throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 23
`
`
` Entered: February 24, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`
`IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.,
`TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`IBFX, INC., CQG, INC., and CQGT, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`CBM 2015-00179
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 32
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2108
`IBG ET AL. v. TRADING TECH
`CBM2016-00032
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC, TradeStation Group, Inc.,
`TradeStation Securities, Inc., TradeStation Technologies, Inc., IBFX, Inc.,
`CQG, Inc., and CQGT, LLC, (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`requesting a covered business method patent review of claims 1–15 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’056 patent”). Paper 9
`(“Pet.”). In response, Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Patent Owner Preliminary Response. Paper 21 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324, which provides that a
`post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information
`presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not
`that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”
`For the reasons that follow, we institute a covered business method
`patent review of claims 1–15 of the ’056 patent.
`A. Related Matters
`The ’056 patent is involved in the following lawsuit: TT v. BGC
`Partners, Inc., et al., No. 1:10-cv-00715 (N.D. Ill.). Pet. 3. In compliance
`with 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a), Petitioner certifies that it has been sued for
`infringement of the ’056 patent. Id. Patent Owner does not challenge
`Petitioner’s certification that it has been sued for infringement of the ’056
`patent.
`
`B. The ’056 Patent
`The Specification of the ’056 patent describes a user interface for an
`electronic trading system that allows a remote trader to view trends for an
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 32
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`item, which assists the trader to anticipate demand for an item. Ex. 1001,
`2:8–26.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1 of the ’056 patent is the only independent claim:
`1.
` A method of operation used by a computer for
`displaying transactional information and facilitating trading
`in a system where orders comprise a bid type or an offer
`type, the method comprising:
`
`
`
`receiving bid and offer information for a product from an
`electronic exchange, the bid and offer information
`indicating a plurality of bid orders and a plurality of offer
`orders for the product;
`
`displaying a plurality of bid indicators representing
`quantity associated with the plurality of bid orders, the
`plurality of bid indicators being displayed at locations
`corresponding to prices of the plurality of bid orders
`along a price axis;
`
`displaying a plurality of offer indicators representing
`quantity associated with the plurality of offer orders, the
`plurality of offer indicators being displayed at locations
`corresponding to prices of the plurality of offer orders
`along the price axis;
`
`receiving a user input indicating a default quantity to be
`used to determine a quantity for each of a plurality of
`orders to be placed by the user at one or more price
`levels;
`
`receiving a user input indicating a desired price for an
`order to be placed by the user, the desired price being
`specified by selection of one of a plurality of locations
`corresponding to price levels along the price axis; and
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 32
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`sending the order for the default quantity at the desired
`price to the electronic exchange.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentabilily
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1—15 of the ’056 patent are
`
`unpatentable based on the following specific grounds:
`
`
`
`Challenged
`
`Claim(s)
`
`References
`
`§101
`TSE‘, Togherz, Schott3, and Cooper4
`§ 103
`Silverrpani Togher, Cooper, and
`§ 103
`
`Ho an
`
`E. Expanded Panel Request and Procedural Issues
`
`Patent Owner suggests that this decision be made by an expanded
`
`panel of administrative patent judges. Prelim. Resp. 75-77. Discretion to
`
`expand a panel rests with the Chief Judge, who, on behalf of the Director,
`
`may act to expand a panel on a suggestion from a judge or panel. AOL Inc.
`
`v. Coho Licensing LLC, Case IPR2014-00771, slip op. at 2 (PTAB Mar. 24,
`
`‘TOKYO STOCK EXCHANGE OPERATION SYSTEM DIVISION, FUTURES/OPTION
`
`PURCHASING SYSTEM TRADING TERMINAL OPERATION GUIDE (1998) (Ex.
`1004) (“TSE”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,375,055, issued Dec. 20, 1994 (Ex. 1008) (“Togher”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,619,631, issued Apr. 8, 1997 (Ex. 1009) (“Schott”).
`4A1an Cooper, ABOUT FACE: THE ESSENTIALS OF USER INTERFACE DESIGN,
`First Edition (1995) (Ex. 1015) (“Cooper”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 5,136,501, issued Aug. 4, 1992 (Ex. 1010) (“Silvennan”).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,414,809, issued May 9, 1995 (Ex. 1011) (“Hogan”).
`4
`
`Page 4 of 32
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`2015) (Paper 12) (informative). Patent Owner’s suggestion was considered
`by the Acting Chief Administrative Patent Judge, who declined to expand the
`panel.
`The parties urge us to defer to prior Board decisions in related
`covered business method patent review proceedings and decisions of district
`courts in related proceedings. Here, we do not give much, if any, deference
`to the prior Board decisions and the decisions of the district courts that we
`are directed to in determining whether to institute a covered business
`method patent review in this proceeding. The prior decisions were based on
`different patents, different claims, different parties, different evidence, and
`in the case of the district court proceedings, different standards of proof and
`different claim construction standards. Additionally, we give no
`consideration to the arguments Patent Owner presents in letters sent to the
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`F. Covered Business Method Patent
`A covered business method patent is “a patent that claims a method or
`corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations
`used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or
`service, except that the term does not include patents for technological
`inventions.” Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 329 (2011) (“AIA”) § 18(d)(1); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.302. To
`determine whether a patent is for a technological invention, we consider
`“whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological
`feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and solves a technical
`problem using a technical solution.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b). For purposes of
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 32
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`determining whether a patent is eligible for a covered business method
`patent review, the focus is on the claims. A patent need have only one claim
`directed to a covered business method to be eligible for review.
`Petitioner has shown that the ’056 patent is a patent that claims a
`method for performing data processing or other operations used in the
`practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.
`Pet. 4–5. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, recites a method of 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(s), and sending the order(s) to an
`electronic exchange. As such, claim 1 is directed to a method for
`performing data processing or other operations used in the practice,
`administration, or management of a financial service (facilitating trading in
`an electronic exchange).
`Patent Owner argues that none of the claims are directed to a method
`for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice,
`administration, or management of a financial product or service—a method
`of doing business. The claims, Patent Owner argues, are directed to features
`and functionality embodied in a graphical user interface (“GUI”) tool, and
`not in any business method or practice, directing attention to legislative
`history in support of Patent Owner’s arguments. Prelim. Resp. 8–15. We
`are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Claim 1 is directed to “[a]
`method . . . for displaying transactional information and facilitating trading
`in a system.” (Emphasis added.) Patent Owner has not explained why a
`method of facilitating trading in a system is not a method of doing business.
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 32
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
` Instead, Patent Owner’s general emphasis on features and functionality that
`are embodied in a GUI tool is misplaced, because such features and
`functionality are not claimed. Method claim 1 recites a method for
`displaying transactional information and facilitating trading in a system
`using a computer. Claim 1 does not recite specific hardware or software for
`performing the steps of method claim 1, or a GUI tool.
`As indicated above, even if a patent includes claims that would
`otherwise be eligible for treatment as a covered business method, review of
`the patent is precluded if the claims cover only “technological invention[s],”
`as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b). Petitioner asserts that the ’056 patent
`claims fail to recite any technological feature that is novel and unobvious
`over the prior art, and do not solve a technical problem with a technical
`solution. Pet. 5–9. In particular, Petitioner argues that the claims recite
`trading software that is implemented using conventional computer hardware,
`servers, and networks, directing attention to a description in the ’056 patent
`that generically refers to “personal computers, terminals as part of a
`network, or any other computing device” and no specific hardware to carry
`out the invention. Id. at 6–7 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:34–36). Petitioner also
`argues that electronic trading was well known as of the filing date. Id.; Ex.
`1006.
`
`We agree with Petitioner that the claims are directed to well-
`understood, routine, and conventional steps of receiving market information,
`displaying it graphically to a trader, who uses the information to facilitate
`trading a commodity. Id.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 32
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`
`For example, the “BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION” section
`of the ’056 patent explains that it was well known for an exchange to record
`all transactions for a particular item and to replay or post to the individual
`traders outstanding bids with the highest values and outstanding offers with
`the lowest value, along with a quantity specified for each order, to facilitate
`trading a commodity. Ex. 1001, 1:37–41. There is no indication in the ’056
`patent that the inventors invented gathering market information, displaying it
`to a trader, and using the information to facilitate trading a commodity. The
`use of a computer to perform these functions also was known in the art at the
`time of the invention, and the ’056 patent does not claim any improvement
`of a computing device.
`Patent Owner argues that the ’056 patent is for a technological
`invention because the claims, previously allowed by the Office, are directed
`to a novel and nonobvious GUI tool that improves, and transforms, a
`computer so it can perform functions it previously could not. Prelim. Resp.
`17–18. We disagree that claim 1, for example, is directed to a novel and
`nonobvious GUI tool that improves, and transforms, a computer so it can
`perform functions it previously could not. Patent Owner’s arguments in that
`regard are conclusory, not directed to any specific language from the claims
`themselves. As explained above, claim 1 is directed to gathering market
`information, displaying it to a trader, and the trader using the information to
`facilitate trading a commodity, features that were well known at the time of
`the invention. Moreover, there is no specific computer, program, or
`processing described in the ’056 patent beyond what was known in the art at
`the time of the invention. To the extent that the Patent Owner urges us to
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 32
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`give deference to the decisions the Examiner made in allowing the claims
`before us, we do not, because the record before us now is quite different that
`it was before the Examiner.
`Petitioner argues that the claimed subject matter does not solve a
`technical problem using a technical solution, because the problem is a
`financial one and the solution is to rearrange available market data on a
`display. Pet. 8–9. In contrast, Patent Owner argues that the claimed subject
`matter recites a new GUI design (a new technology) that addressed the
`problem with the old GUI design, and, thus, is directed to solving a technical
`problem using a technical solution. Prelim. Resp. at 18–23.
`We agree with Petitioner that the problem noted in the Specification
`of the ’056 patent is not a technical one. The ’056 patent Specification
`highlights the problem and importance of informing a trader of certain stock
`market events so that the trader may use such information to facilitate
`trading a commodity. Ex. 1001, 2:19–26. However, informing a trader of
`certain stock market trends or events is more of a financial problem than a
`technical problem. We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments
`that the claims are directed to solving a technical problem using a technical
`solution because Patent Owner’s arguments, in that regard are not directed to
`what is claimed.
`For all of the foregoing reasons, the subject matter of claim 1 is not a
`“technological invention” under 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b), and the ’056 patent
`is eligible for a covered business method patent review.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 32
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In a covered business method patent review, claim terms in an
`unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of
`the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b).
`See In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir.
`2015), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 84
`U.S.L.W. 3218 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2016) (No. 15-446). Under the broadest
`reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term
`must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the following claim terms: “price
`axis,” “offer and bid indicators representing quantity,” “default,” “indicators,
`icons and tokens,” “receiving a user input indicating a desired price for an
`order . . . by selection of one of a plurality of locations . . . along the price
`axis,” “the desired price,” and “the default quantity working at the electronic
`exchange,” which are recited at least in claims 1, 5, and 15. Pet. 13–20. At
`this juncture, Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed claim
`constructions.
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s proposed constructions and determine,
`on this record, that they are consistent with the broadest reasonable
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 32
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`construction. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the following claim
`
`constructions:
`
`price axis
`
`a reference line for plotting prices,
`including labeled, unlabeled, visible,
`and invisible reference lines
`
`re resentin uanti
`
`indicators
`
`indicators, icons, and tokens
`
`receiving a user input indicating a
`desired price for an order .
`.
`. by
`selection of one of a plurality of
`locations .
`.
`. along the price axis
`
`entered Value
`
`a symbol such as an alphanumeric
`character or a graphic representation
`of an item
`
`adjusting an order after it has been
`created
`
`the desired price
`
`a price that is specified for an order
`placed by user
`
`The default quantity working at the
`electronic exchange (claim 7)
`
`the unfilled portion of an order
`placed in claim 1
`
`B. 35 US. C. § 101 Asserted Ground of Unpatentabilily
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1—15 of the ’056 patent are directed to
`
`non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Pet. 24-38. Patent
`
`Owner disagrees. Prelim. Resp. 31-57. Upon reviewing the claims before
`
`us, Petitioner’s analysis, and Patent Owner’s arguments, we determine that
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 32
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`Petitioner has established that claims 1–15 more likely than not are directed
`to non-statutory subject matter under § 101.
`Section 101 of Title 35, United States Code, provides: “Whoever
`invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
`composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may
`obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this
`title.”
`The Supreme Court recognizes three exceptions to these statutory
`classes: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Alice Corp.
`Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Mayo
`Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293
`(2012). Although an abstract idea by itself is not patentable, a practical
`application of an abstract idea may be deserving of patent protection. Alice,
`134 S. Ct. at 2355. We must “consider the elements of each claim both
`individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the
`additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
`application.” Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). The claim must
`contain elements or a combination of elements that are “‘sufficient to ensure
`that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon
`the [abstract idea] itself.’” Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294).
`Claim 1, the sole independent claim, recites in the preamble a method
`for displaying transactional information and facilitating trading in a system.
`The method steps include receiving bid and offer information of a product
`from an electronic exchange, displaying the bid and offer information,
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 32
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`receiving a user input indicating a default quantity and price for an order,
`and sending the order to the electronic exchange.
`Petitioner argues that claim 1 encompasses the abstract idea of
`graphing (or displaying) bids and offers to assist a trader to make an order.
`Pet. 27. Petitioner argues that the steps of receiving bid and offer
`information, receiving an order including a default quantity and a selected
`price, and sending the order to an exchange to be executed were well-
`understood, routine, and conventional activity that adds nothing significant
`to the abstract idea. Id. 30–31. Petitioner argues that dependent claims 2–15
`add only well-understood, routine, conventional post-solution activity to the
`abstract idea of claim 1, such as displaying a sent order (claim 5), displaying
`bids, offers, and an order with different characteristics (claim 6), and
`displaying the quantity of an order (claim 7).
`Patent Owner argues that the recitation of a price axis makes the
`claims patent eligible. Prelim. Resp. 39. We disagree. Claim 1
`recites displaying bid and offer indicators along a price axis. There is
`nothing significant about the price axis in the claim. Indeed, as
`explained above, the claims are broad and do not recite using any
`particular features or functions of a GUI tool to perform the broad
`method steps as Patent Owner asserts. We have considered, but are
`not persuaded by, Patent Owner’s arguments that claim 1 does not
`include an abstract idea. We also have considered Patent Owner’s
`arguments that the claims recite an inventive concept rooted in
`computer technology. Prelim. Resp. 46–55. We are not persuaded by
`these arguments because, again, the claims are not directed to
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 32
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`particular features or functions of a GUI tool as Patent Owner asserts.
`
`
`The Specification of the ’056 patent does not disclose a particular way
`for receiving market information, displaying that information, accepting a
`user’s order, or sending an order to the exchange, nor does the Specification
`provide or disclose any particular algorithms or rules for performing the
`recited functions of claim 1. All of the method steps of claim 1 are
`performed on a generic computer. Petitioner has shown that it is more likely
`than not that claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of graphing (or
`displaying) bids and offers to assist a trader to make an order, and that the
`remaining method steps recite no additional substantive limitations so that
`the claim does not preempt the abstract idea itself.
`On this record, we also are persuaded that the recited functions of all
`of claims 2–15 are directed to insignificant post-solution activities (e.g.,
`using the data acquired and manipulating that data to generate different ways
`to display information) that add nothing to the abstract idea recited in claim
`1. In that regard, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that
`claims 5–7 are directed to technological GUI elements. Prelim. Resp. 57.
`Claim 5 depends directly from claim 1 and includes displaying an order icon
`at a location that corresponds to the desired price level along the price axis,
`and that the order icon indicates the user’s order at the electronic exchange.
`Claim 5 does not recite technological GUI elements, but rather recites
`conventional post-solution activity to the abstract idea of claim 1, e.g.,
`displaying a user’s sent order.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 32
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`
`Unlike the claimed combination of elements in DDR Holdings, LLC v.
`Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the claimed method of the
`’056 patent combines the claim elements according to their known functions
`to achieve routine and conventional results. See DDR Holdings¸ 773 F.3d at
`1257–58. On this record, we are not persuaded that the combination of the
`claimed elements transforms the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible
`application.
`Based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated that claims 1–15 are more likely than not patent ineligible
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`C. Obviousness of Claims 1–15 over TSE, Togher, Schott, and Cooper
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 over TSE, Togher, Schott, and Cooper. To support its contentions,
`Petitioner provides explanations as to how the prior art meets each claim
`limitation. Pet. 38–60. Petitioner also cites the Declaration of Kendyl A.
`Román for support. See Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 114–120.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to establish that TSE was
`publically accessible, and, thus, prior art. Prelim. Resp. 58. Patent Owner
`also argues that if TSE is determined to be prior art, we should deny
`institution on this ground for claims 5–7 because TSE does not meet the
`“order icon” limitation for those claims. Id. at 62.
`TSE as prior art
`Petitioner argues that TSE is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`Pet. 21–22. In support of its showing that TSE qualifies as prior art,
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 32
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`Petitioner relies on November 21, 2005 deposition testimony of Atsushi
`Kawashima taken during litigation between Patent Owner and a third party
`eSpeed, Inc. Ex. 1007. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner presents
`insufficient evidence to show that TSE was publically accessible, that the
`testimony of Atsushi Kawashima is not reliable, and that a jury already has
`concluded that TSE is not prior art. Prelim. Resp. 58–62. For the reasons
`that follow, we determine that, at this juncture of the proceeding, Petitioner
`has established that TSE is prior art.
`Patent Owner argues that we should give deference to a previous jury
`determination that “TSE is not prior art as of March 2, 2000.” Prelim.
`Resp. 62 (citing Ex. 2030, 11; Ex. 2032). That determination, to the extent
`that Patent Owner has shown sufficiently its relevance to this proceeding, is
`not binding on us. Petitioner was not involved in that case. Moreover,
`Petitioner need only show by a preponderance of the evidence that TSE is
`prior art, not by the higher clear and convincing standard used in district
`court proceedings. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e).
`Nor are we persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Mr.
`Kawashima’s testimony is not reliable. In particular, Patent Owner argues
`that Mr. Kawashima admitted that the company he worked for, the Tokyo
`Stock Exchange (TSE), “provided alleged art, including TSE documents, to
`the Japanese patent office to challenge TT’s patent in Japan” making Mr.
`Kawashima an interested witness. Id. at 61. Patent Owner does not explain
`sufficiently what it means by this or how Kawashima’s testimony supports
`the assertion. For example, we cannot discern what patent or proceeding is
`being referred to per Exhibit 1007, and Patent Owner does not direct us to
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 32
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`other evidence to support the assertions made. Such vague arguments that
`the company Mr. Kawashima worked for at some time submitted some prior
`art during some Japanese proceeding are insufficient to show that Mr.
`Kawashima is not a disinterested witness and that his testimony is unreliable
`for purposes of this proceeding. At this juncture of the proceeding, we will
`not disregard Mr. Kawashima’s testimony.
`We next turn to the issue of whether Petitioner has established that
`TSE is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Whether a document qualifies as
`a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) is a question of law based on
`underlying findings of fact. See In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir.
`1986). Documents qualify as prior art so long as the interested public has a
`means of accessing them. See, e.g., Hall, 781 F.2d at 899. “Accessibility
`goes to the issue of whether interested members of the relevant public could
`obtain the information if they wanted to.” Constant v. Advanced Micro-
`Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Moreover, “[i]f
`accessibility is proved, there is no requirement to show that particular
`members of the public actually received the information.” Id.
`TSE is entitled “Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal
`Operation Guide” of the “Tokyo Stock Exchange Operation System
`Division.” Ex. 1004, 1.7 In the middle of page 5 is the annotation “August,
`1998” above the words “Tokyo Stock Exchange Operation System
`Division.” Id. at 5. Petitioner argues that TSE is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(a) because it was published in August of 1998 by giving two copies to
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 32
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`each of the about 200 participants in the Tokyo Stock Exchange, who were
`free to do whatever they wanted with their copies of the publication. Pet.
`21–22 (citing Ex. 1007, 0012–33).
`In support of its arguments regarding TSE as prior art, Petitioner
`directs us to portions of Mr. Kawashima’s testimony. At the time of his
`testimony, Mr. Kawashima testified that TSE “is the current TSE futures
`options trading system terminal document, manual” that was prepared
`August of 1998 by the Tokyo Stock Exchange. Ex. 1007, 0010. He further
`testified that the purpose of the manual was that “in 1998 we replaced the
`futures options trading system and so this new manual was prepared because
`there were changes to the way the trading terminals were operating.” Id. at
`0012. Kawashima further testified that the manual was distributed to
`participants who were “securities companies for banks who are able to carry
`out futures options trading at the TSE” and that the “manual was given to
`explain those changes” made with respect to the operation of the TSE
`trading system and terminals. Id. at 0012, 0014.
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, Petitioner does not assert that
`“TSE was distributed to traders.” Prelim. Resp. 60. Rather, Petitioner
`asserts that TSE was distributed to participants in the Tokyo Stock
`Exchange. Pet. 21. Based on the evidence before us, the participants were
`securities companies for banks. The purpose of the manual was to alert the
`securities companies of changes to the way the trading terminals of the
`Tokyo Stock Exchange operated. Ex. 1007, 0012, 0014. Indeed, TSE is a
`
`
`7 References are to pages located at center bottom of the English translation.
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 32
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`manual that includes for example, in Chapter 2, instructions for terminal
`system configuration to enable a participant, such as a security company to
`connect to the Tokyo Stock Exchange. Ex. 1004, 10–25. Chapter 15,
`entitled “Response To A Problem” provides detailed explanations should a
`problem arise with terminal equipment, communication circuit difficulties,
`central system recovery difficulties, etc., along with in-house procured
`terminal problem handling instructions. Id. at 5. Thus, TSE is a manual that
`covers how to electronically connect to the Tokyo Stock Exchange.
`The evidence before us supports us finding that TSE was made
`accessible to securities companies who would have employed technical
`support personnel, such as computer scientists and engineers, who would
`have needed a copy of the TSE manual to configure their own system to
`electronically communicate, and to continue to trade securities, with the
`Tokyo Stock Exchange. Thus, the securities companies would have
`included computer scientists and engineers as well as traders. We find that
`such persons who worked at the securities companies would have been
`“interested members of the relevant public.”
`Patent Owner’s narrow focus on whether a GUI designer actually
`received TSE is misplaced. Prelim. Resp. 60. Our reviewing court has
`explained that the inquiry is whether interested members of the relevant
`public could obtain the information if they wanted to; not whether such
`interested members actually received the information. Constant, 848 F.2d at
`1569. As explained above, we do not find that interested members of the
`
`
`of TSE (Ex. 1004).
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 32
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00179
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`relevant public are limited to GUI designers, and Patent Owner has not
`shown sufficiently why we should find otherwise.
`In any event, even assuming that interested members of the relevant
`public is limited to GUI designers, we find Mr. Kawashima’s testimony that
`the securities companies were free to do whatever they wanted with their
`copies of the publication to be probative. Ex. 1007, 0015. Based on the
`record before us, we find that such GUI designers could have located the
`TSE manual through reasonable diligence. No restrictions were placed on
`the 200 company recipients of the manual, such that they could freely share
`the document upon inquiry. That is all the law requires. It does not require
`a showing that interested members of the relevant public actually received
`the document. Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments
`that Mr. Kawashima’s testimony is suspect and not reliable because there is
`no corroborating evidence that TSE was obtained by, or distributed to,
`participants. See, e.g.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket