`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IBG LLC and INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent No. 7,685,055
`____________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “Patent Board”
`Patent Trial & Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`IBG LLC and Interactive Brokers LLC (collectively, “Petitioners”) object to
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`
`
`the admissibility of the following evidence Trading Technologies International,
`
`Inc. (“TT” or “Patent Owner”) submitted before the institution of Covered
`
`Business Method Review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64. Petitioners ask the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board to deny the admission and consideration of the following documents
`
`on the following bases:
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2002: Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc. and SAP
`
`AG, Case No. 2014-1194 (CAFC), Docket No. 61, Brief for the Intervenor -
`
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (May 1, 2014)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Exhibit 2003: Meyers, Brad A. “A Brief History of Human-Computer Interaction
`
`Technology.” Interactions 5.2 (1998): 44-54
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document to prove
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`the content of the original document, Petitioners object to this document as not
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`being an original document under FRE 1002, an authentic duplicate under FRE
`
`1003, nor a document that falls under any exceptions to the original-document
`
`requirement, including those of FRE 1004.
`
`Exhibit 2004: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Web Page Print
`
`out, Technical Areas
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`Exhibit 2005: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Web Page Print
`
`out, Human Computer Interaction Group
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Exhibit 2006: University of Washington Web Page Print out, Human-Computer
`
`Interaction Degree Option
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Exhibit 2007: Rochester Institute of Technology Web Page Print out, Masters in
`
`Human Computer Interaction
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Exhibit 2008: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Web Page Print out, M.S. in
`
`Human-Computer Interaction
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Exhibit 2009: Tufts University Web Page Print out, Human-Computer Interaction
`
`Certificate Program
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Exhibit 2010: Georgia Institute of Technology Web Page Print out, Human-
`
`Computer Interaction Master’s Program
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`Exhibit 2011: DePaul University Web Page Print out, Master of Science Human-
`
`Computer Interaction
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Exhibit 2012: Carnegie Mellon University Web Page Print out, Masters of
`
`Human-Computer Interaction
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Exhibit 2020: TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation et al. v. Trading Techs. Int’l,
`
`Inc., Case No. CBM2014-000131, Ex. 2097, Declaration of Harold Abilock
`
`(March 6, 2015)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Exhibit 2029: Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., Case No. 1:04-CV-05312
`
`(N.D. Ill.), Volume 11-A Trial Transcript of Proceedings (Sept. 26, 2007)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue in this proceeding, such as
`
`patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Exhibit 2030: Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., Case No. 1:04-CV-05312
`
`(N.D. Ill.), Jury Verdict Form (Oct. 10, 2007)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`Petitioners object to this document under FRE 403 because the prejudicial
`
`value far outweighs any probative value.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Exhibit 2032: Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. eSpeed, Inc. et al., Case No. 04-cv-
`
`5312, Dkt. 1140, Notification of Docket Entry (Jan. 3, 2008)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`Petitioners object to this document under FRE 403 because the prejudicial
`
`value far outweighs any probative value.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Exhibit 2033: 79 Fed. Reg. 74618- 633, USPTO 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent
`
`Subject Matter Eligibility (Dec. 16, 2014)
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because the document is never cited in the Patent Owner Preliminary Response and
`
`is therefore not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding, such as
`
`patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`Exhibit 2034: July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples, USPTO Examination
`
`Guidelines (July 2015)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`Exhibit 2039: Information Disclosure Statement 90/008,576 (Sept. 26, 2008)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue in this proceeding, such as
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims,
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Exhibit 2040: Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. eSpeed, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312,
`
`Supplemental Invalidity Contentions of eSpeed, Inc., eSpeed International, Ltd.,
`
`Ecco LLC, and EccoWare Ltd. (May 25, 2007)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Exhibit 2044: Information Disclosure Statement 90/008,576 (Feb. 28, 2008)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue in this proceeding, such as
`
`patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Exhibit 2048: Smith, Warren, Subpoena Honyaku English - Japanese Translation
`
`List, Google Group Discussion Web Page Print out (Aug. 24, 2007)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Exhibit 2049: Submission of Publications, etc., PCT 2004-504652 (Apr. 18, 2005)
`
`(Japanese language original)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Exhibit 2050: Submission of Publications, etc., PCT 2004-504652 (Ap. 18, 2005)
`
`(Translation)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Exhibit 2053: Aurora™ : The Most Technologically Advanced Trading System
`
`Available Today, Aurora Chicago Board of Trade
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because the document is never cited in the Patent Owner Preliminary Response and
`
`is therefore not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding, such as
`
`patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Exhibit 2054: Rosenthal Collins Group LLC Notice of Opposition to a European
`
`Patent, EP1319211 (Jan. 12, 2006)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Exhibit 2055: Deutsche Börse AG Notice of Opposition to a European Patent,
`
`EP1319211 (Jan. 12, 2006)
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Exhibit 2056: Eccoware Limited Notice of Opposition to a European Patent,
`
`EP1319211 (Jan. 13, 2006)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Exhibit 2062: Response to Communication Pursuant to Article 101(1) and Rule
`
`81(2) to (3) EPC dated 1 December 2010 (the "Article 101(1) Communication"),
`
`Opposition to EP1319211 (June 14, 2011)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`
`
`- 23 -
`
`
`
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Exhibit 2067: Lohr, Steve, “IBM’s Design-Centered Strategy to Set Free the
`
`Squares.” The New York Times (November 15, 2015)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`
`
`- 24 -
`
`
`
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`Case No. CBM2016-00009 of
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Exhibit 2068: Class 345, Computer Graphics Processing and Selective Visual
`
`Display Systems, Classification Definitions (January 2011): 1-50
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
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
