`Filed: December 16, 2014
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00133
`Patent 7,676,411
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`Patent 7,676,411
`
`Introduction
`
`Trading Technologies (“TT”) requests rehearing of the Decision on Institution
`
`because the Panel misapprehended or overlooked facts that establish that the ’411
`
`patent does not qualify as a CBM patent. Most importantly, the Decision overlooked
`
`the explicit scope of the claims, which recite particular features of a graphical user
`
`interface (“GUI”) that distinguish the claims from the prior art and were the reasons
`
`why the claims were allowed as novel and non-obvious during examination. As a
`
`result, the Decision overlooked (and failed to address) the metes and bounds of CBM
`
`review defined by Congress. Indeed, the Decision contradicted the intent of Congress.
`
`While the claimed invention is used in the financial industry, the claimed invention is
`
`not directed in any way to a business method. Rather, the claims are directed to novel
`
`and non-obvious technology—the features of a graphical device. As such, the claims
`
`are outside the purview of CBM review as a threshold matter. In addition, by
`
`overlooking these claim limitations, the Decision misapprehended and misapplied the
`
`technological invention exception. The ’411 claims clearly meet the technological
`
`invention exception.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`Patent 7,676,411
`
`Standard of Review
`
`On rehearing, a decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.1 An abuse of
`
`discretion “occurs when a court misunderstands or misapplies the relevant law,” or
`
`makes erroneous factual findings.2 A decision lacking evidentiary support in the
`
`record abuses discretion.3 So does a decision based on an erroneous view of the law.4
`
`Because the Decision misapplies the law and lacks evidentiary support in the record,
`
`the Panel abused its discretion and thus erred in instituting trial.
`
`III. Current State of the Proceeding
`The claims of the ’411 patent are directed to technology embodied in a GUI
`
`that is used for trading, which is a financial activity. But the ’411 patent cannot be
`
`subjected to Section 18 review because, as explained in the Preliminary Response, it
`
`claims a novel GUI tool, not a method of doing business.5 TT pointed to explicit
`
`
`1 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).
`
`2 Renda Marine, Inc. v. U.S., 509 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`3 MGIC v. Moore, 952 F.2d 1120, 1122 (9th Cir. 1991).
`
`4 Atl. Research Mktg. Sys. v. Troy, 659 F.3d 1345, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`5 Preliminary Response, p. 2.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`Patent 7,676,411
`
`statements by Congress confirming that a patent claiming a novel GUI (like the ’411
`
`patent) would not be eligible for Section 18 review.6 The Decision did not respond.
`
`TT cited abundant evidence showing GUIs are technology.7 The Decision
`
`agreed.8 TT showed how the claims of the ’411 patent recite particular features of a
`
`GUI.9 Again, the Decision agreed that the claims require specific GUI features.10
`
`TT also provided volumes of third-party testimony on the claimed GUI’s
`
`significant improvement over prior trading systems.11 But the Decision ignored this
`
`evidence. In addition, TT pointed out how the prosecution history tied allowance to
`
`the claimed elements of the GUI.12
`
`
`6 Preliminary Response, p. 2-3.
`
`
`
`7 Preliminary Response, p. 49-50 (citing other government agencies, college and
`
`university programs, and legislative history discussion of GUIs).
`
`8 Decision, p. 11 (referring to GUIs as technology).
`
`9 Preliminary Response, pp. 18-28 (showing how the claims recite GUIs).
`
`10 Decision, p. 11 (finding claim 1 recites “a certain arrangement on a GUI and, via a
`
`single action of a user input device on a particular location in the GUI”).
`
`11 Preliminary Response, p. 17-18.
`
`12 Preliminary Response, pp. 28-33.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`Patent 7,676,411
`
`As the Panel noted, TT “argue[d] that the claims recite a technical feature
`
`because they combine structural and functional features of the claimed GUI tool in a
`
`novel and non-obvious way.”13 TT also “argue[d] that the claims solve the technical
`
`problem of submitting orders to the exchange with speed and accuracy with the
`
`technical solution of the combined structural and functional features of the claimed
`
`GUI tool.”14 But the Decision failed to meet these arguments.
`
`Indeed, the Decision did not address any of the claimed structural and
`
`functional features of the GUI tool that are what distinguished the claims from the
`
`prior art. Instead, the Decision simply stated that “[a]s written, claim 1 requires the
`
`use of a display, an input device, and a GUI (i.e., software), which all were known
`
`technology.”15 But this misapprehends the fact that the invention is a GUI with
`
`specifically claimed features that were lacking in the prior art. Just as surely as a new
`
`display device or a new input device would be a technological invention, so too is a
`
`new GUI tool. In particular, claim 1 requires a GUI that combines the features of a
`
`price axis, bid and ask display regions, dynamically displayed bid/ask indicators in
`
`locations of the bid/ask display regions corresponding to levels on the price axis,
`
`
`13 Decision, p. 10.
`
`14 Decision, p. 10.
`
`15 Decision, p. 11.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`Patent 7,676,411
`
`moving bid/ask indicators relative to the price axis based on market changes, and an
`
`order entry region with areas corresponding to price levels of the price axis that
`
`receive single action commands to set a price and send an order.16 This combination
`
`of GUI features was not “known technology” but novel and non-obvious technology.
`
`The Decision never addressed the claimed combinations of technical features. That
`
`the improved GUI is implemented in software is irrelevant.
`
`IV. The Decision Failed to Consider the Metes and Bounds Set by Congress
`The Board has recognized that “novel software tools and graphical user
`
`interfaces used within the electronic trading industry to implement trading and asset
`
`allocation strategies are not the type of patents targeted for covered business method
`
`patent review.”17 That conclusion comes directly from the legislative history, because,
`
`while Congress wanted the scope of CBMs to be broad with respect to what is a
`
`“financial product or service,” it still recognized that it had limits:
`
`[Mr. DURBIN.] . . . [S]ome companies that possess patents
`categorized by the PTO as class 705 business method
`patents have used the patents to develop novel software
`tools and graphical user interfaces that have been
`
`widely commercialized and used within the electronic
`
`trading industry to implement trading and asset
`
`16 Preliminary Response, pp. 50-51.
`
`17 CBM2013-00005, paper 18, p. 6 (Opinion by APJ Medley, March 29, 2013).
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`Patent 7,676,411
`
`allocation strategies. Additionally, there are companies
`that possess class 705 patents which have used the patents
`to manufacture and commercialize novel machinery to
`count, sort, and authenticate currency and paper
`instruments. Are these the types of patents that are the
`target of Section 18?
`
`[Mr. SCHUMER.] No. Patent holders who have generated
`productive inventions and have provided large numbers of
`American workers with good
`jobs
`through
`the
`development and commercialization of those patents are
`not the ones that have created the business method patent
`problem. While merely having employees and conducting
`business would not disqualify a patent-holder from Section
`18 review, generally speaking, it is not the understanding
`of Congress that such patents would be reviewed and
`invalidated under Section 18.18
`
`Furthermore, in other portions of the legislative history, Congress
`
`confirmed that claims of the sort at issue here are not CBMs:
`
`[Mr. DURBIN.] Examples of such patent-protected
`products
`include machinery
`that counts,
`sorts or
`authenticates currency and paper instruments, and novel
`software tools and graphical user interfaces that are
`
`
`18 Ex. 2009, S5428 (emphases added).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`Patent 7,676,411
`
`used by electronic trading industry workers to
`implement trading or asset allocation strategies.
`Vibrant industries have developed around the production
`and sale of these tangible inventions, and I appreciate that
`patents protecting such job-creating products are not
`understood to be the target of section 18.19
`
`[Mr. DURBIN.] . . . I also expect the PTO to keep in mind
`as it crafts these regulations Congress’s understanding
`that legitimate and job-creating technological patents
`
`such as those protecting the novel electronic trading
`
`software tools and graphical user interfaces discussed
`above are not the target of section 18.20
`
`TT pointed to statements from Senator Schumer making clear that the reason behind
`
`Section 18 was the supposed low quality of business method patents.21 TT further
`
`explained that every example provided by Senator Schumer of patents implicated by
`
`Section 18 involved claims whose alleged inventive aspect is directed to a business
`
`method or practice.22 The Decision never addressed any of these statements.
`
`
`19 Ex. 2008, S5433 (emphasis added).
`
`20 Ex. 2009, S5433 (emphasis added).
`
`21 Preliminary Response, pp. 38-41
`
`22 Id.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`Patent 7,676,411
`
`If the Decision had considered Congress’s clear understanding, the Decision could
`
`only have concluded that the ’411 patent is outside the scope of Section 18 because
`
`the claims are not directed to a business method and, in any event, because they are
`
`directed to a technological invention. Subjecting the ’411 patent to CBM review is no
`
`different from finding patents on devices such as money-sorting machines or staplers
`
`subject to Section 18. This makes no sense; these types of patents are clearly not
`
`within the scope of Section 18 even if they are used for a financial activity.
`
`V. The Decision Misapplied the Technological Invention Test
`Putting aside that the ’411 claims are not subject to Section 18 as a threshold
`
`matter, the claims clearly qualify for the technological invention exception.
`
`A.
`
`The Decision Improperly Ignores the Claim Limitations That
`Recite Novel and Non-Obvious Technology
`
`In its analysis of whether the ’411 patent is for a technological invention, the
`
`Decision characterizes claim 1 as merely requiring “the use of a display, an input
`
`device, and a GUI (i.e., software), which all were known technology.”23 The Decision
`
`failed to cite anywhere in the record that supports its conclusion.24 The conclusion is
`
`not accurate and ignores substantive claim limitations. In particular, as TT explained
`
`and no one has disputed, the claims require particular structural and functional
`
`
`23 Decision, p. 11.
`
`24 Id.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`Patent 7,676,411
`
`features of a GUI.25 This combination of technical features is novel and non-obvious
`
`and it is these features that distinguished the claims from the prior art.26 Petitioner
`
`never established that these claimed features lack novelty or are obvious. The claims
`
`are not directed to generic “software” or to a GUI in general. Rather, the claims
`
`require a GUI with particular features that makes it different from the prior art.
`
`When the actual claim limitations are properly considered, it is clear that they
`
`are for a technological invention. Not only are the claims directed to novel and non-
`
`obvious technical features, they also are directed to subject matter that solves a
`
`technical problem with a technical solution.
`
`
`25 Preliminary Response, pp. 11-28 (explaining the claims recite the technical elements
`
`of the inventive tool, including dynamically displaying indicators relative to a price
`
`axis such that the indicators move relative to a price axis and areas corresponding to
`
`levels of the price axis to receive order entry commands).
`
`26 Preliminary Response, 28-33 (explaining how the technical elements of the
`
`inventive tool recited in the claims distinguish the prior art in prosecution).
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`Patent 7,676,411
`
`The Record Only Supports Finding that the Claims Recite a
`Technological Feature That Is Novel and Non-Obvious
`
`As set forth above, the claims recite particular novel and non-obvious features
`
`of a GUI. The Preliminary Response established that GUIs are technology.27 As
`
`explained by TT, the claims to a graphical tool are no different from claims to a
`
`mechanical device.28 The Panel agreed that GUIs are technology.29 However, the
`
`Panel mistakenly treated the claims as directed to any generic GUI.30
`
`The Panel also seemed to equate the claimed GUI with “software.”31 To be
`
`clear, TT is not relying on the fact that the claimed GUI is implemented in “software”
`
`to establish that it is technological. Rather, TT is relying on the claimed features of the
`
`GUI, which are not conventional. While using software to create GUIs in general may
`
`have been known, the specific combination of GUI features claimed in the ’132
`
`patent was not known. That the claimed GUI can be implemented in different types
`
`of software does not mean it is non-technical. Indeed, if that was the test, no claim to
`
`27 Preliminary Response, p. 49-50 (citing other government agencies, college and
`
`university programs, and legislative history discussion of GUIs).
`
`28 Preliminary Response, p. 28.
`
`29 Decision, p. 11.
`
`30 Id.
`
`31 Id.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`Patent 7,676,411
`
`technology implemented using software could recite novel or non-obvious
`
`technology.
`
`Moreover, just because the new GUI claimed in the ’411 patent can be
`
`practiced by more than one type of computer does not make it non-technological.
`
`This also holds for all types of software inventions. For example, SSL (used for
`
`security on nearly every type of computer with a web browser) does not change the
`
`underlying components of the computer and does not require use of a particular
`
`programing language, but it is still technological. Similarly, the claimed GUI of the
`
`’411 patent does not change the underlying hardware components of the computer
`
`and does not require use of a particular programing language. But it is the invention
`
`(the claimed GUI is a new tool that improves upon an old tool), not elements other
`
`than the invention, that makes the claimed invention technological.32 The claims here
`
`to a novel graphical tool are no different than claims to a novel physical tool made of
`
`steel—that the physical tool can be made of different types of known steel using
`
`known crafting techniques is irrelevant to whether the finished tool is technological.
`
`Importantly, the ’411 claims are not directed to conducting on a computer a
`
`business practice that existed before computers. Rather, the claims are directed to the
`
`features of a new graphical tool that did not exist previously on computers or before
`
`
`32 Preliminary Response, pp. 46-57.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`Patent 7,676,411
`
`computers. As previously explained, the legislative history is clear on this issue:
`
`advances in software and GUI inventions are not covered business methods and are
`
`technological.33 When the actual claim limitations, which claim unknown technology,
`
`are considered, it is clear that the claims recite a technological feature that is novel and
`
`non-obvious over the prior art. TT submits that for this reason alone, the ’411 patent
`
`is for a technological invention and, therefore, is not a CBM.
`
`2.
`
`The Decision Improperly Failed To Address the Technical
`Problems Solved By the Claimed Technical Solution
`
`The Decision must consider “whether the claimed subject matter as a whole
`
`. . . solves a technical problem using a technical solution.”34 The Decision failed to
`
`address either of the two technical problems solved by the invention claimed by TT.35
`
`In particular, the Decision did not address the problem of speed and accuracy with
`
`prior graphical tools.36 In addition, the Decision did not address the inadequate
`
`visualization of prior graphical tools.37 TT explained how both of these problems are
`
`technical, as they relate to classic engineering problems of efficiency, precision and
`
`33 Preliminary Response, pp. 38-44.
`
`34 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) (emphasis added).
`
`35 Compare Preliminary Response, pp. 46-57 with Decision, p. 11.
`
`36 Id.
`
`37 Id.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`Patent 7,676,411
`
`usability.38 Rather than addressing these technical problems, the Decision only
`
`addressed the following characterization of a purported problem: “the problem of a
`
`trader having to read a display of prices for a commodity and enter a trade order
`
`before the price of the commodity changes.”39 This characterization does not
`
`adequately convey the technical problems identified above. Accordingly, the Decision
`
`improperly failed to address whether the claimed subject matter as a whole solves “a
`
`technical problem using a technical solution” because it failed to consider all of the
`
`problems solved by the claimed invention.
`
`Once the technical problems of speed/accuracy and visualization are properly
`
`understood, it is clear that the claimed subject matter as a whole solves a technical
`
`problem using a technical solution. As set forth above, the Decision incorrectly
`
`ignores substantive limitations of the claims and mischaracterizes claim 1 as being
`
`merely directed to “a display, an input device, and a GUI (i.e., software), which were
`
`all known technology.”40 The actual claim limitations recite technical features of a
`
`GUI that solve the technical problems identified above. This is just like the interfaces
`
`
`38 Preliminary Response, pp. 49-50.
`
`39 Decision, p. 11.
`
`40 Decision, p. 11.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`Patent 7,676,411
`
`designed by NASA, which solve technical problems by focusing on functionality and
`
`the interface to “build the right tool.”41
`
`Because the claims recite a new graphical user interface tool, not merely the
`
`process of executing a trade, they are outside the scope of Section 18 review.
`
`Congress understood that “technological patents such as those protecting the novel
`
`electronic trading software tools and graphical user interfaces discussed above are not
`
`the target of section 18.”42 Moreover, the claims of the ’411 patent satisfies both
`
`prongs of the technological invention definition.43 Accordingly, TT requests rehearing
`
`of the Decision and denial of the petition because the ’411 patent is not a covered
`
`business method patent.
`
`
`41 Ex. 2054; see also Preliminary Response, pp. 49-50.
`
`42 Ex. 2009, S5433.
`
`43 TT does not agree with the Panel’s assertion that qualification for the technological
`
`invention exception requires satisfaction of both prongs of 37 C.F.R. 42.301(b)
`
`because either prong independently shows that claims are recite a technological
`
`invention. Indeed, rule 42.301(b) only requires that the prongs are “considered,” not
`
`met. In any event, both are met here.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. Conclusion
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`Patent 7,676,411
`
`Because the Decision on Institution misapplies the law and lacks any
`
`evidentiary support in the record, the Panel abused its discretion and thus erred in
`
`instituting trial. Accordingly, the Panel should grant this request and deny institution.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: December 16, 2014
`
`
`
`
`By:
`Erika H. Arner, Lead Counsel
`Registration No. 57,540
`
`Joshua L. Goldberg, Backup Counsel
`Registration No. 59,369
`
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett
`& Dunner, LLP
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190
`
`Steven F. Borsand, Backup Counsel
`Registration No. 36,752
`Trading Technologies
`International, Inc.
`222 S Riverside Plaza, Suite 1100
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner Trading
`Technologies International, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`Patent 7,676,411
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing was served on December 16, 2014, via email directed to
`
`counsel of record for the Petitioner at the following:
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`
`Jonathan M. Strang
`jstrang-ptab@skgf.com
`
`Robert E. Sokohl
`rsokohl-ptab@skgf.com
`
`
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Ashley F. Cheung/
`Ashley F. Cheung
`Case Manager
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`16