UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE, INC., and
`TD AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP.,
`
`Petitioners
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 6,766,304
`____________________
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`1
`
`IBG LLC ET AL. - EXHIBIT 1005
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) ................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real party-in-interest ............................................................................. 1
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2
`
`Lead and back-up counsel with service information ............................ 3
`
`II.
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a)) ................................................ 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`TD Ameritrade has standing ................................................................. 4
`
`TD Ameritrade is not estopped or barred .............................................. 4
`
`The ‘304 Patent is a Covered Business Method.................................... 4
`
`1.
`
`The ’304 patent claims a covered business method. ................... 5
`
`D.
`
`The ’304 patent it not for a “technological invention” ......................... 5
`
`III.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)) ....................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory grounds for the challenge ...................................................... 8
`
`Citation of Prior Art .............................................................................. 8
`
`IV.
`
`The ’304 patent ..............................................................................................10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................................10
`
`Claim Construction..............................................................................10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“single action” ...........................................................................10
`
`“common static price axis” .......................................................11
`
`“dynamically displaying” ..........................................................12
`
`2
`
`

`
`4.
`
`“order book” ..............................................................................13
`
`V. Grounds of Unpatentability ...........................................................................13
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-40 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 .......14
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: TSE anticipates claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 20-23 and 26-40. 15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Overview of TSE ......................................................................15
`
`Prosecution History ...................................................................17
`
`TSE anticipates independent claims 1 and 27. .........................18
`
`TSE anticipates claim 2. ...........................................................29
`
`TSE anticipates claims 3 and 9. ................................................30
`
`TSE anticipates claims 5 and 6. ................................................30
`
`TSE anticipates claim 7. ...........................................................30
`
`TSE anticipates claim 8. ...........................................................30
`
`TSE anticipates claim 11. .........................................................31
`
`10. TSE anticipates claims 12 and 13. ............................................32
`
`11. TSE anticipates claim 14. .........................................................33
`
`12. TSE anticipates claim 15. .........................................................34
`
`13. TSE anticipates claims 20, 21, 30, and 33. ...............................34
`
`14. TSE anticipates claims 22 and 23. ............................................35
`
`15. TSE anticipates claim 26. .........................................................35
`
`16. TSE anticipates claims 28 and 29. ............................................35
`
`17. TSE anticipates claims 31 and 34. ............................................36
`
`3
`
`

`
`18. TSE anticipates claims 32 and 35. ............................................37
`
`19. TSE anticipates claim 36. .........................................................38
`
`20. TSE anticipates claims 37-39....................................................38
`
`21. TSE anticipates claim 40. .........................................................39
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: TSE renders claims 4 and 10 obvious. ...............................39
`
`D. Ground 4: TSE and Gutterman renders claims 16-19, 24, and 25
`obvious. ...............................................................................................40
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`TSE in view of Gutterman renders claims 16 and 17 obvious. 40
`
`TSE in view of Gutterman renders claims 18 and 19 obvious .42
`
`TSE in view of Gutterman renders claims 24 and 25 obvious. 42
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Silverman and Gutterman renders claims 1-25 and 27-40
`obvious. ...............................................................................................43
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Overview of Silverman and Gutterman ....................................43
`
`Prosecution history ....................................................................48
`
`The combination of Silverman and Gutterman ........................50
`
`The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders
`independent claims 1 and 27 obvious. ......................................52
`
`The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claims 2
`and 8 obvious. ...........................................................................64
`
`The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claims 3
`and 9 obvious. ...........................................................................66
`
`The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claims 4
`and 10 obvious. .........................................................................66
`
`The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claims 5
`and 6 obvious. ...........................................................................66
`
`4
`
`

`
`9.
`
`The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claim 7
`obvious. .....................................................................................66
`
`10. The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claim 11
`obvious. .....................................................................................67
`
`11. The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claims
`12 and 13 obvious. ....................................................................68
`
`12. The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claim 14
`obvious. .....................................................................................68
`
`13. The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claim 15
`obvious. .....................................................................................69
`
`14. The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claims
`16 and 17 obvious. ....................................................................70
`
`15. The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claims
`18 and 19 obvious. ....................................................................72
`
`16. The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claims
`20, 21, 30, and 33 obvious. .......................................................72
`
`17. The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claims
`22 and 23 obvious. ....................................................................73
`
`18. The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claim 24
`obvious. .....................................................................................74
`
`19. The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claim 25
`obvious. .....................................................................................74
`
`20. The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claims
`28 and 29 obvious. ....................................................................74
`
`21. The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claim 31
`and 34 obvious. .........................................................................75
`
`22. The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claims
`32 and 35 obvious. ....................................................................76
`
`5
`
`

`
`23. The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claim 36
`obvious. .....................................................................................76
`
`24. The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claims
`37-39 obvious. ...........................................................................76
`
`25. The combination of Silverman and Gutterman renders claim 40
`obvious. .....................................................................................78
`
`F.
`
`GROUND 6: the combination of Silverman, Gutterman, and Paal
`renders claim 26 obvious. ....................................................................78
`
`VI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................80
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit List
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`Exh. No. Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304 to Kemp, II et al. (“’304 patent”)
`1002
`“Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation
`Guide,” Tokyo Stock Exchange (“TSE JP”)
`Certified Translation of “System for Buying and Selling Futures and
`Options Transaction Terminal Operational Guidelines” (“TSE”)
`Certificate of Translation for “System for Buying and Selling
`Futures and Options Transaction Terminal Operational Guidelines”
`(“TSE Certificate”)
`Memorandum from James M. Hilmert to eSpeed file regarding
`direct examination of TSE’s 30(b)(6) witness, dated December 5,
`2005 (“Depo. Letter”)
`Deposition Transcript of Atsushi Kawashima, Trading Technologies
`International, Inc., v. eSPEED, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312, United
`States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
`dated November 21, 2005 (“Depo. Transcript”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al. (“Gutterman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,077,665 to Silverman et al. (“Silverman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,263,134 to Paal et al. (“Paal”)
`Petition to Make Special Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.102(d) for Ser. No.
`09/590,692, filed August 21, 2000
`Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132, Control
`No. 90/011,250, filed September 22, 2010
`Order Denying Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`6,772,132, Control No. 90/011,250, mailed December 14, 2010
`Ben Shneiderman, “Designing the User Interface: Strategies for
`Effective Human-Computer Interaction,” Third Edition, 1998
`(“Shneiderman”)
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 2002, page 150
`(“Microsoft Computer Dictionary”)
`Alan Cooper, “About Face: The Essentials of User Interface
`
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`7
`
`

`
`Design,” First Edition, 1995. (“Cooper”)
`Robert Deel, “The Strategic Electronic Day Trader,” 2000 (“Deel”)
`Declaration of Kendyl A. Román (“Román Decl.”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Kendyl A. Román (“Román CV”)
`List of Materials Considered by Kendyl A. Román (“Román List of
`Materials”)
`Declaration of David Rho (“Rho Declaration”)
`Curriculum Vitae of David Rho (“Rho CV”)
`File History of U.S. Pat. No. 6,766,304
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`Exhibit Number Not Used
`List of Materials Considered by David Rho (“Rho List of
`Materials”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,408,282 to Buist (“Buist”)
`
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`
`1028
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petitioner, TD Ameritrade, Inc., (“TD Ameritrade”) petitions for Covered
`
`Business Method Review of all claims of 6,766,304 (“’304 patent”; TDA 1001),
`
`owned by Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TTI”). TD Ameritrade will
`
`demonstrate that it is more likely than not that all 40 claims of the ’304 patent are
`
`unpatentable. The claims of the ’304 patent are directed to the integration of well-
`
`known software graphical user interface concepts into a commodities trading
`
`system. Petitioner’s expert, Kendyl Román, who has over 30 years of experience
`
`working with software graphical user interfaces, explains the purported novelty of
`
`the ’304 patent – moving indicators relative to a static axis and single action order
`
`entry – were both known and in use well before the earliest possible priority date
`
`of the ’304 patent.
`
`I. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1))
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, TD Ameritrade provides the following:
`
`A. Real party-in-interest
`The real parties-in-interest are TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., TD
`
`Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp., and TD Ameritrade, Inc. TD Ameritrade
`
`Holding Corp. is the parent of TD Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp. and TD
`
`Ameritrade, Inc. The corporate entity thinkorswim Group, Inc. (a defendant in TTI
`
`v. thinkorswim Group, Inc., 1:10-cv-00885 (N.D. Ill.)) no longer exists and was
`
`9
`
`

`
`merged into its parent, TD Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’304 patent is involved in the following proceedings that may affect, or
`
`be affected by, a decision in this proceeding: GL Trade Americas, Inc. v. Trading
`
`Technologies Int'l, Inc., 1:11-cv-00883 (N.D. Ill.); Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc.
`
`v. TradeHelm, Inc., 1:10-cv-00931 (N.D. Ill.); Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v.
`
`Open E Cry, LLC, et al., 1:10-cv-00885 (N.D. Ill.); Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc.
`
`v. thinkorswim Group, Inc., et al, 1:10-cv-00883 (N.D. Ill.); Trading Technologies
`
`Int'l, Inc. v. Tradestation Securities, Inc., et al 1:10-cv-00884 (N.D. Ill.); Trading
`
`Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. Stellar Trading Systems, Ltd., et al, 1:10-cv-00882 (N.D.
`
`Ill.); Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. Cunningham Trading Systems, LLC, et al.,
`
`1:10-cv-00726 (N.D. Ill.); Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc,
`
`1:10-cv-00715 (N.D. Ill.); Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., et al,
`
`1:05-cv-04811 (N.D. Ill.); Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, et al, 1:10-
`
`cv-00721 (N.D. Ill.); Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. Orc Software, Inc., et al,
`
`1:05-cv-06265 (N.D. Ill.); Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. FuturePath Trading,
`
`LLC, 1:05-cv-05164 (N.D. Ill.); Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. Transmarket
`
`Group, LLC, 1:05-cv-05161 (N.D. Ill.); Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v.
`
`FFastFill PLC, Inc., 1:05-cv-04449 (N.D. Ill.); Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v.
`
`Strategy Runner, Ltd., 1:05-cv-04357 (N.D. Ill.); Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc.
`
`10
`
`

`
`v. Rolfe and Nolan Systems, Inc., et al., 1:05-cv-04354 (N.D. Ill.); Trading
`
`Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. RTS Realtime Systems,
`
`Inc., et al., 1:05-cv-04332 (N.D. Ill.); Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. Peregrine
`
`Financial Group, Inc., 1:05-cv-04137 (N.D. Ill.); Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC v.
`
`Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc., 1:05-cv-04088 (N.D. Ill.); Trading Technologies
`
`Int'l, Inc. v. Ninja Trader, LLC, 1:05-cv-03953 (N.D. Ill.); Trading Technologies
`
`Int'l, Inc. v. Patsystems NA LLC, et al., 1:05-cv-02984 (N.D. Ill.); Trading
`
`Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. Man Group PLC, et al., 1:05-cv-02164; CQGT, LLC, et
`
`al. v. Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc., 1:05-cv-01584 (N.D. Ill.); Trading
`
`Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. Refco Group, Ltd., LLC, 1:05-cv-01079 (N.D. Ill.);
`
`Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. Kingstree Trading, 1:04-cv-06740 (N.D. Ill.);
`
`Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. Goldenberg Hehmeyer, 1:04-cv-06278 (N.D.
`
`Ill.); Trading Tech Int'l, Inc., et al. v. eSpeed, Inc., 1:04-cv-05312 (N.D. Ill.).
`
`C. Lead and back-up counsel with service information
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a), Petitioner appoints Lori A.
`
`Gordon (Reg. No. 50,633) as its lead counsel and Robert E. Sokohl (Reg. No.
`
`36,013) as its back-up counsel, both at the address: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN
`
`& FOX, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005, phone number
`
`(202)772-8997 and facsimile (202)371-2540.
`
`Petitioner consents to email service at the email addresses:
`
`11
`
`

`
`lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com and rsokohl-PTAB@skgf.com.
`
`II. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a))
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a), TD Ameritrade and the undersigned
`
`certify that TD Ameritrade has standing, is not estopped or barred, and that the
`
`’056 patent is available for post-grant review.
`
`A. TD Ameritrade has standing
`
`TD Ameritrade certifies that it meets the eligibility requirements of 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.302 because TD Ameritrade, Inc. and TD Ameritrade Holding Corp
`
`were sued for infringement of the ’304 patent. TTI v. thinkorswim Group, Inc.,
`
`1:10-cv-00883 (N.D. Ill.)
`
`B.
`
`TD Ameritrade is not estopped or barred
`
`TD Ameritrade certifies that it is not estopped or barred from filing this
`
`petition. TD Ameritrade has not been a party, or a privy to a party, in any post-
`
`grant proceeding of the ’304 patent, and has not filed a civil action challenging any
`
`claims of the ’304 patent
`
`C. The ‘304 Patent is a Covered Business Method
`
`The ’304 patent, titled “Click based trading with intuitive grid display of
`
`market depth” is a covered business method patent because is not for a
`
`technological invention, but claims a method for trading financial instruments.
`
`12
`
`

`
`The ’304 patent claims a covered business method.
`
`1.
`A patent that claims a method for performing data processing in the practice,
`
`administration or management of a financial product or service is a covered
`
`business method patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). In promulgating the final rules for
`
`CBM Review, the Office explained that that “financial product or service” should
`
`be “interpreted broadly,” encompassing patents “claiming activities that are
`
`financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a
`
`financial activity.” Transitional Program for CBM Patents—Definitions, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48734, 48735 (Aug. 14, 2012). The ’304 patent meets this definition. It
`
`expressly claims displaying market information relating to and facilitating trading
`
`including displaying bids and asks in the market and selecting an area on a display
`
`to set parameters for the trade order and send the trade order to the electronic
`
`exchange. (’304 patent, independent claims 1 and 27. ) Likewise, the patent
`
`describes a graphical user interface for trading such as that shown in FIGs. 3-5.
`
`D. The ’304 patent it not for a “technological invention”
`
`
`
`The ’304 patent is not for a technological invention because it does not solve
`
`a technical problem with a technical solution, but instead recites the ordinary
`
`application of old and well-understood data display and graphical user interface
`
`techniques. A technological invention is determined by considering whether the
`
`claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technical feature that is novel and
`
`13
`
`

`
`unobvious over the prior art, and solves a technical problem using a technical
`
`solution. 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b).
`
`As described in detail herein, the claims of the ’304 patent do not recite a
`
`technical feature that is novel or unobvious over the prior art, and do not solve a
`
`technical problem with a technical solution. Rather, they recite only well-
`
`understood, routine, and conventional steps of displaying market information
`
`graphically to a trader, who enters buy and sell orders, and sending the trader’s
`
`orders to the exchange to be executed.
`
`Further, the claims appear to have been crafted to recite software and only
`
`general computer components, such as a “dynamic display,” a “display device” and
`
`an “input device.” These components are not technologically novel or non-
`
`obvious. They are generic and are known technology. Even the specification of the
`
`’411 patent acknowledges that the alleged invention requires only a generic
`
`“computer or [an] electronic terminal … able to communicate directly or indirectly
`
`… with the exchange.” (’304 patent, 4:2-4.) Congress did not intend a patent with
`
`such basic, well-known technology disclosures to be inoculated from a CBM
`
`review:
`
`“[The technological inventions exception] is not meant
`to exclude patents that use known technology to
`accomplish a business process or method of conducting
`
`14
`
`

`
`business – whether or not that process or method appears
`to be novel. The technological invention exception is
`also not intended to exclude a patent simply because it
`recites technology. For example, the recitation of
`computer hardware, communication or computer
`networks, software, memory, computer-readable storage
`medium, scanners, display devices or databases,
`specialized machines, such as an ATM or point of sale
`device, or other known technologies, does not make a
`patent a technological invention. In other words, a
`patent is not a technological invention because it
`combines known technology in a new way to perform
`data processing operations.” 157 Cong. Rec. S1364
`(daily ed. March 8, 2011) (Sen. Schumer).
`
`The analysis could stop here, as the “technological invention” exception
`
`does not apply when even one prong of 37 C.F.R. §42.301(b) is not met.
`
`Regardless, the ’304 patent also fails to satisfy the second prong of 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.301(b) because the claims do not solve a technical problem using a technical
`
`solution. There is no technical problem here. Instead, the claims of the ’304 patent
`
`are directed to placing a trade order for a commodity on an electronic exchange.
`
`Even the ’304 patent admits that at the time of filing least 60 exchanges throughout
`
`the world utilized electronic trading systems to trade stocks, bonds, futures and
`
`options, and allowed traders to participate in the market. (’304 patent, 1:20-22 and
`
`15
`
`

`
`1:55-57.) Placing an order on the exchange is not a novel technical problem.
`
`The claims of the ’304 patent are not directed to a “technological invention.”
`
`The claims neither recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious nor do
`
`they solve a technical problem using a technical solution. Accordingly, the ’304
`
`patent is a CBM patent eligible for review under 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b).
`
`III.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b))
`Statutory grounds for the challenge
`A.
`TD Ameritrade requests review of claims 1-40 on six grounds: Ground 1:
`
`Claims 1-40 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 5-9,
`
`11-15, 20-23, and 26-40 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by
`
`TSE. Ground 3: Claims 4 and 10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious over TSE. Ground 4: Claims 16-19, 24 and 25 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over TSE in view of Gutterman. Ground 5: Claims 1-25
`
`and 27-40 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Silverman and
`
`Gutterman. Ground 6: Claim 26 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious over Silver, Gutterman, and Paal.
`
`B. Citation of Prior Art
` In support of the grounds of unpatentability cited above, TD Ameritrade
`
`cites the following prior art references:
`
`Futures/ Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation Guide
`
`16
`
`

`
`(“TSE”) “System for Buying and Selling Futures and Options Transaction
`
`Terminal Operational Guidelines,” a Tokyo Stock Exchange publication, is prior
`
`art under § 102(a) because it was published in August of 1998 by giving two
`
`copies to each of the about 200 participants in the Tokyo Stock Exchange. (See
`
`Depo. Letter, p. 2; Depo. Transcript, pp. 0012-33.)1 The participants were free to
`
`do whatever they wanted with their copies of this publication. (Depo. Letter, p. 2;
`
`Depo. Transcript, p. 0015.) Because this reference was published in Japanese,
`
`Petitioners also submit TSE, which is a certified translation of this Tokyo Stock
`
`Exchange publication. (TSE Translation and TSE Certification) (TDA 1003 and
`
`1004.) For the Board’s convenience, all citations are to the English-language TSE,
`
`TDA 10032, but the corresponding pages in the original-language document may
`
`be easily found by turning to the same page/Bates number in TDA 1002.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al. (“Gutterman”) issued on
`
`March 22, 1994. Gutterman qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because
`
`it issued more than one year prior to the earliest possible priority date claimed by
`
`the ’304 patent. Gutterman is provided as TDA 1007.
`
`1 Deposition Letter is provided as TDA 1005. Deposition Transcript is
`
`provided as TDA 1006.
`
`2 All citations are publication’s actual page numbers.
`
`17
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,077,665 to Silverman et al. (“Silverman”) issued on
`
`December 31, 1991. Silverman qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`because it issued more than one year prior to the earliest possible priority date
`
`claimed by the ’304 patent. Silverman is provided as TDA 1008.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,263,134 to Paal et al. (“Paal”) issued on November 16,
`
`1993. Paal qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it issued more
`
`than one year prior to the earliest possible priority date claimed by the ’304 patent.
`
`Paal is provided as TDA 1009.
`
`IV. The ’304 patent
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Based on the disclosure of the ’304 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an
`
`equivalent field as well as at least 3-5 years of academic or industry experience in
`
`graphical user interfaces. (Roman Decl., ¶ 56.)
`
`B. Claim Construction
`Except as set forth herein, the claim terms of the ’304 patent carry their
`
`ordinary and customary meanings under the broadest reasonable interpretation as
`
`would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`“single action”
`
`1.
`The specification provides a definition for this term: “[a]ny action by a user
`
`18
`
`

`
`within a short period of time, whether comprising one or more clicks of a mouse
`
`button or other input device, is considered a single action of the user for the
`
`purposes of the present invention.” (’304 patent, 4:19-23 (emphasis added).)
`
`(Roman Decl., ¶ 70.)
`
`“common static price axis”
`
`2.
`Independent claims 1 and 27 each recites the term “common static price
`
`axis”: “. . . each location in the bid [ask] display region corresponding to a price
`
`level along a common static price axis . . . .” (’304 patent, 12:40-46 (emphasis
`
`added).) For purposes of this proceeding, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`the term “common static price axis” is a reference line or column for price levels
`
`that do not change positions unless a re-centering command is received, and is
`
`common to the bid and ask display regions. The re-centering command can be
`
`manual or automatic.
`
`This construction is consistent with the specification: “[t]he values in the
`
`price column are static; that is, they do not normally change positions unless a re-
`
`centering command is received (discussed in detail later).” (Id. at 7:65-67
`
`(emphasis added).)
`
`The construction is also consistent with the construction adopted by the
`
`Court in a co-pending litigation. The Court adopted the construction as “a line
`
`comprising price levels that do not change positions unless a manual re-centering
`
`19
`
`

`
`command is received and where the line of prices corresponds to at least one bide
`
`value an one ask value.” Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 2006 WL
`
`3147697, at *4 (N.D.Ill. Oct. 31, 2006). The Court also found that the term
`
`“‘common’ connotes no more than a relationship between the price axis and the
`
`bid and ask display regions.” eSpeed, 2006 WL 3147697, at *5. The Court later
`
`“clarify[ied] that the price axis never changes positions unless by manual re-
`
`centering or repositioning.” Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 2007 WL
`
`611258, at *4 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 21, 2007).
`
`The Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s construction, relying primarily
`
`on the fact that the specification only discloses manual re-centering. Trading
`
`Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1352-55 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(“This
`
`court takes some comfort against this risk [of improperly reading a preferred
`
`embodiment into the claim] from the inventors’ use of the term ‘the present
`
`invention’ rather than ‘a preferred embodiment’ or just ‘an embodiment.’”).
`
`Finally, Petitioners’ proposed construction is consistent with the
`
`construction argued by the Patent Owner to be reasonable at both the District Court
`
`and the Federal Circuit: “price levels that do not normally change position when
`
`new market data reflecting a change in the inside market is received.” eSpeed,
`
`2006 WL 3147697, at *3.
`
`3.
`
`“dynamically displaying”
`
`20
`
`

`
`The specification does not explicitly define this term. However, the
`
`specification does explain that a trader can “add or subtract a preset quantity for
`
`the quantities outstanding in the market.” (’304 patent, 10:17-18.) In this case,
`
`quantities in the Bid or Ask columns would be updated, but not move. (See id.,
`
`10:46-54.) The specification also explains that “[t]he values in the Bid and Ask
`
`columns … are dynamic; that is, they move up and down … to reflect the market
`
`depth for the given commodity.” (Id., 7:66-8:16.) Thus, dynamically displaying a
`
`field is changing a characteristic (e.g., updating) and/or location (moving) of a
`
`displayed field. (Roman Decl., ¶ 76.)
`
`“order book”
`
`4.
`Each of claims 37, 38, and 39 recites the term “order book”: “wherein the
`
`first and second indicators are based on an exchange order book . . . .” (’304 patent,
`
`16:20-21.) The specification describes “order books” as listing “the client’s active
`
`orders in the market; that is, those orders that have neither been filled nor
`
`cancelled.” (Id. at 4:44-46.) The specification also states, “Market Depth represents
`
`the order book with the current bid and ask prices and quantities in the market.”
`
`(Id. at 4:58-59.) Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have
`
`understood the term “order book” to mean a collection of orders (e.g., bids and
`
`asks) that are active in the market. (Roman Decl. ¶ 77.)
`
`V. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`21
`
`

`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-40 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`In Mayo v. Prometheus, the Supreme Court explained that abstract ideas are
`
`not patentable, and that adding “steps consist[ing] of well-understood, routine,
`
`conventional activity . . . [that] add nothing significant” to the abstract idea does
`
`not render it patentable. Mayo Collaborative v. Prometheus Labs., 132 S. Ct. 1289,
`
`1298 (2012). Likewise, simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer or
`
`limiting it to a field of use is not a “patentable application” of that abstract idea. Id.
`
`at 1301; see also Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d
`
`1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Once an abstract idea has been identified, the key
`
`inquiry for patent eligibility is whether the abstract idea is preempted. In order to
`
`determine whether the abstract idea is preempted, the balance of the claim is
`
`evaluated to determine whether “additional substantive limitations . . . narrow,
`
`confine, or otherwise tie down the claim so that, in practical terms, it does not
`
`cover the full abstract idea itself.” CLS Bank Intern. v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717
`
`F.3d 1269, 1282 (citing Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1300; Bilski, 130 S.Ct. at 3231; Diehr,
`
`450 U.S. at 187, 101, S.Ct. 1048).
`
`The claims of the ’304 patent recite just such an abstract idea, namely
`
`placing a trade order in response to observing market data. Here, this abstract idea
`
`is merely recited in the independent claims along with well-known and
`
`insignificant extra-solution activity. Importantly, this abstract idea is central to the
`
`22
`
`

`
`trading of commodities all over the world. Patentee cannot be allowed to preempt
`
`this fundamental economic tool. Moreover, abstract ideas “cannot be circumvented
`
`by attempting to limit the use … to a particular technological environment.” Bilski,
`
`supra at 3230 (quoting Diehr, 450 U. S., at 191-192). Thus, limiting the claims to
`
`the field of trading commodities is insufficient to save them.
`
`B. Ground 2: TS