`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2290
`IBG ET AL. v. TRADING TECH
`CBM2015-00181
`
`
`
`Feb 17 2004«8:24PH
`
`Trading Technologies
`
`'‘24761169
`
`02/17/2004 11:14 ml 312144.409
`
`Jacxsotr WALKER LLP
`
`Applicatlonlcontrol Number: 09894.63?
`Art Unit: 3324
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`The following is an eureminers statement of reasons for allowance. The tollowlng
`1.
`is an examiners statement of reasons tor allowance; This statement of reasons for
`allowance includes the major differences in the claims not found in the prior art at record
`and reasons why that differences are considered to define patentably over the prior art.
`
`The statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all
`the details why claims are allowed and should not be relied upon for this purpose.
`Rather, this statement reflect: what the examiner considers important andtherefore the
`
`primary reasons for the allowance of the claims.
`
`The primary reason for allowance is the imitation directed to the ‘dynamic
`
`deploy’ of a plurality of the quantity of bids and asks aligned with a ‘static display‘ at
`
`display of prices is just that.
`corresponding prices. Here, unlike the prior art. the
`static, and does not move In response to a change in the inside market with this
`display of market depth, claimed in each or the independent claims. a trader places a
`
`trade order with the pointer in the area of the order entry region of the dynamic market
`depth region, through a single computer implemented action, see Figrees 3 and 4. For
`example, in figure 3. a oliclc on Bid 0 18 will send an order to the market to sell 17 lots
`
`or the commodity at a price of B9.
`
`The closest prior art including us Patent 6.408.282, PCT W0 01I16852 and
`
`commonly owned non-patent literature ‘X Trader‘ (see. applicants response to
`
`USPTO's requestfor infonnetion) all lack this feature. The PTO also inquired as to the
`
`suhiect matter ot alleged intrlngement referenced in applicant's petition to make special
`
`BBIISLBEIE
`
`.|..|.
`
`Nd8tr=€
`
`9003 BI
`
`‘'13:!
`
`ELLIS 00949
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`Feb 17 2004 6:2-wn, Trading Technologies
`oz/1112004 mu FAX 97z7u..-a9
`Jacxsou ulnk LL?
`
`Appllcat|on.'Contro| Number. o9:a94.ea7
`Ari Unit: 3624
`
`~ne4‘-7344395.
`
`moor
`
`Pace 3
`
`in retaied case SN 09590592. The USPTO found no widenoe of pxbiic use or any
`printed pubilcation of the system known as J Trader. the subbed matter of potsnfiai
`irlringament and the applicant's basis for his petition to make special. earliev than
`November 6, 2000. Theretora. the USPTO has concluded that the system known as J
`
`Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submhted no later
`2
`than the payment of the issue fee and. to avoid processing delays. should preferably
`accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be cleany Eahelad ‘Comments on
`
`Statemem of Reasons forlallowance.’
`
`By.
`
`Richard Waisberger
`
`ZBIISLAIIZIB
`
`1.1.
`
`I-ldtv‘lr38 #003 BI
`
`‘Had
`
`ELLIS 00950
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`Feb 172054 5:24PM Trading Technologies
`02/17/_20¢l 17:14 FAX I'l27I$..d0B
`JACKSON VALKEII LLP
`
`"2-4761169
`
`Applicatlonlcontroi Number. 091594.637
`Ari Unit: 3524
`
`2BII9Lb2IE
`
`11
`
`Hd#b=E vooa BI was
`
`ELLIS 00951
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 4