UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE, INC., and
`TD AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case CBM2014-00131
`Patent 7,533,056
`____________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2060
`IBG ET AL. v. TRADING TECH
`CBM2016-00009
`
`

`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`
`TT’s claims are ineligible for patenting .......................................................... 1 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`The claims are directed to the abstract idea of graphing bids and offers
`to help a trader make an order (Step 1) ................................................. 3 
`
`The claims do not recite an inventive concept (Step 2) ........................ 5 
`
`The claims preempt the abstract idea of graphing bids and offers to
`assist a trader in making an order .......................................................... 7 
`
`The cases cited by TT do not stand for the proposition that
`overcoming computer problems confers patent eligibility ................... 8 
`
`III.  TT’s claims are obvious ................................................................................ 12 
`
`A. 
`
`The TSE combination teaches receiving a user’s default quantity and
`sending the user’s orders for that quantity .......................................... 12 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`The Board should construe default quantity to encompass its
`ordinary meaning, which is taught by Togher .......................... 13 
`
`The claims are obvious even under TT’s unreasonably narrow
`construction because it would have been obvious to modify the
`combination to use the last-entered quantity ............................ 15 
`
`B. 
`
`The TSE combination teaches displaying an order icon indicating the
`user’s order as recited in claim 5 ......................................................... 17 
`
`C. 
`
`TT’s remaining arguments are not on the merits ................................ 19 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`The evidence of record shows that TSE is a prior-art publication
` ................................................................................................... 19 
`
`TD Ameritrade properly filed affidavits of accuracy supporting
`the TSE translation .................................................................... 21 
`
`The TSE translation is accurate and understandable ................ 23 
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 36
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`IV.  The Board has jurisdiction over this proceeding ........................................... 24 
`
`
`
`V. 
`
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 25 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`Page 3 of 36
`
`

`
`
`
`Cases 
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014) ............................................................................. 1, 2, 6
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co.,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 10
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010)......................................................................................... 6
`
`Bloomberg v. Markets-Alert ,
`CBM2013-00005 (Paper 18, Mar. 29, 2013) ................................................ 25
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ....................................................................... 4
`
`DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................... 9
`
`Digitech Image Techs. v. Electronics for Imaging,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................... 6
`
`Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc.,
`545 U.S. 546 (2005)....................................................................................... 25
`
`Handiquilter v. Bernina Int’l,
`IPR2013-00364 (Paper 10, Sep. 13, 2013) .................................................... 22
`
`In re Acad. Sci. Tech. Center,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................... 13
`
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 16
`
`Int’l Sec. Exch. v. Chicago Bd. Options Exch.,
`CBM2013-00049 (Paper 53, Mar. 2, 2015) .................................................... 6
`
`Intellectual Ventures I v. Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co.,
`2014 WL 7215193 (D. Del. Dec. 18, 2014) .................................................. 11
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`Page 4 of 36
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`
`Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Financial Corp.,
`2014 WL 1513273 (E.D. Va. Apr. 16, 2014) ................................................ 11
`
`Mayo Collaborative Svcs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .................................................................................2, 8
`
`Medtronic v. Nuvasive,
`IPR2014-00074 (Paper 14, Apr. 1, 2014) ...................................................... 22
`
`Mendenhall v. Cedarapids, Inc.,
`5 F.3d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ......................................................................... 20
`
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix Inc.,
`2014 WL 7185921 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2014) .............................................. 12
`
`SMC v. DSS Tech. Mgmt,
`IPR2014-01030 (Paper 11, Feb. 3, 2015) ...................................................... 22
`
`Stevenson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
`713 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ....................................................................... 20
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Am. Vehicular Sci.,
`IPR2013-00417 (Paper 13, Dec. 5, 2013) ..................................................... 22
`
`Ultramercial v. Hulu,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................. 2, 10
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean v. Nidec Motor,
`IPR2014-01121 (Paper 20, Jan. 21, 2015) .................................................... 21
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................... 3, 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 25
`
`Rules 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 104(c) .................................................................................................... 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) .............................................................................................. 13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) ................................................................................................ 21
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`Page 5 of 36
`
`

`
`
`
`Other Authorities 
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`
`79 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014) .......................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`Page 6 of 36
`
`

`
`CBM2014—00l3l
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`
`Exhibit List
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 to Friesen et al. (‘"056 patent”)
`
`File History of Application Ser. No. 1 1/417,544, which became the
`’056 patent, as filed and obtained from PAIR (“’056 Patent File
`History” or “File History”)
`
`“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” or “1"
`O’Connell Decl.”)
`
`Memorandum from James M. Hilmert to eSpeed file regarding
`direct examination of TSE’s 30(b)(6) witness, dated December 5,
`2005 (“Depo. Letter”)
`
`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”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,375,055 to Togher et al. (“Togher”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,619,631 to Schott (“Schott”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,136,501 to Silverman et al. (“Silverman”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,809 to Hogan et al. (“Hogan”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterrnan et al. (“Gutterman”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,454,104 to Steidlmayer et al. (“Steidlmayer”)
`
`Reuters Globex User Guide, June 1995 (“Globex”)
`
`Alan Cooper, “About Face: The Essentials of User Interface
`Design,” First Edition, 1995. (“Cooper”)
`
`Edward R. Tufte, “The Visual Display of Quantitative Information,”
`1983 (“Tufte VDQI”)
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`Edward R. Tufte, “Envisioning Information,” Third Edition,
`
`_Vi_
`
`Page 7 of 36
`
`

`
`CBM2014—00l31
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`
`Exh. No.
`
`Description
`
`December 1992 (“Tufte EI”)
`
`Ben Shneiderman, “Designing the User Interface: Strategies for
`Effective Human-Computer Interaction,” Third Edition, 1998
`(“Shneiderman”)
`
`Sunny J. Harris, “Trading 101 — How to Trade Like a Pro,” 1996
`(“Harris”)
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`Robert Dee], “The Strategic Electronic Day Trader,” 2000 (“Deel”)
`
`Sun Microsystems, Inc., “Open LookTM Graphical User Interface
`Functional Specification,” November 1989 (“Open Look”)
`
`Valerie Quercia et al., “X Window System User’s Guide,”
`OSF/Motif 1.2 Edition, The Definitive Guides to the X Window
`System, Vol. 3, August 1993 (“Quercia”)
`
`Richard W. Afrms Jr., “Profits in Volume — Equivolume Charting,”
`1975 (“Aims”)
`
`Definition of “default,” The Computer Glossary, Fifth Edition, 1991
`page 175. (“Computer Glossary”)
`
`Definition of “default,” The Illustrated Dictionary of
`Microcomputers, Third Edition, 1990, page 90. (“Illustrated
`Dictionary”)
`
`Definition of “default,” Webster’s New World College Dictionary,
`Fourth Edition, 2007, page 378. (“Webster’s”)
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 2002, pages 102,
`150, 174, 176, and 348 (“Microsoft Computer Dictionary”)
`
`Defendants’ Memorandum of Law In Support of Joint Motion for
`Summary Judgment That the ’056 Patent is Invalid Under 35 U.S.C .
`§ 112 1] 1 for Lack of Written Description, Trading Technologies
`International, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-00715,
`
`United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
`Eastern Division, filed August 15, 2011 (“SJ Motion”)
`
`Trading Technologies International Inc.’s (1) Opposition to
`Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment That the ’056
`Patent is Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 11 1 for Lack of Written
`Descri tion and 2 Cross Motion for Summa
`Jud
`
`Page 8 of 36
`
`-vii-
`
`

`
`CBM2014—00l3l
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`
`Exh. No.
`
`Description
`
`’056 Patent Meets the Written Description Requirement Set Forth in
`35 U.S.C. § 112 1} 1, Trading Technologies International, Inc. v.
`BGC Partners, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-00715, United States District
`
`Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, filed
`September 14, 2011 (“SJ Opposition”)
`
`1030
`
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Trading Technologies
`International, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc., Case No. 1:10—cv-00715,
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1036
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
`
`Eastern Division, filed February 9, 2012 (“SJ Opinion”)
`
`Vernon L. Smith, “An Experimental Study of Competitive Market
`Behavior,” The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. LXX, No. 2,
`April 1962 (“Smith”)
`
`Declaration of Kendyl A. Roman (“Roman Decl.”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Kendyl A. Roman (“Roman CV”)
`
`List of Materials Considered by Kendyl A. Roman (“Roman List of
`Materials”)
`Official Transcript of Conference Call held January 20, 2015
`Declaration of Ronald E. Skidmore (“Skidmore Decl.”)
`
`Declaration of Maho Taniguchi-Speller (“Speller Decl.”)
`
`Declaration of Eiken Hino (“Hino Decl.”)
`
`Declaration of Akiko Rosenberry (“Rosenberry Decl.”)
`
`Declaration of Courtney O’Connell (“2"d O’Connell Decl.”)
`
`April 16, 2015 Hearing Transcript (“Apr Conf. Call Tr.”)
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Kendyl A. Roman in Support of
`Petitioners’ Reply for Covered Business Method Review of U.S.
`Patent 7,533,056 (“Suppl. Roman Decl.”)
`
`1043
`
`Deposition Transcript of Christopher Thomas held April 28, 2015
`(“Thomas Tr.”)
`
`Deposition Transcript of Christopher Thomas held August 14, 2007
`(“Thomas eSpeed TL”)
`
`1045
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Richard Hartheimer dated October 21,
`201 1 (“Suppl. Hartheimer Decl.”)
`
`Page 9 of 36
`
`- viii -
`
`

`
`Exh. No.
`
`Description
`
`CBM2014—00l31
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`
`Excerpts of Trial Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. ll—A, Trading
`Tech ’s Int’! v. eSpeed Inc., et al. Case No. 04-cv-5312 (N .D. Ill.),
`held September 26, 2007. (“eSpeed Tr. Vol. 11”)
`
`Excerpts of Trial Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. 12—A, Trading
`Tech ’s Int’I v. eSpeed Inc., et al. Case No. 04—cV-53 12 (N .D. Ill.),
`held September 27, 2007. (“eSpeed Tr. V01. 12”)
`
`Excerpts of Trial Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. 17-A, Trading
`Tech ’s Int’! v. eSpeed Inc., et al. Case No. 04—cV—5312 (N .D. Ill.),
`held October 4, 2007. (“eSpeed Tr. Vol. 17”)
`
`Summary of Facts and Submissions for European Patent No. 1 319
`211, dated September 30, 2010 (“EPO Summary of Facts and
`Submissions”)
`
`1050
`
`Deposition Transcript of Harold Abilock held April 24, 2015
`(“Abilock Tr”)
`
`Proprietor’s Response to Communication Pursuant to Article 101(1)
`and Rule 81(2) to (3) EPC, dated June 14, 2011 (“EPO Response”)
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`Deposition Transcript of Richard Hartheimer held April 29, 2015
`
`Deposition Transcript of Akiko Rosenberry, Vol. II, held February
`1 7, 201 5
`
`Page 10 of 36
`
`_ix_
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`
`The Board should find all claims ineligible for patenting and obvious over
`
`the prior art. Trading Technologies International’s (“TT”) claims recite the abstract
`
`idea of graphing bids and offers to help a trader make an order, which could be
`
`performed mentally or with pen-and-paper. The claims recite nothing more than
`
`the well understood, routine, and conventional activities of receiving data,
`
`displaying it with a computer, and accepting a user’s order and sending it to the
`
`exchange. TT concedes that the claims are obvious over the prior art, with the
`
`exception of its idiosyncratic definition of default quantity as the user’s last-
`
`entered quantity, which is a conventional design practice.
`
`II. TT’s claims are ineligible for patenting
`After TD Ameritrade filed its Petition, the Supreme Court established a two-
`
`step test for determining patent eligibility of abstract ideas, consistent with its prior
`
`Mayo decision. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014). The
`
`Court did not “delimit the precise contours of the ‘abstract idea’ category.” Id. at
`
`2357. Rather, it set forth a broad framework for determining whether a claim was
`
`directed to an abstract idea. The Alice test has now been applied countless times by
`
`the courts and the Office.
`
`Step one asks whether the patent is directed to one of the three judicial
`
`exceptions to patentable subject matter: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`Page 11 of 36
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`abstract ideas. Id. at 2354-55. The abstract idea category “embodies the
`
`
`
`longstanding rule that an idea of itself is not patentable.” Id. at 2355.
`
`Step two asks whether the elements of each claim, both individually and as
`
`an ordered combination, recite any significant limitation or “inventive concept”
`
`transforming the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
`
`2357. A claim must do more than merely state the abstract idea and add the words
`
`“apply it.” Id. It must recite “additional features” to ensure that it is “more than a
`
`drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].” Id. And those
`
`“additional features” must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional
`
`activity.” Mayo Collaborative Svcs. v. Prometheus Labs., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294
`
`(2012).
`
`Application of the Alice two-step test here leads to one conclusion: TT’s
`
`claims are not eligible for patent protection. Claim 1 of the ’056 patent merely
`
`instructs a practitioner to implement the abstract idea of graphing bids and offers to
`
`assist a trader in making an order. And merely implementing that abstract idea
`
`using well known components (a generic computer), limiting the abstract idea to a
`
`particular field of use (trading financial products), or adding insignificant extra-
`
`solution activities (data gathering, sending orders, and arranging data) “add[s]
`
`nothing of practical significance to the underlying abstract idea.” Ultramercial v.
`
`Hulu, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In short, the claims do not transform
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`Page 12 of 36
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. TT does not separately argue
`
`
`
`the patent eligibility of its dependent claims, so all claims stand or fall under § 101
`
`with claim 1.
`
`A. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of graphing bids and
`offers to help a trader make an order (Step 1)
`
`Claim 1 recites a method for displaying transactional information and
`
`facilitating trading in a system, the steps including receiving bid and offer
`
`information of a product from an electronic exchange, displaying the bid and offer
`
`information, receiving a user input indicating a default quantity and price for an
`
`order and sending the order to the electronic exchange. Inst. Dec. at 14-15. But the
`
`claim does not recite any particular way for performing these steps, and the
`
`specification does not disclose any particular algorithms. Id. at 15. The claims are
`
`therefore directed to the abstract idea of graphing bids and offers to help a trader
`
`formulate an order. Id.; Pet. at 18-20.
`
`TT accuses TD Ameritrade of over-generalizing to “shoehorn the claims into
`
`failing the Alice test,” and dramatically blacks out vast swaths of claim language to
`
`illustrate so-called “phantom claims” allegedly created by TD Ameritrade. POR at
`
`7-9, 19. But the problem lies with TT’s claims, not TD Ameritrade’s arguments.
`
`For example, the blacked-out portion of the “receiving bid and offer information”
`
`step (POR at 7-8) does not alter that this is merely a conventional data-gathering
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`Page 13 of 36
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`step requiring nothing more than receiving bid and offer information from an
`
`
`
`electronic exchange. Similarly, TT’s over-exuberant use of the black marker on the
`
`“displaying” steps (id.) does not alter that bids and offers are merely plotted along
`
`a price axis. This unpatentable idea is nothing new, and can be done with pen and
`
`paper, or even in a trader’s mind. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d
`
`1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (unpatentable mental process performed with aid of
`
`pen and paper); Suppl. Román Decl. ¶ 3 (Ex. 1042); see also TSE at 0107 (prior-
`
`art electronic plot of bids and offers along price axis) (Ex. 1004); Silverman at
`
`FIG. 4 (prior-art paper plot of same) (Ex. 1010).
`
`TT makes three arguments for why its claims are not directed to an abstract
`
`idea. First, TT argues that the claims are directed “to a GUI improvement” rather
`
`than “a trading strategy or trading on a GUI in the abstract.” POR at 18-20. TT
`
`merely fashions a straw man and knocks it down. Here, the abstract idea is not “a
`
`trading strategy” or “trading on a GUI.” Rather, the abstract idea is graphing bids
`
`and offers to facilitate trading, the digital equivalent to a trader manually plotting
`
`or mentally visualizing such data. While it might be possible to claim a GUI
`
`improvement that it is not directed to an abstract idea, TT has not done so here.
`
`Second, TT argues that its claimed GUI improvement speeds up the data
`
`gathering and display so that the trader may “quickly ascertain the current state of
`
`the market.” POR at 3-4. But this simply proves TD Ameritrade’s point: the claim
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`Page 14 of 36
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`is directed to graphing market data to facilitate trading, not to a technical solution
`
`
`
`or improvement. Moreover, the claims do not recite any speed or time limitations.
`
`Suppl. Román Decl. ¶ 3. A system that takes hours to display bids and offers,
`
`although perhaps unsatisfactory for a user, would still infringe. Id.
`
`Third, TT argues that its claims do not recite an abstract idea because the
`
`“analog predecessor [to electronic trading], open outcry trading systems, operat[e]
`
`in a significantly different fashion.” POR at 19. TT argues against the wrong
`
`analog system. The unpatentable abstract idea here is graphing market data, and
`
`the analog equivalent is manually plotting or mentally visualizing such data.
`
`The claims do not recite an inventive concept (Step 2)
`
`B.
`Beyond the abstract idea of graphing bids and offers to facilitate making a
`
`trade, the claims recite only the insignificant and conventional extra-solution
`
`activities of receiving bid and offer information, receiving an order including a
`
`default quantity and a selected price, and sending the order to the exchange to be
`
`executed. There is no dispute that the art teaches these well understood, routine,
`
`and conventional extra-solution activities.1 The claims do not “offer[] a meaningful
`
`limitation beyond generally linking the use of the [method] to a particular
`
`
`1 Even TT’s idiosyncratic definition of default quantity as the user’s last-
`
`entered quantity is a conventional design practice. Pet. at 33-34.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`Page 15 of 36
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`technological environment, that is, implementation via computers.” Alice, 134 S.
`
`
`
`Ct. at 2360). And even if the claims recited organizing the data into a particular
`
`arrangement, and they do not, that would insufficient to confer patentability.
`
`Digitech Image Techs. v. Electronics for Imaging, 758 F.3d 1344, 1350-51 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014).
`
`TT argues that its claims pass Alice’s step two because “it is clear that the
`
`claims recite an inventive concept, a GUI improvement.” POR at 20. But TT does
`
`not identify any particular GUI improvement in the patent’s claims. Instead, TT
`
`states that “the PTAB needs only to reference the patent,” which “describes its
`
`invention as an improvement to prior GUIs,” and concludes without explanation
`
`that “the patent claims that solution.” Id. at 21 (emphasis added). Claim 1 merely
`
`instructs the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
`
`This is not enough. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359; Int’l Sec. Exch. v. Chicago Bd.
`
`Options Exch., CBM2013-00049, Final Decision at 9 (Paper 53, Mar. 2, 2015)
`
`(generic computer limitations do not confer patent eligibility).
`
`TT also argues that TD Ameritrade failed to address the claim steps as a
`
`combination. POR at 20. Not true. In its Petition, TD Ameritrade referred to the
`
`two separate proposed combinations of prior art, supported by extensive
`
`testimonial and documentary evidence, as showing that the claims recite nothing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Page 16 of 36
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`beyond the abstract idea that could bring them within the realm of patentable
`
`
`
`subject matter. Pet. at 19-20.
`
`C. The claims preempt the abstract idea of graphing bids and offers
`to assist a trader in making an order
`TT seeks to avoid Alice altogether by asserting that there is no preemption
`
`concern, relying on guidance provided to examiners. POR at 14 (citing 79 Fed.
`
`Reg. 74618, 746[2]5 (Dec. 16, 2014)). In support of its preemption argument, TT
`
`offers two examples of allegedly non-infringing alternatives.2
`
`As an initial matter, under the guidance TT cites― guidance that does not
`
`apply to the Board―the Alice test may be skipped only if patent eligibility is “self-
`
`evident.” 79 Fed. Reg. at 74625. For example, the patent eligibility of a “complex
`
`manufactured industrial product,” such as a “robotic arm assembly having a
`
`control system that operates using certain mathematical relationships,” is
`
`considered self-evident. Id. The ’056 patent does not claim a complex
`
`manufactured product. It claims a method for graphing market data to facilitate
`
`trading. TT cannot avoid Alice.
`
`2 The Board should give no weight to TT’s factual assertions that the two
`
`products do not infringe. TT provides no evidence, only weak attorney argument
`
`and conclusory statements, that they “plainly fall[] outside the scope of the
`
`claims.” POR at 14, 17.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`Page 17 of 36
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`TT also misconstrues the law regarding preemption. The existence of non-
`
`
`
`infringing alternatives does not per se render a claim patentable. For example, a
`
`field-of-use restriction opens up an entire universe of non-infringing ways to
`
`practice an abstract idea, but that is not enough to confer patent eligibility. Mayo,
`
`132 S.Ct. at 1300-01. Likewise, adding insignificant post-solution claim steps to an
`
`abstract idea may open up non-infringing alternatives, but that does not confer
`
`patent eligibility. Id. And here, TT did not show either that the two alleged
`
`noninfringing alternatives perform the abstract idea, or, if they perform the abstract
`
`idea, that they were not merely missing such insignificant post-solution activity.
`
`Claim 1 recites graphing bids and offers to help a trader make an order,
`
`using a computer. Alice and its progeny do not allow for such preemption.
`
`D. The cases cited by TT do not stand for the proposition that
`overcoming computer problems confers patent eligibility
`Relying primarily on DDR Holdings, TT argues that its claims are
`
`“necessarily rooted in computer technology” and solve a problem specifically
`
`arising in computers, thus they must be patent eligible. POR at 21-25.
`
`TT’s reliance on DDR Holdings is misguided. DDR Holdings does not stand
`
`for the broad proposition that claims solving computer problems are necessarily
`
`patent-eligible. Indeed, claims for converting binary-coded decimal to binary―as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`Page 18 of 36
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`distinctly a computer-rooted problem as any― are not patent eligible. Gottshalk v.
`
`
`
`Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71 (1972).
`
`The DDR Holdings court carefully limited its opinion to the claims before it,
`
`cautioning “that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are
`
`eligible for patent.” DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014). The claims passed Alice’s step two because they specified “how interactions
`
`with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result—a result that overrides
`
`the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of
`
`a hyperlink,” and expressly recited “a specific way to automate the creation of a
`
`composite web page.” Id. at 1258-59. In contrast, the claims here do not recite a
`
`specific way of doing anything. They do not recite how to receive data, how it is to
`
`be displayed (other than along a price axis), how to enter a default quantity, how to
`
`select a location along the price axis, or how to send the order for that quantity at
`
`that price. To the extent a computer is used in the ’056 patent claims, it is used
`
`“only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations,” such
`
`as displaying data and accepting user inputs. Id. at 1256; Suppl. Román Decl. ¶ 4.
`
`That is not enough to confer patent eligibility.
`
`The claims here are more like those in Ultramercial, which were ineligible
`
`because they “broadly and generically” recited using a computer to perform the
`
`abstract idea. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258-59 (discussing Ultramercial).
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`Page 19 of 36
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`Although the eleven claim steps in Ultramercial “add[ed] a degree of
`
`
`
`particularity,” they merely required implementing the abstract idea (advertising as
`
`currency) “with routine, conventional activity.” Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715-16.
`
`TT has not identified any computer problem that it had to overcome. TT
`
`alleges that its claims make trading faster and help traders visualize information.
`
`POR at 1-3; see also Thomas Tr. at 63 (traders would track inside market “in their
`
`head”) (Ex. 1043); Thomas Rep. ¶ 32 (“significantly reduces the mental
`
`calculations required by the preexisting systems”) (Ex. 2201). But this is not a
`
`computer problem, and “accelerat[ing] an ineligible mental process does not make
`
`that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687
`
`F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`The other cases TT cites also fail to support TT’s legal arguments. First, TT
`
`relies on the CQG case for the propositions that claims directed to GUI
`
`improvements necessarily pass Alice’s second step and that a court has already
`
`found its claims patentable. POR at 1, 19-21. But that decision looked at different
`
`patents, and (incorrectly) concluded that the patents-at-issue passed Alice’s step
`
`two because the recited “static price axis,” which does not appear in the claims of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`Page 20 of 36
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`the ’056 patent, was an inventive concept. Trading Techs. Int’l. v. CQG, No. 05-
`
`
`
`cv-4811, slip op. at 10 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2015) (Ex. 2200).3
`
`The claims in Intellectual Ventures survived because they recited “a specific
`
`method of customizing web pages.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Mfrs. & Traders
`
`Trust Co., No. 13-1274, 2014 WL 7215193 at *9 (D. Del. Dec. 18, 2014); but see
`
`Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Financial Corp., No. 13-cv-0740, 2014 WL
`
`1513273 at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 16, 2014) (finding those same claims patent-
`
`ineligible). Similarly, in Smartflash, the patent claims recited “specific ways of
`
`using distinct memories, data types, and use rules that amount to significantly more
`
`than the underlying abstract idea.” Smartflash, LLC, et al. v. Apple, Inc., et al., No.
`
`6:13-cv-447-JRG, Report and Recommendation at 19 (E.D. TX. Jan. 21, 2015)
`
`(Ex. 2210). And in OpenTV, the Court’s summary judgment decision turned on the
`
`
`3 Regardless, a “static price axis” is present on any paper plot, and was a
`
`conventional data display feature. TSE at 0107 (electronic static price axis);
`
`Silverman at FIG. 4 (paper plot). Also, the CQG decision involved a different
`
`patent, a different burden of proof (clear and convincing), a different set of
`
`defendants (not including TD Ameritrade), and is not binding on TD Ameritrade or
`
`the PTAB. The CQG court also lacked the benefit of the extensive prior art
`
`evidence and argument TD Ameritrade has provided to the Board.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`Page 21 of 36
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`case’s posture. OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix Inc., No. 3:14-cv-1525, 2014 WL 7185921
`
`
`
`at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2014). The Court had not yet construed the claims, so
`
`whether the claims recited an abstract idea remained “a question for another day.”
`
`Id. at *10.
`
`III. TT’s claims are obvious
`In arguments better suited for a motion to exclude, TT tries (and fails) to rid
`
`itself of the TSE reference. But TD Ameritrade established that TSE is prior art,
`
`and properly filed an accurate translation with supporting affidavits of accuracy.
`
`TD Ameritrade therefore begins its discussion with the merits TT tries so hard to
`
`avoid, which are limited to whether the combination teaches receiving a user-input
`
`default quantity and sending a subsequent order having that default quantity.
`
`A. The TSE combination teaches receiving a user’s default quantity
`and sending the user’s orders for that quantity
`
`Claim 1 recites “receiving a user input indicating a default quantity” to be
`
`used in later orders, and “sending the order for the default quantity” to the
`
`electronic exchange. TT does not dispute that