`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE, INC., and
`TD AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055
`____________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`
`TT’s claims are ineligible for patenting .......................................................... 1 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`The claims are directed to the abstract idea of repositioning market
`information on a GUI (Step 1) .............................................................. 3 
`
`The claims do not recite an inventive concept (Step 2) ........................ 5 
`
`The claims preempt the abstract idea of repositioning market data on a
`GUI ........................................................................................................ 7 
`
`The cases cited by TT do not stand for the proposition that
`overcoming computer problems confers patent eligibility ................... 8 
`
`III.  Claims 1-15 and 17-19 are obvious ............................................................... 11 
`
`A. 
`
`TSE is an accurately translated prior-art publication, properly
`supported by affidavits of accuracy .................................................... 11 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`The evidence of record shows that TSE is a prior-art publication
` ................................................................................................... 12 
`
`TD Ameritrade properly filed affidavits of accuracy supporting
`the TSE translation .................................................................... 13 
`
`The TSE translation is accurate and understandable in general
` ................................................................................................... 16 
`
`B. 
`
`TT’s arguments regarding the repositioning step fail because TD
`Ameritrade’s TSE translation and TT’s TSE translation disclose the
`same information ................................................................................. 17 
`
`C. 
`
`TSE teaches the adjusting price levels step ......................................... 20 
`
`1. 
`
`The adjusting step may be performed before the displaying
`step, which is taught by TSE ..................................................... 21 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`TSE teaches performing the displaying step before the adjusting
`step because the claims do not rule out performing intervening
`unrecited steps ........................................................................... 22 
`
`IV.  The Board has jurisdiction over this proceeding ........................................... 23 
`
`V.  Mr. Rho’s testimony is credible .................................................................... 24 
`
`VI.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 25 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`Cases 
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014) ............................................................................ passim
`
`Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`318 F. 3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................... 22
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010)......................................................................................... 5
`
`Bloomberg, et al. v. Markets-Alert,
`CBM2013-00005, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. March 29, 2013) .............................. 24
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ....................................................................... 4
`
`DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, et al.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................8, 9
`
`Digitech Image Techs. v. Electronics for Imaging,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................... 5
`
`Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc.,
`545 U.S. 546 (2005)....................................................................................... 24
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) ........................................................................................... 2
`
`Gottshalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) ........................................................................................... 8
`
`Handiquilter v. Bernina Int’l,
`IPR2013-00364, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2013) .................................... 15
`
`Int’l Sec. Exch. v. Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc.,
`CBM2013-00049, Paper 53 (P.T.A.B., March 2, 2015) ................................. 6
`
`Intellectual Ventures I v. Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co.,
`2014 WL 7215193 (D. Del. Dec. 18, 2014) .................................................. 10
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Financial Corp.,
`2014 WL 1513273 (E.D. Va. April 16, 2014) ............................................... 10
`
`Interactive Gift Express v. Compuserve Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..................................................................... 21
`
`Mayo Collaborative Svcs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ........................................................................ 1, 2, 7, 8
`
`Medtronic v. Nuvasive,
`IPR2014-00074, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2014) ...................................... 14
`
`Mendenhall v. Cedarapids, Inc.,
`5 F.3d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ......................................................................... 13
`
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix Inc.,
`2014 WL 7185921 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2014) .............................................. 11
`
`SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co.,
`594 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... 25
`
`Smartflash, LLC, et al. v. Apple, Inc., et al.,
`No. 6:13-cv-447-JRG-KNM (E.D. TX. Jan. 21, 2015) ................................. 11
`
`Stevenson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
`713 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ....................................................................... 13
`
`Teva Neuroscience v. Watson Pharm.,
`2013 WL 1966048 (D.N.J. May 10, 2013) .................................................... 25
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Am. Vehicular Sci.,
`
`IPR2013-00417, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2013) ...................................... 15
`
`Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., et al.,
`No. 1:05-cv-04811 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2015) ............................................ 9, 10
`
`TSMC v. DSS Tech. Mgmt,
`IPR2014-01030, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2015) ...................................... 14
`
`Ultramercial, LLC, et al. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .....................................................................3, 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean v. Nidec Motor,
`
`IPR2014-01121, Paper 20 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2015) ..................................... 14
`
`
`
`Other Authorities 
`
`79 Fed. Reg. 74618, 74625 (Dec. 16, 2014) .............................................................. 7
`
`
`
`Regulations 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) ................................................................................................ 13
`
`37 C.F.R. 104(c) ....................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`Exh. No.
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055 to Brumfield et al. (“the ʼ055 patent”)
`File History of Application Ser. No. 11/417,547, which became the
`’055 patent, as filed and obtained from PAIR (“File History”)
`Expert Declaration of Kendyl A. Román (“Román Decl.”)
`Expert Declaration of David Rho (“Rho Decl.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,077,665 to Silverman et al. (“Silverman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al. (“Gutterman”)
`“Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation
`Guide” (“TSE JP”)
`Certified English-language Translation of “Futures/Option
`Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE”)
`Certificate of Translation for “Futures/Option Purchasing System
`Trading Terminal Operation Guide” (“O’Connell Affidavit”)
`Memorandum from James M. Hilmert to eSpeed file regarding
`direct examination of TSE’s 30(b)(6) witness, dated December 5,
`2005 (“Depo. Letter”)
`Deposition Transcript of Atsushi Kawashima, Trading Technologies
`International, Inc., v. eSPEED, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312, United
`States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
`dated November 21, 2005 (“Depo. Transcript”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Kendyl A. Román
`List of Materials Considered by Kendyl A. Román
`Curriculum Vitae of David Rho
`List of Materials Considered by David Rho
`Official Transcript of Conference Call held January 20, 2015
`Declaration of Ronald E. Skidmore
`Declaration of Maho Taniguchi-Speller
`Declaration of Eiken Hino
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`Exh. No.
`1020
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`Description
`Declaration Akiko Rosenberry
`Declaration of Courtney O’Connell (“O’Connell Decl.”)
`April 16, 2015 Hearing Transcript
`Supplemental Declaration of Kendyl A. Román (“Suppl. Román
`Decl.”)
`Excerpts of Trial Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. 11-A, Trading
`Tech’s Int’l v. eSpeed Inc., et al. Case No. 04-cv-5312 (N.D. Ill.),
`held September 26, 2007. (“eSpeed Tr. Vol. 11”)
`Excerpts of Trial Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. 17-A, Trading
`Tech’s Int’l v. eSpeed Inc., et al. Case No. 04-cv-5312 (N.D. Ill.),
`held October 4, 2007. (“eSpeed Tr. Vol. 17”)
`Excerpts of Trial Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. 12-A, Trading
`Tech’s Int’l v. eSpeed Inc., et al. Case No. 04-cv-5312 (N.D. Ill.),
`held September 27, 2007. (“eSpeed Tr. Vol. 12”)
`Summary of Facts and Submissions directed to European Patent
`Application No. 01 920 183.9, mailed September 30, 2010 (“EPO
`Summary of Facts and Submissions”)
`Deposition Transcript of Harold Abilock held April 24, 2015
`(“Abilock Tr.”)
`Deposition Transcript of Richard Hartheimer held April 29, 2015
`(“Hartheimer Tr.”)
`Proprietor’s Response to Communication Pursuant to Article 101(1)
`and Rule 81(2) to (3) EPC, dated June 14, 2011 (“EPO Response”)
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`The Board should find Patent Owner Trading Technologies International,
`
`Inc.’s (“TT”) claims ineligible for patenting and obvious over the prior art. TT
`
`does not argue the claims separately, and claim 1 recites the abstract idea of
`
`repositioning market data on a GUI, in essence, scrolling a computer display.
`
`Claim 1 recites nothing more, other than the well understood, routine, and
`
`conventional activities of receiving data, displaying it with a computer, and
`
`accepting commands to adjust the display. The instituted claims are also obvious
`
`over the prior art, despite TT’s mischaracterization of the TSE translation and its
`
`insistence that the claim steps must be performed in order.
`
`II. TT’s claims are ineligible for patenting
`After TD Ameritrade filed its Petition, the Supreme Court established a two-
`
`step test for determining patent eligibility of abstract ideas, consistent with its prior
`
`Mayo decision. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014). The
`
`Court did not “delimit the precise contours of the ‘abstract ideas’ category.” Id. at
`
`2357. Rather, it set forth a broad framework for determining whether a claim was
`
`directed to an abstract idea. The Alice test has now been applied countless times by
`
`the Courts and the Office.
`
`Step one asks whether the patent is directed to one of the three judicial
`
`exceptions to patentable subject matter: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`abstract ideas. Id. at 2354-55. The abstract idea category “embodies the
`
`
`
`longstanding rule that an idea of itself is not patentable.” Id. at 2355 (quoting
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
`
`Step two asks whether the elements of each claim, both individually and as
`
`an ordered combination, recite any significant limitation or “inventive concept”
`
`transforming the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at
`
`2357. A claim must do more than merely state the abstract idea and add the words
`
`“apply it.” Id. It must recite “additional features” to ensure that it is “more than a
`
`drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].” Id. And those
`
`“additional features” must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional
`
`activity.” Mayo Collaborative Svcs. v. Prometheus Labs., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1294
`
`(2012).
`
`Application of the Alice two-step test here leads to one conclusion: TT’s
`
`claims are not eligible for patent protection. Claim 1 of the ’055 patent instructs a
`
`practitioner to implement the abstract idea of repositioning market information on
`
`a GUI. And merely implementing that abstract idea using well known components
`
`(a generic computer), limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use (trading
`
`financial products), or adding insignificant extra-solution activities (data gathering,
`
`arranging data post-solution activity), “add[s] nothing of practical significance to
`
`the underlying abstract idea.” Ultramercial v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`(Fed. Cir. 2014). In short, the claims do not transform the abstract idea into patent-
`
`
`
`eligible subject matter.
`
`A. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of repositioning
`market information on a GUI (Step 1)
`
`Claim 1 is a “method for repositioning a static price axis” display, the steps
`
`including receiving market information, displaying it along a price axis, and
`
`repositioning the price axis on command. ’055 Patent, claim 1 (Ex. 1001); Inst.
`
`Dec. at 13-15. The claims do not recite any specific way to perform these steps,
`
`and the specification explains they can be performed on a generic computer using
`
`any techniques known to one of skill in the art. Inst. Dec. at 15 (citing 5:2-7; 5:24-
`
`27; 5:66 - 6:7; 25:13-15; 6:31-35). The claims are therefore directed to the abstract
`
`idea of repositioning market information on a GUI. Inst. Dec. at 14; Pet. at 10-13.
`
`TT accuses TD Ameritrade of “ignor[ing] the substantive elements” of the
`
`claims, and dramatically blacks out vast swaths of claim language to illustrate so-
`
`called “phantom claims” allegedly created by TD Ameritrade. POR at 18-19. But
`
`the problem lies with TT’s claims, not TD Ameritrade’s arguments. For example,
`
`the blacked-out language in the receiving step (POR at 7-9) does not alter that this
`
`is merely a conventional data-gathering step. Likewise, TT’s exuberant use of the
`
`black marker on the four displaying steps does not alter that these steps merely
`
`recite plotting two data elements in a region alongside an axis. This unpatentable
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`idea is nothing new and can be done mentally or with pen and paper. CyberSource
`
`
`
`Corp. v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (unpatentable
`
`mental process performed with aid of pen and paper); Suppl. Román Decl. ¶ 3 (Ex.
`
`1023); see also TSE at 0107 (prior-art electronic plot of market data along axis)
`
`(Ex. 1008); Silverman at FIG. 4 (prior-art paper plot of same) (Ex. 1005).
`
`TT argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they
`
`are directed “to a GUI improvement” rather than “a trading strategy or trading on a
`
`GUI in the abstract.” POR at 28. TT merely fashions a straw man and knocks it
`
`down. Here, the abstract idea is not “a trading strategy” or “trading on a GUI.”
`
`Rather, the abstract idea is repositioning market data on a GUI, i.e., scrolling up
`
`and down to keep plotted data on the screen. The claims do not recite a specific
`
`way of triggering this repositioning, but instead recite receiving the command
`
`when “a designated price” passes a threshold of “a designated number of price
`
`levels” from the highest or lowest value on the price axis. ’055 Patent, claim 1. The
`
`claims do not explain how to set such thresholds; any number can be chosen. The
`
`reposition command could be manually sent by a human watching the plotted data,
`
`who “ click[s] . . . a center mouse button” whenever the desired threshold is
`
`passed. ’055 Patent at 25:64-67; Suppl. Román Decl. ¶¶ 13-14. While it might be
`
`possible to claim that a GUI improvement is not directed to an abstract idea, TT
`
`has not done so here.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`TT also argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the
`
`
`
`“analog predecessor [to electronic trading], open outcry trading systems, operat[ed]
`
`in a significantly different fashion.” POR at 37. TT argues against the wrong
`
`predecessor system. The unpatentable abstract idea here is repositioning a display
`
`of market data, and the predecessor is manually scrolling a computer display or re-
`
`plotting the data on paper or a white-board plot.
`
`The claims do not recite an inventive concept (Step 2)
`
`B.
`Beyond the abstract idea of repositioning market data on a GUI, the claims
`
`recite only the insignificant data-gathering and conventional extra-solution
`
`activities of receiving and plotting market data. Inst. Dec. at 15-16. The claims do
`
`not “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the
`
`[method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via
`
`computers.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (quoting Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-
`
`11 (2010)). And even if the claims recited organizing the data into a particular
`
`arrangement (they do not), that would be insufficient to confer patentability.
`
`Digitech Image Techs. v. Electronics for Imaging, 758 F.3d 1344, 1350-51 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014).
`
`TT argues its claims pass Alice’s step two because “it is clear that the claims
`
`recite an inventive concept, a GUI improvement,” and contends that adjusting and
`
`repositioning are such inventive concepts. POR at 30-32. But repositioning is the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`abstract idea, so it is not part of a proper Alice step two analysis, which looks for
`
`
`
`something “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at
`
`2355. As for the adjusting step, which may be met by changing the display scale,
`
`shifting from a logarithmic to a linear scale, lengthening the price axis, or
`
`increasing the resolution or granularity of the display, this was a conventional,
`
`routine practice. Suppl. Román Decl. ¶ 18; see also TSE at 0068 (shifting from
`
`compressed to uncompressed mode); Silverman at 8:21-35 (increasing displayed
`
`market depth). Claim 1 merely instructs the practitioner to implement the abstract
`
`idea on a generic computer using conventional techniques. This is not enough.
`
`Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359; Int’l Sec. Exch. v. Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc.,
`
`CBM2013-00049, Final Decision at 9 (Paper 53, Mar. 2, 2015) (generic computer
`
`limitations do not confer patent eligibility).
`
`TT also argues that TD Ameritrade failed to address the claim steps as a
`
`combination. POR at 32. Not true. In its Petition, TD Ameritrade referred to the
`
`two separate proposed combinations of prior art, supported by extensive
`
`testimonial and documentary evidence, as showing that the claims recite nothing
`
`beyond the abstract idea that could bring them within the realm of patentable
`
`subject matter. Pet. at 13 (referring to later sections).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`C. The claims preempt the abstract idea of repositioning market
`data on a GUI
`
`
`
`TT seeks to avoid Alice altogether by asserting that there is no preemption
`
`concern, relying on guidance provided to examiners. POR at 26 (citing 79 Fed.
`
`Reg. 74618, 746[2]5 (Dec. 16, 2014)). In support of its preemption argument, TT
`
`argues the ’055 patent claims do not read on manually re-centering as described in
`
`its other patents. POR at 27-28.
`
`As an initial matter, under the guidance TT cites― guidance that does not
`
`apply to the Board―the Alice test may be skipped only if patent eligibility is “self-
`
`evident.” 79 Fed. Reg. at 74625. For example, the patent eligibility of a “complex
`
`manufactured industrial product,” such as a “robotic arm assembly having a
`
`control system that operates using certain mathematical relationships,” is
`
`considered self-evident. Id. The ’055 patent does not claim a complex
`
`manufactured product. It claims a method for repositioning market data on a GUI.
`
`TT cannot avoid Alice.
`
`TT also misconstrues the law regarding preemption. The existence of non-
`
`infringing alternatives does not per se render a claim patentable. For example, a
`
`field-of-use restriction opens up an entire universe of non-infringing ways to
`
`practice an abstract idea, but that is not enough to confer patent eligibility. Mayo,
`
`132 S.Ct. at 1300-01. Likewise, adding insignificant pre- and post-solution claim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`steps to an abstract idea may open up non-infringing alternatives, but that does not
`
`
`
`confer patent eligibility. Id. And here, TT is wrong on the facts. Its claims read on
`
`repositioning upon receiving a command sent by a human with insignificant extra-
`
`solution activities added. Suppl. Román Decl. ¶ 19; ’055 Patent, claims 1 and 14.
`
`D. The cases cited by TT do not stand for the proposition that
`overcoming computer problems confers patent eligibility
`Relying primarily on DDR Holdings, TT argues that its claims are
`
`“necessarily rooted in computer technology” and solve a problem specifically
`
`arising in computers, thus they must be patent eligible. POR at 33-39. TT’s
`
`reliance on DDR Holdings is misguided. DDR Holdings does not stand for the
`
`broad proposition that claims solving computer problems are necessarily patent-
`
`eligible. Indeed, claims for converting binary-coded decimal to binary―as
`
`distinctly a computer-rooted problem as any― is not patent eligible. Benson, 409
`
`U.S. at 71.
`
`The DDR Holdings court carefully limited its opinion to the claims before it,
`
`cautioning “that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are
`
`eligible for patent.” DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, et al., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014). The claims passed Alice’s step two because they specified “how
`
`interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result—a result
`
`that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`by the click of a hyperlink,” and expressly recited “a specific way to automate the
`
`
`
`creation of a composite web page.” Id. at 1258-59. In contrast, the claims here do
`
`not recite a specific way of doing anything. They do not recite how to receive data,
`
`how it is to be displayed (other than along a price axis), how to determine a
`
`threshold for repositioning, how to generate a reposition command, or what is the
`
`new desired location after repositioning. To the extent a computer is used in the
`
`claims, it is used “only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive
`
`calculations,” such as displaying data. Id. at 1256; Suppl. Román Decl. ¶ 19. That
`
`is not enough to confer patent eligibility.
`
`The claims here are more like those in Ultramercial, which were ineligible
`
`because they “broadly and generically” recited using a computer to perform the
`
`abstract idea. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258-59 (discussing Ultramercial).
`
`Although the eleven claim steps in Ultramercial “add[ed] a degree of
`
`particularity,” they merely required implementing the abstract idea (advertising as
`
`currency) “with routine, conventional activity.” Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715-16.
`
`The other cases TT cites also fail to support TT’s legal arguments. First, TT
`
`relies on the CQG case for the propositions that claims directed to GUI
`
`improvements necessarily pass Alice’s second step and that a court has already
`
`found its claims patentable. POR at 2, 25-26, and 29-32. But that decision looked
`
`at different patents, and (incorrectly) concluded that the patents-at-issue passed
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`Alice’s step two because the recited “static price axis” was an inventive concept.
`
`
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l. v. CQG, No. 1:05-cv-04811, slip op. at 9 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24,
`
`2015) (Ex. 2200).1 But a static price axis—which is present on any paper plot—
`
`was a conventional data display feature at the time. Suppl. Román Decl. ¶¶ 4-6;
`
`TSE at 0107, 0110; Silverman at FIG. 4. And as discussed below, TT’s alleged
`
`improvement here is taking the “static” out of “static price axis,” so any reliance on
`
`CQG is misplaced.
`
`The claims in Intellectual Ventures survived because they recited “a specific
`
`method of customizing web pages.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Mfrs. & Traders
`
`Trust Co., No. 13-1274, 2014 WL 7215193 at *9 (D. Del. Dec. 18, 2014); but see
`
`Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Financial Corp., No. 13-cv-0740, 2014 WL
`
`1513273 at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 16, 2014) (finding those same claims patent-
`
`ineligible). Similarly, in Smartflash, the patent claims recited “specific ways of
`
`using distinct memories, data types, and use rules that amount to significantly more
`
`
`1 Also, the CQG decision involved a different burden of proof (clear and
`
`convincing), a different set of defendants (not including TD Ameritrade), and is
`
`not binding on TD Ameritrade or the PTAB. The CQG court also lacked the
`
`benefit of the extensive prior art evidence and argument TD Ameritrade has
`
`provided to the Board.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`than the underlying abstract idea.” Smartflash, LLC, et al. v. Apple, Inc., et al., No.
`
`
`
`6:13-cv-447-JRG-KNM (E.D. TX. Jan. 21, 2015), Report and Recommendation at
`
`19 (Ex. 2210). And in OpenTV, the Court’s summary judgment decision turned on
`
`the case’s posture. OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix Inc., No. 3:14-cv-01525-RS, 2014 WL
`
`7185921, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2014). The Court had not yet construed the
`
`claims, so whether the claims recited an abstract idea remained “a question for
`
`another day.” Id. at *5.
`
`III. Claims 1-15 and 17-19 are obvious
`In arguments better suited for a motion to exclude, TT tries (and fails) to rid
`
`itself of the TSE reference. But TD Ameritrade established that TSE is prior art,
`
`and properly filed an accurate translation with supporting affidavits of accuracy.
`
`After addressing TT’s procedural issues, TD Ameritrade addresses the merits TT
`
`tried so hard to avoid.
`
`A. TSE is an accurately translated prior-art publication, properly
`supported by affidavits of accuracy
`
`TT has attempted to manufacture procedural issues that go to the weight and
`
`credibility of the evidence. TD Ameritrade briefly addresses them here, but
`
`reserves the right to fully address them should TT file a motion to exclude.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`The evidence of record shows that TSE is a prior-art
`publication
`
`1.
`
`TSE is prior art because the evidence of record shows that in August of
`
`1998, the Tokyo Stock Exchange gave two copies each to representatives of about
`
`200 companies who were using that system, with no restriction on the copies’
`
`distribution. Kawashima Tr. at 0010 -0015 (Ex. 1011). TT does not proffer any
`
`contrary evidence or dispute that this satisfies the printed publication requirement.
`
`Instead, TT asks the Board to ignore the only evidence of record based on an
`
`unsupported allegation of bias and an unspecified legal doctrine.
`
`TT makes the unsupported accusation that Mr. Kawashima’s testimony is
`
`“not reliable,” alleging without evidence that his employer filed “an opposition
`
`against a Japanese counterpart” of another TT patent. POR at 47. As the Board has
`
`already recognized, TT’s unsupported accusation is due no weight, as TT has
`
`refused to provide or even cite the alleged opposition proceeding. April Conf. Call
`
`Tr. at 16-17 (Ex. 1022).
`
`TT also argues, without citing any supporting law, that the Board is bound
`
`by the jury’s special verdict in Trading Technologies v. eSpeed. POR at 46 (citing
`
`Trading Technologies v. eSpeed,Inc., et al., No. 1:04-cv-05312 (E.D. Ill. October
`
`10, 2007), Jury Verdict Form at 11 (Ex. 2098)). But the Board cannot bind TD
`
`Ameritrade to the jury’s finding that TSE is not prior art in the eSpeed case
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`because TD Ameritrade was not a party to that proceeding. Stevenson v. Sears,
`
`
`
`Roebuck & Co., 713 F.2d 705, 709 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (collateral estoppel applies
`
`only when the party against whom collateral estoppel is being asserted had a full
`
`and fair opportunity to litigate the identical issue in the previous proceeding).
`
`While a finding that a patent is invalid binds the patentee, “it is grossly inequitable
`
`to bind a party to a judgment of validity rendered in an action against some other
`
`party.” Id. at 711. This is especially true here, where the jury’s factual finding was
`
`contradicted by the only evidence of record. eSpeed Tr. Vol. 11 at 2254-58 (Ex.
`
`1024). Moreover, in its closing statements to the jury, TT implicitly acknowledged
`
`that TSE was prior art. eSpeed Tr. Vol. 17 at 3675 (Ex. 1025) (arguing to the jury
`
`that only two of the four prior art references, Midas Kapiti and Trade Pad, are not
`
`prior art).
`
`Nor does the doctrine of stare decisis bind the Board here. Stare decisis
`
`applies to the law, not factual findings. Mendenhall v. Cedarapids, Inc., 5 F.3d
`
`1557, 1570-71 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting the use of stare decisis for the
`
`determination of a patent’s priority date even if the evidence is the same).
`
`2.
`
`TD Ameritrade properly filed affidavits of accuracy
`supporting the TSE translation
`
`Contrary to TT’s assertions, TD Ameritrade satisfied the affidavit
`
`requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b). Ms. O’Connell’s affidavit(s) alone satisfy the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`Rule, because as the manager for this translation project, she has personal
`
`
`
`knowledge that TransPerfect assigned qualified translators and that TransPerfect
`
`followed its ISO 9001:2008 and EN 15038:2006 certified procedures. O’Connell
`
`Affidavit (Ex. 1009); O’Connell Decl. (Ex. 1021); O’Connell Tr. at 83 (Ex. 2093).
`
`The translator affidavits also satisfy the Rule for each translator’s section, as each
`
`translator personally attested to the accuracy of his or her assigned section.
`
`Skidmore Decl. (Ex. 1017); Speller Decl. (Ex. 1018); Hino Decl. (Ex. 1019);
`
`Rosenberry Decl. (Ex. 1020). And in combination, the affidavits far surpass the
`
`Rule’s requirements.
`
`TT cites the Zhongshan cases for the proposition that the Board should not
`
`consider these affidavits. POR at 41-46. But in those cases, no affidavits were
`
`filed, and the Board found that this was not a correctable clerical error under 37
`
`C.F.R. 104(c). E.g., Zhongshan Broad Ocean v. Nidec Motor, IPR2014-01121,
`
`Inst. Dec. at 9-12 (Paper 20, Jan. 21, 2015). In contrast, the Board here ordered TD
`
`Ameritrade to file additional affidavits of accuracy supplementing the affidavit
`
`filed with the Petition (Paper 27, Jan. 22, 2015), just as other panels have done in
`
`various situations. E.g., TSMC v. DSS Tech. Mgmt, IPR2014-01030, Decision on
`
`Motion at 3 (Paper 11, Feb. 3, 2015) (supplemental information); Medtronic v.
`
`Nu