`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132
`___________________
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`The ’132 patent claims a patent-ineligible abstract idea. ................................ 1 
`
`I. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Placing an order based on observed (plotted) market information,
`as well as updating market information is abstract. .............................. 1 
`
`The claims of the ’132 patent do not transform the abstract idea
`into an inventive concept. ...................................................................... 6 
`
`The claims of the ’132 patent are patent-ineligible because the
`claims cover signals............................................................................... 8 
`
`II. 
`
`Claim construction. .......................................................................................... 9 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`“order entry region”............................................................................... 9 
`
`“single action” limitations ..................................................................... 9 
`
`“working orders in alignment with prices corresponding thereto” ....... 9 
`
`“re-centering instruction” ...................................................................... 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. 
`
`Claims 1, 8, and 14 are obvious over at least TSE and
`Belden ....................................................................................... 14 
`
`2. 
`
`Claims 3, 10, and 16 are obvious over TSE and Belden. ......... 15 
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`The TSE-Belden combination renders obvious claims 24,
`34, and 44. ................................................................................. 15 
`
`The TSE-Belden combination renders obvious claims 25-26,
`35-36, and 45-46. ...................................................................... 16 
`
`The TSE-Belden-Gutterman combination renders obvious
`claims 29, 39, and 49. ............................................................... 16 
`
`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 attempt to establish a nexus. ....................... 19 
`
`TT isn’t entitled to a presumption of nexus. ............................. 19 
`
`TT’s fails to establish a nexus because the alleged secondary
`considerations result from unclaimed and 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. 
`
`TT’s global revenue and units sold fails to establish that MD
`Trader was commercially successful. ....................................... 23 
`
`2. 
`
`TT’s licenses resulted from litigation. ...................................... 25 
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`TT conflates copying with competing products that allegedly
`fall within the claims. ................................................................ 26 
`
`TT’s proffered praise for MD Trader isn’t from a competitor
`and is directed to unclaimed features. ....................................... 27 
`
`TT admits that there was no long-felt need. ............................. 28 
`
`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. ......................................... 29 
`
`V. 
`
`The ’132 is eligible for CBM review. ........................................................... 31 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................................................................... 1, 5, 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
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed.Cir. 2014) ............................................................................... 3-4
`
`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, 4, 8
`
`Enfish ,LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed.Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 2, 3, 4
`
`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
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`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, 30
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed.Cir. 2015) ............................................................................... 5, 6
`
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`545 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir. 2008) ................................................................................. 12
`
`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, 16, 18, 21
`
`Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Svcs.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed.Cir. 2016) ................................................................................... 6
`
`Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Railway, Ltd.,
`357 F.3d 1319 (Fed.Cir. 2004) ................................................................................. 29
`
`Novo Nordisk A/S v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories., Ltd.,
`719 F.3d 1346 (Fed.Cir. 2013) ................................................................................. 23
`
`Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc.,
`599 F.3d 1343 (Fed.Cir. 2010) ................................................................................. 28
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`SciMed Life Sys v. Advanced Cardiovascular,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed.Cir. 2001) ................................................................................... 9
`
`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 1231Fed.Cir. 2010) ...................................................................... 18, 26, 27
`
`
`Regulations:
`
`37 C.F.R. 42.6(a)(3) ................................................................................................. 19
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) ............................................................................................... 31
`
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`Exh. No. Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 to Kemp, II et al. (“ʼ132 patent”)
`1001
`1002
`File History of Application Ser. No. 09/590,692, which became the
`’132 patent, as filed and obtained from PAIR (“’132 Patent File
`History”)
`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 Req.”)
`Expert Declaration of David Rho (“Rho Decl.”)
`Expert Declaration of Kendyl A. Román (“Román Decl.”)
`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.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,077,665 to Silverman et al. (“Silverman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al. (“Gutterman”)
`WO 90/11571 to Belden et al. (“Belden”)
`CA Publication No. CA 2,305,736 to May (“May”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,263,134 to Paal et al. (“Paal”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,960,411 to Hartman et al. (“Hartman”)
`“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
`
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`1026
`
`Exh. No. Description
`Futures and Options Transaction Terminal Operational Guidelines”
`(“TSE Certificate”)
`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”)
`David M. Weiss, “After the Trade is Made,” 1993 (“Weiss”)
`Robert Deel, “The Strategic Electronic Day Trader,” 2000 (“Deel”)
`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”)
`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”)
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`U.S. Patent No. 6,408,282 to Buist (“Buist”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00135, Paper 17 (“POPR”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00135, Paper 19 (“Ins. Dec.”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00135, Paper 29 (“Reh’g Dec.”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00135, Paper 32 (“POR”)
`
`1027
`1028
`
`1029
`1030
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`Exh. No. Description
`Trading Techs. Int’l. v. CQG, No. 05-cv-4811, Slip. Op. (N.D. Ill.
`1035
`Feb. 24, 2015) (“TT v. CQG Slip. Op.”)
`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
`CBM2015-00181 (’411 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
`
`1039
`1040
`1041
`1042
`1043
`1044
`1045
`1046
`
`1047
`1048
`
`1049
`1050
`1051
`1052
`
`
`
`
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`The ’132 patent is unpatentable under §§ 101 and 103. The claims perish
`
`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 is not prior art and that secondary considerations
`
`demonstrate nonobviousness. Both theories fail.
`
`I.
`
`The ’132 patent claims a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
`
`The ’132 patent doesn’t claim patent-eligible subject-matter. (Paper7
`
`(“Petition”) 14-23; Paper19 (“Decision”) 22.) TT responds by arguing that the
`
`claims recite the structure, makeup, and functionality of a GUI tool rather than an
`
`abstract idea. (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.
`
`The ’132 patent claims are directed to placing an order based on observed
`
`(plotted) market information, as well as updating market information. (Petition,
`
`15.) 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.
`
`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
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`description is inaccurate, an overgeneralization, and “untethered from the language
`
`of the claims.” Cf. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 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 recites steps for displaying market depth of a commodity aligned
`
`with a static display of prices and an order entry region also aligned with the static
`
`display of prices, “set[ting] a plurality of parameters” and “send[ing] the trade
`
`order to the electronic exchange” in response to user input. The claims do not
`
`recite a “tool” or any other structure for performing the steps of displaying, 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).
`
`The CAFC’s recent decision in Electric Power compels the conclusion that
`
`the ’132 claims recite ineligible subject-matter. There, the CAFC found the claims-
`
`at-issue failed §101 because they did “not go beyond requiring the collection,
`
`analysis, and display of available information in a particular field, 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. The ’132 claims similarly
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`recite the display of information in the financial markets field without limiting
`
`them to any technical means. (See, ’132, 4:4-8.)
`
`TT accuses Petitioner and the Board of “overgeneralizing” the ’132 claims.
`
`(POR 5-8.) 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”). In this case, 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 8-10.) This argument falls flat. The claimed steps of “displaying market
`
`depth,” “selecting an area of in the order entry region via a single action, and
`
`set[ting] a plurality of parameters” and “send[ing] the trade order to the electronic
`
`exchange” in response to the selecting step, 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 decisions in DDR and Enfish are inapposite. In both cases, 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,
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`1257 (Fed.Cir. 2014); 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 ’132 patent 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; the computer simply did what it was told to do by software written by
`
`programmers who were instructed (by traders) to display financial data in a certain
`
`way.
`
`TT argues that the claims are “undoubtedly not abstract” and analogize its
`
`claims to physical entities. (POR 10-11.) This argument also fails for several
`
`reasons. First, TT’s claims do not recite a “physical entity,” or even a “GUI,” but
`
`rather a “method...for displaying transactional information.” Merely rearranging
`
`and displaying of information isn’t patent eligible. Electric Power, slip op. at 9.
`
`Second, TT doesn’t even attempt to explain how an arrangement of market data on
`
`a trading screen is “physical.” Unlike in 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 data in a particular
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`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
`
`13-16.) But TT conveniently overlooks the express language of the ’132 patent,
`
`“[t]he present invention is directed to the electronic trading of commodities.”
`
`(’132, 1:12-13.) Commodity trading is “a fundamental economic practice long
`
`prevalent in our system of commerce,” and is an abstract idea similar to those
`
`courts have repeatedly held abstract and ineligible. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356. TT
`
`also asserts that its claims do not attempt to claim trading. (POR, 14.) But this is
`
`also erroneous as claim 1 itself recites “send[ing] the trade order 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
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`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 PO’s assertion, the
`
`interfaces at issue in Capital One and Mortgage Grader were recited with as much
`
`specificity as the patent claim. For example, in Capital One the relevant claim
`
`recited “an interactive interface” configured to dynamically display certain
`
`information (i.e., navigation data) to a user. Capital One, 792 F.3d at 1367.
`
`Similarly, the ’132 patent claims a method for “displaying” information (i.e.,
`
`bids/offers) to the user. In Mortgage Grader the claim at issue recited “a first
`
`interface” and “a second interface,” the latter of which included separate
`
`components and a display region (“borrower grading module,” display of “total
`
`cost” of each loan). Just like the ’132, the Mortgage Grader and Capital One
`
`claims identified what information the interface was to display or functionality the
`
`interface was to include, but didn’t specify how the computer was to create the
`
`interface. TT’s claims are abstract and thus patent-ineligible for the same reasons.
`
`B.
`
`The claims of the ’132 patent do not transform the abstract idea
`into an inventive concept.
`
`TT argues that its claims are patentable under Alice Step 2 because “they
`
`recite an inventive concept.” (POR 17.) But TT never articulates specifically what
`
`that inventive concept is—taking the claim limitations either individually or
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`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
`
`structural details of a specific GUI that functions differently from prior art GUIs to
`
`solve GUI-centric problems.” (POR 19.) This vague statement of general
`
`functionality is insufficient under Alice Step 2. See, BASCOM, slip op. at 6 (“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 of the ’132 “recite significantly more” than
`
`an abstract idea because it they “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 23.) 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, selecting, setting, and sending
`
`information. (’132, 12:1-16:57.) Absent from the claims is any description as to
`
`how the steps are to be accomplished.
`
`Second, the claims here merely organize information and recite nothing
`
`more than conventional elements. They solve nothing. “Merely selecting
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`information by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display” doesn’t
`
`render a claim patent eligible. Electric Power, slip op. at 9. Likewise, merely
`
`“organizing 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, that is insufficient to impart patent eligibility. Ass’n for
`
`Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2107, 2117 (2013)
`
`(“groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery doesn’t by itself satisfy
`
`the §101 inquiry”).
`
`In short, since 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, slip. op. at *1. Accordingly, Petitioners respectfully
`
`request that the Board find that claims 1-56 are patent ineligible.
`
`C. The claims of the ’132 patent are patent-ineligible because the
`claims 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 Board should
`
`apply the same BRI of computer readable medium that it has applied in thousands
`
`of matters. See MPEP §2106.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`II. Claim construction.
`A.
`“order entry region”
`This term is defined in the claims. (’132, Claim 1.) TT proposes a narrow
`
`construction that conflates the “single action” limitations and “order entry region,”
`
`(POR, 27-28), and is therefore improper. The Board should reject TT’s
`
`construction.
`
`“single action” limitations
`
`B.
`Petitioners agree with the Board’s construction of the “single action”
`
`limitations. (Decision, 8-10.) TT and Thomas present cursory, unsupported
`
`arguments to seek a narrower construction. (POR, 28; Ex.2169, ¶30.) The Board
`
`should maintain its construction.
`
`“working orders in alignment with prices corresponding thereto”
`
`C.
`This term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`“re-centering instruction”
`
`D.
`This term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. TT proposes a
`
`narrow construction that attempts to read into this term. (POR, 29 (reading in
`
`“single user-entered instruction” at 8:54-60; reading in “immediately displayed,”
`
`which not 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 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`III. The challenged claims are obvious over the TSE combinations.
`A. TSE is a prior art printed publication.
`Petitioners established that TSE (Exs.1016, 1017) 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 TSE’s 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.1007, 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 can’t, point
`
`to anything that contradicts his original testimony.
`
`Rather, TT responds by concocting a series of incorrect requirements for the
`
`printed publication 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, 61.) While the law may
`
`require evidence of public availability, it doesn’t require proof of the identities of
`
`persons who accessed the references.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`The relevant public is “the public interested in the art.” Cooper Cameron
`
`Corp. v. Kvaerner Oilfield Products, Inc., 291 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed.Cir. 2002).
`
`(See Decision, 19.) 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 to TSE’s trading system and terminals.
`
`(Ex.1017, 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
`
`The express purpose of TSE was to alert participants to changes in how the
`
`trading terminals of the Tokyo Stock Exchange operated, explaining in extensive
`
`technical detail how to electronically connect to the exchange (e.g., providing
`
`1 The Board 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, 20.) TT
`
`fails to rebut this point.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`terminal system