`
`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 CBM: Unassigned
`_____________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 6,772,132 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the LEAHY-SMITH
`AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`CQG EXHIBIT 1020
`
`
`
`0001
`
`

`

`CBM Petition of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,772,132 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the
`LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT ............................................... i
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) ......................................2
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .................................... 2
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)): ............................................. 2
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)): .......................... 3
`D.
`Service Information ............................................................................... 4
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) .................................4
`A.
`TD Ameritrade has standing ................................................................. 4
`B.
`TD Ameritrade is not estopped or barred .............................................. 4
`C.
`The ‘132 Patent is a Covered Business Method ................................... 4
`1.
`The ’132 patent claims a covered business method....................5
`The ’132 patent it not for a “technological invention” ......................... 5
`D.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ..........................................................8
`A.
`Statutory grounds for the challenge ...................................................... 8
`B.
`Citation of Prior Art .............................................................................. 9
`IV. THE ʼ132 PATENT ...................................................................................... 10
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 10
`B.
`Claim construction .............................................................................. 11
`V. GROUNDS OF REJECTION ...................................................................... 12
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-56 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`101 ....................................................................................................... 12
`B. Ground 2: Claims 1-56 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`second paragraph, because “the market” lacks proper
`antecedent basis. .................................................................................. 15
`C. Ground 3: Silverman, Gutterman and Togher render claims
`1-3, 5-8, 9, 10, 13-16, 18-20, 22, 23, 25-28, 30, 32, 33, 35-
`38, 40, 41-43, 45-48, and 50-56 obvious. ........................................... 16
`1.
`Overview of Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher .................... 16
`
`III.
`
`ii
`
`0002
`
`

`

`CBM Petition of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`Prosecution history ................................................................... 22
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been
`motivated to combine Silverman, Gutterman, and
`Togher ...................................................................................... 24
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and Togher
`renders independent claims 1 and 8 obvious. .......................... 28
`a)
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and
`Togher discloses the preamble of claims 1 and
`8. .................................................................................... 28
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and
`Togher discloses
`the
`“setting
`a preset
`parameter” limitation [1A], [8A] ................................... 30
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and
`Togher discloses the “displaying market depth
`of the commodity” limitation [1B], [8B] ....................... 31
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and
`Togher discloses the “displaying an order entry
`region” limitation [1C], [8C] ......................................... 35
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and
`Togher discloses the “selecting a particular
`area” limitation [1D], [8D] ............................................ 36
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and Togher
`renders claim 14 obvious ..................................................................... 37
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and Togher
`renders claims 2, 9 and 15 obvious. .................................................... 39
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and Togher
`renders claims 3, 10 and 16 obvious. .................................................. 40
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and Togher
`renders claims 5, 12 and 18 obvious. .................................................. 41
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and Togher
`renders claims 6, 13 and 19 obvious. .................................................. 43
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and Togher
`renders claim 7 obvious. ...................................................................... 44
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`iii
`
`0003
`
`

`

`CBM Petition of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`N.
`
`O.
`
`P.
`
`Q.
`
`R.
`
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and Togher
`renders claims 20, 21, 30, 31, 40 and 41 obvious. .............................. 44
`The combination of Sivlerman, Gutterman and Togher
`renders claims 22, 32 and 42 obvious. ................................................ 45
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and Togher
`renders claims 23, 33 and 43 obvious. ................................................ 45
`M. The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and Togher
`renders claims 25, 26, 35, 36, 45 and 46 obvious. .............................. 45
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and Togher
`renders claims 27, 28, 37, 38, 47, and 48 obvious. ............................. 47
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and Togher
`renders claim 39 obvious. .................................................................... 48
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and Togher
`renders claims 50, 51 and 52 obvious. ................................................ 48
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and Togher
`renders each element of claims 53, 54 and 55 obvious. ...................... 49
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and Togher
`renders claim 56 obvious. .................................................................... 50
`VI. Ground 4: The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, Togher and May
`render claims 4, 11 and 17 obvious .............................................................. 50
`VII. Ground 5: The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, Togher and Paal
`renders claims 24, 34 and 44 obvious. ......................................................... 51
`VIII. Ground 6: The combination of TSE and Togher renders claims 1-3, 6-10,
`13-15, 16, 19-22, 25, 27-28, 30-32, 35, 37-38, 40-42, 45, 47-48, 50-54
`and 56 obvious. ............................................................................................. 53
`A. Overview ............................................................................................. 53
`B. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been
`motivated to combine TSE and Togher. ............................................. 57
`The combination of TSE and Togher renders independent
`claims 1 and 8 obvious. ....................................................................... 58
`1.
`The combination of TSE and Togher discloses the
`preamble of claims 1 and 8. ..................................................... 58
`The combination of TSE and Togher discloses the
`“setting a preset parameter” limitation [1A], [8A] .................. 60
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`iv
`
`0004
`
`

`

`CBM Petition of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`The combination of TSE and Togher discloses the
`“displaying market depth of the commodity” limitation
`[1B], [8B] ................................................................................. 61
`The combination of TSE and Togher discloses the
`“displaying an order entry region” limitation [1C],
`[8C] .......................................................................................... 65
`The combination of TSE and Togher discloses the
`“selecting a particular area” limitation [1D], [8D] .................. 66
`The combination of TSE and Togher teaches every element
`of claim 14 ........................................................................................... 68
`The combination of TSE and Togher renders claims 2, 9 and
`15 obvious. .......................................................................................... 70
`The combination of TSE and Togher renders claims 3, 10
`and 16 obvious..................................................................................... 70
`The combination of TSE and Togher renders claim 7
`obvious. ............................................................................................... 71
`The combination of TSE and Togher renders claims 20, 21,
`30, 31, 40, and 41 obvious. ................................................................. 71
`The combination of TSE and Togher renders claims 22, 32
`and 42 obvious..................................................................................... 72
`The combination of TSE and Togher renders claims 24, 34,
`and 44 obvious..................................................................................... 72
`The combination of TSE and Togher renders claims 25, 26,
`35, 36, 45, and 46 obvious. ................................................................ 73
`The combination of TSE and Togher renders claims 27, 28,
`37, 38, 47 and 48 obvious. .................................................................. 73
`M. The combination of TSE and Togher renders claims 50, 51
`and 52 obvious..................................................................................... 74
`The combination of TSE in view of Togher renders claims
`53-55 obvious. ..................................................................................... 74
`The combination of TSE in view of Togher renders claim 56
`obvious. ............................................................................................... 75
`IX. Ground 7: The combination of TSE, Togher, and Gutterman renders
`claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 18, 19, 23, 26, 33, 36, 43, and 46. ................................. 76
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`N.
`
`O.
`
`v
`
`0005
`
`

`

`CBM Petition of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`A.
`
`The combination of TSE, Togher, and Gutterman render
`claims 5, 12, and 16 obvious. .............................................................. 77
`The combination of TSE, Togher, and Gutterman render
`claims 6, 13, and 19 obvious. .............................................................. 77
`The combination of TSE, Togher and Gutterman render
`claims 23, 33 and 43 obvious. ............................................................. 77
`The combination of TSE, Togher and Gutterman render
`claim 39 obvious. ................................................................................ 77
`X. Ground 8: The combination of TSE, Togher and May renders claims 4,
`11 and 17 obvious ......................................................................................... 78
`XI. CONCLUSION............................................................................................. 79
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), 42.105(a)) .................... 80
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`vi
`
`0006
`
`

`

`CBM Petition of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`Exh No. Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 to Kemp, II et al. (“ʼ132 patent”)
`1002
`Petition to Make Special Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.102(d) for Ser. No.
`09/590,692, filed August 21, 2000
`Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132, Control No.
`90/011,250, filed September 22, 2010
`Order Denying Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`6,772,132, Control No. 90/011,250, mailed December 14, 2010
`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”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,375,055 to Togher et al. (“Togher”)
`CA Publication No. CA 2,305,736 to May (“May”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,263,134 to Paal et al. (“Paal”)
`“Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation
`Guidelines,” Tokyo Stock Exchange (“TSE JP”)
`Certified Translation of “System for Buying and Selling Futures and
`Options Transaction Terminal Operational Guidelines” (“TSE”)
`Certificate of Translation for “System for Buying and Selling Futures
`and Options Transaction Terminal Operational Guidelines” (“TSE
`Certificate”)
`1015 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”)
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1016
`
`vii
`
`0007
`
`

`

`CBM Petition of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1019
`
`Exh No. Description
`1017
`Robert Deel, “The Strategic Electronic Day Trader,” 2000 (“Deel”)
`1018
`Alan Cooper, “About Face: The Essentials of User Interface Design,”
`First Edition, 1995. (“Cooper”)
`Ben Shneiderman, “Designing the User Interface: Strategies for
`Effective Human-Computer Interaction,” Third Edition, 1998
`(“Shneiderman”)
`1020 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 2002, pages 150
`(“Microsoft Computer Dictionary”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Kendyl A. Román (“Román CV”)
`List of Materials Considered by Kendyl A. Román (“Román List of
`Materials”)
`Curriculum Vitae of David Rho (“Rho CV”)
`List of Materials Considered by David Rho (“Rho List of Materials”)
`
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`
`viii
`
`0008
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners, TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, TD Ameritrade, Inc., and
`
`TD Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp. (“Petitioners” or “TD Ameritrade”) request
`
`Covered Business Method Review of claims 1-56 of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`(“’132 patent”) currently assigned to Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`(“TTI” or “Patent Owner”). The ’132 patent is provided as TDA 1001.
`
`Petitioners will demonstrate that it is more likely than not that all 56 claims
`
`of the ’132 patent are unpatentable. The purported novelty of the ’132 patent - “a
`
`graphical user interface for displaying the market depth of a commodity traded in a
`
`market” (’132 patent, 3:11-13) was well-known prior to the earliest possible
`
`priority date of the ’132 patent. For example, U.S. Patent No. 5,077,665 to
`
`Silverman, et al, filed more than a decade before the ’132 patent, described
`
`interfaces that displayed the market depth for a commodity. The additional claim
`
`limitations of the ’132 patent merely integrate well-known techniques and features
`
`of graphical user interface design into a financial trading system. The ’132 patent
`
`recognizes this, acknowledging that the “present invention processes this
`
`information [price, order and fill information from an exchange] and maps it
`
`through simple algorithms and mapping tables to positions in a theoretical grid
`
`program or any other comparable mapping technique for mapping data to a
`
`screen.” (’132 patent, 4:62-66.)(emphasis added) As set forth herein, and further
`
`explained by Petitioners’ expert, Kendyl Román, the claims of the ’132 patent
`
`1
`
`0009
`
`

`

`
`
`merely utilize well-known and simple graphical user interface design techniques in
`
`
`
`
`
`a financial trading product. Accordingly, Petitioners respectfully requests that the
`
`Board institute trial on the grounds set forth herein.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1))
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`The real parties-in-interest are TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., TD
`
`Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp., and TD Ameritrade, Inc. TD Ameritrade
`
`Holding Corp. is the parent of TD Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp. and TD
`
`Ameritrade, Inc. The corporate entity thinkorswim Group, Inc. (a defendant in TTI
`
`v. thinkorswim Group, Inc., 1:10-cv-00883 (N.D. Ill.)) no longer exists and was
`
`merged into its parent, TD Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)):
`The ’132 patent is involved in the following proceedings that may affect, or
`
`be affected by, a decision in this proceeding: GL Trade Americas v. TTI, 1:11-cv-
`
`01558 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. TradeHelm, Inc., 1:10-cv-00931 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. Open E
`
`Cry, LLC, et al., 1:10-cv-00885 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. thinkorswim Group, Inc., et al.,
`
`1:10-cv-00883 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. Tradestation Sec., Inc., et al., 1:10-cv-00884
`
`(N.D. Ill.); TTI v. Stellar Trading Sys., Ltd., et al., 1:10-cv-00882 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v.
`
`Cunningham Trading Sys., LLC, et al., 1:10-cv-00726 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. BGC
`
`Partners, Inc., 1:10-cv-00715 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. CQG, et al., 1:05-cv-04811 (N.D.
`
`2
`
`00010
`
`

`

`
`
`Ill.); TTI v. IBG LLC, et al., 1:10-cv-00721 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. FuturePath Trading,
`
`
`
`
`
`LLC, 1:05-cv-05164 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. GL Consultants, Inc., et al., 1:05-cv-04120;
`
`TTI v. BGC Partners, Inc., 1:10-cv-00715 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v.Rosenthal Collins
`
`Group, LLC v. TTI, et al., 1:05-cv-04088 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. FuturePath Trading
`
`LLC, 1:05-cv-05164 (N.D. Ill.); TTI, et al. v. eSpeed, Inc., 1:04-cv-05312 (N.D.
`
`Ill.); TTI v. Refco Group, Ltd. LLC, 1:05-cv-01079 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. Peregrine
`
`Financial Group, Inc., et al., 1:05-cv-04137 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. Patsystems NA LLC
`
`et al., 1:05-cv-02984 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. Man Group PLC, et al., 1:05-cv-02164
`
`(N.D. Ill.); TTI v. Orc Software, Inc., et al., 1:05-cv-06265 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v.
`
`Transmarket Group, LLC, 1:05-cv-05161 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. Strategy Runner, Ltd.,
`
`1:05-cv-04357 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. FFastFill PLC, et al., 1:05-cv-04449 (N.D. Ill.);
`
`TTI v. Rolfe and Nolan Systems, Inc., et al., 1:05-cv-04354 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. RTS
`
`Realtime Systems, Inc., et al., 1:05-cv-04332 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. Ninja Trader, LLC,
`
`1:05-cv-03953 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. Kingstree Trading, 1:04-cv-06740 (N.D. Ill.); TTI
`
`v. Goldenberg Hehmeyer, 1:04-cv-06278 (N.D. Ill.).
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)):
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a), Petitioners appoint Lori A.
`
`Gordon (Reg. No. 50,633) as its lead counsel and Robert E. Sokohl (Reg. No.
`
`36,013) as its back-up counsel, both at the address: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN
`
`& FOX, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005, phone number
`
`3
`
`00011
`
`

`

`
`
`(202)772-8997 and facsimile (202)371-2540
`
`
`
`
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`Petitioners consent to electronic service by email at the email addresses:
`
`lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com and rsokohl-PTAB@skgf.com.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a), TD Ameritrade and the undersigned
`
`certify that TD Ameritrade has standing, is not estopped or barred, and that the ’132
`
`patent is available for post-grant review.
`
`A. TD Ameritrade has standing
`
`TD Ameritrade certifies that it meets the eligibility requirements of 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.302 because TD Ameritrade, Inc. and TD Ameritrade Holding Corp were sued
`
`for infringement of the ’132 patent. TTI v. thinkorswim Group, Inc., 1:10-cv-00883
`
`(N.D. Ill.)
`
`B.
`
`TD Ameritrade is not estopped or barred
`
`TD Ameritrade certifies that it is not estopped or barred from filing this
`
`petition. TD Ameritrade has not been a party, or a privy to a party, in any post-grant
`
`proceeding of the ’132 patent, and has not filed a civil action challenging any
`
`claims of the ’132 patent
`
`C. The ‘132 Patent is a Covered Business Method
`
`The ’132 patent, titled “Click based trading with intuitive grid display of
`
`4
`
`00012
`
`

`

`
`
`market depth” is a covered business method patent because is not for a
`
`
`
`
`
`technological invention, but claims a method for trading financial instruments.
`
`1. The ’132 patent claims a covered business method.
`A patent that claims a method for performing data processing in the practice,
`
`administration or management of a financial product or service is a covered
`
`business method patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). In promulgating the final rules for
`
`CBM Review, the Office explained that that “financial product or service” should
`
`be “interpreted broadly,” encompassing patents “claiming activities that are
`
`financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a financial
`
`activity.” Transitional Program for CBM Patents—Definitions, 77 Fed. Reg. 48734,
`
`48735 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`The ‘132 patent meets this definition. It expressly claims placing a trade
`
`order for a commodity on an electronic exchange including displaying bids and
`
`asks in the market and selecting an area on a display to set parameters for the trade
`
`order and send the trade order to the electronic exchange. (’132 patent,
`
`independent claims 1, 8, and 14. ) Likewise, the patent describes a graphical user
`
`interface for trading such as that shown in FIGs. 3-5.
`
`D. The ’132 patent it not for a “technological invention”
`
`The ’132 patent is not for a technological invention because it does not solve
`
`a technical problem with a technical solution, but instead recites the ordinary
`
`5
`
`00013
`
`

`

`
`
`application of old and well-understood data display and graphical user interface
`
`
`
`
`
`techniques. A technological invention is determined by considering whether the
`
`claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technical feature that is novel and
`
`unobvious over the prior art, and solves a technical problem using a technical
`
`solution. 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b).
`
`As described in detail herein, the claims of the ’132 patent do not recite a
`
`technical feature that is novel or unobvious over the prior art, and do not solve a
`
`technical problem with a technical solution. Rather, they recite only well-
`
`understood, routine, and conventional steps of displaying market information
`
`graphically to a trader, who enters buy and sell orders, and sending the trader’s
`
`orders to the exchange to be executed.
`
`Further, the claims appear to have been crafted to recite software and only
`
`general computer components, such as a “dynamic display,” a “display device” and
`
`an “input device.” These components are not technologically novel or non-obvious.
`
`They are generic and are known technology. Even the specification of the ʼ132
`
`patent acknowledges that the alleged invention requires only a generic “computer or
`
`an electronic terminal … able to communicate either directly or indirectly … with
`
`[an] exchange.” (’132 patent, 3:64-4:2.) Congress did not intend a patent with such
`
`basic, well-known technology disclosures to be inoculated from a CBM review:
`
`“[The technological inventions exception] is not meant to
`
`6
`
`00014
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`exclude patents that use known technology to accomplish
`a business process or method of conducting business –
`whether or not that process or method appears to be
`novel. The technological invention exception is also not
`intended to exclude a patent simply because it recites
`technology. For example, the recitation of computer
`hardware, communication or computer networks,
`software, memory, computer-readable storage medium,
`scanners, display devices or databases, specialized
`machines, such as an ATM or point of sale device, or
`other known technologies, does not make a patent a
`technological invention. In other words, a patent is not a
`technological invention because it combines known
`technology in a new way to perform data processing
`operations.” 157 Cong. Rec. S1364 (daily ed. March 8,
`2011) (Sen. Schumer).
`
`The analysis could stop here, as the “technological invention” exception does
`
`not apply when even one prong of 37 C.F.R. §42.301(b) is not met. Regardless, the
`
`’132 patent also fails to satisfy the second prong of 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) because
`
`the claims do not solve a technical problem using a technical solution.
`
`There is no technical problem here. Instead, the claims of the ’132 patent are
`
`directed to placing a trade order for a commodity on an electronic exchange. Even
`
`the ’132 patent admits that at the time of filing least 60 exchanges throughout the
`
`world utilized electronic trading systems to trade stocks, bonds, futures and options,
`
`7
`
`00015
`
`

`

`
`
`and allowed traders to participate in the market. (’132 patent, 1:20-22 and 1:55-57.)
`
`
`
`
`
`Placing an order on the exchange is not a novel technical problem.
`
`The claims of the ’132 patent are not directed to a “technological invention.”
`
`The claims neither recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious nor do
`
`they solve a technical problem using a technical solution. Accordingly, the ’132
`
`patent is a CBM patent eligible for review under 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b).
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`Statutory grounds for the challenge
`A.
`TD Ameritrade requests review of claims 1-56 on eight grounds: Ground 1:
`
`Claims 1-56 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ground 2: Claims 1-56 are
`
`indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because “the market” lacks
`
`proper antecedent basis. Ground 3: Claims 1-3, 5-8, 9, 10, 13-16, 18-20, 22, 23,
`
`25-28, 30, 32, 33, 35-38, 40, 41-43, 45-48, and 50-56 are obvious over Silverman in
`
`view of Gutterman in view of Togher. Ground 4: Claims 4, 11, and 17 are obvious
`
`over Silverman in view of Gutterman, Togher, and May. Ground 5: Claims 24,
`
`34, and 44 are obvious over Silverman in view of Gutterman, Togher, and Paal.
`
`Ground 6: Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-15, 16, 19-22, 25, 27-28, 30-32, 35, 37-38, 40-42,
`
`45, 47-48, 50-54 and 56 are obvious over TSE in view of Togher. Ground 7:
`
`Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 18, 19, 23, 26, 33, 36, 43, 46 and 55 are obvious over TSE,
`
`Togher, and Gutterman. Ground 8: Claims 4, 11, and 17 are obvious over TSE,
`
`8
`
`00016
`
`

`

`
`
`Togher, and May.
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Citation of Prior Art
`In support of the grounds of unpatentability cited above, TD Ameritrade cites
`
`the following prior art references:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,077,665 to Silverman et al. (“Silverman”) issued on
`
`December 31, 1991. Silverman qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`because it issued more than one year prior to the earliest possible priority of the
`
`’132 patent. Silverman is provided as TDA 1007.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al. (“Gutterman”) issued on
`
`March 22, 1994. Gutterman qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because
`
`it issued more than one year prior to the earliest possible priority of the ’132 patent.
`
`Gutterman is provided as TDA 1008.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,375,055 to Togher et al. (“Togher”) issued on December
`
`20, 1994. Togher qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it issued
`
`more than one year prior to the earliest possible priority of the ’132 patent. Togher
`
`is provided as TDA 1009.
`
`Futures/ Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation Guide
`
`(“TSE”) “System for Buying and Selling Futures and Options Transaction
`
`Terminal Operational Guidelines,” a Tokyo Stock Exchange publication, is prior art
`
`9
`
`00017
`
`

`

`
`
`under § 102(a) because it was published in August of 1998 by giving two copies to
`
`
`
`
`
`each of the about 200 participants in the Tokyo Stock Exchange. (See Depo. Letter,
`
`p. 2; Depo. Transcript, pp. 0012-33.)1 The participants were free to do whatever
`
`they wanted with their copies of this publication. (Depo. Letter, p. 2; Depo.
`
`Transcript, p. 0015.) Because this reference was published in Japanese, Petitioners
`
`also submit TSE, which is a certified translation of this Tokyo Stock Exchange
`
`publication. (TSE Translation and TSE Certification) (TDA 1014 and 1015.) For
`
`the Board’s convenience, all citations are to the English-language TSE, TDA 1013,
`
`but the corresponding pages in the original-language document may be easily found
`
`by turning to the same page/Bates number in TDA 1012.
`
`IV. THE ʼ132 PATENT
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, would
`
`have had the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree or higher in computer science and at
`
`least 2 years working experience designing graphical user interfaces, and direct or
`
`indirect experience with trading or related systems. (Román Decl.2 ¶ 56.)
`
`
`1 Deposition Letter is provided as TDA 1015. Deposition Transcript is
`
`provided as TDA 1016.
`
`2 The Declaration of Kendyl Román is provided as TDA 1005.
`
`10
`
`00018
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Claim construction
`Except as set forth herein, the claim terms of the ’132 patent carry their
`
`ordinary and customary meanings under the broadest reasonable interpretation as
`
`would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Single Action: The specification provides a definition for this term: “Any
`
`action by a user within a short period of time, whether comprising one or more
`
`clicks of a mouse button or other input device, is considered a single action of the
`
`user for the purposes of the present invention.” (’132 patent, 4:15-20, emphasis
`
`added.) (Román Decl. ¶ 70.)
`
`Working Order: The specification does not provide a definition for the term
`
`“working order.” However, a PHOSITA would understand, in view of the ’132
`
`specification, that a working order is an order that is on the market, but, in whole or
`
`in part has not been filled. (’132 patent, 7:60-63.)(“[t]he number next to W
`
`indicates the number of the trader's ordered lots that are in the market, but have not
`
`been filled—i.e. the system is working on filling the order.”) (Rho Decl.3 ¶ 21.)
`
`Dynamic Display: The specification does not explicitly define this term.
`
`However, the specification does explain that a trader can “add or subtract a preset
`
`quantity for the quantities outstanding in the market.” (’132 patent, 9:55-56.) In
`
`this case, quantities in the Bid or Ask columns would be updated, but not move.
`
`3 The Declaration of David Rho is provided as TDA 1006.
`
`11
`
`00019
`
`

`

`
`
`(See id. at 10:18-27.) The specification also explains that “[t]he values in the Bid
`
`
`
`
`
`and Ask columns … are dynamic; that is, they move up and down … to reflect the
`
`market depth for the given commodity.” (Id. at 7:48-51.) Thus, dynamically
`
`displaying a field is changing a characteristic (e.g., updating) and/or location
`
`(moving) of a displayed field. (Román Decl. ¶ 71.)
`
`V. GROUNDS OF REJECTION
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-56 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`In Mayo v. Prometheus, the Supreme Court explained that abstract ideas are
`
`not patentable, and that adding “steps consist[ing] of well-understood, routine,
`
`conventional activity . . . [that] add nothing significant” to the abstract idea does not
`
`render it patentable. Mayo Collaborative v. Prometheus Labs., 132 S. Ct. 1289,
`
`1298 (2012). Likewise, simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer or
`
`limiting it to a field of use is not a “patentable application” of that abstract idea. Id.
`
`at 1301; see also Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d
`
`1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Once an abstract idea has been identified, the key
`
`inquiry for patent eligibility is whether the abstract idea is preempted. In order to
`
`determine whether the abstract idea is preempted, the balance of the claim is
`
`evaluated to determine whether “additional substantive limitations . . . narrow,
`
`confine, or otherwise tie down the claim so that, in practical terms, it does not cover
`
`the full abstract idea