`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 CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055
`
`Introduction
`
`Trading Technologies (“TT”) requests rehearing of the Decision on Institution
`
`because the Panel misapprehended or overlooked facts that establish that the ’055
`
`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 original 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 claimed
`
`invention is directed to novel and non-obvious technology—the features of a
`
`graphical device.1 As such, the claims are outside the purview of CBM review as a
`
`threshold matter. In addition, by overlooking these claim features, the Decision
`
`misapprehended and misapplied the technological invention exception.
`
`
`1 Although Petitioner persuaded the Panel to institute trial as to whether certain claims
`
`are obvious, no administrative or judicial body has found any claim of the ’055 patent
`
`to be anticipated or obvious.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055
`
`Standard of Review
`
`On rehearing, a decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.2 An abuse of
`
`discretion “occurs when a court misunderstands or misapplies the relevant law,” or
`
`makes erroneous factual findings.3 A decision lacking evidentiary support in the
`
`record constitutes an abuse of discretion.4 Likewise, “[a] decision based on an
`
`erroneous view of the law . . . [also] invariably constitutes an abuse of discretion.”5 Because
`
`the Panel’s Decision lacks evidentiary support in the record and misapplies the law,
`
`the Panel abused its discretion and thus erred in instituting trial.
`
`III. Current State of the Proceeding
`The claims of the ’055 patent are directed to technology embodied in a GUI
`
`that is used for trading, which is a financial activity. But the ’055 patent cannot be
`
`subjected to Section 18 review because it “claims a novel GUI tool, not a method of
`
`doing business.”6 TT pointed to explicit statements by Congress confirming that a
`
`
`2 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).
`
`3 Renda Marine, Inc. v. U.S., 509 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`4 MGIC v. Moore, 952 F.2d 1120, 1122 (9th Cir. 1991).
`
`5 Atl. Research Mktg. Sys. v. Troy, 659 F.3d 1345, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`6 Preliminary Response, p. 2.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055
`
`patent claiming a novel GUI (like the ’055 patent) would not be eligible for Section 18
`
`review.7 The Decision did not respond.
`
`TT cited abundant evidence showing GUIs are technology.8 The Decision
`
`agreed.9 TT showed how the claims of the ’055 patent recite particular features of a
`
`GUI.10 Again, the Decision agreed.11
`
`TT also pointed out how the prosecution history tied allowance to the claimed
`
`elements of the GUI.12 The Decision ignored this evidence.
`
`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
`
`
`7 Preliminary Response, p. 3-4.
`
`8 Preliminary Response, p. 31-32 (citing other government agencies, college and
`
`university programs, and legislative history discussion of GUIs).
`
`9 Decision, p. 12 (referring to GUIs as technology).
`
`10 Preliminary Response, pp. 6-14 (showing how the claims recite GUIs).
`
`11 Decision, p. 11 (finding claim 1 recites “a certain arrangement on a GUI and allows
`
`for the repositioning of the information on the display”).
`
`12 Preliminary Response, pp. 14-15.
`
`13 Decision, p. 10.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055
`
`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 “[c]laim 1’s use of a display, an input device, and a GUI (i.e., software)
`
`were all known technology.”15 But this misapprehends the fact that the invention is a
`
`GUI with specifically claimed features that were found to be 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 much more than
`
`known technology. Claim 1 requires a GUI with certain structural and functional
`
`features, including a specific manner in which to re-position a static price axis and
`
`adjusting the number of price levels of the displayed price axis.16 This combination of
`
`GUI features was not “known technology” but novel and non-obvious technology.17
`
`
`14 Decision, p. 10.
`
`15 Decision, p. 12.
`
`16 Preliminary Response, p. 14.
`
`17 Petitioner’s patentability arguments based on prior art should not be considered as
`
`part of determining whether the ‘055 patent is a CBM. Otherwise, the technological
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055
`
`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.”18 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
`
`exception would become a nullity. Most petitioners raise some sort of
`
`novelty/obviousness challenge. What is relevant is that the claim as a whole is
`
`directed to a technical feature that was the reason for novelty and non-obviousness of
`
`the claims over the prior art considered.
`
`18 CBM2013-00005, paper 18, p. 6 (Opinion by Administrative Patent Judge Medley,
`
`March 29, 2013).
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055
`
`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 18.19
`
`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
`
`used by electronic trading industry workers to
`
`19 Ex. 2008, S5428 (emphases added).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055
`
`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 18.20
`
`[Mr. DURBIN.] I am confident that the PTO will keep this
`in mind as it works to craft regulations implementing the
`technological invention exception to section 18. 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 18.21
`
`TT pointed to statements from Senator Schumer making clear that the reason behind
`
`Section 18 was the supposed low quality of business method patents. 22 TT further
`
`explained that every example provided by Senator Schumer of patents implicated by
`
`
`20 Ex. 2008, S5433 (emphases added).
`
`21 Ex. 2008, S5433 (emphasis added).
`
`22 Preliminary Response, pp. 22-23.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055
`
`Section 18 involved claims whose alleged inventive aspect is directed to a business
`
`method or practice.23 The Decision never addressed any of these statements.
`
`If the Decision had considered Congress’s clear understanding, the Decision
`
`could only have concluded that the ’055 patent is outside the scope of Section 18,
`
`whether because the claims are not directed to a business method or because they are
`
`directed to a technological invention. Subjecting the ’055 patent to CBM review is no
`
`different than 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 ’055 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 ’055 patent is for a technological invention, the
`
`Decision characterized “[c]laim 1’s use of a display, an input device, and a GUI (i.e.,
`
`software) [as] known technology.”24 This conclusion is not accurate and ignores
`
`substantive claim limitations. In particular, as TT explained and no one has disputed,
`
`
`23 Preliminary Response, p. 23.
`
`24 Decision, p. 12.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055
`
`the claims require particular structural and functional features of a GUI.25 This
`
`combination of 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 generically directed to
`
`any “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.
`
`1.
`
`The Record Only Supports Finding that the Claims Recite a
`Technological Feature That Is Novel and Non-Obvious
`
`As set forth above, the claims are directed to particular novel and non-obvious
`
`features of a GUI. The Preliminary Response established that GUIs are technology.27
`
`As explained by TT, the claims are directed to a graphical tool and are no different
`
`
`25 See, e.g., Preliminary Response, pp. 4-15.
`
`26 Preliminary Response, pp. 14-15.
`
`27 Preliminary Response, p. 31-32 (citing other government agencies, college and
`
`university programs, and legislative history discussion of GUIs).
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055
`
`than claims directed 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 ’055
`
`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
`
`technology implemented using software could recite novel or non-obvious
`
`technology.
`
`As previously explained, the legislative history is clear on this issue: advances in
`
`software and GUI inventions are not covered business methods.32 Just because the
`
`
`28 Preliminary Response, p. 15.
`
`29 Decision, p. 12 (referring to GUIs as technology).
`
`30 Decision, p. 11.
`
`31 Decision, p. 11.
`
`32 Preliminary Response, pp. 20-25.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055
`
`new GUI claimed in the ’055 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 ’055 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.33 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 ’055 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 either on computers or before computers.
`
`When the actual claim limitations, which claim previously unknown
`
`technology, are considered, it is clear that the claims recite a technological feature that
`
`
`33 Preliminary Response, pp. 32-37.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055
`
`is novel and non-obvious over the prior art. TT submits that for this reason alone, the
`
`’055 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 that were
`
`identified by TT.35 In particular, the Decision did not address the problem of market
`
`indicators moving to what some viewers viewed as undesirable locations relative to
`
`the price axis in prior graphical tools.36 In addition, the Decision did not address the
`
`problem of the market indicators moving off the price axis in prior graphical tools.37
`
`TT explained how both of these problems are technical, as they relate to classic
`
`engineering problems of efficiency, speed, and 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
`
`34 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) (emphasis added).
`
`35 Compare Preliminary Response, pp. 28-35 with Decision, p. 12.
`
`36 Id.
`
`37 Id.
`
`38 Preliminary Response, pp. 30-32.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055
`
`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.”
`
`Once the technical problems of market indicators moving to what some
`
`viewers viewed as undesirable locations relative to the price axis and moving off the
`
`price axis 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 simply using “a display, an input device, and a GUI (i.e., software) [that]
`
`were all known technology.”40 The actual claim limitations recite technical features of
`
`a GUI that solve the technical problems identified above.
`
`Because the claims recite a new graphical user interface tool, not merely the
`
`process of executing a trade, they are outside the scope of covered business method
`
`review. Congress understood that “technological patents such as those protecting the
`
`novel electronic trading software tools and graphical user interfaces discussed above
`
`
`39 Decision, p. 12.
`
`40 Decision, p. 12.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055
`
`are not the target of section 18.”41 Moreover, the claims of the ’055 patent satisfy both
`
`prongs of the technological invention definition.42 Accordingly, TT requests rehearing
`
`of the Decision and denial of the petition because the ’055 patent is not a covered
`
`business method patent.
`
`VI. Conclusion
`
`Because the Decision on Institution lacks any evidentiary support in the record
`
`and misapplies the law, 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,
`Reg. No. 57,540
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`41 Ex. 2008, S5433.
`
`42 TT does not agree with the Panel’s assertion on page 10 of the Decision 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
`
`recite a technological invention. In any event, both are met here.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055
`
`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
`
`
`15