UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IBG LLC;
`INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC;
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.;
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.;
`TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and
`IBFX, Inc.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`Patent No. 7,676,411 B2
`____________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IBG LLC;
`INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC;
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.;
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.;
`TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and
`IBFX, Inc.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`Patent No. 7,676,411 B2
`____________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 B2
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Relief Requested .............................................................................................. 1
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`III. The Board should have decided to institute review on the asserted grounds
`that claims 1-28 are obvious over the Silverman combinations. ..................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Board misapprehended the Petition’s footnote 3, believing it
`addresses the “moving” limitations. ...................................................... 3
`
`The Board overlooked key arguments in the Petition that the
`combination of Silverman and Gutterman teaches the “moving”
`limitations. ............................................................................................. 3
`
`IV. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Relief Requested
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 B2
`
`Petitioners respectfully ask the Board to reconsider its decision to not
`
`institute covered business method review of Grounds 2 and 3 in the Petition. The
`
`Board overlooked the section in the Petition that addresses the disputed limitations,
`
`and misapprehended a footnote in the Petition that relates to different limitations.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction
`
`Petitioners petitioned (Paper 7, “Pet.”) for covered business method review
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’411 patent”), owned by Trading
`
`Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”), on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
` Claims
`§ 101
`1 1-28
`2 1-10, 12-28 § 103: Silverman (Ex. 1003), Gutterman (Ex. 1004), Belden (Ex.
`1009), Togher (Ex. 1005)
`§ 103: Silverman, Gutterman, Belden, Togher, and Paal (Ex.
`1018)
`§ 103: TSE (Ex. 1006/1007), Belden, and Togher
`
`4 1-28
`
`Pet. at 7-9. In its March 7, 2016 Decision on Institution (Paper 26, “Decision”), the
`
`3 11
`
`Board instituted review of Grounds 1 and 4, but denied instituting review of
`
`Grounds 2 and 3. Decision at 21-22. Petitioners seek rehearing of the Board’s
`
`decision to not institute review under § 103 based on the Silverman combinations
`
`(i.e., Grounds 2 and 3).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`III. The Board should have decided to institute review on the asserted
`grounds that claims 1-28 are obvious over the Silverman combinations.
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’411 patent requires:
`
`upon receipt of market information comprising a new highest bid
`[lowest ask] price, moving the first [second] indicator relative to the
`price axis to a second graphical location of the plurality of graphical
`locations in the bid [ask] display region, the second graphical location
`corresponding to a price level of the plurality of price levels
`associated with the new highest bid [lowest ask] price, wherein the
`second graphical location is different from the first graphical location
`in the bid [ask] display region.
`
`’411 patent, 12:48-56, 12:65-13:6 (the “moving” limitations).
`
`Independent claim 26 requires similar limitations. Id. at 15:5-13, 15:22-16:6.
`
`The Petition relied on the combination of Silverman and Gutterman to meet the
`
`“moving” limitations. Pet. at 41-43 (“the combination GUI of Silverman and
`
`Gutterman”). The Petition addressed the moving limitations in Section VI(G)(5).
`
`Id. The Board erred when it denied instituting review of claims 1-28 based on the
`
`Silverman combinations (i.e., Grounds 2 and 3) because it misapprehended the
`
`Petition as relying on Gutterman alone to disclose these limitations, Decision at
`
`22, and overlooked key arguments in the Petition that the combination of
`
`Silverman and Gutterman teaches the “moving” limitations, Pet. at 41-43.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`A. The Board misapprehended the Petition’s footnote 3, believing it
`addresses the “moving” limitations.
`
`Section VI(G)(4) of the Petition address the “dynamically displaying”
`
`limitations of claims 1 and 26. Pet. at 40-41. This section includes footnote 3,
`
`which is also directed to the “dynamically displaying” limitations and discusses
`
`certain positions that TT took during prosecution of a related patent. Id. The
`
`Decision correctly noted that footnote 3 states: “Gutterman discloses the
`
`movement of bid/asks along a price axis.” Decision at 21-22; Pet. at 41.
`
`The Decision misapprehended this statement in footnote 3 as addressing the
`
`“moving” limitations. It does not. The Petition addresses the “moving” limitations
`
`in Section VI(G)(5), which explains that the combination of Silverman and
`
`Gutterman teaches the “moving” limitations. Pet. at 41-43.
`
`B.
`
`The Board overlooked key arguments in the Petition that the
`combination of Silverman and Gutterman teaches the “moving”
`limitations.
`
`The Petition relied on the “combination GUI of Silverman and Gutterman”
`
`to meet the “moving” limitations of claims 1 and 26 of the ’411 patent. Pet. at 41-
`
`43. Beginning with Silverman, the Petition explains that Silverman teaches (1)
`
`updating keystation books using broadcast messages and (2) displaying, at the
`
`keystations, the best inside price (highest bid and lowest ask) together with the
`
`quantity bid or offered at these prices. Id. at 42. Based on these teachings, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition (supported by Expert Kendyl Roman) reasons a “POSA would have
`
`understood that Silverman’s keystations are updated to receive and display ‘market
`
`information comprising a new highest bid[/lowest ask] price.” Id.
`
`The Petition next explains that Gutterman’s GUI “displays bids/asks at
`
`graphical locations aligned with a price axis in bid/ask display regions,” and cites
`
`Gutterman, 12:1-56 and FIG. 2b. Id. FIG. 2b of Gutterman (reproduced below and
`
`is also reproduced on page 28 of the Petition) illustrates Gutterman’s GUI, which
`
`displays bids and asks along a price axis. The Petition explains that Gutterman’s
`
`GUI “can be updated automatically as new orders are placed.” Id. (citing
`
`Gutterman, 11:14-17).
`
` So based on Silverman’s teachings of updating and always displaying the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`best inside price together with the quantity bid or offered at these prices at the
`
`keystations and Gutterman’s teachings of displaying bids and asks along a price
`
`axis and automatically updating the display as new orders are placed, the Petition
`
`reasons that the “moving” limitations would have been obvious to a POSA. Pet. at
`
`42-43. In other words, the combination GUI of Silverman and Gutterman would
`
`always display the best inside price along a price axis. And when it receives a new
`
`best inside price, the indicators associated with the new best inside price would be
`
`displayed at their appropriate price level(s)—i.e., move along the price axis.
`
` The Board completely overlooked these arguments. Like Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response, the Decision considered the references in isolation, not as a
`
`combination. Finding that Gutterman alone fails to disclose the “moving”
`
`limitations, the Decision denied instituting trial on Grounds 2 and 3 of the Petition.
`
`Decision at 21-22. But since the Petition argued that the “combination GUI of
`
`Silverman and Gutterman” discloses the “moving” limitations, and the Board
`
`overlooked these arguments in its Decision, Petitioners respectfully request
`
`reconsideration and institution of Grounds 2 and 3 of the Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For these reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that the Board grant this
`
`Request and institute review of claims 1-10 and 12-28 as obvious over Silverman,
`
`Gutterman, Belden, and Togher (Ground 2), and of claim 11 as obvious over
`
`Silverman, Gutterman, Belden, Togher, and Paal (Ground 3).
`
`
`Date: March 21, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Richard M. Bemben #68658/
`
`
`Robert E. Sokohl, Reg. No. 36,013
`Lori A. Gordon, Reg. No. 50,633
`Richard M. Bemben, Reg. No. 68,658
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 B2
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`As required by 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.205(a)), the undersigned hereby
`
`certifies that the foregoing PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`was served on March 21, 2016, in its entirety via email on the following:
`
`Erika H. Arner, Reg. No. 57,540
`Joshua L. Goldberg, Reg. No. 59,369
`Kevin D. Rodkey, Reg. No. 65,506
`Rachel L. Emsley, Reg. No. 63,558
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com
`rachel.emsley@finnegan.com
`Trading-Tech-CBM@finnegan.com
`
`Steven F. Borsand
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`tt-patent-cbm@tradingtechnologies.com
`
`
`
`
`Date: March 21, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Richard M. Bemben #68658/
`
`
`Robert E. Sokohl, Reg. No. 36,013
`Lori A. Gordon, Reg. No. 50,633
`Richard M. Bemben, Reg. No. 68,658
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`2785956_1.DOCX
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
