[Claim 1]
A program characterized by causing a computer which provides a one-user vs.
one-user fighting game to a plurality of communication terminals to execute:a step of managing identification information uniquely assigned to each user
who operates the communication terminal and user information in association for eachof the users;
a step of determining a stage of strength at which the user is in each of stagesof strength defined by a lower limit value and an upper limit value of the strength inaccordance with the user information; andwhen the fight request is received from the user, on the basis of a stage ofstrength according to the user information associated with the identification
information, a step of starting a fight against another user at a stage of the same
strength or a different strength within a predetermined range of the strength, whereinat the step of starting a fight,
on the basis of an upper limit and a lower limit of strength of an opponent set at
each stage of the strength defined by the lower limit value and the upper limit value aswell as a ratio of weak persons and/or a ratio of strong persons included between theupper limit and the lower limit of the strength of the opponent, a user, who is an
opponent candidate, is automatically extracted, and a fight is started against anotheruser determined by the user from the users who are opponent candidates.
[Claim 2]
The program according to Claim 1, whereina stage of different strength within the predetermined range is less than thestage of the strength according to user information associated with the identification
information.
[Claim 3]
The program according to Claim 1 or 2, further comprising:when a stage of strength according to user information associated with the5identification information is a predetermined threshold value or more, a step ofmaking the predetermined range wider than that in a case where the stage of thestrength according to the user information associated with the identification
information is less than the predetermined threshold value.
[Claim 4]
The program according to Claim 1, 2, or 3, whereina probability that a fight against a user at a stage of different strength withi n
the predetermined range is started is based on a ratio of a user at a stage of different
strength within the predetermined range included in the entire opponent list of a user
who made a fight request; andthe probability that a fight against a user at a stage of the same strength within
the predetermined range is started is based on a ratio of a user at a stage of the same
strength within the predetermined range included in the entire opponent list of a user
who made a fight request.
[Claim 5]
The program according to any one of Claims 1 to 4, wherein
the predetermined range is set for each stage of strength according to user
information associated with the identification information.
[Claim 6]
The program according to Claim 1, wherein
the predetermined range is set such that a range is different between:a stage higher than a stage of the same strength as the stage of strength
according to user information associated with the identification information; anda stage lower than a stage of the same strength as the stage of strength
according to user information associated with the identification information.
[Claim 7]
A fighting game server providing a one-user vs. one-user fighting game to aplurality of communication terminals, comprising:a storage portion which manages identification information uniquely assigned
to each user who operates the communication terminal and user information inassociation for each of the users; anda control portion which determines a stage of strength at which the user is ineach of stages of strength defined by a lower limit value and an upper limit value ofthe strength in accordance with the user information and when a fight request is
received from the user, starts a fight against another user at the stage of the same
strength or different strength within a predetermined range of the strength on the basis
6

of the stage of the strength according to the user information associated with theidentification information, wherein
the control portion,on the basis of an upper limit and a lower limit of strength of an opponent set at
each stage of the strength defined by the lower limit value and the upper limit value aswell as a ratio of weak persons and/or a ratio of strong persons included between theupper limit and the lower limit of the strength of the opponent, automatically extracts
a user, who is an opponent candidate, and starts a fight against another user
determined by the user from the users who are opponent candidates.
[Claim 8]
A control method of a fighting game server which provides a one-user vs. oneuser fighting game to a plurality of communication terminals and includes a storage
portion, a communication portion, and a control portion, comprising:a step at which the storage portion manages identification information uniquely
assigned to each user who operates the communication terminal and user informationin association for each of the users;
a step at which the control portion determines a stage of strength at which theuser is in each of stages of strength defined by a lower limit value and an upper limit
value of the strength in accordance with the user information; anda step at which, when a fight request is received from the user, on the basis of astage of strength according to the user information associated with the identification
information, the control portion starts a fight against another user at a stage of thesame strength or a different strength within a predetermined range of the strength,
whereinat the step of starting a fight,
on the basis of an upper limit and a lower limit of strength of an opponent set at
each stage of the strength defined by the lower limit value and the upper limit value aswell as a ratio of weak persons and/or a ratio of strong persons included b etween theupper limit and the lower limit of the strength of the opponent, a user, who is an
opponent candidate is automatically extracted, and a fight is started against anotheruser determined by the user from the users who are opponent candidates.
(3) Scope of claims after Second Amendment
The scope of claims after the Second Amendment of the Application includes
Claims 1 to 8, and the description thereof is as follows (underlined parts are parts
amended by the Second Amendment.

Exhibit Ko 12-1).

[Claim 1]
7

A program causing a computer which provides a one-user vs. one-user fighting
game to a plurality of communication terminals to execute:a step of managing identification information uniquely assigned to each user
who operates the communication terminal and user information in association for eachof the users;
a step of determining a stage of strength at which the user is in each of stagesof strength defined by a lower limit value and an upper limit value of the strength,
which is a predetermined parameter enabling a state that the higher a numerical valueis, the more advantageously the fighting game can be proceeded, in accordance withthe user information; andwhen a fight request is received from the user, on the basis of a stage ofstrength according to the user information associated with the identification
information, a step of starting a fight against another user at a stage of the same
strength or a different strength within a predetermined range of the strength from thestage of the strength, whereinat the step of starting a fight,
on the basis of an upper limit and a lower limit of the stages of strength of an
opponent set at each stage of the strength defined by the lower limit value and theupper limit value as well as a ratio of weak persons and/or a ratio of strong persons
included between the upper limit and the lower limit of the stages of the strength ofthe opponent, the user, who is an opponent candidate, is automatically extracted, anda fight is started against another user determined by the user among the users who are
opponent candidates.
[Claim 2]
The program according to Claim 1, whereina stage of different strength within the predetermined range is less than thestage of the strength according to user information associated with the identification
information.
[Claim 3]
The program according to Claim 1 or 2, further comprising:when a stage of strength according to user information associated with theidentification information is a predetermined threshold value or more, a step ofmaking the predetermined range wider than that in a case where the stage of thestrength according to the user information associated with the identification
information is less than the predetermined threshold value.
[Claim 4]
8

The program according to Claim 1, 2, or 3, whereina probability that a fight is started against a user at a stage of different strength
within the predetermined range is based on a ratio of a user at a stage of different
strength within the predetermined range included in the entire opponent list of a user
who made a fight request; andthe probability that a fight is started against a user at a stage of the same
strength within the predetermined range is based on a ratio of a user at a stage of thesame strength within the predetermined range included in the entire opponent list of auser who made a fight request.
[Claim 5]
The program according to any one of Claims 1 to 4, wherein
the predetermined range is set for each stage of strength according to user
information associated with the identification information.
[Claim 6]
The program according to Claim 1, wherein
the predetermined range is set such that a range is different between:a stage upper than the stage of the same strength as the stage of strength
according to user information associated with the identification information; anda stage lower than the stage of the same strength as the stage of strength
according to user information associated with the identification information.
[Claim 7]
A fighting game server which provides a one-user vs. one-user fighting game toa plurality of communication terminals, comprising:a storage portion which manages identification information uniquely assigned
to each user who operates the communication terminal and user information inassociation for each of the users; anda control portion which determines a stage of strength at which the user is ineach of stages of strength defined by a lower limit value and an upper limit value ofthe strength, which is a predetermined parameter enabling a state that the higher anumerical value is, the more advantageously the fighting game can be proceeded, in
accordance with the user information, and when a fight request is received from theuser, starts a fight against another user at the stage of the same strength or different
strength within a predetermined range from the stage of the strength on the basis of
the stage of the strength according to user information associated with theidentification information, wherein
the control portion,9

on the basis of an upper limit and a lower limit of the stage of strength of an
opponent set at each stage of the strength defined by the lower limit value and theupper limit value as well as a ratio of weak persons and/or a ratio of strong persons
included between the upper limit and the lower limit of the stages of the strength ofthe opponent, starts a fight against another user determined by the user from the users
who are opponent candidates, by automatically extracting the user, who is an
opponent candidate.
[Claim 8]
A control method of a fighting game server which provides a one-user vs. oneuser fighting game to a plurality of communication terminals and includes a storage
portion, a communication portion, and a control portion, comprising:a step at which the storage portion manages identification information uniquely
assigned to each user who operates the communication terminal and user informationin association for each of the users;
a step at which the control portion determines a stage of strength at which theuser is in each of stages of strength defined by a lower limit value and an upper limit
value of the strength, which is a predetermined parameter enabling a state that thehigher a numerical value is, the more advantageously the fighting game can beproceeded, in accordance with the user information; anda step at which, when a fight request is received from the user, on the basis of astage of strength according to the user information associated with the identification
information, the control portion starts a fight against another user at a stage of thesame strength or a different strength within a predetermined range from the stage ofthe strength, whereinat the step of starting a fight,
on the basis of an upper limit and a lower limit of the stage of strength of an
opponent set at each stage of the strength defined by the lower limit value and theupper limit value as well as a ratio of weak persons and/or a ratio of strong persons
included between the upper limit and the lower limit of the stages of the strength ofthe opponent, a user, who is an opponent candidate, is automatically extracted, and afight is started against another user determined by the user from the users who are
opponent candidates.
3. Gist of the Reasons Given in the JPO Decision(1) Decision of dismissal of amendment for the Second Amendment
A. Conclusion of decision of dismissal of the amendment (the JPO Decision No. 2[page 2 of the JPO Decision])
10

The Second Amendment shall be dismissed.
B. Propriety of the Second Amendment(a) Amendment matters (the JPO Decision No. 2, 2(1) [page 6 of the JPO
Decision])
The Second Amendment includes, regarding the "strength", which is aninvention specifying matter of Claims 1, 7, and 8 before the Second Amendment,
amendment to "the strength, which is a predetermined parameter enabling a state thatthe higher a numerical value is, the more advantageously the fighting game can beproceeded".
(b) Presence/absence of addition of new mattera. Problem to be solved by the invention (No. 2, 2(2)B(a) of the JPO Decision[page 10 of the JPO Decision])In the initial Description and the like, the problem to be solved by the inventionof the Application is found that, as is obvious from the description in paragraphs[0004], [0005], and [0006], a user's interests in the game are extremely weakened by"deviation of the total value of the offensive power and the defensive power".
In view of the aforementioned problem, the "strength" is found to be only the"total value of the offensive power and the defensive power".
b. Description in the initial Description and the like (No. 2, 2(2)B(b) of the JPO
Decision [page 11 of the JPO Decision])
Although the Initial Description and the like describe that the "strength" is the"total value of the offensive power and the defensive power", they do not refer as far
as stating that physical strength, quickness, number of held items, and the like are the"strength".
c. Common general technical knowledge at the time of filing the application (No.
2, 2(2)B(c) of the JPO Decision [page 12 of the JPO Decision])In the "game" field, it is common general technical knowledge that the"strength" of the "user" includes physical strength, quickness, the number of held
items, and the like other than the offensive power and the defensive power
It is surely possible that the higher numerical values of the physical strength,
quickness, the number of held items, and the like are, the more advantageously thefighting game can be proceeded, but the initial Description and the like do notdescribe that the physical strength, quickness, the number of held items, and the likesolve the problem that "a user's interests in the game are extremely weakened by'deviation of the total value of the offensive power and the defensive power'", whichis the problem to be solved by the aforementioned invention, and even by considering
11the common general technical knowledge at the time of the application, there is no
reason to consider it to be self-obvious.
d. Summary (No. 2, 2(2)B(e) of the JPO Decision [page 13 of the JPO Decision])
Then, the "strength, which is a predetermined parameter enabling a state thatthe higher a numerical value is, the more advantageously the fighting game can beproceeded" described in Claims 1, 7, and 8 after the Second Amendment isintroduction of a new technical matter in a relationship with the technical matter led
by synthesizing all the descriptions in the Initial Description and the like and is notwithin the range of the matters described in the Initial Description and the like.
Therefore, the Second Amendment violates the provisions in Article 17 -2,
paragraph (3) of the Patent Act.
C. Conclusion on the Second Amendment (No. 2, 3 of the JPO Decision [page 13 of
the JPO Decision])
As described above, the Second Amendment violates the provisions in Article
17-2, paragraph (3) of the Patent Act and should be dismissed under the provisions in
Article 53, paragraph (1) of the same Act as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to
Article 159, paragraph (1) of the same Act.
Thus, it is decided as the conclusion of decision to dismiss the amendment.
(2) First Amendment Invention
A. Reasons for refusal in the notification of reasons for refusal dated April 5, 2022
(Exhibit Ko 11) (No. 3, 2 of the JPO Decision [pages 13 to 14 of the JPO Decision])(a) Reason 1. (New matter)
The First Amendment is not made within a range of the matters described in
the Initial Description and the like and thus, it does not satisfy the requirement
prescribed in Article 17-2, paragraph (3) of the Patent Act.
(b) Reason 2. (Support requirement)
The description in the Scope of Claims after the First Amendment does notsatisfy the requirement prescribed in Article 36, paragraph (6), item (i) of the Patent
Act.
(c) Reason 3. (Clarity requirement)
The description in the Scope of Claims after the First Amendment does notsatisfy the requirement prescribed in Article 36, paragraph (6), item (ii) of the Patent
Act.
B. Determination of the JPO Decision(a) Reason 1. Determination on the (new matter) (No. 3, 3(1)D of the JPO
Decision [page 15 of the JPO Decision])12

a. Problem to be solved by the invention (No. 3, 3(1)D(a) of the JPO Decision[page 16 of the JPO Decision])In the Initial Description and the like, the problem to be solved by theinvention of the Application is found that, as is obvious from the description inparagraphs [0004], [0005], and [0006], a user's interests in the game are extremely
weakened by "deviation of the total value of the offensive power and the defensive
power".
In view of the aforementioned problem, the "strength" is found to be only the"total value of the offensive power and the defensive power".
b. Description in the Initial Description and the like (No. 3, 3(1)D(b) of the JPO
Decision [page 16 of the JPO Decision])
Although the initial Description and the like describe that the "strength" is the"total value of the offensive power and the defensive power", they do not describe as
far as stating that physical strength, quickness, number of held items, and the like arethe "strength".
c. Common general technical knowledge at the time of the application (No. 3,
3(1)D(c) of the JPO Decision [page 17 of the JPO Decision])As the common general technical knowledge in the "game" field, the "strength"of the "user" is considered to include physical strength, quickness, killer moves, andthe like other than the offensive power and the defensive power and thus, the"strength" defined by "a lower limit value and an upper limit value of the strength"
described in Claims 1, 7, and 8 after the first amendment includes not only theoffensive power and the defensive power but also physical strength, quickness , andkiller moves.
However, although the Initial Description and the like describe that the"strength" is the offensive power and the defensive power, they do not describe as far
as stating that physical strength, quickness, and killer moves are the "strength".
Still more, it is obvious that those attributes that cannot be converted tonumerical values such as killer moves and the like are not included in the concept ofthe "strength".
In the Initial Description and the like, it is not described that ph ysical strength,
quickness, killer moves, and the like solve the problem to be solved by the inventionof the Application; that is, to solve the problem that "a user's interests in the game are
extremely weakened by 'deviation of the total value of the offensive power and thedefensive power'", and even by considering the common general technical knowledge
at the time of the application, there is no self-obvious reason.
13

d. Conclusion (No. 3, 3(1)D(d) of the JPO Decision [page 17 of the JPO
Decision])
Then, the "a lower limit value and an upper limit value of the strength"
described in Claims 1, 7, and 8 after the first amendment is introduction of a newtechnical matter in a relationship with the technical matter led by synthesizing all thedescriptions in the Initial Description and the like and is not within the range of thematters described in the Initial Description and the like.
Therefore, the First Amendment violates the provisions in Article 17 -2,
paragraph (3) of the Patent Act.
(b) Reason 2.

Determination on (Support requirement) (No. 3, 3(2) of the JPO

Decision [pages 17 to 18 of the JPO Decision])
In view of the description in the Initial Description and the like, the problem tobe solved by the invention of the Application is found, in the "fighting game" inwhich the winner is determined by the "total value of the offensive power and thedefensive power of deck", "to provide a program, a fighting game server, and acontrol method thereof in which an opponent suitable for each user can be selected
and which can increase the user's interests in the game".
However, none of the First Amendment inventions specifies the "fighting
game" in which the winner is determined by the "total value of the offensive power
and the defensive power of deck" in the problem to be solved by the invention andthus, the means for solving the problem of the invention of the Application is notreflected.
Therefore, the First Amendment invention is not described in the Detailed
Description of the Invention.
(c) Reason 3. Determination on (Clarity requirement) (No. 3, 3(3) of the JPO
Decision [page 18 of the JPO Decision])
The "strength" of the First Amendment invention includes not only the total
value of the offensive power and the defensive power but also killer moves and thelike when the common general technical knowledge of the fighting game isconsidered.
Here, since the killer moves cannot be converted into numerical values, forexample, regarding the "a lower limit value and an upper limit value of the st rength",
it is not clear what "a lower limit value and an upper limit value" are to specify for
those attributes that cannot be converted into numerical values.
Moreover, it is not clear what "each stage of the strength" defined by "a lower limit value and an upper-limit value of the strength", which cannot be converted into
14

numerical values as described above, is to specify.
Thus, the First Amendment invention is not clear.
(3) Conclusion (No. 4 of the JPO Decision [page 18 of the JPO Decision])
The First Amendment does not satisfy the requirement prescribed in Article 17 2, paragraph (3) of the Patent Act, and the First Amendment invention does not satisfy
the requirement prescribed in Article 36, paragraph (6), item (i) and item (ii) of thesame Act and thus, it cannot be granted a patent.
Therefore, the Application should be refused.
4. Grounds for rescission asserted by the Plaintiff
Erroneous dismissal of the Second Amendment by determining that the Second
Amendment violates the provisions in Article 17-2, paragraph (3) of the Patent Act.
(omitted)
No. 4

Judgment of this court

1. Description in the Initial Description and the like of the Application and in the
Description and the like after the Second Amendment(1) Scope of claims
The description in the Scope of Claims at filing of the Application is as in the
aforementioned Second, 2(1), and the description in the Scope of Claims after theSecond Amendment is as in the aforementioned Second, 2(3).
(2) Description in the Description and Drawings
The description in the Initial Description and the like and the Description andthe like after the Second Amendment (excluding the Scope of Claims.) are as in
Attachment 2.
2. Problems and Technical Meaning of Invention(1) Problems and technical meaning of the invention described in the Initial
Description and the like
According to the description in the Initial Description and the like in the
aforementioned 1, the problem and the technical meaning of the invention describedin the Initial Description and the like (hereinafter, referred to as "the Invention") arefound to be as follows.
A. Problem of the invention
Conventionally, there is a fighting game server in such a format that a deck of auser is configured by a plurality of fighting cards and the like stored for each of theusers, and on the basis of the total value of the offensive power and the defensive
15

power of the deck, a plurality of the users compete against one another, but since theuser to be an opponent is determined at random or on a condition only of having apredetermined fighting card or the like, there is a possibility that the total values ofthe offensive power and the defensive power of the decks of the users fighting against
each other are deviated, which lowers the users' interests in the game (paragraphs[0002], [0004], and [0005]).
B. Technical meaning of the invention
An object of the invention of the Application is to provide a program, afighting game server, and a control method thereof in which an opponent suitable foreach user can be selected and which can increase a user's interests in the game in afighting game. (paragraph [0006] and [FIG. 1])
In the embodiment of the invention of the Application, the user's strength is avalue determined on the basis of the total value of the offensive power and thedefensive power of a unit configuring the deck of the user, which is set for each stage
within a range between an upper limit value and a lower limit value (paragraphs[0028], [0031], and [0032] as well as [FIG. 2], [FIG. 3], and [FIG. 4]), and when afight request is received from a user, the control portion 13 of the fighting gam e
server 1 generates an opponent list by extracting other users with the strength in thepredetermined range with the strength of the user who made a fight request as areference, and the other users with the strength in the predetermined range are
extracted from a strength table by referring to "strength lower-limit value" as well as"strength upper-limit value" and "a ratio of weak persons" as well as "a ratio of strong
persons" in the setting table (paragraphs [0034] and [0052] to [0060] as well as [FIG.
7] and [FIG. 8]).
In the invention of the Application, since the opponent at the stage of the same
strength or a different strength within the predetermined range with the stage of thestrength of the user as a reference as described above is extracted, as compared withthe case in which the opponent is extracted at random from all the users as before, alarge difference in the strength is hardly generated among the opponents, quick
decision on winning or losing is reduced, use of the game can be continued longer,
and moreover, by giving a certain variation to strengths of the opponents, difficulty inthe fighting game is changed, whereby a user's interests in the game can be increased(paragraph [0061]).
(2) Problems and technical meaning of the invention described in the Description
and the like after the Second Amendment
In the Second Amendment, paragraphs [0004] and [0005] in the Initial16Description and the like were deleted, and paragraph [0006] was changed from
"Therefore, the object of the present invention made in view of the problems as
described above is to provide a program, a fighting game server, and a control method
thereof in which an opponent suitable for each user can be selected, and a user's
interest in the game can be increased." to "The object of the present invention is toprovide a program, a fighting game server, and a control method thereof which can
prevent a fight against an opponent with an inappropriate strength in a fighting game. "(Exhibit Ko 12-1).
In this regard, the Plaintiff asserts that the Second Amendment is valid and hasa retrospective effect and that the finding in the JPO Decision of the problem of theinvention on the basis of paragraphs [0004] and [0005] which were deleted in theSecond Amendment and paragraph [0006] before the Second Amendment is erroneous(No. 3 [Assertion by Plaintiff] 3 described above).
However, when it is to be determined whether the amendment does not
introduce a new technical matter in the relationship with the "matters described in theInitial Description and the like", the technical matter described therein needs to bemade clear on the basis of the description in the Initial Description and the like andthus, in the JPO decision, there is no error found in the finding of the problem of theinvention on the basis of the description in paragraphs [0004] to [0006] in the Initial
Description and the like, and in this regard, the Plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.
However, to "prevent a fight against an opponent with an inappropriate
strength" in paragraph [0006] after the Second Amendment means prevention of sucha fight that a user's interest in the game is lost because of a large difference in thestrength of the opponent user, by enabling a fight against an opponent with a strength
relatively closer to the strength of the user, and it is found to describe substantially thesame contents as those described in paragraphs [0004], [0005], and [0006] before theSecond Amendment.
Therefore, the invention described in the Initial Description and the like andthe invention described in the Description and the like after the Second Amendment
have the problem in common and it should be considered that their technicalmeanings are also the same.
3. Presence or not of grounds for rescission
The technical meanings of the invention in the Initial Description and the likeand in the Description and the like after the Second Amendment are, as described in
the aforementioned 2(1)B and (2), by extracting an opponent at a stage of the strength
within a predetermined range with the stage of the strength of the user as a reference,17

as compared with the conventional case that an opponent is extracted at random, thenumber of such fights in which winning or losing is quickly determined with a large
difference in the strength among the opponents can be reduced, and a user's interest in
the game is increased by giving a certain variation to the strength of the opponent so
as to change the difficulty of the fighting game.
Regarding the common general technical knowledge in the "game" field, there
is no dispute between the parties that it was common general technical knowledge at
the time of filing of the Application that the "strength" of the "user" includes thephysical strength, quickness, the number of held items, and the like other than theoffensive power and the defensive power (see No. 2, 2(2)B(c) of the JPO Decision[page 12 of the JPO Decision]).
In the fighting game as above, in the light of the technical meaning of theinvention that the opponent suitable for the user, not an opponent with a large
difference in the strength, is selected, it is reasonable to interpret that the "strength"
described in the Initial Description and the like is an index indicating the strength of
the user in the game, which is only necessary to be a parameter that influences
winning or losing of the game.

To set the "strength" to a "total value of theoffensive power and the defensive power" can be one embodiment of the invention
but there can be no reason found to limit the "strength" to the "total value of theoffensive power and the defensive power" even by excluding the physical strength,
quickness, the number of held items, and the like from the elements included in the"strength" in the common general technical knowledge.

In other words, whether the"strength" is to be limited to the "total value of the offensive power and the defensive
power" or not is found to be only an optional and additional matter that it may belimited or does not have to be in light of the technical meaning of the invention.
Then, even though the Initial Description and the like have only the descriptionof the "total value of the offensive power and the defensive power" as an embodimentof the "strength" in wording, in light of the meaning of the invention and the common
general technical knowledge, it is not found that the technical matter was further
added by amending to "a predetermined parameter enabling a state that the higher anumerical value is, the more advantageously the fighting game can be proceeded"without limiting the "strength" to the "total value of the offensive power and thedefensive power" in the Second Amendment, and it is not found that the Second
Amendment introduced the new technical matter.

Then, it is found that the Second

Amendment is made within the range of the matters described in the initial
Description and the like and does not violate the provisions in Article 17-2, paragraph18

(3) of the Patent Act.
Therefore, the JPO Decision which dismissed the Second Amendment bydetermining that the Second Amendment violates the provisions in the Article 17 -2,
paragraph (3) of the Patent Act (the JPO Decision No. 2) by stating that theamendment of the "strength" in the First Amendment invention to the "strength, which
is a predetermined parameter enabling a state that the higher a numerical value is, themore advantageously the fighting game can be proceeded" by the Second Amendment
is introduction of a new technical matter, is found to be erroneous, and the grounds
for rescission asserted by the Plaintiff are approved for the JPO Decision.
4. Determination on assertion by Defendant(1) The Defendant asserts that, from the description in the Initial Description and thelike, it is obvious that the "strength" is limited to the "total value of the offensive
power and the defensive power" (aforementioned No. 3 [Assertion by Defendant]
2(1)A).
However, as described in the aforementioned 3, regarding the common generaltechnical knowledge in the "game" field, there is no dispute between the parties that itwas common general technical knowledge at the time of filing of the Application thatthe "strength" of the "user" includes the physical strength, quickness, the number ofheld items, and the like other than the offensive power and the defensive power.
Even if the Initial Description and the like have the description that the "strength" isthe "total value of the offensive power and the defensive power", in light of thetechnical meaning of the invention, the "strength" is interpreted to be an index
indicating the strength of the user in the game, which is only necessary to be aparameter that influences winning or losing of the game, and there can be no reason
found to exclude the elements other than the "total value of the offen sive power andthe defensive power" from the "strength".

It is found that the fighting games cantake various forms, and in the light of the common general technical knowledge,
various parameters can be assumed for the "strength" that influences winning o r
losing in accordance with the form of the game, and it is sufficiently possible tointerpret that the term "and the like" in the "offensive power and the defensive power
and the like" described in the paragraph [0028] and "..." in Fig. 2B indicate elemen ts
such as the physical strength, quickness, number of held items, and the like other thanthe offensive power and the defensive power in the elements of the "strength".
Therefore, the aforementioned assertion by the Defendant cannot be accepted.
(2) Moreover, the Defendant asserts that, from the wording in Claims 1, 7, and 8
after the Second Amendment that "the strength, which is a predetermined parameter19

enabling a state that the higher a numerical value is, the more advantageously thefighting game can be proceeded", what parameters are included in the "strength"
cannot be specifically specified, which causes an unexpected disadvantage to a third
party (aforementioned No. 3 [Assertion by Defendant] 2(1)B).
It is sure that there can be various forms in the fighting game, and in the lightof the common general technical knowledge, it is found that various parameters canbe assumed for the "strength" that influences winning or losing in accordance with theform of the game.
However, it is presumed a person ordinarily skilled in the art can determine as
appropriate what kind of a parameter of the "strength" to set is appropriate for a gamein each form, and by selecting another user having a strength within a predetermined
range as an opponent with the strength of the user as a reference, in the light of thetechnical meaning of the invention to prevent lowering of a user's interest in the game,
it is presumed that a person ordinarily skilled in the art can assume what parameter is
included in the "strength" in the fighting game of a certain form.

Then, even if the"strength" is not limited to the "total value of the offensive power and the defensive
power", it is not found that it would cause an unexpected disadvantage to a third party.
Therefore, the aforementioned assertion by the Defendant cannot be accepted.
(3) The Defendant asserts that the "strength" is expanded to a wide concept by theSecond Amendment, and the new technical matter was added, what parameter is
included in the wording of Claims 1, 7, and 8 after the Second Amendment that "thestrength, which is a predetermined parameter enabling a state that the higher anumerical value is, the more advantageously the fighting game can be proceeded"cannot be specifically specified, which causes an unexpected disadvantage to a third
party and thus, the second amendment should not be approved (aforementioned No. 3[Assertion by Defendant] 3).
However, as described in the aforementioned (1) and (2), the aforementioned
assertion by the Defendant cannot be accepted.
(4) Moreover, the Defendant asserts that, from the description in the initial
Description and the like that it is obvious that the "strength" is limited to the "total
value of the offensive power and the defensive power" (aforementioned No. 3[Assertion by Defendant] 4), but as described in the aforementioned (1), suchassertion by the Defendant cannot be accepted.
5. Conclusion
According to the above, the JPO Decision that determined that the Second
Amendment violates the provisions in Article 17-2, paragraph (3) of the Patent Act
20

and dismissed the Second Amendment (the JPO Decision No. 2) is recognized to be
erroneous, and this error affects the conclusion of the JPO Decision and thus, the JPO
Decision is illegal and should be rescinded.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's claim was approved, and the judgment shall berendered as in the main text.
Intellectual Property High Court, Third Division(Attachment 1 JPO Decision copy omitted)

21

Presiding Judge:

SHOJI Tamotsu

Judge:NAKADAIRA Ken

Judge:TSUNO Michinori

Attachment 2 (Description of Initial Description and the like and Description after theSecond Amendment and the like)
1. Description related to technical field"The present invention relates to a program relating to a computer which provides afighting game, a fighting game server, and a control method thereof." (paragraph[0001])
2. Description in the problem to be solved by the invention"Conventionally, there is a fighting game server in such a format that a de ck of a user
is configured by a plurality of fighting cards and the like stored for each of the users,
and on the basis of the total value of the offensive power and the defensive power ofthe deck, a plurality of the users compete against one another (Pat ent Document 1, forexample).

In the fighting game server as above, in order to increase a user's interestin the game, it is usually configured such that a user who won the fight can acquire
the fighting card or the like held by the user who lost.

In this case, it was configured

such that the user could select an opponent from the users having the fighting cardand the like to be acquired." (paragraph [0002])"However, in the conventional fighting game server, since the user as an opponent isdetermined at random or on a condition only of having a predetermined fighting cardor the like, there is a possibility that the total value of the offensive power and thedefensive power of the decks of the users fighting against each other are deviated,which lowers the user's interest in the game in some cases." (paragraph [0004])"Particularly, if a user is a beginner and has a low total value of the offensive power
and the defensive power, there is a good possibility that the total value of theoffensive power and the defensive power of the opponent is higher, and the user loses
the game in many cases, which remarkably lowers the user's interest in the game."(paragraph [0005]).
"Therefore, an object of the present invention made in view of the aforementioned
problem is to provide a program, a fighting game server, and a control method thereof
in which an opponent suitable for each user can be selected and which can increase auser's interest in the game." (paragraph [0006])
Note that, the aforementioned paragraphs [0004] and [0005] were deleted andparagraph [0006] was changed to the following by the Second Amendment.
"The object of the present invention is to provide a program, a fighting game server,
and a control method thereof which can prevent a fight against an opponent with aninappropriate strength in a fighting game."223. Description related to the effect of the invention"According to the program, the fighting game server, and the control method thereofin the present invention, an opponent suitable for each user can be selected, and auser's interest in the game can be increased." (paragraph [0017])
4. Description related to the embodiment of the invention(1) Description related to Embodiment 1"Fig. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a fighting game system according to
Embodiment 1 of the present invention.

The fighting game system according to

Embodiment 1 of the present invention includes a fighting game server 1 and acommunication terminal 2.

Note that Fig. 1 illustrates an example in which only one

unit of the communication terminal 2 is provided, but this is not limiting, and aplurality of the communication terminals may be provided." (paragraph [0020])"The fighting game server 1 includes a communication portion 11, a storage portion
12, and a control portion 13.

As an outline, on the basis of the total value of theoffensive power and the defensive power of the deck configured by a plurality of units
held by the user, the fighting game server 1 provides a fighting game in a form thatwinning or losing of a fight is competed among a plurality of users to thecommunication terminal 2." (paragraph [0021])"Fig. 2A illustrates an example of a user table.

For example, Fig. 2A illustrates thata user with a user ID '001' has units relating to IDs of a unit A, a unit B, a unit C, aunit D, a unit E, a unit F, a unit G, a unit H, and a unit I." (paragraph [0024])"Moreover, the storage portion 12 stores a unit information table including a user ID,
a unit ID, offensive power, defensive power, and a cost related to the unit ID.

The

offensive power and the defensive power are parameters related to the strength of theunit.

Moreover, the cost is a parameter which is referred to when the deck is to be

configured.

The total value of the costs of the plurality of units configuring the deckshould be a predetermined value (hereinafter, referred to as a cost upper-limit value.)or less.

In this embodiment, as an example, explanation will be made by assumingthat the cost upper-limit value is 30." (paragraph [0025])"Fig. 2B illustrates an example of the unit information table.

In Fig. 2B, the user ID'001', the unit ID 'unit A', the offensive power '1000', the defensive power '500', andthe cost '5' are associated and stored, for example.

Here, the offensive power and thedefensive power of each unit are changed in accordance with the progress of the game.
For example, the offensive power and the defensive power of the unit held by acertain user are increased in accordance with an event or the like in the game.

When

the offensive power and the defensive power of the unit are changed, the control
23

portion 13, which will be described later, updates the unit information table so as tohave the latest state at all times." (paragraph [0026])"The control portion 13 executes various types of control related to the fighting gameserver 1.

Specifically, when a fight request is received from the communication

terminal 2, the control portion 13 selects at least one user ID from the user table andgenerates a list of the user IDs as opponents (hereinafter, referred to as an opponentlist) and transmits the opponent list to the communication terminal 2 by thecommunication portion 11.

Note that the fight request is a request for generation andtransmission of the opponent list in this embodiment.

The fight request includes auser ID of the user who operates the communication terminal 2.

Moreover, when asignal including the user ID of the user who operates the communication terminal 2
and a user ID of an opponent is received from the communication terminal 2, thecontrol portion 13 calculates total values of the offensive power and the defensive
power of the decks of the two user IDs and determines winning or losing on the basisof the total values." (paragraph [0027])"Moreover, the control portion 13 regularly calculates strength of each user ID on thebasis of the user table and the unit information table stored in the storage portion 12.
Here, the strength is a value determined on the basis of the total value of the offensive
power and the defensive power of the unit configuring the deck.

In other words, theoffensive power and the defensive power and the like of each unit stored in the unit
information table can be also considered to be user information for calculat ing thestrength of the user.

The control portion 13 extracts at least one unit from theplurality of units held by each user ID in order to calculate the strength of the user.
Then, the control portion 13 calculates the total values of the offensive pow er and thedefensive power of all the extracted units as those configuring the deck by the
extracted units.

The control portion 13 stores the strength based on the calculated

total value in the storage portion 12.

Preferably, the control portion 13 store s astrength table including the strength of each user ID in the storage portion 12.

Notethat the control portion 13 calculates the strength of each user ID at predetermined
time interval by a timer (not shown) or the like in order to regularly calculate thestrength of each user ID.

The predetermined time interval is 8 hours, for example."(paragraph [0028])"Fig. 3 illustrates an example of the strength table stored in the storage portion 12 by
the control portion 13.

For example, in the strength table, the user ID '001' and thetotal value of the offensive power and the defensive power of the unit configuring thedeck '7000' are stored in association.

Moreover, in the strength table, the total value
24and the strength determined on the basis of a setting table, which will be describedlater, are stored.

For example, '3' is stored as the strength of the user ID '001'.

Note that the strength table in Fig. 3 includes the total value of the offensive power
and the defensive power, but this is not limiting, and the strength table may include
only the user ID and the strength." (paragraph [0031])"Fig. 4 illustrates an example of the setting table.

The setting table is stored in thestorage portion 12 in advance before the operation of the system.

In the s etting table,

the strength and a definition thereof; that is, a range of the total value of the offensive
power and the defensive power, is stored.

For example, a range with a lower limit

value of the total value of the offensive power and the defensive power at '6000' andan upper limit value at '8999' is defined as the strength '3'". (paragraph [0032]).
"When the fight request including the user ID is received from the communication
terminal 2, the control portion 13 selects a user ID with the strength within thepredetermined range and generates an opponent list with the strength corresponding to
the user ID stored in the storage portion 12 as a reference.

Specifically, the control

portion 13 acquires the strength corresponding to the user ID included i n the fightrequest on the basis of the strength table.

Subsequently, the control portion 13

selects some of the user IDs corresponding to the strength on the basis of the fightrange table and generates the opponent list.

Then, the control portion 13 transmits

the opponent list to the communication terminal 2 via the communication portion 11.
That is, in the user IDs within the range of the same strength as the strength of theuser ID included in the fight request, the user ID excluding himself/herself is selected
and added to the opponent list.

For example, when the fight request including theuser ID '001' is received, the control portion 13 acquires the strength '3' corresponding
to the user ID on the basis of the strength table.

Subsequently, the control portion 13

acquires the user IDs '001', '003', '008', '020' corresponding to the strength '3' on thebasis of the fight range table.

Then, the control portion 13 transmits the opponent

list including the user IDs '003', '008', '020' excluding the own user ID '001' to thecommunication terminal 2 via the communication portion 11." (paragraph [0034])(2) Description related to Embodiment 2"Fig. 7 is an example of the setting table stored in the storage portion 12 of thefighting game server 1.

In Embodiment 2, the predetermined 'strength', the 'total

value lower-limit value', the 'total-value upper limit value', the 'strength lower-limit
value', the 'strength upper-limit value', the 'ratio of weak persons', and the 'ratio ofstrong persons' are stored in the setting table.

Since the 'total value lower-limit

value' and the 'total-value upper limit value' are the same as those in Embodiment 1,
25

the explanation will be omitted.

The 'strength lower-limit value' indicates a lower-

limit value of the strength included in the opponent list transmitted to the user with apredetermined strength.

The 'strength upper-limit value' indicates an upper-limit

value of the strength included in the opponent list transmitted to the user with apredetermined strength.

The 'ratio of weak persons' indicates a ratio of the user IDs

with strength less than the predetermined strength included in the opponent list.

The'ratio of strong persons' indicates a ratio of the user IDs with strength exceeding thepredetermined strength included in the opponent list." (paragraph [0052])"In the setting table shown in Fig. 7, for example, the strength lower-limit value forthe strength '3' is '1', and the strength upper-limit value is '4'.

This means that for theuser with the strength '3', a user ID with the strength '1 to 4' is selected as an opponent,
and an opponent list is generated.

Moreover, for the strength '3', the ratio of weakpersons is '50%', and the ratio of strong persons is '10%'.

This means that in the

opponent list, 50% of the user IDs have the strength '1 to 2', 10% of the user IDs havethe strength '4', and the remaining 40% of the user IDs have the strength '3'." (theparagraph [0053])"Preferably, when the strength is a predetermined value or less, the strength l owerlimit value and the strength upper-limit value are made the same value as that of thestrength, respectively.

For example, the predetermined value is the strength '1'.

In

this case, the strength lower-limit value and the strength upper-limit value are set to'1', respectively.

Instead of setting the strength lower-limit value and the strength

upper-limit value to '1', respectively, the ratio of weak persons and the ratio of strong
persons may be set to 0%.

By setting as above, for example, it can be configured

such that a user with the strength at the predetermined value or less or specifically, auser with '1' or the like fights against a user with the same strength so as to lower thedifficulty of the game and to increase or maintain the user's interest in the game."(paragraph [0054])"Moreover, preferably, when the strength is a first threshold value or more, the rangeof the strength relating to the user ID included in the opponent list may be set wider
than the case of less than the first threshold value.
for example.

The first threshold value is, '5',

By setting as above, such a possibility that the user with the strength at

the first threshold value or more fights against a stronger or weaker user increases,
which changes the difficulty of the fighting game and can increase or maintain theuser's interest in the game." (paragraph [0055])"Furthermore, when the strength is a second threshold value or more, the ratio ofstrong persons may be set higher than the case of less than the second threshold value.
26

The second threshold value is '6', for example.

By setting as above, by setting thepossibility to fight against a user stronger than himself/herself for the relatively stronguser among all the users so that the game cannot be won easily, a user's interest in thefighting game can be increased or maintained." (paragraph [0056])"Fig. 8 is an example of a fight range table stored in the storage portion 12 of thefighting game server 1 according to Embodiment 2.

For the strength '3', for example,

the user IDs '001', '003', '002', and '006' are included.

Here, the strength relating to

the user ID '002' is 2, and the strength relating to the user ID '006' is 4.

That is, auser ID with the strength different from the strength '3' is included in the opponent
list." (paragraph [0057])"When the fight request including the user ID is received from the communication
terminal 2, the control portion 13 acquires the strength corresponding to the user ID
included in the fight request on the basis of the strength table.

Subsequently, thecontrol portion 13 selects at least one of the user IDs corresponding to the strengthand generates an opponent list on the basis of the fight range table.

Then, the control

portion 13 transmits the opponent list to the communication terminal 2 via thecommunication portion 11." (paragraph [0058])"Subsequently, an operation of the fighting game server 1 according to Embodiment 2
will be explained.

The fighting game server 1 according to Embodiment 2 performs

substantially the same operation as that in Embodiment 1, but the fight range table
stored in the storage portion 12 at Step S3 is different.

Since the operation otherthan Step S3 is the same as that in Embodiment 1, explanation will be omitted."(paragraph [0059])"The control portion 13 of the fighting game server 1 according to Embodiment 2
stores the fight range table in which the user ID is associated for each strength on thebasis of the strength table and the setting table at Step S3 in the storage portion 12.
Specifically, the control portion 13 refers to the 'strength lower-limit value', the'strength upper-limit value', the 'ratio of weak persons', and the 'ratio of strong
persons' in the setting table and extracts the user ID with the strength i n thepredetermined range from the strength table.

Then, the control portion 13 generates

the fight range table by the extracted user ID and stores it in the storage portion 12."(paragraph [0060])"By setting as above, by including some of the user IDs with the strength different
from the strength included in the fight request in the opponent list, a certain variation,that is, fluctuation, is included in the strengths of the opponents, and the difficulty of
the fighting game is changed, whereby the user's interest in the game can be increased.
27

That is, according to this embodiment, by extracting an opponent in a predetermined
range, as compared with the case where the opponent is extracted at random from all
the users, a large difference is rarely generated in the strength among the opponents.
Therefore, the opponent is selected in an appropriate range according to the strengthof the user, and quick decision on winning or losing can be reduced, whereby use of
the game can be further continued." (paragraph [0061])

28

[FIG. 1] BLOCK DIAGRAM OF FIGHTING GAME SYSTEM IN EMBODIMENT 1

FIGHTING GAME SERVERCOMMUNICATIONPORTIONCONTROLPORTIONCOMMUNICATIONTERMINAL
COMMUNICATIONPORTION

STORAGEPORTIONDISPLAYPORTIONOPERATIONPORTIONCONTROLPORTION[FIG. 2] EXAMPLE OF USER TABLE AND UNIT INFORMATION TABLE IN
EMBODIMENT 1(a)
USER UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT
001
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT
002
A
B
C
J
K
L
M
N
O
UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT
003
A
B
C
P
Q
R
S
T
U
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
(b)
OFFENSIVE DEFENSIVEUSER ID
UNIT ID
COST
...
POWER
POWER
001
UNIT A
1000
500
5
...
001
UNIT B
1000
1000
10
...
001
UNIT C
500
1000
5
...
001
UNIT D
1000
1500
15
...
001
UNIT E
1000
1000
10
...
001
UNIT F
200
300
2
...
001
UNIT G
300
500
3
...
001
UNIT H
100
100
1
...
29

...
...
...
...
...

001
002
002
002
...

UNIT IUNIT A
UNIT B
UNIT C
...

500
1000
1000
500
...

500
500
1500
500
...

4
5
10
5
...

[FIG. 3] EXAMPLE OF STRENGTH TABLE IN EMBODIMENT 1
TOTAL VALUE OF
OFFENSIVE
USER ID
POWER ANDSTRENGTH
DEFENSIVE
POWER
001
7000
3
002
5000
2
003
8000
3
004
2000
1
005
1500
1
006
10000
4
007
4000
2
008
6000
3
009
16000
6
010
1000
1
011
4000
2
012
11000
4
013
13000
5
014
17000
6
015
14000
5
...
...
...

[FIG. 4] EXAMPLE OF SETTING TABLE IN EMBODIMENT 1

STRENGTH

1
2
3
4
5

TOTALVALUE
LOWER
LIMIT
VALUE
0
3000
6000
9000
12000

TOTALVALUEUPPER LIMIT
VALUE
2999
5999
8999
11999
14999

30

...
...
...
...
...

6
7
...

15000
18000
...

17999
20999
...

31

[FIG. 7] EXAMPLE OF SETTING TABLE IN EMBODIMENT 2
TOTAL- TOTALSTRENGTH STRENGTH RATIORATIOVALUE VALUELOWERUPPEROF
OF
STRENGTH LOWER UPPER
LIMIT
LIMIT
WEAK STRONG
LIMIT
LIMIT
VALUE
VALUE PERSONS PERSONSVALUE VALUE
1
0
2999
1
1
0%
0%
2
3000
5999
1
2
0%
0%
3
6000
8999
1
4
50%
10%
4
9000
11999
2
5
20%
20%
5
12000
14999
2
7
30%
30%
6
15000
17999
5
9
10%
50%
7
18000
20999
6
10
10%
60%
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

[FIG. 8] EXAMPLE OF FIGHT RANGE TABLE IN EMBODIMENT 2
STRENGTH USER ID
1
004
2
002
3
001
4
006
5
013
6
009
7
029
...
...

USER ID
005
007
003
012
015
014
030
...

USER ID
010
011
002
001
006
025
031
...

32

USER ID
019
023
006
013
009
026
032
...

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...