UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`__________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`__________
`
`
`
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC. and
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`__________
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`___________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`SERVED ON OCTOBER 29, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No 41919-0005CP1
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Petitioner objects as follows to the
`
`admissibility of the evidence served by Patent Owner on October 29, 2015:
`
`Evidence
`PowerPoint
`Presentation entitled
`“Patent Eligible Subject
`Matter.”
`(Exhibit 2092)
`
`Declaration of David F.
`Anthony in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2059)
`
`Objections
`FRE 901 (Authentication): Petitioner objects to
`Exhibit 2092 as lacking proper authentication. Exhibit
`2092 is a PowerPoint Presentation, prepared by an
`unidentified author, that Patent Owner asserts was also
`submitted in a previous district court litigation. Patent
`Owner has not established these documents as self-
`authenticating, nor has Patent Owner authenticated
`these documents, for example, by testimony from a
`witness with personal knowledge that the documents
`are what they are claim to be.
`
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): Petitioner further objects to
`Exhibit 2092 as inadmissible hearsay. The entirety of
`Exhibit 2092 is an out of court statement offered prove
`the truth of several statements asserted by the Patent
`Owner relating to U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304.
`
`Improper legal argument: Patent Owner is
`improperly relying on an exhibit to make a legal
`argument.
`
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`
`1
`
`

`
`Declaration of Pace
`Beattie in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2060)
`
`Declaration of Thomas
`Burns in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2061)
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No 41919-0005CP1
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Declaration of Ray
`Cahnman in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2062)
`
`Declaration of David
`Clark in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2063)
`
`Declaration of David
`Ellis in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No 41919-0005CP1
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`
`3
`
`

`
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2064)
`
`Declaration of David
`Feltes in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2065)
`
`Declaration of Steve
`Gancer in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2066)
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No 41919-0005CP1
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No 41919-0005CP1
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`
`5
`
`Declaration of Brian
`Gelber in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2067)
`
`Declaration of Joel
`Glickman in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2068)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Tom
`Grisafi in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2069)
`
`Declaration of Steven
`[sic] Janho in Support
`of Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2070)
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No 41919-0005CP1
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`
`6
`
`

`
`Declaration of Paul R.T.
`Johnson, Jr. in Support
`of Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2071)
`
`Declaration of Scott L.
`Johnston in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2072)
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No 41919-0005CP1
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Declaration of Corbin
`E. Kidd in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2073)
`
`Declaration of Patrick
`Leone in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2074)
`
`Declaration of Dieter
`Marlovics in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No 41919-0005CP1
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`
`8
`
`

`
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2075)
`
`Declaration of David B.
`Martin, Jr. in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2076)
`
`Declaration of Charles
`L. McElveen, III in
`Support of Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary
`Response to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2077)
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No 41919-0005CP1
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No 41919-0005CP1
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`
`10
`
`Declaration of Pablo
`Melgarejo in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2078)
`
`Declaration of Mark A.
`Mendelson in Support
`of Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2079)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Doug
`Monieson in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2080)
`
`Declaration of Rob
`Moore in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2081)
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No 41919-0005CP1
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`
`11
`
`

`
`Declaration of Peter
`Moricz in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2082)
`
`Declaration of Jason
`Northway in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2083)
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No 41919-0005CP1
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`
`12
`
`

`
`Declaration of Mark
`Oryhon in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2084)
`
`Declaration of Arthur
`Parker in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2085)
`
`Declaration of Chuck
`Ryan in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No 41919-0005CP1
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`
`13
`
`

`
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2086)
`
`Declaration of
`Lawrence Schulman in
`Support of Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary
`Response to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2087)
`
`Declaration of Russell
`A. Warner in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`to Petition.
`(Exhibit 2088)
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No 41919-0005CP1
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No 41919-0005CP1
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the claims over prior art is not relevant
`to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`FRE 802 (Hearsay): The statements in the declaration
`cited in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are
`inadmissible hearsay. Patent owner offers this
`declaration “for its truth” because it cited the
`declaration in support of a statement that traders
`benefited from the improvements realized by the
`purported GUI design. Because Patent Owner has not
`identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`statements in the declaration, the declaration
`constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the
`declaration is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the statements in the
`declaration about the advantages of the commercial
`embodiment of the