`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 7,685,055
`___________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I. 
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`The ’055 patent claims a patent-ineligible abstract idea. ...................... 1 
`
`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Repositioning the market information on a GUI is an abstract idea. .... 1 
`
`The claims of the ’055 patent don’t transform the abstract concept
`into an inventive concept. ...................................................................... 6 
`
`C. 
`
`Claims 17-19 are patent-ineligible because they cover signals. ........... 9 
`
`II. 
`
`Claim construction .............................................................................. 10 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`“static price axis” ................................................................................. 10 
`
`“price level” ......................................................................................... 11 
`
`other terms ........................................................................................... 12 
`
`III. 
`
`TSE is a prior art printed publication. ................................................. 12 
`
`A.  Unrebutted evidence establishes that TSE was actually
`disseminated to the interested public in August 1998. ........................ 12 
`
`B. 
`
`TSE was otherwise publicly available based on its wide,
`unrestricted distribution to the interested public. ................................ 14 
`
`IV. 
`
`The ’055 claims are obvious over the TSE combinations. ................. 15 
`
`A. 
`
`TSE renders obvious claims 1 and 17. ................................................ 16 
`
`1. 
`
`TSE’s compressed mode is “static.” ......................................... 17 
`
`a) 
`
`b) 
`
`TSE’s compressed, non-scrolling mode is static. ........... 17 
`
`TSE’s compressed, scrolling mode is also static. ........... 19 
`
`2. 
`
`TSE teaches “adjusting the first plurality [of] price levels”
`and changing “a number of the plurality of locations” in the
`bid/ask display regions. ............................................................. 20 
`
`a) 
`
`Blank screen locations aren’t “price levels.” .................. 20 
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`The “locations” in the bid/ask display regions
`correspond to price levels. .............................................. 22 
`
`b) 
`
`
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`TSE teaches the disputed limitations even under TT’s
`flawed theories—transitioning TSE’s display from non-
`compressed, boardx4 to non-compressed, boardx2. ................. 23 
`
`TT’s “end-based repositioning” and “teaching away”
`arguments aren’t commensurate with the scope of the
`claims. ....................................................................................... 25 
`
`TSE teaches re-positioning the inside market at a new
`desired location. ........................................................................ 26 
`
`B. 
`
`The TSE combinations render obvious the dependent claims. ........... 27 
`
`Abilock’s technical analysis of TSE is irrelevant; he is, at most, an
`V. 
`expert in Japanese-English translation. .................................................................... 29 
`
`VI. 
`
`The ’055 patent is CBM eligible. ........................................................ 29 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, et al.,
`134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014) ............................................................................................ 5
`
`
`Amdocs v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
`Appeal No. 2015-1180 (Fed.Cir. Nov. 1, 2016)..................................................... 8
`
`
`Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
`133 S.Ct. 2107 (2013) ............................................................................................ 8
`
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 14
`
`
`Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
`848 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 15
`
`
`Cooper Cameron Corp. v. Kvaerner Oilfield Products, Inc.,
`291 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 13
`
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 3
`
`
`Digitech Image Tech. LLC v. Elec. for Imaging, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................7, 9
`
`
`Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom S.A.,
`Appeal No. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016).......................................... passim
`
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 3
`
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v . Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 5
`
`
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`545 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir. 2008) ............................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`Lending Tree LLC v. Zillow, Inc.,
`--F.3d-- (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`
`
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l v. Sungard Data Sys.,
`643 Fed.Appx. 987 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 10
`
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................ 8
`
`
`Vivid Techs. v. Amer. Science,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .............................................................................. 12
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §101 .................................................................................................. 1, 2, 4
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 ........................................................................................................... 1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`MPEP § 2106 ............................................................................................................. 9
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) ............................................................................................... 29
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`PETITIONERS’ UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Exh. No.
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`1019
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055 to Brumfield et al. (“the ʼ055 patent”)
`File History of Application Ser. No. 11/417,547, which became the
`’055 patent, as filed and obtained from PAIR (“File History”)
`Expert Declaration of Kendyl A. Román (“Román Decl.”)
`Expert Declaration of David Rho (“Rho Decl.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,077,665 to Silverman et al. (“Silverman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al. (“Gutterman”)
`“Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation
`Guide” (“TSE JP”)
`Certified English-language Translation of “Futures/Option
`Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE”)
`Certificate of Translation for “Futures/Option Purchasing System
`Trading Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE Certificate”)
`WO 90/11571 to Belden et al. (“Belden”)
`Deposition Transcript of Atsushi Kawashima, Trading Technologies
`International, Inc., v. eSPEED, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312, United
`States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
`dated November 21, 2005 (“Depo. Transcript”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Kendyl A. Román
`List of Materials Considered by Kendyl A. Román
`Curriculum Vitae of David Rho
`List of Materials Considered by David Rho
`Mark J. Powers, “Starting Out in Futures Trading,” Sixth Edition,
`2001 (“Powers”)
`History of the American and NASDAQ Stock Exchanges, Business
`Reference Services, The Library of Congress
`Weiss, “After the Trade is Made,” pp. 44-46. (“Weiss”)
`Trading Techs. Int’l. v. CQG, No. 05-cv-4811, slip op. at 10 (N.D.
`Ill. Feb. 24, 2015)
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Exh. No.
`
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`1032
`1033
`1034
`1035
`1036
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`
`
`Description
`Ben Shneiderman, “Designing the User Interface: Strategies for
`Effective Human-Computer Interaction,” Third Edition, 1998
`(“Shneiderman”)
`Robert Deel, “The Strategic Electronic Day Trader,” 2000 (“Deel”)
`Deposition Transcript of Richard Hartheimer held April 29, 2015
`(“Hartheimer-Dep.Tr.”)
`Redacted Second Corrected Expert Report of Christopher Thomas,
`Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., Case No.
`1:05-CV-04811 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2013) (“Thomas Report”)
`Valerie Illingworth, and I. C. Pyle, Dictionary of Computing, 4th Ed,
`Oxford University Press, 1996 (“Oxford Dictionary”)
`Inside Macintosh, Promotional Edition, Apple Computer, Inc., 1985
`(“Inside Macintosh”)
`Alan Cooper, “About Face: The Essentials of User Interface
`Design,” First Edition, 1995. (“Cooper”)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Christopher Thomas, April 28, 2015
`(“Thomas Tr.”)
`Transcript of Deposition of Christopher Thomas, Trading
`Technologies International, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc. et al., No. 04-cv-
`5312 (“eSpeed Tr.”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00137, Paper 19 (“Inst. Dec.”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00137, Paper 41 (“POR”)
`Super Mario Brothers image (1985)
`Metal Warrior V1.6 source code (1999)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,205,260 to Crinon et al. (“Crinon”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 to Kemp, II et al. (“ʼ132 patent”)
`Expert Declaration of David Rho (“Rho-Reply-Decl.”)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Christopher H. Thomas, October 26,
`2016 (“Thomas-Dep.Tr.”)
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`
`
`Exh. No.
`1037
`
`1038
`1039
`
`1040
`
`Description
`Transcript of the Deposition of Harold Abilock, October 21, 2016
`(“Aiblock-Dep.Tr.”)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dan R. Olsen, Jr. (“Olsen-Dep.Tr.”)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Christopher H. Thomas, IBG LLC et
`al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc., CBM2015-00179,
`August 17, 2016 (“CBM2015-00179-Thomas-Dep.Tr.”)
`Declaration of Christopher H. Thomas, IBG LLC et al. v. Trading
`Technologies International, Inc., CBM2015-00182 (“CBM2015-
`00182-Thomas-Decl.”)
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`The ’055 patent is unpatentable under §§ 101 and 103. The claims perish
`
`
`
`under Alice because they recite an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept.
`
`The claims are also obvious over TSE. TT’s main theories of patentability
`
`are that TSE’s compressed mode is not static and blank screen locations are “price
`
`levels.” Both theories fail.
`
`I.
`
`The ’055 patent claims a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
`
`The ’055 patent fails to claim patent-eligible subject-matter. (Petition, 18-33;
`
`Inst. Decision, 21-25.)
`
`A. Repositioning the market information on a GUI is an abstract
`idea.
`
`TT contends that the claims aren’t abstract because they recite “the structure,
`
`make-up, and functionality” of an innovative GUI tool. (POR, 11, 14, 19, 22.) TT
`
`is incorrect, as demonstrated by the first-stage Alice inquiry. This inquiry looks at
`
`the claims’ “focus,” Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom S.A., Appeal No. 2015-
`
`1778, slip op. at 2 (Fed.Cir. Aug. 1, 2016), which (for ’055) is repositioning market
`
`information on a GUI. (Petition, 18-21.) Though “lengthy,” the claims don’t go
`
`beyond the receipt, display, adjustment and repositioning of available market
`
`information, “stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to
`
`technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over
`
`conventional computer and network technology.” Electric Power, slip op. at 2.
`
`Reduced to their base, the claims amount to nothing more than organizing (and re-
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`
`organizing) market information in a graphical format. They merely define a
`
`
`
`“desirable information-based result” and aren’t “limited to inventive means of
`
`achieving the result,” and thus fail under § 101. Id.
`
`TT confirms that this is the claims’ focus, characterizing the invention as
`
`“convey[ing] the state of the market [more] precisely or efficiently” than prior
`
`GUIs. (POR, 14-15.) And the ’055 patent admits that “[i]rrespective of what
`
`interface a trader uses to enter orders in the market, each market supplies to and
`
`requires from every trader the same information.” (’055 patent, 2:25-27.) Thus, the
`
`displayed data isn’t unique.
`
`The CAFC’s recent decision in Electric Power compels the conclusion that
`
`the ’055 claims recite ineligible subject-matter. There, the claims-at-issue failed
`
`§101 because they did “not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and
`
`display of available information in a particular field, stating those functions in
`
`general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the
`
`functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network
`
`technology.” Electric Power, slip op. at 2. The ’055 claims similarly recite
`
`displaying market information without limiting them to any technical means.
`
`TT accuses Petitioner and the Board of “overgeneralizing” the ’055 claims.
`
`(POR, 13.) However, when evaluating patent eligibility the CAFC routinely
`
`articulates a claim’s abstract idea in succinct terms without explicitly giving effect
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`
`to every limitation when evaluating the patent eligibility of the claimed subject
`
`
`
`matter. See, e.g., Lending Tree LLC v. Zillow, Inc., --F.3d-- (Fed.Cir. 2016)
`
`(reducing a method claim of 11 steps (361 words) to a two-word abstract idea:
`
`“coordinating loans”).
`
`TT also argues that the claims “improve[] the functioning of the computer.”
`
`(POR, 14-15.) Not true. The claimed “displaying” market information, “receiving”
`
`input commands, and “adjusting” and “repositioning” the market information in no
`
`way make the computing device recited in the claims run faster, more efficiently,
`
`or operate in any other advantageous manner. In short, the recited computing
`
`device is used in its ordinary manner to implement the abstract idea.
`
`The CAFC decisions in DDR and Enfish are inapposite. In both cases, the
`
`claimed methods sought to solve problems concerning the inner workings of a
`
`computer or network. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,
`
`1257 (Fed.Cir. 2014) (“[T]he claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer
`
`technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of
`
`computer networks.”); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339
`
`(Fed.Cir. 2016)(claims directed to “a specific type of data structure designed to
`
`improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory”). That isn’t the
`
`case with the ’055 patent, which sought to make “the most accurate and calculated
`
`trades possible in the most efficient manner.” (’055 patent, 2:61-64.) The ’055
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`
`patent’s solution—displaying market data including being able to adjust and
`
`
`
`reposition—isn’t rooted in technology and doesn’t impact the inner workings of a
`
`computer or network. Better visualization of market information does nothing to
`
`differentiate the claims from ordinary mental processes that could be performed
`
`using prior art trading GUIs. Mental processes “whose implicit exclusion from §
`
`101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.” Electric Power,
`
`slip op. at 9.
`
`TT’s claims don’t recite a “physical entity,” or even a “GUI,” but rather a
`
`“method...for displaying market information.” TT doesn’t even attempt to explain
`
`how an arrangement of market data on a trading screen is “physical.” Unlike
`
`Enfish, where the claim in question was directed at something physical, namely “a
`
`data storage and retrieval system,” TT’s claims are directed to the simple steps of
`
`displaying market data in a particular format and repositioning that data.
`
`The claims don’t recite how to receive data or display it (other than along a
`
`price axis). They don’t require a new source of data or type of information, or new
`
`techniques for analyzing the data. Nor is there any type of inventive programming.
`
`Merely displaying market information that is more comprehensible to a trader
`
`doesn’t transform the abstract idea into a statutory process. There is no
`
`technological advance.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`TT further argues that its claims aren’t abstract because they “do not claim a
`
`
`
`business method or a fundamental economic practice (e.g., hedging or
`
`intermediated risk settlement).” (POR, 17-20.) But TT conveniently overlooks the
`
`express language of the ’055 patent, which explains that “[t]he present invention is
`
`directed to electronic trading.” (’055 patent, 1:29-32, emphasis added; see also
`
`claim 16.) Independent claims 1 and 17’s sole purpose is to display market data for
`
`electronic trading. To suggest otherwise falls flat. Electronic trading is “a
`
`fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce” and is
`
`an abstract idea similar to those courts have repeatedly held abstract and ineligible.
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, et al., 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2356 (2014). Thus, the steps
`
`of the claims reflect abstract ideas about the organization of information for use in
`
`a fundamental economic practice.
`
`TT attempts to distinguish its GUI from those found to be unpatentable in
`
`Mortgage Grader and Capital One. (POR, 18.) Contrary to TT’s assertion, the
`
`interfaces at issue in these cases had as much specificity as the ’055. In Capital
`
`One, the relevant claim recited “an interactive interface” configured to dynamically
`
`display certain information (i.e., navigation data) to a user. 792 F.3d at 1367.
`
`Similarly, the ’055 patent claims a method for “displaying” information (i.e.,
`
`bids/offers), to the user. In Mortgage Grader, the relevant claim recited “a first
`
`interface” and “a second interface,” the latter of which included a display region
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`
`(“borrower grading module,” display of “total cost” of each loan). Just like the
`
`
`
`’055 patent, Mortgage Grader and Capital One claimed GUIs that identified the
`
`information the interface was to display or functionality to include, but didn’t
`
`specify how the computer was to create the interface.
`
`Thus, TT’s claims don’t recite a technological solution to a technological
`
`problem, and thus are abstract and patent-ineligible.
`
`B.
`
`The claims of the ’055 patent don’t transform the abstract
`concept into an inventive concept.
`TT argues that its claims are patentable under Alice Step 2 because they
`
`recite an “inventive concept.” TT is incorrect. Alice Step 2 looks at what the claim
`
`elements add, and specifically whether they identify an “inventive concept” in the
`
`application of the abstract idea to which the claim is directed. Electric Power, slip
`
`op. at 6. In its POR, TT speaks in generalities, failing to articulate––either taking
`
`the claim limitations individually or as an ordered combination––exactly what that
`
`“inventive concept” is. The closest TT comes to actually articulating an inventive
`
`concept is to assert that the “claims recite structural details of a specific GUI that
`
`functions differently from prior art GUIs to solve GUI-centric problems.” (POR,
`
`22.) But this vague statement is insufficient.
`
`TT also alleges that the claims of the ’055 patent “recite significantly more”
`
`than an abstract idea for three reasons: (1) “the GUI features and functionality with
`
`high level of detail”; (2) the “claimed combination of GUI features/functionality is
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`
`the solution rather than pre-solution or post-solution activity”; (3) and “there is no
`
`
`
`evidence that the claimed combination of GUI functionality was routine and
`
`conventional.” (POR, pp. 21-22.) TT is wrong on all three counts.
`
`First, the claims are far from specific in their recitation of features, reciting
`
`broad steps of receiving and displaying information and adjusting and
`
`repositioning this information. (’055 patent, 34:15-67.) The claims lack any
`
`description how these steps are accomplished. And, merely displaying and
`
`organizing data on a computer screen isn’t sufficient under Alice Step two.
`
`Electric Power, slip op. at 10 (“displaying concurrent visualization” of two or
`
`more types of information is “insufficient to pass the test of an inventive
`
`concept.”).
`
`Second, the claims organize information, reciting nothing more than
`
`conventional elements. But “[m]erely selecting information, by content or source,
`
`for collection, analysis, and display” doesn’t render a claim patent eligible. Electric
`
`Power, slip op. at 9. Likewise, “organizing information through mathematical
`
`correlations” and “manipulat[ing] existing information to generate additional
`
`information” that isn’t tied to any specific processor isn’t patent-eligible. Digitech
`
`Image Tech. LLC v. Elec. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350-51 (Fed.Cir.
`
`2014).
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`TT argues that its claimed “solution lies in the combination of, inter alia, the
`
`
`
`‘adjusting’ and ‘repositioning’ features with the static price axis and dynamic
`
`indicators.” (POR, 10.) But adjusting and repositioning data on a computer screen
`
`is notoriously well known. (Ex.1003 (“Román-Decl.), ¶¶93, 111-13. And, TT’s
`
`expert, Thomas, admitted that many other elements of the claims, particularly
`
`displaying data along a static price axis, dynamic indicators, and single action trading,
`
`were known by a POSITA. (Ex.1040 (“CBM2015-00182-Thomas-Decl.”), ¶99.)
`
`Third, even if the claims recited a novel, groundbreaking, or brilliant
`
`arrangement of elements (which they don’t), this may be insufficient to impart
`
`patent eligibility. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014) (“[T]he addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed
`
`idea [doesn’t] necessarily turn[] an abstraction into something concrete.”); Ass’n
`
`for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2107, 2117 (2013)
`
`(“groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery doesn’t by itself satisfy
`
`the §101 inquiry”).
`
`The recent decision in Amdocs v. Openet Telecom, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-
`
`1180 (Fed.Cir. Nov. 1, 2016), doesn’t alter this conclusion. There, claims (from
`
`multiple patents) were directed to “parts of a system designed to solve an
`
`accounting and billing problem faced by network service providers.” Id., 2. The
`
`CAFC found that although the claims were arguably directed to the abstract idea,
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`
`they satisfied Alice Step two because they recited an “inventive concept” through
`
`
`
`the use of a distributed architecture. Id., 22-33 (“Importantly, these components are
`
`arrayed in a distributed architecture that minimizes the impact on network and
`
`system resources.”). In particular, the Court found that the claims at issue,
`
`understood in light of the written description, were eligible for patenting because
`
`they were “tied to a specific structure of various components.” Id., 24. In contrast,
`
`the claims of the ’055 patent aren’t tied to any particularized structure and merely
`
`involve combining data in an ordinary manner without any inventive concept. See
`
`Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350.
`
`In short, where, as here, the claims merely “defin[e] a desirable information-
`
`based result and [are] not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, [they]
`
`fail under § 101.” Electric Power, slip. op. at 2. Accordingly, Petitioners
`
`respectfully request that the Board find that claims 1-19 are patent ineligible.
`
`C. Claims 17-19 are patent-ineligible because they cover signals.
`TT’s narrow construction of “computer readable medium” isn’t based on the
`
`specification since that term is not used therein. Accordingly, the Board should
`
`apply the same BRI of “computer readable medium” the PTO has applied in
`
`thousands of matters. See MPEP § 2106.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`II. Claim construction
`A.
`“static price axis”
`The Board’s construction of “static price axis” is proper. (See Decision, 8-
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`
`
`10.) TT doesn’t present a formal construction of “static price axis,” but asserts two
`
`flawed arguments to avoid TSE’s teachings. (POR, pp. 40-41.) First, TT asserts
`
`that “[a] GUI that continuously displays the current market in the center of the
`
`displayed range of price levels does not have a ‘static price axis.’” (Id., 41.) As
`
`detailed below, the claims permit continuous movement. See Section IV(A)(1).1
`
`Second, TT asserts that a price axis cannot “skip price levels.” (POR, p. 41.)
`
`The Board already considered and correctly rejected this argument as inconsistent
`
`with the ’055 patent. (Inst. Decision, 9-10.) The ’055 specification broadly
`
`discloses “displaying just the market depth levels, working orders, or other
`
`information relative to one another along a scale or axis representing particular
`
`prices” (’055 Patent, 7:43-50), displaying prices in “multiples of tics or in any
`
`other fashion” (id., 7:67-8:5; 33:36-52); and skipping price levels when the price
`
`scale is consolidated (id., 13:58-67; 17:65-18:2; 18:47-51; 29:25-37).
`
`1 The ’055 patent’s definition of “static” isn’t the same as that of its parent,
`
`TT’s ’132 patent. Trading Techs. Int’l v. Sungard Data Sys., 643 Fed.Appx. 987,
`
`988 (Fed.Cir. 2016)(“static” in the ’132 patent requires price levels to remain fixed
`
`unless a manual re-centering command is received).
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`
`
`“price level”
`
`B.
`The Board should apply the plain and ordinary meaning and reject TT’s
`
`assertion that “a price level is a location/area provided on the screen within which
`
`a price may be (but isn’t required to be) displayed.” (POR, 41.) Although not part
`
`of its construction, TT interprets blank screen locations that don’t correspond to
`
`specific prices in TSE’s price axis as price levels. (Id., 60-64.) Thomas parrots
`
`TT’s construction, but neither TT nor Thomas point to anything—in the
`
`specification or otherwise—that supports TT’s construction. (Id., 41; Ex.2169
`
`(“Thomas-Decl.”), ¶74.)
`
`The Board should reject TT’s construction. A POSITA would have
`
`understood a price level to correspond to a definite price (regardless of whether the
`
`price is displayed), not a blank location on the screen where an unknown price may
`
`be populated. (Ex.1035 (“Rho-Reply-Decl.”), ¶6.) The specification supports
`
`Petitioners’ position (id., ¶7), emphasizing the importance of a trader observing the
`
`market at different price levels. (’055 Patent, 7:16-19, 7:35-39.) Such observations
`
`would have little value if the price levels didn’t correspond to definite prices.
`
`(Rho-Reply-Decl., ¶8.) The specification also uses the terms “price” and “price
`
`level” interchangeably. (Id., ¶¶9-10; see, e.g.,’055 patent, 28:42-45, 28:58-65.)
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`
`
`other terms
`
`C.
`The Board need not construe the other terms TT presents in its POR because
`
`their constructions aren’t “necessary to resolve the controversy” in this proceeding.
`
`Vivid Techs. v. Amer. Science, 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed.Cir. 2000). Indeed, TT’s
`
`“claim constructions” rely on figures that don’t even appear in the ’055 patent. (Id.,
`
`38-39; Ex.1036 (“Thomas-Dep.Tr.”), 107:21-111:1.) The Board should reject TT’s
`
`transparent attempt to distinguish TSE under the guise of claim construction.
`
`III. TSE is a prior art printed publication.
`TT challenges TSE’s status as prior art. (POR, 43-50.) TSE (Exhibits 1007,
`
`1008) was disseminated and otherwise available to the interested public in August
`
`1998. (Petition, 15.) Thus, TSE meets the requirements for printed publication
`
`status under either prong of the test. TT doesn’t rebut any of the predicate facts
`
`establishing TSE’s printed publication status, and thus its arguments fail.
`
`A. Unrebutted evidence establishes that TSE was actually
`disseminated to the interested public in August 1998.
`
`TSE was disseminated in August 1998 to 200 participants in the Tokyo
`
`Stock Exchange. (Petition, 15; Ex.1011 (“2005-Kawashima-Dep.Tr.”), 0112-
`
`0133.) TT does not and cannot rebut this fact even though it received two
`
`opportunities to cross-examine the witness who testified to these facts,
`
`Kawashima. (Ex. 2163 (“2016-Kawashima-Dep.Tr.”).) Instead, it misstates the
`
`printed publication test. TT posits that Petitioners must prove “who actually picked
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`
`up the documents,” “whether they were POSAs,” and “what, if anything,
`
`
`
`participants did with the manuals.” (POR, 45.) While the law may require evidence
`
`of public availability, it doesn’t require proof of the identities of persons who
`
`accessed the references.
`
`The relevant public is “the public interested in the art.” Cooper Cameron
`
`Corp. v. Kvaerner Oilfield Products, Inc., 291 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed.Cir. 2002).
`
`(See also, Decision, 29.) Kawashima’s testimony establishes that TSE was
`
`disseminated to participants in the Tokyo Stock Exchange, meaning “securities
`
`companies for banks who are able to carry out futures options trading at the TSE”
`
`in order to explain changes being made TSE trading system and terminals. (2005-
`
`Kawashima-Dep.Tr., 0012, 0014.) TT’s own declarant, Thomas, stated that
`
`“[s]ince at least the early 1990s, … industry participants … have been investing in
`
`developing and providing GUI tools for electronic trading.” (Thomas-Decl., ¶36.)
`
`And Thomas further explained that industry participants that developed order entry
`
`software would have employed people of ordinary skill in the art, such as himself,
`
`during the relevant timeframe. (Ex. 1039 (“CBM2015-00179-Thomas-Dep.Tr.”),
`
`136:17-138:1.) Accordingly, the distribution of TSE to securities companies
`
`extends to employees who meet the definition of a POSITA.
`
`Further, the express purpose of TSE was to alert participants to changes in
`
`how the trading terminals of the Tokyo Stock Exchange operated, explaining in
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`
`extensive technical detail how to electronically connect to the exchange (e.g.,
`
`
`
`providing terminal system configuration instructions; troubleshooting problems
`
`with terminal equipment, communication circuits, central system recovery; and
`
`offering in-house procured terminal problem handling instructions). (TSE, 5, 10-
`
`25.) As such, TSE would have directed employees of securities companies who
`
`“developed...order entry software.” (CBM2015-00179-Thomas-Dep.Tr., 136:17-
`
`138:1.) A contractual provision relating to the underlying software wouldn’t have
`
`prevented anyone from receiving copies of TSE. Nor has TT established that the
`
`contractual provision would have prevented anyone from developing order entry
`
`software.
`
` The un-rebutted evidence establishes that TSE was disseminated to the
`
`interested public in August 1998.
`
`B.
`
`TSE was otherwise publicly available based on its wide,
`unrestricted distribution to the interested public.
`
`The evidence equally supports the conclusion that TSE was “made available
`
`to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or
`
`art exercising reasonable diligence” could have located it. Kyoc