`(202) 772-8677
`RSOKOHL@SKGF.COM
`
`December 18, 2014
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Stow Kessler
`Goldstein Fox
`
`Mall Stop PATENT BOARD
`
`Re: (cid:9)
`
`Petitioners’ Requests for Rehearing
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 II CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132/I CBM2014-00135
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055/I CBM2014-00137
`
`Dear PTAB:
`
`Due to the PRPS service outage on December 16, 2014, counsel for Petitioners in the
`
`above-captioned Covered Business Method Review proceedings were instructed by Maria
`
`Vignone, a paralegal at the USPTO, to submit filings (Requests for Rehearing) due on December
`16, 2014, via e-mail to tria1s(uspto.gov . Counsel for Petitioners filed and served the Requests
`for Rehearing in the above-captioned proceedings via email on December 16, 2014, as
`
`instructed. Ms. Vignone authorized Counsel via email to file the Requests for Rehearing via
`
`PRPS on December 17, 2014, once PRPS was operational.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`S, SSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`Robert B. Sokohl (Reg. No. 36,013)
`Attorney for Petitioners, TD Ameritrade Holding
`Corp., TD Ameritrade, Inc., and TD Ameritrade
`Online Holdings Corp.
`
`1945872_i .DOCX
`
`SKGF.COM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORP.,
`TD AMERITRADE, INC.,
`TD AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case CBM2014-00133
`Patent No. 7,676,411 B2
`____________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 B2
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Relief Requested .............................................................................................. 1
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`III. The Board should have decided to institute review on the asserted grounds
`that claims 1-28 are obvious over the Silverman combinations. ..................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Board misapprehended the Petition’s discussion of Gutterman as
`addressing the “single action” limitations. ............................................ 3
`
`The Board overlooked key arguments in the Petition that Togher
`meets the “single action” limitations. .................................................... 5
`
`IV. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Relief Requested
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 B2
`
`Petitioners and real parties-in-interest, TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., TD
`
`Ameritrade, Inc., and TD Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp., (“TD Ameritrade”)
`
`respectfully ask the Board to reconsider its decision to not institute review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,676,411 B2 (“the ’411 patent”) (Ex. 1001), owned by Trading
`
`Technologies International, Inc. (“TTI”), on the ground that claims 1-28 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction
`
`TD Ameritrade petitioned (paper 1) (“Pet.”) the Board seeking CBM
`
`Review of the ’411 patent on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`
`Claims
`1-28
`1-10, 12-28
`
`11
`1-28
`
`
`Pet. at 7-9.
`
`Ground
`§ 101
`§ 103 Silverman (Ex. 1003), Gutterman (Ex. 1004), Togher
`(Ex. 1005)
`§ 103 Silverman, Gutterman, Togher, and Paal (Ex. 1018)
`§ 103 TSE (Ex. 1006/1007) and Togher
`
`In its Decision (paper 19), the Board instituted review on the § 101 ground,
`
`but denied instating review of all the § 103 grounds. Decision at 22. TD
`
`Ameritrade seeks rehearing of the Board’s decision to not institute review under
`
`§ 103 based on the Silverman combinations (i.e., grounds 2 and 3).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`III. The Board should have decided to institute review on the asserted
`grounds that claims 1-28 are obvious over the Silverman combinations.
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’411 patent requires,
`
`displaying, via the computing device, an order entry region
`comprising a plurality of graphical areas for receiving single action
`commands to set trade order prices and send trade orders, each
`graphical area corresponding to a different price level along the price
`axis; and
`
`selecting a particular graphical area in the order entry region through a
`single action of the user input device to both set a price for the trade
`order and send the trade order having a default quantity to the
`electronic exchange.
`’411 patent 13:7-16.
`
`Independent claim 26 requires similar limitations. Id. at 16:7-16. The
`
`Petition relied on Togher, combined with Silverman and Gutterman, to meet the
`
`“single action” limitations. Pet. 21-22, 40-44. The Board erred when it denied
`
`instituting review of claims 1-28 over the Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher
`
`combination because it misapprehended the Petition as relying on Gutterman alone
`
`to disclose the “single action” limitations, Decision 17, and overlooked key
`
`arguments in the Petition that Togher meets the “single action” limitations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`A. The Board misapprehended the Petition’s discussion of
`Gutterman as addressing the “single action” limitations.
`
`Before addressing specific claim limitations, the Petition presented a
`
`discussion describing the graphical user interface (“GUI”) disclosed by Gutterman
`
`for displaying market information. Pet. 19-20 (Gutterman’s “deck pane”).
`
`Specifically, the Petition highlighted that “[o]rders in the deck pane … are
`
`represented by order icons” that are arranged along a vertically-oriented price axis.
`
`Id. at 19 (internal quotations omitted). The Petition further explained that the order
`
`icons of Gutterman are “active. That is, when the user selects the order icon, the
`
`system performs one or more actions” related to placing a trade order. Id. (internal
`
`quotations omitted).
`
`Petitioner also explained in the Petition that, under the proper construction
`
`of the term “single action,” see Pet. 10 (construing “single action”); Decision 13
`
`(adopting the Petition’s construction of “single action”), selecting an order icon
`
`followed by selecting a “SEND FILL” button in rapid succession qualifies as a
`
`“single action.” Pet. 20. The Board misapprehended this discussion as addressing
`
`the specific “single action” limitations at issue:
`
`Petitioner relies upon Gutterman’s disclosure of a trader selecting an
`order icon, which causes the system to populate an electronic message
`with the trade information, and, then, selecting a ‘SEND FILL’ button
`to transmit the message, to meet the claim limitation of selecting a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`particular area through a single action to set parameters and to send
`the trade order.
`Decision 17 (citing pp. 19-20 of the Petition – the discussion of Gutterman).
`
`But the Petition did not rely on this discussion of Gutterman to meet the
`
`specific “single action” limitations. See Pet. 21-22, 40-44 (omitting the discussion
`
`of Gutterman’s “SEND FILL” button). Instead, the Petition explicitly stated that
`
`Togher, not Gutterman, discloses the “single action” limitations:
`
`[T]he combination of Silverman and Gutterman does not explicitly
`disclose a single action “to both set a price for the trade order and
`send the trade order having a default quantity to the electronic
`exchange.” However, Togher discloses this limitation.
`Id. at 42 (emphasis added); see also id. at 21-22.
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (paper 18) (“POPR”)
`
`mischaracterized the Petition and led to the Board’s misapprehension of this issue.
`
`See Decision 18 (“we are persuaded by Patent Owner that Gutterman does not
`
`meet the ‘single action’ limitation”). Specifically, Patent Owner mischaracterized
`
`Grounds 2 and 3 of the Petition as the “Silverman/Gutterman combinations”
`
`(notably omitting Togher), and mischaracterized the Petition as relying on
`
`Gutterman to disclose the “single action” limitations. POPR 62-64. The
`
`Preliminary Response also failed to address the Petition’s arguments that Togher,
`
`when combined with Silverman and Gutterman, discloses the “single action”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`limitations. Id. Patent Owner’s mischaracterizations and omissions led the Board to
`
`overlook key arguments in the Petition that Togher meets the “single action”
`
`limitations.
`
`B.
`
`The Board overlooked key arguments in the Petition that Togher
`meets the “single action” limitations.
`
`The Petition relied on the combination of Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher
`
`to meet the limitations of claims 1 and 26 of the ’411 patent. Pet. 15-57. It
`
`explained that Silverman teaches a trader using a standard input device (e.g.,
`
`mouse) to place a trade in a market that he/she is observing on a display – the
`
`“keystation” display. Pet. 17-19, 42. And Gutterman teaches a market display that
`
`has “active” icons that have certain parameters (price, quantity) built into their
`
`appearance, and that perform some market-related action when selected. Id. at 19-
`
`20, 41-42.
`
`The Petition reasoned that applying Gutterman’s active icons to Silverman’s
`
`keystation display would allow a trader to select an icon using a standard input
`
`device to place a trade that has certain parameters already set. Id. at 20, 42 (“a
`
`PHOSITA would have been motivated to use the ‘active’ order icons of Gutterman
`
`in the keystation display of Silverman to permit a trader to send orders”). FIG. A of
`
`Mr. Román’s declaration (Ex. 1019) illustrates the GUI produced by combining
`
`Silverman’s keystation with certain aspects of Gutterman’s deck pane:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pet. 21; see also id. at 24-26 (providing five reasons a skilled artisan would have
`
`combined Silverman and Gutterman as suggested).
`
`But the Petition recognized that “the combination of Silverman and
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gutterman does not explicitly disclose a single action ‘to both set a price for the
`
`trade order and send the trade order having a default quantity to the exchange,’” id.
`
`at 42 (emphasis omitted), and relied on Togher to meet the “single action”
`
`limitations, id. at 42-44.
`
`Togher discloses a trading tool that allows traders to establish default values,
`
`such as trade quantity, that can be used when making trades via a GUI. Id.
`
`Togher’s GUI displays a trade price, and allows a trader to select a particular
`
`location using a conventional input device (e.g., a mouse) to place an order at the
`
`displayed price using the default values. Id. That is, Togher discloses selecting a
`
`particular location of an order entry region to both set trade parameters (i.e., the
`
`default values) and send the trade to the market. The Petition summarized:
`
`A PHOSITA would have understood that a trader using Togher’s
`GUI could select a particular location of Togher’s GUI (e.g, “Buy”
`or “Sell” button) via a single action of a conventional user input
`device (e.g., touch-sensitive display, mouse) to establish a trade
`price and type of order (e.g., the “new Dealable Bid or offer price”),
`set default values (e.g., quantity), and send the order to market.
`Id. at 42-43 (emphasis added).1
`
`1 Patent Owner admitted in a CBM proceeding of a related patent that this
`
`type of “single action” trading was prior art. CBM2014-00136, paper 18 (Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response), 7 (admitting that conventional trading tools
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`The Petition also provided several reasons a skilled artisan would have
`
`combined Togher with Silverman and Gutterman. Id. at 26-29. Notably, “Togher’s
`
`entire background section is devoted to describing Silverman’s electronic
`
`exchange. … Togher’s endorsement of Silverman’s electronic exchange is an
`
`explicit suggestion to combine these teachings.” Id. at 28-29. Thus the Petition
`
`addressed the Graham factors, see Decision 16, and demonstrated that claims 1-28
`
`are more likely than not obvious over the combination of Silverman, Gutterman,
`
`and Togher.
`
`The Board completely overlooked these arguments. Like Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response, the Decision never addressed Togher. Instead, finding that
`
`Gutterman fails to disclose the “single action” limitations, the Decision denied
`
`instituting trial on Grounds 2 and 3 of the Petition. Decision 16-19. But since the
`
`
`“permitted ‘single action’ order entry that consisted of a trader presenting a default
`
`quantity and then clicking on a cell in the screen (i.e., pressing a button on the tool)
`
`to cause a trade order message to be sent to the exchange at the preset quantity and
`
`at the price value associated with that cell”); CBM2014-00136, paper 19
`
`(Institution Decision), 11 (“Patent Owner describes this prior art GUI tool as
`
`‘conventional’ and states that [s]ome of these types of tools permitted ‘single
`
`action’ order entry.” (internal citations omitted)).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Petition argued that Togher discloses the "single action" limitations, and the Board
`
`overlooked these arguments in its Decision, Petitioners respectfully request
`
`reconsideration and institution of Grounds 2 and 3 of the Petition.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For these reasons, TD Ameritrade respectfully requests that the Board grant
`
`this Request and institute review of claims 1-10 and 12-28 as obvious over
`
`Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher (i.e., ground 2), and of claim 11 as obvious
`
`over Silverman, Gutterman, Togher, and Paal (i.e., ground 3).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`Robert E. Sokohi (Reg. No. 36,013)
`A ttorney for Petitioners, TD Ameritrade
`
`Date: December 16, 2014
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`I
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 B2
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`As required by 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.205(a)), the undersigned hereby
`
`certifies that the foregoing PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`was served on December 16, 2014, in its entirety via email on the following:
`
`Lead Counsel (cid:9)
`Erika H. Amer (Reg. No. 57,540) (cid:9)
`erika.amer@finnegan.com
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett
`& Dunner, LLP
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190
`Phone: (571) 203-2754
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Steven F. Borsand (Reg. No. 36,752)
`Steve.Borsand@tradingtechnologies.com
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`222 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 1100
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Phone: (312) 476-1018
`
`Joshua L. Goldberg (Reg. No. 59,369)
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
`Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Phone: (202) 408-6092
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEiN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`By:’
`
`Robert E. Sokohi (Reg. No. 36,013)
`A ttorney for Petitioners, TD Ameritrade
`
`Date: December 16, 2014
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C.20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`1944357_i .DOCX