Paper No. ___
`Filed: December 13, 2016
`
`
`
`
`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
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION
`ON CROSS-EXAMINATION TESTIMONY OF
`PETITIONER’S DECLARANT DAVID RHO
`
`
`1
`
`
`Filed: December 13, 2016
`
`
`
`
`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
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION
`ON CROSS-EXAMINATION TESTIMONY OF
`PETITIONER’S DECLARANT DAVID RHO
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 77 Fed. Reg. 48753, 48763 (Aug. 14, 2012), Patent Owner
`
`Paper No. ___
`Filed: December 13, 2016
`
`
`hereby submits this motion for observation regarding the cross-examination
`
`testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, David Rho.
`
`I.
`
`OBSERVATION NO. 1
`
`In Exhibit 2342, on page 34, lines 10-21, Mr. Rho testified as follows:
`
`Q: Your opinion in Exhibit 1035, your reply declaration, when
`
`you say: "TSE's price axis is static when the display is in the
`
`Scrolling Screen Mode with a compressed price display," that
`
`that opinion is not anywhere in your earlier declaration, Exhibit
`
`1004?
`
`. . .
`
`A: Well, I haven't done a detailed re-reading of Exhibit
`
`1004, but it doesn't appear to be in there.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s request that this opinion, along with
`
`the arguments made by Petitioner that rely on this opinion be stricken from
`
`Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`II. OBSERVATION NO. 2
`In Exhibit 2342, on page 37, line 7 to page 38, line 6, Mr. Rho testified as
`
`Case: CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`follows:
`
`Q: Okay, in your reply declaration, Exhibit 1035, do you have
`
`an opinion that transitioning TSE's display from a non-
`
`compressed "Board x 4" display to a non-compressed "Board x
`
`2" display, adds price levels under TT's interpretation of the
`
`term price levels, is it fair to say that that opinion is nowhere to
`
`be found in your earlier declaration, Exhibit 1004.
`
`. . .
`
`A: Well, you used slightly different wording, because it says
`
`here: "Transitioning TSE's display from a non-compressed
`
`board by four to a non-compressed 'Board x 2' mode," I
`
`think you used different wording, but this opinion does not
`
`appear to be in the 1004 document.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s request that this opinion, along with
`
`the arguments made by Petitioner that rely on this opinion, be stricken from
`
`Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`III. OBSERVATION NO. 3
`In Exhibit 2342, on page 55, lines 4-9, Mr. Rho testified as follows:
`
`Case: CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`Q: Okay. Is it fair to say that in connection with your reply
`
`declaration you did not review the file history of the `055
`
`patent?
`
`A: Well, it's not listed in paragraph two, so it seems fair,
`
`yes.
`
`This testimony is relevant to the weight and sufficiency of Mr. Rho’s opinion set
`
`forth in paragraphs 22-25 of his Reply declaration (Exhibit 1035) regarding the
`
`“adjusting” claim limitation.
`
`IV. OBSERVATION NO. 4
`In Exhibit 2342, on page 81, line 7 to page 82, line 5, Mr. Rho testified as
`
`follows:
`
`Q: Well, what's the issue in the screen on the left, the "Board x
`
`4"?
`
`A: The issue is the TOPIX.
`
`Q: What's that?
`
`A: TOPIX is a -- I'm pretty sure that that is the futures on -
`
`- I don't remember all the details around it, so I know it's a
`
`future on some index, it's an index future.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`Q: Is that the same issue shown on the screen on the right?
`
`A: For the "Board x 2" display?
`
`Q: Yes?
`
`A: Well, the issue on the "Board x 2" display is the LT
`
`JGB.
`
`Q: What's that?
`
`A: Well, I know what the JGB stands for, it's Japanese
`
`government bond, I don't remember what LT stands for,
`
`but it's a -- it's clearly a different issue from TOPIX.
`
`This testimony is relevant to the weight and sufficiency of Mr. Rho’s opinion (set
`
`forth in paragraphs 22-25 of his Reply declaration (Exhibit 1035)) that “a
`
`PHOSITA would have understood that transitioning or ‘adjusting’ from a ‘Board
`
`x4’ display to a ‘Board x 2’ display would add 13 price levels.” Ex. 1035, ¶ 23.
`
`V. OBSERVATION NO. 5
`In Exhibit 2342, on page 103, line 17 to 104, line 3, Mr. Rho testified as
`
`follows:
`
`Q: Okay. But your understanding is, when you're looking at
`
`this claim language, reading it on the "Board x 4" display, the
`
`first plurality of price levels are the seven levels you've
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`identified and then the range of price levels is just the same
`
`levels; right, that's your understanding?
`
`A: That's my understanding, yes.
`
`This testimony is relevant to the argument on pages 60-64 of Patent Owner’s
`
`Response (Paper 32) and Mr. Rho’s opinion set forth in paragraphs 22-25 of his
`
`Reply declaration (Exhibit 1035). This testimony is relevant to whether
`
`transitioning from TSE’s “Board x 4” display to TSE’s “Board x 2” display meets
`
`the “adjusting the first plurality of price levels among a range of price levels . . .”
`
`claim limitation.
`
`VI. OBSERVATION NO. 6
`In Exhibit 2342, on page 109, line 9 to page 110, line 3, Mr. Rho testified as
`
`follows:
`
`Q: So in this example provided on page 15 are those center
`
`prices substantially the same, notwithstanding the fact that
`
`they're different issues?
`
`A: Well, I'd also like to point out that they are in different
`
`word statuses. So it's not just the issues that are different
`
`it's also the board statuses that are different. So -- and the
`
`timing, it's 1317, but that doesn't necessarily give you -- let's
`
`see, here -- so taking into account some of those other
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`conditions, they are -- they don't happen to be in
`
`substantially the same relative location, I mean, that the --
`
`the center of those particular boards.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Mr. Rho’s opinion set forth in paragraphs 22-25 of his
`
`Reply declaration (Exhibit 1035). This testimony is relevant to whether “a
`
`PHOSITA would have understood that transitioning or ‘adjusting’ from a ‘Board
`
`x4’ display to a ‘Board x 2’ display would add 13 price levels,” and whether
`
`transitioning from TSE’s “Board x 4” display to TSE’s “Board x 2” display meets
`
`the “adjusting” claim limitation. Ex. 1035, ¶ 23.
`
`VII. OBSERVATION NO. 7
`In Exhibit 2342, on page 111, lines 5-18, Mr. Rho testified as follows:
`
`Q: So the fact that the "Board x 2" display doesn't display price
`
`levels 13007 through 13013, that range, is not displayed in the
`
`"Board x 2" display, that's how you know that the center price
`
`is not substantially the same place between the two?
`
`A: Well, it's because the 13007, 008 and 009, are not being
`
`displayed on the "Board x 2" display when it is being
`
`displayed on the "Board x 4" display, in this -- in these
`
`particular figures.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`This testimony is relevant to Mr. Rho’s opinion set forth in paragraphs 22-25 of his
`
`Case: CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`Reply declaration (Exhibit 1035). This testimony is relevant to whether “a
`
`PHOSITA would have understood that transitioning or ‘adjusting’ from a ‘Board
`
`x4’ display to a ‘Board x 2’ display would add 13 price levels,” and whether
`
`transitioning from TSE’s “Board x 4” display to TSE’s “Board x 2” display meets
`
`the “adjusting” claim limitation. Ex. 1035, ¶ 23.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/Cole B. Richter/
`Cole B. Richter,
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Reg. No. 65,398
`
`
`
`McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert &
`Berghoff LLP
`300 South Wacker Drive
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`(312) 913-0001 Telephone
`(312) 913-0002 Facsimile
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 13, 2016
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: CBM2016-00009
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`TESTIMONY OF PETITIONER’S DECLARANT DAVID RHO was served on
`
`December 13, 2016, via email directed to counsel of record for the Petitioners at
`
`the following:
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/Cole B. Richter/
`Cole B. Richter, Counsel for
`Patent Owner
`Reg. No. 65,398
`
`8
`
`Robert Sokohl
`rsokohl-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Lori Gordon
`lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`
`Richard Bemben
`rbemben-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`Dated: December 13, 2016
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
