`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`BLOOMBERG INC.; BLOOMBERG L.P.;
`BLOOMBERG FINANCE L.P.;
`THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION;
`CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC.;
`E*TRADE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC;
`E*TRADE CLEARING LLC; OPTIONSXPRESS HOLDINGS INC.;
`OPTIONSXPRESS, INC.; TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORP.;
`TD AMERITRADE, INC.; TD AMERITRADE IP COMPANY, INC.; and
`THINKORSWIM GROUP INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`MARKETS-ALERT PTY LTD.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and JONI Y. CHANG,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER MARKETS-ALERT
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.64
`
`
`
`
`834609
`834609.2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`STATEMENT OF REQUESTED RELIEF .................................................... 1
`I.
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ........................................................ 1
`II.
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF ........................ 3
`A. Applicable Law & Principles ................................................................ 3
`B.
`Conclusory Opinions By Kursh Should Be Excluded .......................... 6
`C. New References Are Needlessly Cumulative ..................................... 12
`D. New References Were Not of Record Or Known ............................... 14
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`834609.2
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Federal Cases
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................... 4, 5, 9, 10
`Dynacore Holdings Corp. v U.S. Philips Corp.,
`363 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 5
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir 2008) ............................................................................... 5
`KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................... 4
`Microstrategy Inc. v. Business Objects, S.A.,
`429 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................................. 4
`Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC,
`516 F.3d 993 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................ 5
`Federal Statues
`37 C.F.R. §42.62 ........................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. §42.64 ........................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. §42.65(a) .................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. 42.64(c) ...................................................................................................... 3
`Fed. R. Evid. 402 ..................................................................................................... 14
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 ....................................................................................................... 6
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ....................................................................................................... 4
`Other Authorities
`77 Fed. Reg. 48612 at 48633 ................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`834609.2
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.64 and Patent Owner Markets-Alert Objections
`
`To Evidence (“Objections”), Markets-Alert hereby seeks the exclusion of
`
`Paragraph Nos. 7, 12-15, 17, 32-34, 44, and 46-57 of Exhibit No. 1043 (“Second
`
`Kursh Decl.”) and newly submitted references in Exhibit Nos. 1036-1041 (“New
`
`References”) for failing to comport with the Federal Rules of Evidence.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`(1) On October 2, 2013, Petitioners submitted the Second Kursh Decl.
`
`and New References in support of Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner
`
`Markets-Alert Motion to Amend (Paper 50) (“Opposition”) and Petitioner’s Reply
`
`to Patent Owner Markets-Alert Response (Paper 51) (“Reply”). Markets-Alert
`
`timely served its Objections to this evidence on October 8, 2013.
`
`(2) The Second Kursh Decl. contains testimony in the form of alleged
`
`expert opinions at Paragraph Nos. 7, 12-15, 17, 32-34, 44, and 46-57.
`
`(3)
`
`Petitioners cite previously submitted Exhibit Nos. 1006-1014 and
`
`1025-1033 as teaching “methods of technical analysis-based stock market data
`
`monitoring and alerting.” Ex. 1043 at 31.
`
`(4) On March 29, 2013, the Board held that these references (among
`
`others to which Petitioners no longer cite) presented grounds for unpatentability
`
` 1
`
`
`
`834609.2
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`redundant to the four grounds instituted. Decision, Paper 18, at 40.
`
`(5)
`
`Petitioners cite previously submitted Exhibit No. 1004 (Satow) as
`
`teaching “server-based, scalable and redundant,” Ex. 1043 at 27, and a “network of
`
`computers,” Ex. 1002 at 52.
`
`(6)
`
`Petitioners cite Satow as an anticipating reference for a “network-
`
`based stock trading system” and “technical analysis,” Ex. 1002 at 51-56, and
`
`“monitors stock market data in real-time and executes a trade upon satisfaction of
`
`the selected criteria, with the user concurrently being notified in real time of trade
`
`execution,” Ex. 1043 at 34.
`
`(7)
`
`Petitioners cite previously submitted Exhibit No. 1033 (eSignal) as
`
`teaching “a server-based, scalable and redundant network.” Ex. 1043 at 40.
`
`(8)
`
`Petitioners submit New References in Exhibit Nos. 1037 (Chapraty),
`
`1038 (Keilani), 1039 (Ambrose), and 1040 (Lim) solely for their alleged teaching
`
`of “server-based, scalable and redundant networks.” Ex. 1043 at 41-43.
`
`(9)
`
`Petitioners submit New Reference in Exhibit No. 1041 (Toy) for its
`
`alleged teachings of a “method and system for monitoring stock market
`
`information and notifying users in real time when an event of interest occurs…
`
`over a network of computers.” Ex. 1043 at 47.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`834609.2
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`A. Applicable Law & Principles
`
`Markets-Alert recognizes that the Board is fully capable of weighing the
`
`credibility of the evidence and arguments presented in this proceeding. However,
`
`as provided under 37 C.F.R. §42.62, the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) apply to
`
`the current proceedings to ensure that evidence is reliable enough to merit full
`
`consideration by the Board. Markets-Alert respectfully submits that these
`
`evidentiary objections pursuant to FRE should inform the Board’s weighing of the
`
`evidence submitted in this proceeding, whether or not the Board formally grants
`
`any exclusion. See 37 C.F.R. §42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose
`
`the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no
`
`weight.”).1
`
`Evidence in the form of opinion testimony by an expert witness must meet
`
`the following requirements: “(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other
`
`1 Mindful of the Board’s admonition that a motion to exclude should not address
`
`the credibility or weight of evidence, Markets-Alert strictly adheres to 37 C.F.R.
`
`42.64(c) to preserve its objection by identifying the objectionable testimony and
`
`the FRE grounds for the evidentiary objection. As the Board will note, Markets-
`
`Alert does not herein present substantive arguments about the evidence.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`834609.2
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
`
`determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
`
`(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the
`
`expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.”
`
`FRE 702. Therefore, the Second Kursh Decl. must comport with these
`
`requirements to be sufficiently reliable as to merit consideration by the Board.
`
`The Federal Circuit has held that, while an expert may provide testimony in
`
`the form of an opinion, it may not be conclusory. “While an expert need not
`
`consider every possible factor to render a reliable opinion, the expert still must
`
`consider enough factors to make his or her opinion sufficiently reliable in the eyes
`
`of the court.” Microstrategy Inc. v. Business Objects, S.A., 429 F.3d 1344, 1355
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005). In particular, the Federal Circuit has held that expert testimony
`
`on patentability that is “essentially a conclusory statement that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have known… how to combine any of a number of references
`
`to achieve the claimed invention… is not sufficient and fraught with hind-sight
`
`bias.” ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 694 F.3d
`
`1312, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
`
`U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“A patent composed of several elements is not proved
`
`obvious by merely demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
`
` 4
`
`
`
`834609.2
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`known in the prior art.”) and Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363,
`
`1373-74 (Fed. Cir 2008) (“Such vague testimony would not have been helpful to a
`
`lay jury in avoiding the pitfalls of hindsight that belie a determination of
`
`obviousness.”)).
`
`Even an expert must “explain how specific references could be combined,
`
`which combination(s) of elements in specific references would yield a predictable
`
`result, or how any specific combination would operate or read on the asserted
`
`claims.” ActiveVideo, 694 F.3d at 1327; see also Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516
`
`F.3d 993, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Conclusory expert assertions cannot raise triable
`
`issues of material fact on summary judgment.”); and Dynacore Holdings Corp. v
`
`U.S. Philips Corp., 363 F.3d 1263, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“It is well settled that an
`
`expert's unsupported conclusion on the ultimate issue of infringement is
`
`insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact, and that a party may not avoid
`
`that rule simply by framing the expert's conclusion as an assertion that a particular
`
`critical claim limitation is found in the accused device.”).
`
`The Federal Circuit has made clear that generic testimony on motivation to
`
`combine is not acceptable. The expert must explain “why a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have combined the elements from specific references in the
`
`way the claimed invention does.” ActiveVideo, 694 F.3d at 1328 (rejecting
`
` 5
`
`
`
`834609.2
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`testimony: “The motivation to combine would be because you wanted to build
`
`something better. You wanted a system that was more efficient, cheaper, or you
`
`wanted a system that had more features, makes it more attractive to your
`
`customers….”).
`
`In addition, evidence in this proceeding is subject to exclusion if “its
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the
`
`following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” FRE 403.
`
`Cumulative prior art references particularly warrant exclusion because they add
`
`nothing to assist the Board in adjudicating the facts or issues, but rather bog down
`
`the review and risk creating prejudice and confusion.
`
`B. Conclusory Opinions By Kursh Should Be Excluded
`
`Very little in the Second Kursh Decl. reflects the application of reliable
`
`analysis to accurate, citable facts to reach a reasoned opinion. Instead, the bulk of
`
`the Second Kursh Decl. (as well as Kursh’s previous declaration) is made of
`
`conclusory opinions, often on ultimate legal issues, of precisely the type that the
`
`Federal Circuit has deemed improper. Fundamentally, Petitioners are telling the
`
`Board that, since Kursh is an expert, the Board does not need to see any reasoning
`
` 6
`
`
`
`834609.2
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`and his conclusions should be accepted without scrutiny. This usurps the Board’s
`
`purview.
`
`Although the Board is fully capable of distinguishing between reliable
`
`testimony and conclusory testimony, in order to streamline the evidentiary morass
`
`in this proceeding, Markets-Alert respectfully draws the Board’s
`
`attention to specific testimony by Petitioners’ expert that is so inherently unreliable
`
`as to merit exclusion:
`
`Paragraph 7: Kursh opines that “[t]here is a difference between providing
`
`a real-time notification to a human user compared to merely providing the
`
`notification to a device, which may or may not be monitored by a user.” Kursh
`
`does not explain how he reaches this conclusion or the nature of this difference.
`
`This testimony is conclusory and does not help the Board to understand or
`
`determine whether or not the difference actually affects any fact in issue regarding
`
`claim scope.
`
`Paragraph 12: Kursh construes network of computers. He provides no
`
`explanation for this construction (e.g., how he derived it or any support upon
`
`which he relies). This testimony is conclusory and does not help the Board to
`
`understand or determine any fact in issue regarding the proper construction of this
`
` 7
`
`
`
`term.
`
`834609.2
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`
`Paragraphs 13 and 14: Kursh opines that the language of new claim 5
`
`“more broadly encompasses non-periodic application of watch data to received
`
`stock market data.” He does not explain in detail how he reached this conclusion
`
`or the meaning of “non-periodic.” This testimony is conclusory and does not help
`
`the Board to understand or determine any fact in issue regarding the scope of new
`
`claim 5.
`
`Paragraph 15: Kursh opines that “the ‘357 Patent does not disclose watch
`
`data where more than one technical analysis formula defines a single event.” The
`
`evidence of record pointing to multiple disclosures of plural formulae so blatantly
`
`discredits this testimony that it should be deemed unreliable. See e.g. Ex. 1001 at
`
`5:6-9 (originally issued claim 1 reciting watch data defining an event and
`
`specifying technical analysis formulae) (emphasis added).
`
`Paragraph 17: Kursh opines that “caching” is not described. He provides
`
`no analysis why descriptions of data storage do not support caching. His testimony
`
`is conclusory and does not help the Board to understand or determine any fact in
`
`issue regarding support of new claim 6.
`
`Paragraph 32: Kursh opines that “[t]hose references teach applying more
`
`than one technical analysis formula to stock market data in real time.” He provides
`
`no foundation for his opinion with respect to “those references” in Exhibits Nos.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`834609.2
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`1005 (S&C Review), 1006-1013, 1014 (Opening Bell), and 1025-1033, except for
`
`two snippets from Exhibit Nos. 1007 and 1009. Except with respect to Exhibits
`
`Nos. 1007 and 1009, Kursh’s testimony lacks sufficient facts, data or analysis to
`
`reliably help the Board to understand or determine what these references actually
`
`teach.
`
`Paragraph 33: Kursh opines: “A person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time would have found it obvious to combine the above identified prior art known
`
`technical analysis methods with a trading platform as in Satow to arrive at the
`
`claimed methods, e.g., as recited in proposed claim 5. Such a combination would
`
`be viewed by a person of skill as representing use of known methodologies with a
`
`known system, so as to produce nothing beyond expected results.” This is a
`
`conclusion couched as an explanation. As discussed above, Kursh provides no
`
`foundation regarding “the above identified prior art” in the preceding paragraphs
`
`and provides no basis or explanation in this paragraph for how specific references
`
`could be combined, which combination(s) of elements in specific references would
`
`yield a predictable results, or how any specific combination would operate or read
`
`on the asserted claims. ActiveVideo, 694 F.3d at 1327.
`
`He also does not specifically explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have combined the elements from specific references in the way the claimed
`
` 9
`
`
`
`834609.2
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`invention does. ActiveVideo, 694 F.3d at 1328. His generic statement that “[s]uch
`
`a combination would be viewed by a person of skill as representing use of known
`
`methodologies with a known system, so as to produce nothing beyond expected
`
`results” is no different from testimony that the Federal Circuit has deemed
`
`insufficient. Id. (rejecting testimony: “The motivation to combine would be
`
`because you wanted to build something better. You wanted a system that was
`
`more efficient, cheaper, or you wanted a system that had more features, makes it
`
`more attractive to your customers….”). With respect to Exhibit Nos. 1005, 1006,
`
`1008, 1010-1014, and 1025-1033, Kursh’s testimony is conclusory and does not
`
`help the Board to understand or determine any fact in issue regarding what is the
`
`alleged combination of references or the requisite motivation to combine.
`
`Paragraph 34: Kursh opines: “One of skill would be motivated to enhance
`
`the functionality of the Satow platform in a known manner by incorporating
`
`aspects of technical analysis based stock market monitoring and event
`
`identification, as in the prior art noted above. As an example of the combination,
`
`the matching logic in the matching engine 32 of Satow could be configured to
`
`receive and execute a trade order based on user-defined technical analysis criteria.”
`
`With respect to “the prior art noted above” in Exhibit Nos. 1005, 1006, 1008,
`
`1010-1014, and 1025-1033, Kursh previously failed to provide any foundation and
`
`834609.2
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`does not provide additional foundation in this paragraph. Specifically, except for
`
`conclusorily asserting that Satow could be reconfigured, which is just a conclusion
`
`couched as an explanation, he fails to explain how this reconfiguration could be
`
`done. Again, like Paragraph 33, Kursh’s testimony (including his generalized
`
`conclusion in Paragraph 35) lacks foundation, is conclusory and does not help the
`
`Board to understand or determine any fact in issue regarding what is the alleged
`
`combination of references or the requisite motivation to combine.
`
`Paragraph 44: Kursh opines: “One of skill would have found it obvious to
`
`include technical analysis stock market data monitoring and alerting
`
`methodologies, as described in S&C Review (Ex. 1005) or Opening Bell (Ex.
`
`1014), using a server-based network that is scalable and redundant. Such a
`
`combination would be viewed as combining known methodologies, with known
`
`computer network systems, so as to achieve nothing more than expected results.
`
`eSignal (Ex. 1033) specifically teaches this.” This testimony mirrors the
`
`conclusory nature of Paragraphs 32-35. Kursh provides none of the explanation or
`
`reasoning required by the Federal Circuit. Id. at 1327-28. Indeed, Paragraphs 33
`
`and 44 stand in sharp contrast to Paragraphs 52-57 where Kursh offers at least a
`
`semblance of explanation for the alleged combination of New References Toy and
`
`834609.2
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`Kraemer. Thus, this testimony lacks foundation, is conclusory and does not help
`
`the Board to understand or determine any fact in issue regarding obviousness.
`
`Paragraph 46: Kursh opines that “each feature of the proposed new claims
`
`5-8 are taught or suggested by Toy, taken either alone or in combination with other
`
`prior art references.” In Paragraph 51, Kursh refers to a “claim chart.” However,
`
`the claim chart is just 20 pages of block quotes from Toy. In one instance, a block
`
`quote spans 3 pages of the chart. Kursh does not analyze, expound upon or
`
`connect the chart to his conclusory opinions in Paragraphs 46-50. This kind of
`
`testimony is devoid of any of the reliability demanded by the Federal Circuit and is
`
`of no help to the Board in evaluating Toy, the connection to the claimed features
`
`and the alleged anticipation (other than suggesting that the Board read Toy).
`
`C. New References Are Needlessly Cumulative
`
`At the outset of this proceeding, the Board streamlined the proceeding by
`
`determining that many of the references originally submitted by Petitioners were
`
`redundant to the references granted review. Decision, Paper 18, at 40. Petitioners
`
`recently cited several of these redundant references, specifically Exhibit Nos.
`
`1006-1013 and 1025-1033, in their Opposition and Reply through the Kursh
`
`Declaration. For example, Petitioners cite both Satow and eSignal as teaching
`
`“server-based, scalable and redundant.”
`
`834609.2
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`
`Petitioners now submit New References Chapraty, Keilani, Ambrose, Lim
`
`and Toy for this same teaching. These New References are redundant to and
`
`cumulative of the prior art of record, including at least Satow and eSignal. In fact,
`
`Markets-Alert has not denied that in general scalable and redundant server
`
`architecture was known in the art. Given that the Board already once demonstrated
`
`its preference to focus the issues under review, the sudden addition of 5 new
`
`references for this same, minor and, frankly, inconsequential point is unwarranted.
`
`While these references would not work a substantive harm on the issues
`
`under review (since they are cumulative in nature), Markets-Alert respectfully
`
`submits that their probative value is substantially outweighed by potential
`
`prejudice and confusion. These submissions are essentially a litigation-style
`
`document dumping. They will force the Board to wade through and filter
`
`unnecessary documents, which wastes attention and focus that would be better
`
`spent on the key, narrow issues under review.
`
`Similarly, New Reference Kraemer should also be excluded as prejudicial.
`
`With an effective date of October 10, 2000, Kraemer beats the October 26, 2000
`
`priority date of the ‘357 Patent by only about two weeks. Given the nearness in
`
`date, Kraemer is unreliable and creates a high risk of prejudice and confusion, as to
`
`834609.2
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`whether or not a “live link” was commonly known prior to the invention. 2
`
`D. New References Were Not of Record Or Known
`
`Petitioners submitted the New References in conjunction with their
`
`Opposition and Reply. The New References were not of record at the time of
`
`Markets-Alert’s Response. Although the Board held that Petitioners had the right
`
`to submit additional evidence, Order, Paper 53 (in response to Markets-Alert’s
`
`request for page and time extensions), the timing of the New References is highly
`
`prejudicial because Markets-Alert did not know of the New References and had no
`
`realistic opportunity to brief these New References or Petitioners’ new arguments.
`
`As the Board has noted, Markets-Alert can only address prior art of record
`
`or known to Markets-Alert. Order, Paper 53 at 3. Markets-Alert anticipated this
`
`dilemma early in the proceeding when it sought authorization for discovery of any
`
`2 At the November 12, 2013 conference call, the Board denied Markets-Alert’s
`
`request to move to exclude Kraemer on the basis of a prior invention date as not
`
`properly the subject of an evidentiary motion. In order to establish a clear record,
`
`Markets-Alert makes an offer of proof that but for this ruling, it would have moved
`
`to exclude Exhibit No. 1036 (Kraemer) as not relevant under FRE 402 on the basis
`
`that the claimed subject matter was invented prior to at least October 4, 2000. See
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48612 at 48633, Response to Comment 76.
`
`834609.2
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`prior art not already of record that Petitioners may assert. See e.g., Patent Owner
`
`Markets-Alert Motion For And To Compel Discovery (D28) at 4-5 (“Keeping
`
`Markets-Alert (and the Board) in the dark about other prior art, only to spring them
`
`later in this proceeding, makes no sense and is inefficient.”). The Board denied
`
`this request. Order, Paper 32. It would be unfair to hold Markets-Alert responsible
`
`for prior art references that Petitioners could have but did not disclose earlier.
`
`This is especially so since Petitioners had prior notice of the features of the
`
`new claims from Markets-Alert’s Preliminary Response. Moreover, none of the
`
`New References would have turned up in a reasonable prior art search. Searching
`
`the patent and application databases using a broad set of claim term parameters
`
`(stock, technical analysis, real-time and server) yields 41 prior art patents and
`
`published applications. None of the New References appear in these results. A
`
`search based on live link would not have uncovered Kraemer because Kraemer
`
`does not contain that term.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Therefore, Markets-Alert respectfully requests that the Board exclude this
`
`unreliable evidence and proceed on the merits of the arguments and prior art
`
`references properly of record.
`
`
`
`834609.2
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`Dated: November 19, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`Andrew Choung (USPTO Reg. No. 46,622)
`Email: achoung@glaserweil.com
`Arlyn Alonzo (USPTO Reg. No. 44,502)
`Email: aalonzo@glaserweil.com
`Adrian M. Pruetz (Pro Hac Vice)
`Email: apruetz@glaserweil.com
`GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS
`HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
`10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel: 310-553-3000
`Fax: 310-785-3506
`
`834609.2
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER MARKETS-ALERT
`
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE was served on November 19, 2013 to counsel of
`
`record for Petitioners via electronic mail:
`
`
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`USPTO Reg. No. 52,182
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 Fifth Avenue
`Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036
`Tel.: 206-883-2529
`Fax: 206-883-2699
`Email: mrosato@wsgr.com
`
`Brian D. Range
`USPTO Reg. No. 48,437
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`900 South Capital of Texas Hwy Las Cimas IV, Fifth Floor
`Austin, TX 78746-5546
`Tel.: 512-338-5478
`Fax: 512-338-5499
`Email: brange@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Arlyn Alonzo
`Arlyn Alonzo
`
`
`
`834609
`834609.2
`
`