DECLARATION OF JOHN PHILLIP MiELLOlR, PH.D.
`
`SUPiP{)RT OF CQG’S CBMR PETITION
`
`introduction
`
`I, John Philiip Evielior, Ph.D., am a resident of Terre Haste? Indiana and i
`
`have more than 18 years of professional experience in computer science and
`
`software engineering.
`
`1' hold a doctorate in eieetrical engineering and computer
`
`science and presently work as a professor at Rose-Holman Institute of Technology
`
`(p“Rose—HL1lman”) in Computer Science and Software Engineering.
`
`In addition to
`
`rny academic research in computer science and programming,
`
`I have served as a
`
`computer science and programming consultant and engineer to private industry,
`
`and an expert witness and consultant in several patent cases.
`
`I also invented and
`
`patented a new system for transforming graphical images
`
`Scope of Assignment
`
`CQG Attorneys explained to me that Trading Technologies International,
`
`Inc. {‘°"l"T") brought a lawsuit against CQG for infringement of US. Patent Nos.
`
`6,766,304 (“the ’304 patent”) and 6,772,132 (“the W32 patent”).
`
`I understand that
`
`the lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District
`
`oflliinois, Eastern Division and was assigned case number OS-ev-48} i.
`
`CQG Attorneys explained that T? is interpreting the ciairn terms “eornn1on
`
`static price axis” and “static dispiay of prices” (collectively,
`
`the “Static
`
`Limitation”) of” the independent eiaims of the “B04 and ‘E32 patents as covering
`
`1
`
`IBG LLC ET AL. - EXHIBIT 1013
`
`

`
`both a price ceiernn where ail prices are static and a price eoiunin where oniy some
`
`dispiayed prices ieveis in the eoiuinn are static, and other dispiayed price levels are
`
`dynamic.
`
`1 wilt refer to ”i‘T*s interpretation andior application ofthe patents in this
`
`manner as “TT’s Static Interpretation.”
`
`COG Attorneys also explained to me that
`
`the patent
`
`law requires the
`
`inventor to have demonstrated at
`
`the time of the tiling date of the patent
`
`application that he was in actual possession of the invention as claimed or asserted
`
`against others. CQG Attorneys referred to this requirement as the “written
`
`description requirement,” and explained that this requirement prevents the inventor
`
`from claiming or asserting more than they actually invented as determined by the
`
`patent disclosure and figures. CQG Attorneys asked me to determine whether the
`
`’304 and ‘I32 patents disclose written description support
`
`for TT’s Static
`
`Interpretation.
`
`III. Documents Reviewed in Forming my Opinions
`
`l formed my opinions based upon in}; l<now1edge, background, education,
`
`experience and review of the following documents and things:
`
`(a)
`
`Patent No. 637663304 (Ex. l).
`
`{Iii}
`
`LES. Patent No. 6,7’?2,132 (Ex. 2).
`
`(C)
`
`Protrisionai Patent Application No. 6G;’i86,322 (Ex. 3).
`
`

`
`(<3?)
`
`A Memorandum and Opinion dated October 3%, 2006 front
`
`Judge Moran for Case No. O4-ctr-«$312 bearing Docurnent
`
`425 (Ex. 4).
`
`CQG Attorneys explained to me that
`
`this
`
`Mexnorandum and Opinion represents the “Ciaina Construction
`
`Order” from the related Traciirzg ‘Techrzologies V. eSpeea’ case
`
`regarding the ’304 and W32 patents.
`
`I wili cat} this case the
`
`eSpeec[ Case.
`
`A Memorandum and Opinion dated February 21, 2007 from
`
`Judge Moran for Case No. O5-cV—48I1 bearing Document #:
`
`120 (Ex. 5).
`
`COO Attorneys explained to me that
`
`this
`
`Memorandum and Opinion represents the “Supplemental Claim
`
`Construction Order” from the eSpeed Case.
`
`A Westiaw document dated June 20, 2007 hearing citation 507
`
`F .Supp.2d 854 (Ex. 6). COG Attorneys explained to me that
`
`this document represents Judge Moran’s decision on TT*s
`
`motion for summary judgment of infringement.
`
`I wiiIt call this
`
`document the “eSpeed District Court Decision”.
`
`{is}
`
`A Westiaw document dated February 23, 2016 hearing citation
`
`595 F.3d 1340 (Ex. 7). COG Attorneys expiained to me that
`
`this document represents the appeiiate decision issued by the
`
`

`
`Limited States Court of Appeais for the Federai Circuit from the
`
`eSpeed Case regarding claim constraction, direct infringement,
`
`infringement under the doctrine of eqttivaients, definiteness,
`
`priority date, and prior use.
`
`I wiil cal} this document the eSpeec'Z
`
`Federal Circuit Decision.
`
`(ii)
`
`The Random House College Dictionary, Revised Edition
`
`having, a copyright date of £980. Excerpts from the Random
`
`House College Dictionary are attached as Ex. 8.
`
`\«Vebster’s Collegiate Thesaurus, having a copyright date of
`
`1988.
`
`Excerpts from Websteris Collegiate Thesaurus are
`
`attached as Ex. 9.
`
`(i)
`
`Electric Circuit Analysis, Third Edition (1999) by David E.
`
`Johnson, Johnny R. Johnson, John L. Hilburn, Peter D. Scott.
`
`Excerpts from this text are attached as
`
`10.
`
`Miic1*oeiectronic Circuits, Fourth Edition 0998) by Adel S.
`
`Sedra, Kenneth C. Smith. Excerpts from this text are attached
`
`as Ex. 11.
`
`Excerpts from TT’s Opening Statement in the eSpeed Case (Ex.
`
`iii).
`
`

`
`{tn}
`
`Excerpts from Brutniield testimony in the z~2Speed Case (Ex.
`
`l3).
`
`IV. Understanding of the Patent Law
`
`Whiie i have some farniiiarity with general patent law principles front injg
`
`professional experrienees, i do not consider myself an expert on patent law. CQG
`
`Attorneys provided me with additionai guidance on legal principles reiating to
`
`those laws and in particular a primer on the component parts of a patent, ciaim
`
`construction, and the written description requirement.
`
`I understand that a patent is composed of four main parts:
`
`(1) an abstract of
`
`disclosure; (2) one or more drawings or figures illustrating the invention, (3) a
`
`disclosure ofthe invention (sometimes called the specification), and (4) the claims.
`
`The abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the invention and
`
`generally identities that which is new or improved to the indlustry. Drawings or
`
`figures of the invention are required when necessary to understand the invention.
`
`The disclosure is a textual description of the invention and the figures. The words
`
`of the claims, as interpreted by the court, determine the scope of the invention.
`
`The words or phrases in the claims are sometimes referred to as “eiements” or
`
`“iirnitetions.”
`
`I understand that when a patent application is filed with the US. Patent and
`
`Tradernarit C)ffice, it is examined by an Exantiner. The Examiner is an €1}’1§3i(}:y’€€
`
`

`
`oi” the US. Patent and Trademark Office who reviex is the appiieation to determine
`
`if it meets alt of the requirements for patentahiiity as determined by the patent law‘.
`
`i understand that
`
`the Examiner and patent applicant often exchange written
`
`correspondence regarding whether the application satisfies the requirements for
`
`patientahility. lfa patent application meets aii of the requirernents for patentahility,
`
`then it
`
`is aliowed and ultimately issues as a patent. The collection of written
`
`correspondence between the patent applicant and Examiner is sometimes called the
`
`prosecution history or file wrapper.
`
`I understand that claim words are generally given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the relevant art.
`
`I also
`
`understand that this ordinary person should read the claims in View of the rest of
`
`the patent, including the disclosure and figures.
`
`I understand that statements made
`
`by the patent applicant during prosecution as recorded in the prosecution history
`
`may also be used to interpret
`
`the meaning of claim words. Accordingly,
`
`I
`
`understand that
`
`the claims are generally construed based on their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art and in Vi€W
`
`of the rest of the patent and the prosecution history.
`
`EU.
`
`I also understand that a court generaiiy interprets the claims when the parties
`
`dispute the meaning of the claim words (and therefore dispute the scope of the
`
`inventien}. Once a Court interprets a partieuiar eiaiin word? that censtruetion is
`
`

`
`generally used by the parties aged the C{}LE§"£ te determine if the claims are valid
`
`ahdfer infringed.
`
`1 E.
`
`l anderstaed that the written description requirement of the patent law seeks
`
`te prevent a patent ewner free“: evefreachiag his inverttien. Daring ereseelutien,
`
`the Written deseréetieh requirement preverits the patent applicant free} presenting
`
`claims or amending claims that cover an invention different than the invention they
`
`actually possessed when the application was filed. During litigation, the written
`
`description requirement could invalidate a patent where the claims or the patent
`
`owhefs interpretation of those claims overreach to cover an iriventicn different
`
`than the invention they actually possessed when the application was filed and
`
`disclosed to the public in the patent application. And, these issues turn on whether
`
`the
`
`abstract, disclosure,
`
`and/or drawings
`
`support
`
`the
`
`claims or
`
`asserted
`
`interpretation of the claims as determined by the person of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art.
`
`Analysis
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the ’384 and ’132 Patents
`
`l2,
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the ’304 patent on
`
`hit}; 20, .?.Q84 and the ‘I32 pateet on August 3, 2004.
`
`I reviewed the ’3{léi and ’ 132
`
`patents. The pateets leek very simiilar. While i mete that the patients have different
`
`claimss they have the same ahsteact,
`
`€liSCl0SU.I‘f:, and figures width one exeeetieh.
`
`

`
`The diaelosere ef the 384 patent
`
`includes a statement
`
`indicating that
`
`it
`
`is; a
`
`divisieeal applieatier: ef Set‘. ?\§e. 8953963962.
`
`(EX.
`
`l at eel. 1, ll. 4—~6 I} Ser. No.
`
`89§§9Q,9'<32 ig the alpplieatien number asseeiated ‘with the ’ i312 patent.
`
`(Ex,
`
`1 at p.
`
`1.}
`
`B.
`
`The Independent Claims of the Patents
`
`13.
`
`The T504 patent has two independent claims: claim I and claim 27. Claim I
`
`appears te be directed to a methed fer displaying market information relating to
`
`and facilitating trading at a commodity being traclecl
`
`in an electronic exchange
`
`having an inside market with a highest bid price and a lowest ask price on a
`
`graphical user interface.
`
`(Ex.
`
`l at col. l2, line 35~c0l. 13, line 3 .)
`
`I copied and
`
`pasted the text of the entirety of claim l of the 304 patent below with instances of
`
`the term “common static price axis” highlighted. Claim 1 of the ’304 patent starts
`
`at column. l2, line 35 and continues to column 13; line 3. To facilitate readability,
`
`I pasted the three lines from column l3 below the last line of column l2.
`
`

`
`{:3}
`
`Ciiaim 1 Qfthe 304 patent:
`
`‘W
`
`W
`
`W
`
`“J| "J(
`
`fsil‘
`
`i:}§f§;{:z‘:::%ég‘2:} §<:i;":§ii'z§;
`Ii, .5: z:’:c:§3:::<% 2:2: z§E:;;}E22}-*é::g; m,z::£«:a;:
`if:<:é
`L
`::’:‘:.:_%<.:<;f
`is: an
`zzssé §’;:céi§%:::§:3g; izgiaéing 5:? :2 m:“:2::Va<2$<;%it}‘
`
`aw"
`V
`::ia:<:§m;;éc <g:2«:s;%§“:2V:::§=?::
`23:: éiéséiia
`::::‘:::§ 2’: §»::wz.::';i 5:331 pféssz: as": .2: _§,:';apE3§a:;:% 2:322?
`E*:§s;% ;;::‘;%:::;
`fizz: z:fw§§%;:§:§ CE[§§¥E;§§'§3§?¥_£;:
`féaési §r3:?§c2:i:;::‘ £2: $3221: 81* 2-: giéiw
`:i}=;22m%:i::;a£§}?
`;‘;~:%i%jz 2.}? §z,:s:a£;§:.:z1:5. in 2: bid :§:1$;3i:«1jg :‘:;.:§:3’iu:a, c:~:a;.:ia §m;#2i§i<;2::
`ia
`izéafi :§i:<;;3é:;:§s §<‘::;,§£’3§} <:<V:Lrr::s;;>r:3::<i£:3g;;, 3:3 3
`E»;:a2<::§V
`
`:::§<;s::;_:
`2:
`£iifErF£’2?§3{3fE 5:2;
`23;:
`;:sz'*i:;:::
`§;::;§ia;;:;:z§;:;az
`ru;::x::s»t.::%Li;:;; 2; :: ;:;31,EI§; £i;s;iée£,‘3C§2iiUii xvii?) .221 izsssziiéif um: £;}£‘f; §:a:£‘
`12': Sm zém ::<VA:::i:2:Vzza:::;iiif: at 112:2 ELz£g«A.;,L%i:<:s+i<,i
`igaisé pf§i:z: -:;::3:L:{:::§§_;
`2V2a:2:£12::Ma: in
`mz::E<::::;V
`
`in a::s?:;:L of :3
`§§3{,'i'§'CEi¥’§”/~3§‘
`f9a;:%;‘:72i‘Ei§
`22
`fij;;z::;';1ic:2fE3 {f§i§§3E_2i§-’§iT};
`:<.:g;V£a1>:1,
`:;;i:<:%z
`£‘fi5&}f312i}’
`£3372
`2:r~sI~:¢
`2'3:
`§331ifr:3Ei§}f
`:3? i<:i:i:za%i:is{1:;
`E<aa‘;'é§,§§4:j?a§‘*:
`in 2%}:
`21%;}:
`a3§s;;V3%2:}¢'
`rcg,;Emz «:z::rVr::é;;:a:VVa:2::1;ir:g1 E22»
`2»:
`gzrm:
`3322*»;-2:3
`:z3:::m;;
`:?3»:i:(
`C*{T:j§i}§T7E‘}{7éi“§ gmiiiz
`:::s§£::,
`ihrs.
`:»*a:a:z;ima:Vi
`ir1gf2':::V:£:V:r
`rc§az“e;.%se»z:z“;i‘§I:gr;V; c;us:::£¢‘§i¢js za.x:e;;<:<:§Va:ic.:/i
`x:.«*“§1}a
`at
`Ia:L:?:s¢i ans;-. »:m:iz;2a‘“ iv:
`133:: <:{:m:z“as:'::§§Liijg 321 The Eémxcss-zt
`;
`z'::’-V432; garica mzzwiixg éavafizaiuézz
`:7 I339 nf::21Vr3~:c:tV;
`
`3:52;? gs;/;<;i zisii cA§iV:s~.;:§ay rs:§;i<;:s:1:s E1: rcigziimz 1:2:
`tints.
`LEi:s}'%f£i}?§¥}§;
`pe:>s;itim1::.s:§ alqizsxg,
`iiéc.
`f..TL'T11Y1I‘.flIiT3i’I
`:é»:.£,;:ti<:
`fimzd pr£z.:::
`;3:EV<::;. :::»:is; :»;m;i2 tE*;.::2 wiazziz E316 2':3:‘~:»Es:§I;:
`;f;1;::“};<:V:V eshaxa am;
`p;*iw;: Etzvcgis a—1Z::>:1g«.; {§’1£:
`i;‘{?§i3.T§§”i3{.‘%i3 atsaiiir pz*ia;:<;:
`défi mfzt
`i7i‘§ifi‘s‘\’£ ;,a;3:;iL :11 izzassti (3112: of mi: first zmrzi
`:é£:‘é:{3iECi §£:<i£~::;1u:iu*s;
`
`i7?1£’3‘=f{:§5 in 1312: bid var ass?-; <§;%,spi21}s §<:;_;i<;z:15sL f£:Eé1ii*u’u3 12;:
`i:f{}i1‘1§‘R{;3§‘i
`;s1:i2a.ii'<;:
`
`ihsz
`
`:2 ;f:3:a:‘2aIi£}; ai‘
`::a:V':m;a2'i:~:;iVz1g._;
`iiiszpizagxiitg an ::‘7::':§<:§ :%;':§z'§,! :*:;:;gi::;»r*:
`}m;2;§.;};2z::s {or rcccixfizag cz.V::Vzm§3::mi:~V-; in rszzgzd tragic: :V3r:%?%.:r:sV,
`s;::aci“s
`iz°a:;?:§E§{;a:3 i3€'%fE'i;ZF§§}i3i3{§'§T3§_I;
`in 2::
`§‘éi’iz”:,§;Z 3::v::3 zaizimg ihi:
`:.§~:r:%:::2z‘::2 2:z:ai§::V ;:a:*§::::::
`:me:i
`5:2 r£::e;;»::2zV;sa.% E92
`:2:
`.¢;s:ie:;%:,;‘<;:;: mi‘ 2:
`;2;sr12’c::i;::a* §2%:j:=::V:aE;im {:i’" gm:
`sgfsrzfzzr c:‘zi:‘:»* Fi:§;§CT3*l} Efxy 3 saizzggic:
`2‘z<;:z:i<.,m 2:33?
`:3
`iiiéfii” input
`
`:3 gym:
`§l;;f:>:
`2,75 ;V:;§r;%azrV2»::§::V:s;
`§,'%E 1§§,‘:?:‘§ii,j§i
`f*§£.""/§,*£E’,?};§;
`{'§{;':"33:£Z%§,
`{;m;;iz::' £”<:§::i§E‘:;g:
`:5”: E?%iZ: <:::“;z“:;f:m<:f:a:%§éfs_,s* gm? s;::;::§§:V"a;;.; ma: §§‘£i{3¢’3
`i§3“i.§£;::‘ as am: ;:k:<:E:x;::J;1§a:
`::§2«;:E:;::":3,;z;=
`
`Claim 27 of the "305; patent appears to 1:38 directed to a camputer readable
`
`medium having proggratn code recerded thereon fbr executioa cm .3 Cempzgter.
`
`(Ex.
`
`

`
`i at mi. 143 iine «‘-i7~—<:oi, 33, iine 3?.) Claims E and 27 of the ‘B04 pawn: are
`
`otheirwiae naarly identicai. As::coi*din§.3;iy3 I wiii refer is ciaim 1 as representative <3?
`
`Ehff iixdegendant claims; of the i384 paiem.
`
`E3.
`
`The ‘Z32 pateni has three indepenéeni ciaims: claim 1, ciaim 8, and ciaim
`
`i4. Ciaim i appears is: be diirected ‘£0 a methcd sf piacing a traclé: order for a
`
`comm.0di’£y on an eiec§r0n:ic exchange having an inside market with a highest bid
`
`price ané a iowest ask price, using a graphical user interface and a user input
`
`davice.
`
`(Ex, 2 at C0}. 12, M. 2-5.)
`
`I copied and pasted the text of the entirety of
`
`claim 1 of the ’132 patent beiow with instances of the term “static display of
`
`prices” highlighted.
`
`

`
`(3)
`
`Claim 1 ofltlxe ‘E32 paliem:
`
`ii?
`
`:23’ piziciég :3 Mali: ::z*s:§::r 313? :2 ¢<2:2*:zt:£salé:l}? {NE
`L A m:;::%2:;‘%:<l
`z‘:.la:a::‘::{>:2:’x=:: <::~:2th:2;13g3: %:2m‘:3;;;;
`5:3:
`§z::§i;;l<:L I‘§3§‘si’l{i’t% will}
`22;:
`llzigfzxcsi %:%a;i
`;>:‘l§a::: 2232:?
`22 l:3w:;:;i aisli pflixi, %.iEf§i§‘£j;;
`;,j;r:z;:l::;Ec2;§
`KISS? izlziazsfszicas
`2::::;% 2.: %.::~:;«:;:‘
`i?§;):§€
`<;§<;:v£{::::, gala? :“m:£%1<:::;% Cifijéfié-
`
`gszzrszzxg:
`
`S%3§¥l§3l“i;{:
`
`3: pr€:$z::z
`
`p2‘if";‘%.£‘:1<i§€i‘ far E3?},é.”:
`
`t:*azla:.
`
`:>:‘cl<::’
`
`2:
`iiirallzzzgéi
`(—:{‘}I”;,u1I’§"I{,’)(,{,ii:§E3
`:1: if 32::
`:l<:p:¥:
`:/iiélzaflgtlt
`{[liS§f}l2¥}$’il§,‘i§,;;:
`{l}?{E£iI2”Iii;: <3§:4;;3la§s all a ;.3lla.:lr;:§iz§; £;‘}fl3li§S am? 2: plznraaliig {sf
`aslszzsg in iiizz: mzzykct fm’ $222: <;é{3z1a:13:;:>{§étj;; ixsclisilizag 2:2: 3<;:21:~:.i
`3:
`;;:«:;:riia2«z1
`01‘
`lb: his}
`am?
`ass}:
`tgiiiélliliiliififfi
`:31’
`{E122
`<:{}:z}Izf:<:>£ll§§;jy', Elk‘: dyilzamic dillspllssy ivailgzg alligzzacl ‘w’§il”3 2.
`:‘E§ié3.i§€3 £ii:s;lp§;¥§: {if g:2a*is:;::’:/:9; s;:{>rr<::;pal}:l:<;§ir3g, 1i1::::‘c:3;e.:x, wlL’::::*::is1
`lliii :*53;3Ziiii;?
`iiisaggisay £31? f;::ri:;?:::=s d::::.:se mi afrzsizw; in f£;S§,}{3f3f5ii
`In :1 ci'z;1rzg¢ in El}:
`lrasialc 3r3a1:'l<c1;
`
`imgimf 3132?}? f"iZ§;,i(}fi 21lig,n:;::£ waif: Elk? &f;i:+:tia;:
`{lElls;;V3l:::§5*il:f1:g; 31?:
`r;?i§§;;312:}s'
`pi’§;{:‘<¥;3S
`::<:2r:l1p:f§s;i11;;
`2:
`gfzlurzxlliijs
`(:37
`2126:2223
`fez"
`§e;:.:.::.:ivi13;_; a::;"2:3m1:«m:£s
`f;w:::«m thc:
`123223?
`11353121
`z:iz.:vir:s;;::§ 10
`ml 1 ':eu:i<:
`:f;t*::3c§:’~§, £:2.:cl; 311:3 s;:<13rlrz;:Ls;p<lt:z3cllifig: 1:3 21 p§is;::;: £1» ll
`Elia’: gilalzizz €§l$}'E.l.i’i}5 {sf §3{i€€S;
`zzml
`
`:11g_2,§cll:xlL;
`2:12:13’
`z:r:*{§:;:r
`;:::1r£ic1sll,a:‘ area is ilfzlx:
`acllécrlilaag 3
`tlllrraislugll giazglél z:a:£l<>:/1 mi’ fixes tlfifif llllpfil als;:via:<: will;
`22
`;>::t:i1f:ic;:r all this :;sc;:r
`iupui da;.vi«:::;: _plz;)5;£iig’l::z:;:cl (war the
`§»)‘£;/iE‘I’i’fi’i$r%2§—Ik.
`;e:‘::::
`{E1}? sat :2 plumlitjs; azf azzllcliiiciarmi g3:1ir;aH:1«
`:"<:1:s:‘ zlfzc: trade: carafe; 312:3 semi aha: iraaia: :m:_l:.:r 1:3: 133::
`
`fi3l,i$Cl,f{,}f'31lC fiii2*§;iZl}li’ZI'}*.‘:;3‘.5i:.
`
`E6.
`
`Claim 8 cf‘ ihs ’l32 patent appears to be directecl to a computer readable
`
`medium having pragmn code recorded on it for execmien on a computer.
`
`(Ex. 2
`
`a: cal. 12; line S7~<:ol. 13,
`
`lline 17.) Claim 14 oftha ‘I32 p£1li€i“£’£ appears to be
`
`directed £0 a client sysiexn for placing a ‘grade Qi‘Cl€I‘
`
`for 2: commeclity on an
`
`ele<:tr{>ni«:: exchange.
`
`(Id. at Cal. 13, line S5~<:0l. 14, line 14.) Claims l, 8, am 14
`
`

`
`otlthe ’E32 patent are otherwise neariy identicai. Accordingly, I will refer to ciaim
`
`i as representative oilthe independent claims of the ’l32 patent.
`
`C.
`
`Ciaim Construction of the Static Limitation
`
`17.
`
`CQG Attorneys provided me with copies of Judge Mioranis Ciaim
`
`Construction Order and Supplensental Claim Construction Order from the eSpeea’
`
`Case.
`
`(Eixs. 9—l{l.) They also provided me with copies ofthe eSpee.:! District Court
`
`Decision from Judge Moran and the eSpeea' Federal Circuit Decision. (Exs. 6-7.) I
`
`reviewed each of these documents and learned that the Static Limitation has been
`
`interpreted by both Judge Moran and the Federal Circuit.
`
`18.
`
`CQG Attorneys informed me that the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) is the specialized appellate court that decides
`
`most patent appeals. Regarding claim interpretation, CQG Attorneys informed me
`
`that the Federal Circuit reviews district court claim constructions without any
`
`deference to the lower court.
`
`I understand this means that the Federal Circuit’s
`
`construction of the Static Limitation is more authoritative than Judge Morarfs
`
`construction of the Static Limitation.
`
`The eSpeed Federal Circuit Decision interpreted the “static display of
`
`prices” term from the 304 patent as:
`
`“a line comprising price ievels that do no
`
`changge positions uniess a 2-aarvzrof racentering command is received and where the
`
`iine of prices corresponds to at least one hid value and orse ask vaiue.” (Ex. 7 at p.
`
`

`
`1-4
`
`(CQG{}l=<i2G2l8S)i col.
`
`2&3 The Federal Cireun also steteé {nae “[3] slatie
`
`eonditionwwmrequires permanency enei thus, the price axis never changes positions
`
`unless by in-angel re—eentering or re~posi{iloning;.”
`
`{11:z’._} Tiie Federal ClI‘Ci.;Ei{ also
`
`interpreted ihe claims :0 require a manual re-centering eomrnanel.
`
`(Id. a: p. 15
`
`(CQGOi4202l86), col. 2.)
`
`20.
`
`The eSpeed Federal Circuit Decision interpreted the “static display of
`
`prices” term from the ‘I32 patent as: “a display of prices comprising price levels
`
`that do not change positions unless a mcmuaf re~centering comrnand is received.”
`
`Id. at p. 14 (CQGOl4202l8S), col.
`
`l-2. The Federal Circuit also stated that “[21]
`
`static conditionwrequires permanency and ihus,
`
`the price axis never changes
`
`positions unless by manual
`
`re—oentering or
`
`repositioning.” Id.
`
`at p.
`
`14
`
`(CQGOl4202l85), col. 2.
`
`D.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Relevant Art
`
`‘)1.
`
`In my opinion,
`
`a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the relevant art
`
`(“PHOSITA”) is a person having (1) a bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`
`eornpuler engineering, or electrical elnlginee1‘ing or equixzalent experience, (2) two
`
`years of experience programming GU15, and (3) general lenowledge of trading and
`
`electronic trading. Under tn}; definition, I pnssess more than {he level ef ordinary
`
`skill in the art and can offer helpful tesiirnerny in {his case regarding the perspective
`
`oftliis liypoiiieiieel person. My analysis regarding the deliniiion oftlie PHOSWA
`
`

`
`arid in}; qaalificatiens to cspine as to the perspective efthe PHOSITEX is in S€C'(lO§‘iS
`
`\«”i{:Fi} arid \»r"i(Gi}, respectively.
`
`E.
`
`Review of the ’38-4 and ’132 Patents Regarding T’T’s Static
`Inferpretation
`
`22.
`
`in my Qpinicn the W32 and ’30ii patents do not provide written description
`
`support for TT’s Static lnteirpretatien.
`
`in other words, the ii’1\—‘€}’iiO3‘S at the time of
`
`the filing date were not in possession of a graphicai user interface having a price
`
`column where some displayed price levels are static, and other displayed price
`
`levels are dynamic.
`
`Instead, the inventors were in possession of a graphical user
`
`interface with only a single price column where all displayed prices in the
`
`graphical user interface are static, other than in response to a manual re-centering
`
`command.
`
`1.
`
`The Claims of the ’304 Patent Suggest That the Inventors
`‘Were Only in Possession ofa Line Where All Displayed
`Prices Are “Static”
`
`23.
`
`l started my analysis with the ’304 patent because it issued first, and with the
`
`exception of its claims, the ’30=i1 patent is identical to the W32 patent. The claim
`
`term “ccrnmcn static price axis” is representative of the Static Limitation in the
`
`’304 paierit. The plain and csrdinary meaning efthe ward “axis” is a line. This is
`
`ceniirnied by the CO¥‘£‘{Em}i)Oi’21§’i€OtiS dictionary defihitieri of the word “a:~;is.”
`
`{a}
`
`Pram the Random House College Dictionary (1980):
`
`

`
`W
`
`.
`
`l
`
`‘*1
`
`§?:_;e2%;
`
`l
`
`c :;a:«:;:
`
`‘
`
`,a:s;%:“>:%§i a
`
`an
`
`i
`
`333::
`
`A PHOSITA would agree that an axis is a line. With a strong background in
`
`mathematics including Euclidean geometry, algebra, and calculus, the PHOSITA
`
`would have a preconceived understanding of the term “axis” as a line from
`
`negative infinity to positive infinity. Anyone who has taken high school algebra
`
`would recognize that a line, unlike a line segment, is unbounded and goes on in
`
`both directions forever. A classic example of axes in algebra are the ><:- and y—aXes
`
`depicted below:
`
`

`
`5
`
`‘mm
`
`arsis
`*5E
`E
`fiw
`
`iE
`
`as
`
`2i
`
`{;}:'ig,;ia
`E}, {:3
`
`, {
`
`;;~
`
`s
`
`i
`
`Ev}
`
`y.)
`
`e—~> 3: - Z‘-tZ*«:iS
`
`Collectively, both the dictionary‘ definition, and the mathematical definition known
`
`to both high school students and the PHOSITA suggests that the inventors were
`
`only in possession of a graphical user interface that
`
`included all visible prices
`
`along the line or axis.
`
`24.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of the word “eom1non” also suggests that
`
`the inventors were only in possession of a graphical user interface having a
`
`universal static price axis or line.
`
`In other words, all prices displayed along the
`
`axis are static.
`
`A i3P‘iOSi’l‘A would therefore expect that the term “common” as a modifier
`
`the term “static price axis” mast have some lunique meaning.
`
`And} a
`
`i’liOSiT‘A, with an
`
`appropriate
`
`technical
`
`i)£’£Ci<g1‘GLlI“}d_, would necessarily
`
`

`
`$2
`Lzzzdemtané ihai “s:<;::n“::“:”:0r:” nrzeans ‘iginiversai. This andersianding is canfiamed by
`
`Ehfi <:mtempora:':e0us diciiezzary éefiniiien of the wc>1‘d “cem:n»::sn."’
`
`Adjective Definiiieizs Z, 4 and 6-15? are inapplicable here becausa they are
`
`direciecl ta izrmng aiiher things, a camxztaniiy or cuku:‘e.,.
`
`f3{}110i’§€‘{i}€‘,
`
`frequmézggg use?
`
`

`
`quality (8. average or law quality‘); vulgarity, rank and distinction, anatomy,
`
`g;_>;rammar, and matherrzatics. Definition E
`
`refers ta belonging equally er being
`
`sharecl alike la}; two or mere or all in question. This defirzitien is also rrzapplieable
`
`here because it would render redundant the “eorresporréirtg to” term fer the same
`
`reasons as described above. Definitions 3 and it in addition ‘£0 the synoraym for
`
`Definition S, Confirnr that “common” in the claims of the ’3C*4 patent: must mean
`
`universal.
`
`27.
`
`A contemporaneous
`
`thesaurus also supports
`
`this understanding.
`
`In
`
`particular, Webstefs Collegiate Thesaurus from 1988 confirms that “Common” is
`
`synortymous with “universal.”
`
`

`
`(:21)
`
`Pram Websiefg Cailegiaie Thegazsrus ( I988):
`
`agmzzwg .5; E
`W :3
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`,
`
`”’
`
`é e:‘3r:fz;%*s;3:‘§%
`
`
`
` S
`
`"“'¥i'§£ZK‘3 3:»
`
`322;:
`
`‘rash
`
`
`‘;
`
`
`§.%?./9.’
`
`2‘3J’?;‘§,
`
`
`
`‘§§“§?.§: 33:.
`
`§ 1 V 7%
`M
`
`
`
`::x:;:§§52:;::z::2
`gs?
`
`7
`
`+
`
`
`
`$7?-3%?
`;:f:::»;";:2§§£:s,
`
`
`i?’I‘§%§§ai'j.ig ggezssgaéa
`
`
`7.§£~‘l§f‘-A;.,‘§%f'§:§£:€’§ pzzwg;
`
`2
`
`
`r::z:2§:'%;»3~ «
`
`,
`
`""
`
`iiifii
`"
`'
`
`‘*3’ 3%
`
`ifi%—::i§i§
`
`The 1ajgp€r§;a:3n’s
`
`cziefiniiien of the term “<:{:>mm:::r:*;”
`
`is guppartad by the
`
`aces zed emi§:ee:*in
`F?‘
`V
`
`%
`
`defirziiisrs 0f the Same term. Becauss a PHGSITA wouid
`
`Iikeijs htifld a bacheiefs degree in cczzrzpuiar scieizssa gempizter erigineeringg or
`
`

`
`electrical engineering, this persen xmnld have a basic anderstanding at‘ electrical
`
`eirenits and eieeltrenies thrattgh their physics or i1“1“{I‘{)€l{1C‘i()I‘fg’
`
`S€C§%.i€fiC€
`
`courses te
`
`electric circuits. Andi eentempesanenus coarse banks in electric eircttits from
`
`£998 and i999 demonstrate that the greund terininalwa feature of alt properly»
`
`designed electric ei:*eaits~mis Often called the “c:amn1Qn gre:;:ntd” because it
`
`is a
`
`reference node against which voltages can be measured. The ground or cnnnnoh
`
`ground terminal is a universal reference node, which in real~life systems may be
`
`grounded to the earth itself. Excerpts from Johnson, Johnson; Hilburn, Scott,
`
`Electrical Circuit Analysis, Third Edition (1999) (Ex. 10) and Sedra and Smith,
`
`i\”ilCI‘O€l€CU”Ol‘tiC
`
`Circuits; Fourth Edition (1998)
`
`(Ex.
`
`11) demonstrate these
`
`fundamental principles ofelectmnies:
`
`(a)
`
`From Electrical Circuit Analysis (1999) (Ex. 10 at pp.
`
`l27—
`
`128):
`
`

`
`21.4
`
`.§i
`
`(W
`
`
`
`
`

`
`From ?v’§iCf()€
`
`¥ec%:r0n§<:
`
`C
`
`ircuits (1998) (EX. 11 at p. 19)
`
`

`
`(c)
`
`From Micreelectreziic Circuits (E998) (Ex. ll at p. 9l§}:
`
`
`
`29.
`
`All together, the claims of the ’304 patent suggest that the inventors were
`
`only in possession ofa line of prices where all prices along the line are static.
`
`2.
`
`The Claims of the ’132 Patent Suggest That The Inventors
`Possessed a Static Column Comprising All Prices Visible in
`
`the Display
`
`30.
`
`The claim term “static display of prices” is representative of the Static
`
`Limitation in the ’l32 patent. The claims require use of a graphical user interface
`
`and a user input device.
`
`(Ex. 2 at claim l, cal. 12;
`
`ll, 2-27.) Accordingly, the
`
`claim term “static display of prices” simply suggests that
`
`the graphical user
`
`interface displays prices and that all visible prices in the display are static. Wiiiliflltii
`
`turning to the remainder efthe claim er the remainder of the patent; the PliOSlTA
`
`

`
`wouid LE1’1§€i‘Sf8{1é
`
`Elia:
`
`the irwe:”:§0rs were in possessien of a graphical user
`
`interface whers all displayed priceg were staiic.
`
`

`
`3.
`
`The Remainder of the 304 and ‘I32 Patents Canfirms That
`
`the Irwentcrs Were Oniy in Pessessian ofa Price Column
`Where Ail Bispiayed Prices Are Static
`
`3.
`
`The Patents Only {E59 the Term “Price Coiumn”
`
`31.
`
`The izwanters referred to their alleged invention as the “Mercury di3piay.”
`
`(Ex.
`
`E at col. 7/, 11. 19-26.) According {Q the inventors, the ;:>:*ob1ems associated
`
`with the p2‘i<;}r art were overcome using the Mercury display, an exarnple ofwhich
`
`is d€piC‘(€d
`
`in Figure 3 and rendered below.
`
`

`
`(fa)
`
`EX.
`
`l at Fig. 3, ‘B04 Paieht:
`
`?%%Eu 3
`
`32. With one exception, the inventors did not use the phrase “common static
`
`price axis” or “static display of prices” in describing the Mercury displiayf
`
`Instead? the inventors used the term “price column” and the figures show price
`
`column I005 (Fig. 3) and price column l203 (Fig. 5).
`
`(Ex.
`
`1 at col. 7,
`
`ll. 48-67
`
`(generally describing the invention as 21 static veriical column of prices er price
`
`column, and referring to price column I063 in Fig. 3); cal. 10? ii. 38-39(1*efez'ring ta:
`
`if} we instance ei’ She “SL1n1me:*y ef’ the lmfemiim” seetien eel‘ {he pahzm, ihe iiweniers maée
`
`

`
`price caéurnn 3203 in Fig. 3}; Figs. 3 and :7
`
`Fa)
`.) The ab<:rv’e—Ci:€d partioas 0f the
`
`patent appiication are depicted helm»; Wiih emphasis added in yeliew highlighting.
`
`{3}
`
`From Ex.
`
`E at Column 7, 304 Patmt:
`
`
`
`:1 :%{§§z:§
`
`i.'3‘2’;"’§
`3-»}’:«':'.§:::?.L
`:3'2;i:‘E~;x:§
`am
`gzéamr
`swig?
`:‘~f~3;$%‘t"E%‘%3;i3‘f;
`‘ii’
`f§z;a.‘%‘:
`Rag:
`£5‘: min:
`sic W:
`
`
`
`
`%2%1,»;;i“§§;%§§}{
`.‘<§3"!3§3§%33
`ms; ‘
`ir;;:a:%~;ia1g;
`i:'*~%~: “
`
`
`(sf
`
`m;:s‘1a:;*:z
`
`<ri’3§z
`
`”
`
`:37‘:
`
` £.‘iZT‘Ii3*'~3*.:‘:3‘5§§"i”ig—
`3
`V *3a;rc:;r§ f2.sri§:s::‘ iI1{:ra:;§ss:::»t Ihs; s;]s%..;:;:,§ mi 1r;zd§§:g,
`
`I 3 azef a::1§:r§L§:;; z::;’:iz.::'.<; iii
`-:Lix::s;:7z%.:<i p§“iLii::~5. méh
`,..
`‘h::~§r§.:<% :.;?:!2§1’1iI§3§a:$,
`in £1}: gm Lyafizi
`<:*:§J:§:a:::<iL§:L';“:s:V;3% mi’ 3%.:
`
`
`[T
`V
`V
`V}
`323::
`Sizer. Lzrrjgs A a:‘::i:°§§a;:;:§ ::::;:%::§*;:
`,s§7
`
`
`ye
`mil? $134: Ezié 2:
`E «
`a:::z:.z:z:§:rs gm iiész
`<*i'1fas.~: gariaza a::»;;¥'
`
`Cf§ff¥Z:§‘«;‘
`L:§:§»:iiLz3:;;*; E2541}
`:::§is:
`mi:
`xiaasaxrzx in §’i{;3; 3*
`
`
`
`V’
`
`£3?" rifié;
`
`V
`
`‘E14
`
`?il§i<,f agzagarliiléazs
`::>§§~:, <,;1.;::
`:iiILi>z:T~<
`;:
`r%::;:::a§2‘§§is;*a%
`:%+E’1:;§w§2 in i:iI231§§"?;'%’:i
`
`in 23%;? ‘L‘{:y3;rE_’\§r?’»ir\{’
`1: in ::w}urI1r2 i{3{¥4
`;%:2“:;:
`'}3ZT3i/3d.i‘§"}”
`2.21;:
`3:42;‘:
`i%€:sr3V:
`gmlz.
`..
`igéf ii’?
`ii:%1E35.
`cu} 12:1‘: 3. :i:V:;.v.ra sax: 15$: 33:: x%».~§:u1;;
`
`
`
`iiég: Em Iwaz :;¥i_;gé!,x
`[1'§‘ix§<;S {:;,g. 95 %~1‘§‘;:, 32:3: §';2z§2;:2". gm:
`
`’
`‘.2§2Eg: 5<h:.awm Em;
`£‘*‘é"3}
`3
`3 fin; »,
`i:*a:~; :§s.:
`:33211‘1»::;1,,s:L:E1>e 1£3,?g{i
`
`”
`piré q:1:n:%ia§;§ 23%
`{k>:;:>.§ itséé pace; ;a;<:«;1 3:} {%:s
`
`;%§ i}{§{.is::.<aE ‘ “L; ;2ris:r;}. §2§
`L
`’
`‘
`g
`'
`
`
`
`
`Ifiilfifif
`
`¥1i'?§”§§§si.,, hi £Z1}§%E3"’%§
`am: is 2"a:s::z:§a*§::;§ {£2
`
`
`
`
`
`Liiék»,
`
`v21§m::s: ii? rm:
`ii
`%£:{.§ Ea i§€:.’:i:éi
`§:i3x;:;'}.
`
`im'z3nt:3r: described the wzrtical O¥‘i{in{a{i(}I} of the Mercury dispiay as the p1‘€‘ifE:1”I‘i’d
`Tiifi
`cmbedimfiixi.
`(fix.
`I
`21: co}. 7, M. 48-52.} I undersnand this K) mean that the invétnierg believed
`{he beg: way; of naaking the Mercury display @533 in 3 veytécai orizzniaiiim. But, the in\=‘en{{>:s
`cxpiaiized iha‘: the E\:‘§<:rcVur3,f dispiay couid be oriented ho1*izom.:fi§}«'
`:32‘ in a:1{>:hé:r eriiznzaiizm,
`{ E:x;.
`E at ca}. 9, H. 26~34;} E undergtand this; to mean that the pyiccs and other informaiien and feaiurcg
`of the Mercurja digpiay couié be izriented 31031;; any guitabie orientation, wheihsr }2ori9::<>nia§ :32" on
`an angle. CQC} Atizyrnszys advisszd ma‘: that CQG’s pr<;>duc:3 213 have 2: \re2né<:a1 <:::>1umn sf prices.
`"i‘h::;x:, 31:2 vcirtécal oriz—:;1i2i:i{m is me oniy orissniziiéarz riskzxrani is me disgzuie ijemrsczn T’? and
`
`
`
`:~;
`
`;I:§Z<,§
`
`
`
`
`

`
`:3
`213:;
`°
`< 3‘ izzsfi
`
`<3 2¥~:;':%
`
`:[‘:;‘:%:::*és L.
`
`
`{§':§;*
`{qz
`'1?
`;‘"é.3£"f":i‘s’ié%£i
`:”m:r:%;: ceéi §Z%;i4§ of 132::
`’ 2: W43? Lia'2‘ze"§";
`iifiea
`X
`:4.
`
`
`
`
`
`3 §’%3'!sc.,
`:24’ J} ism: ea:>r27e:»;;a:ra:.%ie~;
`ie Eéze LE3’; %1£€I,%§i5§’%7§1"3
`i2§§5?. f‘§§§EE§§;33’ifx} 1:
`lei’: <fEi~a3§«: 23:: {Fae ffié
`x1«:{§ <::::¥:3z::z:
`
`.2; 1312 ME} ed :*:z*<,Ea;r Ea eézzriaet
`:23
`:2:
`2: gsriagec
`1?
`252?.“ ‘~33,
`
`33.
`
`Figures 3 and S iiiustrate images ofthe Mercury display.
`
`(Ex.
`
`I at col. 3, 11.
`
`4551.) The figures are depicted below with a red box iliustrating price coiumn
`
`1005 and price column 1203.
`
`Ex.
`
`1 at Figures 3 and 5, ’304 Patent:
`
`/ (
`
`a)
`
`

`
`?§£. 3
`
`34.
`
`Collectively, the PHOSITA would recognize that the disclosure and figures
`
`confirm what the claims suggest:
`
`the inventors were only in possession of a
`
`graphical user interface where all prices in a price column are static. As depicted
`
`in the figures; the column includes all-not just some-i--of the prices that make up
`
`the column. And this comports with the welhestablished definition of “column”
`
`replicated below from the 1980 edition ofThe Random House College Dictionary‘.
`
`(a)
`
`From The Random House College Dictionary (I980) (Ex. 8):
`
`

`
`fate:/}’e mevit. 43:). ad}.
`erebunm (kn!-';-1m).
`I2.
`1. Ar»
`ecizéz. a. a 2*:
`‘ti, reiativeiy s§en-
`der. up:-ig I
`support. com-
`sssed or n:+2az£veiy few pieces;
`. 3 decomzive piliarg. most; {xiv
`zeneompesed ofstone anglgpi»
`caiiy having 3, zzgflindrtw or
`gzeiygoxzai shaft with a capital
`and usealiy a base.
`aoltzmniike i:§h}>e4:t,*e=m8f8£.j¥ 01*
`£ermation:*:am1rzzmet
`--
`at
`-'
`“
`3.’aiavet’fieaItarraztgeanew3:z:e moat
`V
`.
`., tiinmogfs 2
`..._ .._.,
`..
`.._....
`...
`;;..—_
`
`j
`V
`
`L
`
`-
`
`'*
`..g
`r
`
`'
`
`1
`
`V
`
`5.
`:‘
`i4;‘.‘a*1-.
`a 2-egnzar artiste or feature
`a newspaper er magazine.
`8. a finrmattien of shins in six»
`gée fiie.
`7. a long, narrow
`ifermatrzen of trenpa 121 whisgja
`abate are more members in
`fine in the direction of more»
`men: max: at right angles to
`me citzsectiinrx. {distinguished
`i/mm .?tine;.i
`iiate 2913 cofzzrmae
`rs: L szezumarzr: we cozzxmtzim peak
`4- «at farm endizz V: akin tat: £ex}~
`cam; 25-. {ate 2%
`eofamarze <
`24?}
`-~»eo1~umned
`{kc}/-
`emit}. pcoieumsnnt-ed £ke1»’em~
`d
`a
`.
`\
`zrzfiaftid}, ezlf.
`303133 90”‘?