trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009, Paper No. 70
`February 1, 2017
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`IBG LLC and INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`____________
`
`Held: January 6, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE: SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK,
`and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
` The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, January
`6, 2017, commencing at 1:03 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009, Paper No. 70
`February 1, 2017
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`IBG LLC and INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`____________
`
`Held: January 6, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE: SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK,
`and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
` The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, January
`6, 2017, commencing at 1:03 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICHAEL D. GANNON, ESQUIRE
`McDonnell, Boehnen, Hulbert & Berghoff, LLP
`300 South Wacker Drive
`Chicago, Illinois 60606-6709
`
`
`
`
`
`ROBERT SOKOHL, ESQUIRE
`RICHARD M. BEMBEN, ESQUIRE
`LORI A. GORDON, ESQUIRE
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, Fox
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: We are here today in the matter
`of CBM2016-00009. Can we have appearances from petitioner.
`MR. SOKOHL: Robert Sokohl. With me is Richard
`Bemben and Lori Gordon.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: And Mr. Sokohl, you'll be
`doing the presentation today?
`MR. SOKOHL: I will be doing part of it and
`Mr. Bemben will do the other part.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: And for patent owner?
`MR. GANNON: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Mike
`Gannon from McDonnell, Boehnen, Hulbert & Berghoff on
`behalf of Trading Technologies. With me is Cole Richter from
`my firm, Leif Sigmond from my firm and Jen Kurcz also from
`my firm. And from Trading Technologies, Monika Dudek, the
`director of patent prosecution at Trading Technologies, and
`Mr. Adam Faier, patent counsel at Trading Technologies.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: And Mr. Gannon, will you be
`doing the presentation today?
`MR. GANNON: I will be.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Judge Plenzler is joining us
`from Detroit today. So please make sure that when you do your
`presentation, you stay behind the microphone -- can you hear me?
`Behind the microphone at the podium. And if you refer to a slide
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`in your presentation, refer to a slide number as Judge Plenzler
`may not be able to see the screen here.
`So petitioner, we've given you 30 minutes. Would you
`like to reserve any time for rebuttal?
`MR. SOKOHL: Yes, Your Honor, ten minutes.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Mr. Sokohl, you can start when
`you are ready.
`MR. SOKOHL: Good afternoon, Your Honors. As I
`mentioned, Richard Bemben, Lori Gordon with me, Robert
`Sokohl, for petitioners.
`The Supreme Court has put forth a two-step process for
`determining statutory subject matter in Alice. As we learned from
`the Federal Circuit in Electric Power Group, the first step looks
`at the focus of the claims or the character as a whole. And the
`second step looks more precisely at what claims are added,
`specifically in the words of the Supreme Court, whether there's an
`inventive concept.
`Now, turning to the first step, claim 1 recites an abstract
`idea of repositioning market information on a GUI in electronic
`trading. The focus of independent claim 1 is to display market
`data for electronic trading. This is a fundamental economic
`practice.
`Now, if we just take a step back and examine claims 1
`and 17, the patent owner asserts that the claims of the '055 patent
`solve the problem of market data moving off the screen. In other
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`words, this GUI claim assists in the visualization of the data. But
`the way the patent owner solves this problem is simply moving or
`repositioning the market data from one part of the screen to
`another. The claims merely rearrange the data on the screen.
`Nothing more. This is not a technical solution to a technical
`problem. In addition, the claims adjust market data for display.
`This element concerns itself with how much data to display.
`Again, this is not a technical solution to a technical problem.
`And let's be clear about claims 1 and 17. Only two
`prices and two indicators are required to be displayed along the
`price axis according to the claim. Reduced to their base, the
`claims amount to nothing more than organizing and reorganizing
`this limited market data for electronic trading.
`Now, patent owner has argued that the claims describe
`the structure, makeup and functionality of a GUI and that this
`GUI improves the computer. But the claims do not go beyond the
`receiving display, adjustment and repositioning of the market data
`on the GUI. This is just the processing and displaying of market
`information. Nothing more. We would submit that claim 1 and
`17 do, in fact, recite an abstract idea.
`Now, moving to step 2 of Alice, step 2 asks whether or
`not the elements both individually and as an ordered combination
`recite anything meaningful beyond the abstract idea. The answer
`here is no. The claims of receiving market data to be displayed,
`adjusting and repositioning data and sending a trade to the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`exchange are well understood routine and conventional activities
`as set forth in detail in our petition. We know from Alice that
`simply using a computer is insufficient to overcome an Alice
`attack. Here the claims merely use a computer for its most basic
`functions, processing and displaying of data. That's it. Receiving
`user input or a repositioning command is simply data gathering
`for the abstract idea. And limiting the claims to electronic trading
`is just a field of use limitation.
`Now, we also know from CyberSource and Electric
`Power Group that organizing data into a particular arrangement is
`insufficient to confer patentability. And the arrangement claimed
`was known. As we'll see later in our 103 grounds, TSE teaches
`the exact same arrangement. And Trading Technologies' own
`expert admitted that many of the elements were known. That's at
`Exhibit 1040, paragraph 99.
`Now, the ordered combination does not improve the
`operation of the computer or network. This is the cornerstone is
`of cases like DDR, Enfish and Bascom. The claimed GUI does
`not make the computer more efficient, process data faster or more
`reliable, use less energy. The recited GUI simply solves a
`business problem and visualization of data. Not a technological
`problem. The claims are, thus, not rooted in technology.
`Now, again the patent owner argues that the structure,
`makeup and functionality of the claimed GUI makes it statutory.
`But neither the patent owner or its expert point to anything in the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`claim other than the claim as a whole. Again, the claim merely
`displays or reorganizes a few pieces of market data. Nothing
`more.
`
`Finally, claims do not recite how to receive data,
`display it other than along a price axis, process in input command
`or repositioning command or send an order to an electronic
`exchange. They do not require a new source of data or a type of
`information or new techniques for analyzing the data. Nor is
`there any type of inventive programming. Merely preventing
`data from moving off the screen does not transform the abstract
`idea into a statutory process. And as such, there is no
`technological advance here. And the claims do not require any
`nonconventional computer, network, display or user input device
`individually or in combination. The '055 patent claims, similar to
`Electric Power, define a desirable information-based result and
`are not limited to inventive means of achieving that result and
`thus fail under 101.
`Patent owner hasn't argued the dependent claims, so if
`there's no questions on 101, I would like to turn it over to my
`colleague, Richard Bemben, to deal with the 103 grounds.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: I have no questions.
`MR. BEMBEN: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I will
`be discussing the instituted obviousness grounds. And to the
`extent that claim construction issues arise, I'll address them in
`context.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`The claims of the '055 patent are obvious. They are
`generally directed to receiving, displaying and rearranging market
`data on a graphical user interface. By the time of the '055 patent
`these concepts were very well known in the art, particularly as
`taught by the TSE reference.
`Here the critical inquiry is whether a person of ordinary
`skill in the art at the time of the '055 patent which was in the early
`2000s timeframe, would have found the claimed invention
`obvious in light of TSE's teachings. The answer is yes. The
`claims recite simple, well-understood GUI concepts and design
`choices.
`Now, the main dispute between the parties focuses on
`the adjusting step that's recited in independent claims 1 and 17.
`I'm going to put up slide 29. It's a reproduction of claim 1. And
`I'm marking the third limitation down beginning in response to an
`input command. That's the limitation I'm referring to. That's the
`adjusting step.
`TSE teaches the claimed adjusting step. By now this
`panel is very familiar with the TSE document. As you know, it
`describes a graphical user interface that can be customized to
`display market data in many different formats and it can be used
`in many different modes.
`Slide 18, which I'm now putting up, slide 18 depicts
`TSE's GUI and a noncompressed price display on the left-hand
`side and a compressed price display on the right-hand side. TSE
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`teaches that a user of the GUI can transition from the compressed
`display to the noncompressed display using a radio button. That's
`at TSE page 69. Now, transitioning from the compressed display
`to the noncompressed display is one way. It's not the only way,
`but it's one way in which TSE teaches the claimed adjusting step.
`I'm going to read from the adjusting step. So I'm going
`to put it back up. That's slide 29. The adjusting step recites --
`now I'm reading -- adjusting the first plurality price levels among
`a range of price levels to an adjusted plurality of price levels,
`including the first plurality of price levels. So we have a first
`plurality of price levels and an adjusted plurality that includes the
`first plurality.
`In the compressed display, which is on the right-hand
`side of slide 18, which I'm putting up again, the price levels 002,
`004 and 007 represent the claimed first plurality of price levels.
`Now, as I mentioned in response to the user selecting a radio
`button, the display transitions from noncompressed -- I'm sorry,
`from compressed to noncompressed. And in the noncompressed
`display, which is shown on the left-hand side of slide 18, the
`price levels 001 through 007 represent the claimed adjusted
`plurality. And as you can see, they include the first plurality.
`This transition from compressed display to noncompressed
`display, it teaches the adjusting step.
`Patent owner disagrees and presents two primary
`arguments. Patent owner's first primary argument has two
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`prongs. And both prongs must be true in order for the patent
`owner to prevail in its argument. The first is that the claimed
`adjusting must occur along a static price axis. The second prong
`is that TSE's compressed display does not include a static price
`axis.
`
`Now, the patent owner is wrong on both prongs. First
`the adjusting step does not require that the first plurality of price
`levels be along a static price axis. Patent owner is improperly
`attempting to read limitations into the adjusting step. But the
`Board has already considered and rejected patent owner's attempt
`to read static price axis into the adjusting step. That's institution
`decision at 34. The petitioners agree with the Board's analysis. It
`shouldn't be altered.
`But patent owner is also incorrect about the second
`prong of its argument, namely, TSE's compressed display
`includes a static price axis as that term is used in the '055 patent.
`Now, the proper construction of static price axis is a price column
`or reference line where the prices do not normally change
`positions unless a recentering or repositioning command is
`received. That construction is from the institution decision,
`page 10.
`And petitioners agree with the Board's initial analysis.
`In fact, it's consistent with the construction that petitioners
`proposed in their petition at pages 16 and 17. And it's also
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`consistent with the '055 patent's disclosure, column 8, lines 16
`through 18 where that term is defined.
`So unless there's any questions about the term "static
`price axis" I'll move on to discuss how TSE's compressed display
`includes that static price axis.
`Now, I want to make clear when I'm discussing TSE's
`compressed display there are different modes it can operate in.
`And I'm going to discuss two modes. The first mode that I'll
`discuss is the nonscrolling mode. It can also operate in a
`scrolling mode, and I'll discuss that next.
`TSE teaches that the compressed display in nonscrolling
`mode, when it's in that mode, the board display center price is
`automatically revised and displayed at the center part of the
`board. That's TSE page 115.
`Now, in the context of the '055 patent, this functionality
`is static because the repositioning step of claims 1 and 17 permits
`continuous repositioning. I'm going to put slide 29 back up, and
`I'm discussing the second-to-last limitation that begins receiving
`the reposition command. The reposition command -- excuse me.
`This limitation states, Receiving the reposition command to
`reposition the static price axis when a designated price is within a
`designated number of price levels from the lowest value to the
`highest valve along the static price axis.
`Now, the key term here is designated number. The
`independent claims do not limit in any way what that designated
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`number can be. In the petition and supported by Mr. Roman,
`petitioner's expert, his testimony, we explained that setting the
`claimed designated number to one-half the length of the price
`axis would cause a repositioning command to be issued any time
`the designated price deviates from the center. That's within the
`scope of the claims.
`This is the same type of continuous repositioning that
`TSE teaches in its compressed display in the nonscrolling mode.
`Now, patent owner did not depose Mr. Roman. His testimony is
`unrebutted on this point.
`But you don't have to take Mr. Roman's word for it.
`Patent owner's own expert, Dr. Olsen, admitted that continuous
`recentering is within the scope of claim 1. Now putting up
`slide 24, during this cross-examination, Dr. Olsen was asked,
`could claim 1 read on recentering every time the inside market
`moves. He answered, As a special case which I would like to
`describe, yes. If someone foolishly compressed them so it -- I'm
`sorry. If someone foolishly took the range and compressed them
`so it was extremely tight, then it would continuously move.
`Both experts, experts on both sides agree that claim 1
`permits continuous repositioning. Therefore, TSE's compressed
`display in a nonscrolling mode has a static price axis as that term
`is used and required in the '055 patent.
`Now, TSE's compressed display in the scrolling mode
`also has a static price axis. If I move on to slide 19, slide 19 is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`from page 0016 of TSE and it was also cited on page 37 of the
`petition. This depicts how the GUI can be transitioned between
`the nonscrolling and scrolling modes. TSE teaches that a user
`can transition from the nonscrolling mode to the scrolling mode
`using the up and down arrows which are depicted on the top
`right-hand side of the GUI. TSE also teaches that selecting the H
`or home button causes the screen to return to the basic board
`screen, that is the nonscrolling mode with the Board display
`center price at the center. That's TSE 110. So selecting the home
`button triggers a recentering or command.
`Now I'm turning to slide 18. And again, slide 18 shows
`the compressed display on the right-hand side. Because the
`compressed display has the up and down arrows as shown on the
`right-hand side of the figure, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood that the compressed price display can
`operate in the scrolling mode. TSE is unequivocal when it states
`that in the scrolling mode price display positions do not change
`automatically. That's from 115 of TSE.
`The petition repeats this teaching several times.
`Slide 22 is a reproduction of the petition at page 46. It states
`TSE's price axis is static when the display is in certain modes.
`That is the price axis does not normally change positions unless a
`recentering command is received in certain modes. It provides a
`first example and then it states as another example, the price
`display positions do not change automatically when the board
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`screen is in the scrolling screen mode. The petition is clear
`scrolling equals static.
`So in sum, patent owner's first primary argument fails
`on both prongs. First, the adjusting step doesn't require adjusting
`along a static price axis. Second, TSE's compressed display is
`static in both its scrolling and nonscrolling modes.
`Now, patent owner's second primary argument is that
`the claimed adjusting, again, the adjusting step, the claimed
`adjusting does not increase the number of price levels. Patent
`owner arrives at this construction through an unreasonable
`interpretation of the term "price levels." An interpretation that's
`completely divorced from the language of the claims and the
`specification.
`I'm going to put up patent owner's slide 41 now. Again,
`this is patent owner's slide 41. And this illustrates how patent
`owner is interpreting the term "price levels." Again, the
`right-hand side is the compressed display. And patent owner is
`interpreting blank screen locations above and below the prices
`that are displayed there as price levels.
`Patent owner's construction and interpretation of price
`levels is simply wrong. First, the patent owner hasn't pointed to
`anything in the specification, anything in the claims that support
`its position. Second, patent owner's construction is inconsistent
`with the plain and ordinary meaning of this term. And that's --
`the Board should apply the plain and ordinary meaning. Under
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning, a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have understood that a price level corresponds to a
`definite price. Not a blank screen location where an unknown
`price may be populated at some point.
`And then third, the specification supports the plain
`meaning, what I just read. It emphasizes the importance of a
`trader observing the market at different price levels. These
`observations would have little value if the price levels didn't
`correspond to a price. The specification also uses the terms
`"price" and "price level" interchangeably which also indicates
`that a price level corresponds to a definite price.
`Unless there are any questions, I would like to reserve
`the rest of my time for rebuttal.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: I have no questions.
`Mr. Gannon, you can begin when you are ready.
`MR. GANNON: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Mike
`Gannon for Trading Technologies. I want to hit on two main
`points today. One is that TSE is not prior art to begin with. And
`because of that, the petition fails on 103 grounds. And then I also
`want to deal with a couple of 103 issues.
`Now, with respect to TSE not being prior art, three
`points that I want to make with respect to that. Number one, the
`petitioners are misapplying the law. I'm putting up slide 47. This
`is a quote from the Blue Calypso case. And this quote says that --
`and this is quoting from the Blue Calypso case, a reference will
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`be considered publicly accessible if it was disseminated or
`otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and
`ordinarily skilled in the art exercising reasonable diligence can
`locate it.
`The petitioners are misconstruing this law by saying
`dissemination to members of TSE is enough, that you can
`disseminate just to anybody in the public. That's not the law.
`The law is that the dissemination has to be to a POSA. And we
`know that from the recent GoPro case in which the GoPro case
`addressed this very issue where the petitioners were saying well
`for dissemination, it can just go to anybody in the public.
`Whereas, on a catalog indexing-type case, it has to be available to
`a POSA. GoPro said, no, for dissemination, it has to go to a
`POSA.
`
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: The GoPro is not a precedential
`case. It's not binding on us. Nor do we know anything about
`how the panel in that situation applied those facts as in Blue
`Calypso.
`MR. GANNON: Not binding, Your Honor, I agree with
`that. But it's a case that has facts that are virtually identical to this
`case. I think it's reasonable to look to see what that panel did
`with facts that are virtually identical here. In GoPro a brochure
`was handed out at a closed trade show. Hundreds of copies of
`these brochures were handed out at a closed trade show, and the
`GoPro panel said that's not dissemination to a POSA because the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`petitioner didn't identify one person at the trade show that met
`that definition.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: So public accessibility is a
`fact-based issue. And based on the facts of this case seem to be
`quite different, you know, a closed small trade show as opposed
`to the Tokyo Stock Exchange, one of the major stock exchanges
`in the world basically. Why wouldn't, in this quote you sent me --
`let's talk about Blue Calypso and not a nonbinding,
`nonprecedential case.
`It says a reference will be considered publicly
`accessible if it was disseminated or otherwise made available. It
`doesn't say disseminated to a POSA. It says disseminated or
`otherwise made available to the extent that person is interested
`and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter could locate it.
`This quote doesn't exactly say that it was disseminated
`to a POSA. It says that it's disseminated to the extent that persons
`interested with ordinary skill could locate it.
`MR. GANNON: Correct. But again, what the GoPro
`
`case --
`
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Let's talk about the Blue
`Calypso case, which is the Fed Circuit case as opposed to a
`nonprecedential, nonbinding case. Why does that quote there say
`that it has to be disseminated to a POSA?
`MR. GANNON: I think what this quote is saying is a
`POSA has to be able to somehow have a roadmap to get the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`document. So whether the document is indexed or put in a
`library, if it turns out that the document was disseminated widely
`to POSAs, then it would be publicly accessible.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: But it says it's disseminated to
`the extent a person could find it. It doesn't say disseminated to a
`POSA. If I'm a person and interested in creating word processing
`software, why wouldn't I, as a matter of common sense, go and
`look at the manuals for all existing word software like Microsoft
`Word? I mean, Microsoft Word is a major, well-known word
`processing software, sort of like the TSE exchange is one of the
`major exchanges in the world.
`MR. GANNON: So this is a question that was brought
`up in a prior hearing in October and I think it was a very
`interesting question. Why couldn't somebody on the street go to
`the TSE and then request the document. And the problem is the
`petitioners didn't put in any evidence that the TSE system even
`existed at that time. So in other words, a POSA out there --
`again, this is the petitioner's burden to show that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art could actually, exercising reasonable
`diligence, locate it. If there's no evidence in the record that the
`TSE exchange even existed at the time, they can't possibly meet
`their burden.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Are you telling me that the TSE
`exchange didn't exist in 1998?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`MR. GANNON: What I'm saying is in this record, the
`petitioners haven't put into the record any argument that the
`system was available at the time. In fact, TSE is the Tokyo Stock
`Exchange. The Tokyo Stock Exchange is the New York Stock
`Exchange. Was it open-pit trading which has nothing to do with
`electronic trading? Did the Tokyo Shock Exchange, was it
`electronic trading? If it was electronic trading, what interface
`were they using? We have no idea.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Is it your position that the
`Tokyo Stock Exchange didn't do electronic trading in 1998?
`MR. GANNON: What I'm saying is the petitioners did
`not put into the record any evidence of the existence of TSE as an
`electronic exchange in that timeframe. There's no evidence in the
`record. The petitioners haven't said, hey, the TSE system, first of
`all, they were doing electronic trading; number two, they were
`doing electronic trading. Okay, what type of interfaces were they
`using? There's no evidence in the record that a POSA knowing
`about the Tokyo Stock Exchange would even know any of that
`information.
`That type of reasoning about, well, is it possible could
`somebody have done it, again, I understand GoPro is not
`precedential, I understand that, but that case was very clear
`because the petitioner in that case was saying the same thing.
`Somebody at the trade show could have been a POSA. And that
`panel said, no, speculation is not enough. In that case, again, the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`trade show wasn't advertised. It wasn't put in the paper. Just like
`here with TSE, TSE didn't say, hey, make it publicly known that
`they were distributing these documents.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: So what you are saying is
`petitioner would need to have evidence that the Tokyo Stock
`Exchange existed in 1998 and was doing electronic trading?
`MR. GANNON: For starters. But they would actually
`need more than that. They would need to show evidence, okay,
`assume that's even true, that they put in evidence that electronic
`trading at the Tokyo Stock Exchange was going on. Where is the
`evidence that a POSA could actually access this document which
`we don't contend was even disseminated? But even if it was,
`where is the evidence that a POSA could go to a TSE member
`and access that document? The TSE member, for all we know,
`could say we are not handing out a document to anybody that
`asks for it. It's their burden. They have to put that in the record.
`That's the problem with their case. There's no roadmap for any
`POSA.
`
`There's actually another problem with that particular
`hypothetical. And that is that there's no evidence that even if the
`Tokyo Stock Exchange existed and even if they were doing -- had
`an interface like what this document shows, there's no way that a
`POSA would know that the system was the same as the manual.
`We have this manual. It has a date on it. How do we know that
`the system in Tokyo wasn't a totally different system so that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`somebody walking around and saw that system, they would be
`seeing a different system than what's actually in that document,
`this TSE document that we have been talking about for months.
`There's so many different levels of speculation that you can't get
`there. You can't get there.
`And the GoPro case is instructive. The GoPro focused
`on the dissemination part of the product because the GoPro was
`saying, well, if it was disseminated at the trade show when --
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Well, GoPro is not the same
`facts as the hypothetical I just asked you. GoPro is a
`nonprecedential, nonbinding case and you are trying to tell me
`that the facts of that case are binding on this situation. I would
`prefer to talk about the Federal Circuit case law that is
`precedential in this case. GoPro doesn't have the same facts as
`the hypothetical I just asked you.
`I asked you about a product that's being used, well
`known and used in the public and whether somebody that's
`interested in designing the same kind of systems wouldn't go out
`and look for what's going on in the world today.
`MR. GANNON: I think that hypothetical could apply
`in the GroPro case. Why couldn't somebody who wanted the
`GoPro camera --
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Well, I don't see in the GoPro,
`those facts in that case was decided was based on the unknown
`trade show. And so that's what I'm looking for, is why -- do you
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`know of any cases where it's like a product that's been
`disseminated where somebody went and found the manual for the
`product disseminated? For example, somebody is interested in
`doing software, the software is widely distributed, famously
`distributed and somebody -- a Court found that you wouldn't go
`and look for the manual for that distributed case?
`MR. GANNON: I'm not aware of a case that has those
`particular facts. I am aware of cases though that say speculation
`about whether a system was out there for someone to even know
`about to even get a manual is not enough.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you.
`MR. GANNON: Let me just real quickly, I want to
`address before I get into the 103 issues, the problem solved by
`this '055 patent. The '055 patent is a continuation-in-part patent
`and it's an improvement on the patents that we discussed last
`October, for example, the '132 patent. Slide 3, please. We
`looked at this last fall. This is Figure 3 from the '132 patent. This
`shows the price axis, price levels along a price axis. You can see
`it's labeled PRC. And the bids and ask are next to it. And the
`bids and ask move up and down relative to t
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
