Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 24
`
`
`
` Entered: January 14, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORP., TD AMERITRADE, INC., and TD
`AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`CBM 2014-00131
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Request for Rehearing (Paper 21, “Req. Reh’g”) of the Decision on
`Institution (Paper 19, “Dec.”), which instituted a covered business method
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 24
`
`
`
` Entered: January 14, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORP., TD AMERITRADE, INC., and TD
`AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`CBM 2014-00131
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Request for Rehearing (Paper 21, “Req. Reh’g”) of the Decision on
`Institution (Paper 19, “Dec.”), which instituted a covered business method
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`patent review of claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’056 patent”). Patent Owner argues that the Board overlooked and
`misapprehended facts that establish that the ’056 patent does not qualify as a
`covered business method patent. Patent Owner additionally argues that the
`Board misapprehended and misapplied the technological invention
`exception. Req. 1. The Request for Rehearing is denied.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`When rehearing a decision on petition, the Board will review the
`
`decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of
`discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous
`interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial
`evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing
`relevant factors. Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed.
`Cir. 2004). For the reasons that follow, Patent Owner has not shown that the
`Board abused its discretion.
`Patent Owner argues that the Board abused its discretion when it
`failed to consider “statements by Congress confirming that a patent claiming
`a novel GUI would be safe from Section 18 review.” Req. Reh’g 4. We did
`not overlook Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the legislative history.
`Dec. 6 (“Patent Owner argues that the claims are directed to structural and
`functional features embodied in a graphical user interface (“GUI”) tool, and
`not in any business method or practice, directing attention to legislative
`history in support of Patent Owner’s arguments.”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`
`In the Decision, we explained that Patent Owner’s arguments
`regarding structural and functional features that are embodied in a GUI tool
`are misplaced, because such structure and features are not claimed.
`Accordingly, Patent Owner failed to persuade us that claim 11 is to a novel
`GUI tool, and, therefore, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding statements
`made by Congress were found not to be persuasive because such statements
`were not shown to be commensurate with what is claimed. As stated in the
`Decision, claim 1 is directed to a method for displaying transactional
`information and facilitating trading in a system using a computer. As further
`explained, claim 1 does not recite specific hardware or software for
`performing the steps of the method of claim 1, or a GUI tool. Id. No
`structure or tools are claimed.
`Patent Owner argues that the Board misapplied the technological
`invention test. Req. Reh’g 7. In particular, Patent Owner argues that we
`overlooked the novel and unobvious technological features claimed, and that
`the claims require “a price axis and displaying bid and ask indicators relative
`to the axis on different portions of a computer screen and enabling a user to
`provide inputs based on a selection of locations along the axis.” Id. at 9–10.
` Claim 1 does not recite displaying “bid and ask indicators relative to the
`axis on different portions of a computer screen.” No computer screen is
`claimed. No location of bid or ask indicators is specified. Claim 1 does not
`
`
`1 As explained in the Decision, a patent only need have one claim directed to
`a covered business method to be eligible for a covered business method
`patent review. In the Decision, we focused on claim 1. We focus on claim 1
`for purposes of the rehearing decision.
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`recite a user providing inputs based on a user selecting locations along the
`axis. Patent Owner’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the
`breadth of claim 1. Similarly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`arguments that claim 1 requires a trader to (1) immediately see rapidly
`changing activity, such as demand for a commodity, (2) quickly assemble
`the information, and (3) react quickly and effectively. Id. at 10. Claim 1
`does not recite rapidly changing activity. No change in activity of what is
`displayed is claimed. Claim 1 does not recite permitting a trader to quickly
`assemble information so as to facilitate taking action quickly and effectively.
` For these reasons, Patent Owner has not shown that the Board abused its
`discretion in determining that claim 1 does not recite a technological feature
`that is novel and unobvious over the prior art.
`Patent Owner also argues that the Decision improperly failed to
`address whether claim 1 solves a technical problem using a technical
`solution. Id. at 11. In particular, Patent Owner disagrees with the Decision
`that claim 1 of informing a trader of certain stock market trends or events is
`not a technical problem, but rather a financial problem. Id. at 12. Patent
`Owner’s arguments, in that regard, reference the arguments already
`addressed above regarding alleged features that are not claimed. For the
`reasons provided above, we do not find the arguments persuasive.
`
`Lastly, Patent Owner argues that while using software to create GUIs
`was known, the specific combination of GUI features claimed in the
`involved patent was not known. Id. at 13. In support of the argument Patent
`Owner refers to a “novel graphical tool”, but Patent Owner has not
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`demonstrated that claim 1 recites any novel graphical tool, and, therefore,
`the argument is not persuasive.
`
`For all of the above reasons, Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is
`denied.
`PETITIONER:
`
`Lori Gordon
`Jonathan Strang
`Robert E. Sokohl
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`jstrang-PTAB@skgf.com
`rsokohl-ptab@skgf.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Erika H. Arner
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`
`Steven F. Borsand
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Steve.Borsand@tradingtechnologies.com
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
