`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 7,676,411
`___________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`The ’411 claims a patent-ineligible abstract idea. ........................................... 1 
`
`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`I. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Placing an order based on observed (plotted) market information,
`as well as updating market information is abstract. .............................. 1 
`
`The claims do not transform the abstract concept into inventive
`concept. .................................................................................................. 6 
`
`C. 
`
`The claims are patent-ineligible because they cover signals. ............... 8 
`
`II. 
`
`Claim construction ........................................................................................... 9 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`“order entry region”............................................................................... 9 
`
`“single action” limitations ..................................................................... 9 
`
`“entered order indicator” ....................................................................... 9 
`
`“re-centering command” ....................................................................... 9 
`
`III.  The challenged claims are obvious over the TSE combinations. .................. 10 
`
`A. 
`
`TSE is a prior art printed publication. ................................................. 10 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Unrebutted evidence establishes that TSE was actually
`disseminated to the interested public in August 1998. ............. 10 
`
`TSE was otherwise publicly available based on its wide,
`unrestricted distribution to the interested public. ..................... 12 
`
`B. 
`
`The challenged claims are obvious. .................................................... 14 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Claims 1 and 26 are obvious over the TSE-Belden-Togher
`combination ............................................................................... 14 
`
`Claims 9-10 are obvious over the TSE-Belden-Togher
`combination. .............................................................................. 15 
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`Claim 11 is obvious over the TSE-Belden-Togher
`combination. .............................................................................. 15 
`
`The Petition establishes prima facie obviousness of claims 9,
`10, 22, and 23. ........................................................................... 16 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`IV.  TT’s alleged secondary considerations fail to show that the challenged
`claims are nonobvious. .................................................................................. 17 
`
`A. 
`
`The Petition presents a strong prima facie obviousness showing,
`which TT’s evidence cannot overcome. .............................................. 17 
`
`B. 
`
`TT fails to establish the requisite nexus, which is a fatal flaw. .......... 18 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`TT’s POR doesn’t establish a nexus. ........................................ 19 
`
`TT isn’t entitled to a presumption of nexus. ............................. 20 
`
`TT fails to establish a nexus because the alleged secondary
`considerations result from unclaimed/known features. ............ 21 
`
`TT reuses evidence offered in supported of different
`inventions without making any attempt to tie any of this
`evidence specifically to the claims at issue here. ..................... 22 
`
`C. 
`
`TT’s evidence doesn’t support the alleged secondary
`considerations. ..................................................................................... 23 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`TT’s global revenue and units sold fails to establish that MD
`Trader was commercially successful. ....................................... 23 
`
`TT’s licenses resulted from litigation. ...................................... 25 
`
`TT conflates copying with competing products that allegedly
`fall within the claims. ................................................................ 27 
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`TT’s proffered praise for MD Trader isn’t from a competitor
`and is directed to unclaimed features. ....................................... 28 
`
`TT admits that there was no long-felt need. ............................. 29 
`
`TT presents no evidence that others tried and failed to make
`the claimed invention. ............................................................... 29 
`
`TT’s other alleged secondary considerations are either
`unsupported or simply not relevant. ......................................... 30 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`V. 
`
`The ’411 is eligible for CBM review. ........................................................... 31 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ....................................................................................... 1, 6, 7
`
`Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
`133 S.Ct. 2107 (2013) ................................................................................................ 8
`
`BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`Appeal No. 15-1763 (Fed.Cir. June 27, 2016)........................................................... 7
`
`CLS Bank Intl. v. Alice Corp,
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed.Cir. 2013) ................................................................................... 5
`
`Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
`848 F.2d 1560 (Fed.Cir. 1988) ................................................................................. 13
`
`Cooper Cameron Corp. v. Kvaerner Oilfield Products, Inc.,
`291 F.3d 1317 (Fed.Cir. 2002) ................................................................................. 11
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed.Cir. 2011) ............................................................................... 2, 5
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed.Cir. 2014) ................................................................................... 4
`
`DeSilva v. DiLeonardi,
`181 F.3d 865 (Fed.Cir. 1999) ................................................................................... 19
`
`Digitech Image Tech. LLC v. Elec. for Imaging, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed.Cir. 2014) ................................................................................... 8
`
`Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom S.A.,
`Appeal No. 2015-1778 (Fed.Cir. Aug. 1, 2016) ............................................. 2, 3,5, 8
`
`Enfish ,LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed.Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 2, 4, 5
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP,
`812 F.3d 1023 (Fed.Cir. 2016) ................................................................................. 25
`
`EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc.,
`755 F.2d 898 (Fed.Cir. 1985) ............................................................................. 25, 26
`
`Graftech Int’l Holdings, Inc. v. Laird Tech’s Inc.,
`2016 WL 3357427 (Fed.Cir. Jun. 17, 2016) ............................................................ 22
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule
`Patent Litigation,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed.Cir. 2012) ................................................................................. 29
`
`In re Huang,
`100 F.3d 135 (Fed.Cir. 1996) ....................................................................... 23-24, 31
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed.Cir. 2015) ................................................................................... 6
`
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`545 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir. 2008) ................................................................................. 13
`
`Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed.Cir. 2007) ................................................................................. 17
`
`LendingTree LLC v. Zillow, Inc.,
`--F.3d-- (Fed.Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................. 3
`
`Line Rothman v. Target Corp.,
`556 F.3d 1310 (Fed.Cir. 2009) ................................................................................. 17
`
`In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
`800 F.2d 1091 (Fed.Cir. 1986) ..................................................................... 14, 18, 21
`
`Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Svcs.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed.Cir. 2016) ............................................................................... 3, 6
`
`Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Railway, Ltd.,
`357 F.3d 1319 (Fed.Cir. 2004) ................................................................................. 29
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`
`Novo Nordisk A/S v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories., Ltd.,
`719 F.3d 1346 (Fed.Cir. 2013) ................................................................................. 23
`
`Petroleum Geo-Services v. WesternGeco LLC,
`Case IPR2014-00688, Paper 101 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2015) ........................................ 19
`
`Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc.,
`599 F.3d 1343 (Fed.Cir. 2010) ................................................................................. 28
`
`SciMed Life Sys v. Advanced Cardiovascular,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed.Cir. 2001) ................................................................................... 9
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed.Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................... 8
`
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Sols., Inc.,
`698 F.3d 1374 (Fed.Cir. 2012) ................................................................................. 13
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`2016 WL 3902668 (Fed.Cir. Jul. 19, 2016) ............................................................. 20
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
` 616 F.3d 1231 (Fed.Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 18, 27
`
`
`
`
`Regulations:
`
`37 C.F.R. 42.6(a)(3) ................................................................................................. 19
`37 C.F.R. 42.301(a) .................................................................................................. 31
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 to Kemp, II et al. (“’411 patent”)
`File History of Application Ser. No. 11/585,907, which became the
`’411 patent, as filed and obtained from PAIR (“’411 Patent File
`History”)
`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”)
`“Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation
`Guide,” Tokyo Stock Exchange (“TSE JP”)
`Certified Translation of “Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading
`Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE”)
`Certificate of Translation for “Futures/Option Purchasing System
`Trading Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE Certificate”)
`WO 90/11571 to Belden et al. (“Belden”)
`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 (“Kawashima Depo. Tr.”)
`Petition to Make Special Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.102(d) for Ser. No.
`09/590,692, filed August 21, 2000 (“Petition to Make Special”)
`Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132, Control
`No. 90/011,250, filed September 22, 2010 (“Reexam Request”)
`Order Denying Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`6,772,132, Control No. 90/011,250, mailed December 14, 2010
`(“Order Denying Reexam”)
`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”)
`
`Exh. No.
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`Exh. No.
`1016
`
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`
`1026
`1027
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`Description
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 2002, page 150
`(“Microsoft Computer Dictionary”)
`Robert Deel, “The Strategic Electronic Day Trader,” 2000 (“Deel”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,263,134 to Paal et al. (“Paal”)
`Declaration of Kendyl A. Román (“Román Decl.”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Kendyl A. Román (“Román CV”)
`List of Materials Considered by Kendyl A. Román (“Román List of
`Materials”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,408,282 to Buist (“Buist”)
`Declaration of David Rho (“Rho Decl.”)
`Curriculum Vitae of David Rho (“Rho CV”)
`List of Materials Considered by David Rho (“Rho List of
`Materials”)
`Weiss, “After the Trade is Made,” pp. 44-46. (“Weiss”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,960,411 to Hartman et al. (“Hartman”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00133, Paper 18 (“POPR”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00133, Paper 19 (“Ins. Dec.”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00133, Paper 29 (“Reh’g Dec.”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00133, Paper 32 (“POR”)
`Redacted Second Corrected Expert Report of Christopher Thomas,
`Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., Case No.
`1:05-CV-04811 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2013) (“Thomas Report”)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Christopher Thomas, April 28, 2015
`(“Thomas Tr.”)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Christopher Thomas, Trading
`Technologies International, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc. et al., No. 04-cv-
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`Exh. No.
`
`Description
`
`5312 (“eSpeed Tr.”)
`Trading Techs. Int’l v. CQG, No. 05-cv-4811, slip op. at 10 (N.D.
`Ill. Feb. 24, 2015)
`Inside Macintosh, Promotional Edition, Apple Computer, Inc., 1985
`(“Inside Macintosh”)
`Valerie Illingworth, and I.C. Pyle, Dictionary of Computing, 4th Ed,
`Oxford University Press, 1996 (“Oxford Dictionary”)
`Declaration of Adam Kessel in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Email Correspondence of April 5, 2016
`Email Correspondence of April 12-13, 2016
`Teleconference in CBM2015-00179 of March 23, 2016
`Transcript of Teleconference, May 2, 2016
`Transcript of Teleconference, June 6, 2016
`Intentionally left blank
`Intentionally left blank
`New York Times, “Futures/Options; Automation in Trading,”
`December 10, 1984
`Intex Trading Screen
`Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Strategic Plan (2007-
`2012
`CBM2015-00182 (’132 patent) Patent Owner Exhibit List
`CBM2015-00161 (’304 patent) Patent Owner Exhibit List
`Deposition Transcript of Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`CONFIDENTIAL Deposition Transcript of Christopher H. Thomas
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`1040
`1041
`1042
`1043
`1044
`1045
`1046
`
`1047
`1048
`
`1049
`1050
`1051
`1052
`
`
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`The ’411 patent is unpatentable under §§ 101 and 103. The claims perish
`
`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`under Alice because they recite an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept.
`
`Indeed, TT fails to identify any inventive concept.
`
`The claims are also obvious over the prior art. TT’s main theories of
`
`patentability are that TSE isn’t prior art and that secondary considerations
`
`demonstrate nonobviousness. Both theories fail.
`
`I.
`
`The ’411 claims a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
`
`The ’411 patent doesn’t claim patent-eligible subject-matter. (Paper7
`
`(“Petition”) 14-24; Paper24 (“Decision”) 20.) TT responds by arguing that the
`
`claims recite the structure, makeup, and functionality of a GUI tool rather than an
`
`abstract idea. (Paper76 (“POR”) 4.) It next argues that the claim elements together
`
`recite an inventive concept satisfying part two of Alice. Both arguments fail.
`
`A.
`
`Placing an order based on observed (plotted) market information,
`as well as updating market information is abstract.
`
`As set forth in the Petition, the patent claims are directed to placing an order
`
`based on observed (plotted) market information, as well as updating market
`
`information. (Petition, 14.) They aren’t limited to any particular method or any
`
`particular graphical user interface (“GUI”). Reduced to their base, the claims
`
`amount to nothing more than organizing market information in a graphical format.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`TT contends that the claims aren’t abstract because they recite “the structure,
`
`make-up, and functionality” of an innovative “GUI tool.” (See, POR, 4, 9-13.) This
`
`description is inaccurate, an overgeneralization, and “untethered from the language
`
`of the claims.” Cf. Enfish ,LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 4117, 1337 (Fed.Cir.
`
`2016). And Thomas couldn’t even identify the alleged structure, make-up, and
`
`functionality of the claims. (Ex.1052, 373:18-379:11.)
`
`Claim 1 simply recites steps for displaying market information of a
`
`commodity relative to a price axis, an order entry region relative to the price axis,
`
`and selecting a particular area in the order entry region to both “set a price” and
`
`“send the order having a default quantity to the electronic exchange” in response to
`
`user input. The claims don’t recite a “tool” or any other structure for performing
`
`the steps of displaying, selecting, setting and sending. And the claimed method
`
`doesn’t improve a computer or address any technological problems. These
`
`claims—which merely rearrange and display information—aren’t patentable. See
`
`Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom S.A., Appeal No. 2015-1778, slip op. at 9
`
`(Fed.Cir. Aug. 1, 2016); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d
`
`1366, 1375 (Fed.Cir. 2011).
`
`The CAFC’s recent decision in Electric Power compels the conclusion that
`
`the claims recite ineligible subject-matter. In that case, the CAFC found the
`
`claims-at-issue failed §101 analysis because they did “not go beyond requiring the
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field,
`
`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means
`
`for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional
`
`computer and network technology.” Electric Power, slip op. at 2. Likewise, the
`
`claims merely recite the display of information in the financial markets field
`
`without limiting them to any technical means. (See, ’411, 4:8-12.)
`
`TT accuses Petitioner and the Board of “overgeneralizing” the claims. (POR,
`
`5-7.) However, the CAFC regularly articulates a claim’s abstract ideas in succinct
`
`terms without explicitly giving effect to every limitation when evaluating the
`
`patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter. See, Lending Tree LLC v. Zillow,
`
`Inc., --F.3d-- (Fed.Cir. 2016)(reducing a method claim of 11 steps (361 words) to a
`
`two-word abstract idea: “coordinating loans”); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First
`
`Choice Loan Svcs., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed.Cir. 2016)(“anonymous loan
`
`shopping”). In each of the foregoing cases, plus many others, the court reduced a
`
`lengthy patent claim to a few words that encapsulated its focus.
`
`TT also argues that the claims “improve[] the functioning of the computer.”
`
`(POR, 7-9.) This argument falls flat in view of the facts here. The claimed steps of
`
`“displaying” market information (e.g., indicators relating to quantities associated
`
`with bid and ask prices), displaying an order entry region, selecting a particular
`
`area of in the order entry region via a single action to both “set a price for the
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`trade” and “send the trade order having a default quantity to the electronic
`
`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`exchange,” in no way make the computer run faster, more efficiently, use less
`
`energy, or operate in any other advantageous manner. TT’s experts admit as much.
`
`(Ex.1051, 57:18-58:13; Ex.1052, 393-397.)
`
`The CAFC in DDR and Enfish. are inapposite. In both DDR and Enfish, the
`
`claimed methods sought to solve problems concerning the inner workings of a
`
`computer or network. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,
`
`1257 (Fed.Cir. 2014)(“[T]he claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer
`
`technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of
`
`computer networks.”); Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339 (claims directed to “a specific type
`
`of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data
`
`in memory”). Rather, the only purported problem in the case of the ‘411 was that,
`
`within a trading screen, one market indicator (inside market) remained static while
`
`another market indicator (prices) moved up or down, thereby supposedly causing
`
`traders to sometimes “miss their price.” But that problem was merely a
`
`consequence of how different traders chose to view market data on the trading
`
`screen.
`
`TT argues that the claims are “undoubtedly not abstract” and analogize its
`
`claims to physical entities. (POR, 9-10.) This argument also fails for several
`
`reasons. First, TT’s claims don’t recite a “physical entity,” or even a “GUI,” but
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`rather a “method for displaying market information.” Merely rearranging and
`
`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`displaying of information isn’t patent eligible. Electric Power, slip op. at 9;
`
`CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375. Second, TT doesn’t even attempt to explain how
`
`an arrangement of market information on a trading screen is “physical.” Unlike
`
`Enfish, where the claim in question was directed at something physical, namely “a
`
`data storage and retrieval system,” TT’s claims are directed at method steps––
`
`simply displaying market information in a particular format and then sending an
`
`order in response to user input. The inner workings of the computer are unaffected.
`
`The essence of TT’s argument is that its claims aren’t abstract because they
`
`implicate a combination of software and hardware. Put another way, TT tries to
`
`argue that its claimed method turns a general purpose computer into a specialized
`
`one. But this no longer passes muster under §101. CLS Bank Intl. v. Alice Corp,
`
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed.Cir. 2013)(en banc)(Judge Lourie in a concurring opinion
`
`discussing the Alappat fallacy).
`
`TT further argues that its claims aren’t abstract because they are “not
`
`directed to a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice.” (POR,
`
`12-15.) But TT conveniently overlooks the express language of the ‘411, “[t]he
`
`present invention is directed to the electronic trading of commodities.” (’411, 1:21-
`
`23.) Commodity trading is “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our
`
`system of commerce,” and is an abstract idea similar to those courts have
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`repeatedly held abstract and ineligible. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356. TT also asserts
`
`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`that its claims do not attempt to claim trading. (POR, 13.) But this is also erroneous
`
`as claim 1 itself recites “send[ing] the trade order having a default quantity to the
`
`electronic exchange.” Thus, the claim steps reflect abstract ideas about the
`
`organization of information for use in a fundamental economic practice.
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370
`
`(Fed.Cir. 2015)(A process performed by a machine to improve speed and
`
`efficiency “does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”).
`
`TT attempts to distinguish its GUI from those found to be unpatentable in
`
`Mortgage Grader and Capital One. (POR, 15.) Contrary to TT’s assertion, the
`
`interfaces at issue in Capital One and Mortgage Grader were recited with as much
`
`specificity as the claim. TT’s claims are abstract and thus patent-ineligible for the
`
`same reasons.
`
`B.
`
`The claims do not transform the abstract concept into inventive
`concept.
`
`TT argues that its claims are patentable under Alice Step 2 because “they
`
`recite an inventive concept.” (POR, 16-18.) But TT never articulates specifically
`
`what that inventive concept is—taking the claim limitations either individually or
`
`together as an ordered combination. This is fatal to a step-2 analysis. The closest
`
`TT comes to articulating an inventive concept is to assert that “PO’s claims recite
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`structural details of a specific GUI that functions differently from prior art GUIs to
`
`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`solve GUI-centric problems.” (POR at 18.) This vague statement of general
`
`functionality is insufficient under Alice Step 2. BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T
`
`Mobility LLC, Appeal No. 15-1763, slip. op. at *6 (Fed.Cir. June 27, 2016)(“The
`
`inventive concept described and claimed in the ‘606 patent is the installation of a
`
`filtering tool as a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable
`
`filtering features specific to each end user.”).
`
`TT also alleges that the claims “recite significantly more” than an abstract
`
`idea because they are “specific the GUI features and functionality with greater
`
`detail,” because the “claimed combination of GUI features and functionality is the
`
`solution rather than pre-solution or post-solution activity” and because “there is no
`
`evidence that the claimed combination of GUI functionality was routine and
`
`conventional.” (POR, 17.) TT is wrong on all three counts.
`
`First, the claims are far from specific in their recitation of features. Rather,
`
`they simply recite broad method steps of displaying (including “moving” data),
`
`selecting, setting, and sending information. Absent from the claims is any
`
`description as to how the steps are to be accomplished.
`
`Second, the claims merely organize information and recite nothing more
`
`than conventional elements. They solve nothing. “Merely selecting information by
`
`content or source, for collection, analysis, and display” doesn’t render a claim
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`patent eligible. Electric Power, slip op. at 9. Likewise, merely “organizing
`
`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`information through mathematical correlations” and “manipulat[ing] existing
`
`information to generate additional information” that isn’t tied to any specific
`
`processor also isn’t patent-eligible. Digitech Image Tech. LLC v. Elec. for Imaging,
`
`Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350-51 (Fed.Cir. 2014).
`
`Third, even if the claims recited a novel, groundbreaking, brilliant
`
`arrangement of elements, this may be insufficient to impart patent eligibility.
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed.Cir. 2014)(“[T]he addition
`
`of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea [doesn’t]
`
`necessarily turn[] an abstraction into something concrete.”). Ass’n for Molecular
`
`Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2117 (2013)(“groundbreak-
`
`ing, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101
`
`inquiry”).
`
`In short, where, as here, the claims merely “defin[e] a desirable information-
`
`based result and [are] not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, [they]
`
`fail under §101.” Electric Power at *1. Accordingly, Petitioners respectfully
`
`request that the Board find that claims 1-28 are patent ineligible.
`
`C. The claims are patent-ineligible because they cover signals.
`TT’s narrow construction of computer readable medium isn’t based on the
`
`specification since that term is not used therein. Accordingly, the PTAB should
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`apply the same BRI of computer readable medium that PTO has applied in
`
`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`thousands of matters. See MPEP §2106.
`
`II. Claim construction
`A.
`“order entry region”
`This term is defined in the claims. (See, Claim 1.) No further construction is
`
`necessary.
`
`“single action” limitations
`
`B.
`Petitioners agree with the Board’s construction of the “single action”
`
`limitations. (See Decision, 9-10.) The Board should maintain its construction.
`
`C.
`“entered order indicator”
`This term is defined in the claims. (See Claim 9.) No further construction is
`
`necessary.
`
`“re-centering command”
`
`D.
`This term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. TT proposes a
`
`narrow construction that attempts to read limitations into this term. (See POR
`
`28(reading in “single user-entered command” from the specification at 9:20-25;
`
`reading in “immediately displayed,” which isn’t supported in the specification).)
`
`Reading limitations into the claims isn’t proper. SciMed Life Sys v. Advanced
`
`Cardiovascular, 242 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed.Cir. 2001).
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`III. The challenged claims are obvious over the TSE combinations.
`A. TSE is a prior art printed publication.
`Petitioners established that TSE (Exs.1006-1007) was actually disseminated
`
`and otherwise available to the interested public in August 1998. (Petition, 11.) As
`
`such, TSE meets the requirements for printed publication status under either prong
`
`of the test. TT’s arguments to the contrary fail to rebut any of the predicate facts
`
`establishing its printed publication status.
`
`1.
`
`Unrebutted evidence establishes that TSE was actually
`disseminated to the interested public in August 1998.
`
`It stands unrebutted that TSE was actually disseminated in August 1998 to
`
`200 participants in the Tokyo Stock Exchange. (Petition, 11; Ex.1010, 0112-33.)
`
`TT received a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine the witness who testified
`
`to these facts, Mr. Aisushi Kawashima. (Ex.2163.) But TT doesn’t, and cannot,
`
`point to anything that contradicts his original testimony.
`
`Rather, TT responds by concocting a series of incorrect requirements for
`
`printed the publication status test. For example, TT posits that Petitioners must
`
`prove “who actually picked up the documents,” “whether they were POSAs,” and
`
`“what, if anything, participants did with the manuals.” (POR, 62.) While the law
`
`may require evidence of public availability, it doesn’t require proof of the identities
`
`of persons who accessed the references.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`The relevant public is “the public interested in the art.” Cooper Cameron
`
`CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`Corp. v. Kvaerner Oilfield Products, Inc., 291 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed.Cir. 2002).
`
`Mr. Kawashima’s testimony establishes that TSE was disseminated to participants
`
`in the Tokyo Stock Exchange, meaning “securities companies for banks who are
`
`able to carry out futures options trading at the TSE” in order to explain changes
`
`being made TSE's trading system and terminals. (Ex.1007, 0012, 0014.) TT’s own
`
`declarant, Mr. Thomas, stated that “industry participants” include securities
`
`companies for banks who “provided their own front-end order entry software.”
`
`(Ex.2169, ¶23.) And Mr. Thomas explained during his deposition that industry
`
`participants that developed order entry software would have employed people of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, such as himself, during the relevant timeframe. (Ex.1052,
`
`136:17-138:1.) Accordingly, the distribution of TSE to securities companies
`
`extends to employees who meet the definition of a POSA.1
`
`Further, the express purpose of TSE was to alert participants to changes in
`
`how the trading terminals of the Tokyo Stock Exchange operated, explaining in
`
`
`1 The Board also recognized that “GUI designers could have located the TSE
`
`manual through reasonable diligence” since the security companies were free to do
`
`whatever they wanted with their copies of the TSE publication. (Decision, 26-27.)
`
`PO has failed to rebut this point.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`extens