`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`IBG LLC,
`INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., and
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`__________
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent No. 7,904,374
`___________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`SERVED ON JULY 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case CBM2016-00051
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0013CP1
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Petitioner objects as follows to the
`
`admissibility of the evidence served by Patent Owner on July 5, 2016:
`
`Evidence
`Meyers, Brad A. “A
`Brief History of
`Human-Computer
`Interaction
`Technology.”
`Interactions 5.2 (1998):
`44-54
`(Exhibit 2007)
`National Aeronautics
`and Space
`Administration Web
`Page Print out,
`Technical Areas
`(Exhibit 2008)
`
`National Aeronautics
`and Space
`Administration Web
`Page Print out, Human
`Computer Interaction
`Group
`(Exhibit 2009)
`
`University of
`Washington Web Page
`Print out, Human-
`Computer Interaction
`Degree Option
`(Exhibit 2010)
`
`Rochester Institute of
`Technology Web Page
`
`Objections
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that Patent
`Owner relies on the exhibit to show that the alleged
`invention is directed to a GUI and therefore directed to
`patent eligible subject matter, the exhibit is not
`relevant. Even if the claims are directed to a GUI, the
`claims are not necessarily “technology” under Alice.
`A GUI is not a categorical exception to the § 101
`analysis nor are GUIs exempt from CBM Review.
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that Patent
`Owner relies on the exhibit to show that the alleged
`invention is directed to a GUI and therefore directed to
`patent eligible subject matter, the exhibit is not
`relevant. Even if the claims are directed to a GUI, the
`claims are not necessarily “technology” under Alice. A
`GUI is not a categorical exception to the § 101
`analysis nor are GUIs exempt from CBM Review.
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that Patent
`Owner relies on the exhibit to show that the alleged
`invention is directed to a GUI and therefore directed to
`patent eligible subject matter, the exhibit is not
`relevant. Even if the claims are directed to a GUI, the
`claims are not necessarily “technology” under Alice. A
`GUI is not a categorical exception to the § 101
`analysis nor are GUIs exempt from CBM Review.
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that Patent
`Owner relies on the exhibit to show that the alleged
`invention is directed to a GUI and therefore directed to
`patent eligible subject matter, the exhibit is not
`relevant. Even if the claims are directed to a GUI, the
`claims are not necessarily “technology” under Alice. A
`GUI is not a categorical exception to the § 101
`analysis nor are GUIs exempt from CBM Review.
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that Patent
`Owner relies on the exhibit to show that the alleged
`
`1
`
`

`

`Print out, Masters in
`Human Computer
`Interaction
`(Exhibit 2011)
`
`Rensselaer Polytechnic
`Institute Web Page Print
`out, M.S. in Human-
`Computer Interaction
`(Exhibit 2012)
`
`Tufts University Web
`Page Print out, Human-
`Computer Interaction
`Certificate Program
`(Exhibit 2013)
`
`Georgia Institute of
`Technology Web Page
`Print out, Human-
`Computer Interaction
`Master’s Program
`(Exhibit 2014)
`
`DePaul University Web
`Page Print out, Master
`of Science Human-
`Computer Interaction
`(Exhibit 2015)
`
`Carnegie Mellon
`University Web Page
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0013CP1
`invention is directed to a GUI and therefore directed to
`patent eligible subject matter, the exhibit is not
`relevant. Even if the claims are directed to a GUI, the
`claims are not necessarily “technology” under Alice. A
`GUI is not a categorical exception to the § 101
`analysis nor are GUIs exempt from CBM Review.
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that Patent
`Owner relies on the exhibit to show that the alleged
`invention is directed to a GUI and therefore directed to
`patent eligible subject matter, the exhibit is not
`relevant. Even if the claims are directed to a GUI, the
`claims are not necessarily “technology” under Alice. A
`GUI is not a categorical exception to the § 101
`analysis nor are GUIs exempt from CBM Review.
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that Patent
`Owner relies on the exhibit to show that the alleged
`invention is directed to a GUI and therefore directed to
`patent eligible subject matter, the exhibit is not
`relevant. Even if the claims are directed to a GUI, the
`claims are not necessarily “technology” under Alice. A
`GUI is not a categorical exception to the § 101
`analysis nor are GUIs exempt from CBM Review.
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that Patent
`Owner relies on the exhibit to show that the alleged
`invention is directed to a GUI and therefore directed to
`patent eligible subject matter, the exhibit is not
`relevant. Even if the claims are directed to a GUI, the
`claims are not necessarily “technology” under Alice. A
`GUI is not a categorical exception to the § 101
`analysis nor are GUIs exempt from CBM Review.
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that Patent
`Owner relies on the exhibit to show that the alleged
`invention is directed to a GUI and therefore directed to
`patent eligible subject matter, the exhibit is not
`relevant. Even if the claims are directed to a GUI, the
`claims are not necessarily “technology” under Alice. A
`GUI is not a categorical exception to the § 101
`analysis nor are GUIs exempt from CBM Review.
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that Patent
`Owner relies on the exhibit to show that the alleged
`
`2
`
`

`

`Print out, Masters of
`Human-Computer
`Interaction
`(Exhibit 2016)
`
`Trading Tech Int’l v
`CQG, Inc. and CQGT,
`LLC, Case No. 05-cv-
`4811 (N.D. Ill.), Dkt.
`1073, Memorandum
`Opinion and Order
`denying Motion for
`Summary Judgment (35
`U.S.C. § 101) (Feb. 24,
`2015)
`(Exhibit 2091)
`Transcript of
`Proceedings for EPO
`01920183.9
`(Exhibit 2129)
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0013CP1
`invention is directed to a GUI and therefore directed to
`patent eligible subject matter, the exhibit is not
`relevant. Even if the claims are directed to a GUI, the
`claims are not necessarily “technology” under Alice. A
`GUI is not a categorical exception to the § 101
`analysis nor are GUIs exempt from CBM Review.
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that the district
`court opinion is relied upon as a basis for determining
`whether the instituted claims are directed to patent
`eligible subject matter, the opinion is not relevant to
`proceedings in front of the PTAB as the decision is not
`binding on the PTAB, the Petitioner was not a party to
`the CQG litigation, and the PTAB applies a different
`standard than the district court when construing the
`claims.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that Patent
`Owner relies on the conclusions of a foreign patent
`office to show that the claims are not directed to a
`business method, the exhibit is not relevant to the
`PTAB proceedings as the foreign patent office applies
`different laws and different standards and the foreign
`findings are in no way binding on the PTAB.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Trading Techs. Int’l,
`Inc., v. Open E Cry,
`LLC et al., Case No. 10-
`CV-0715, Dkt. 88, Joint
`Brief for Certain
`Defendants-Appellees
`(Jan. 18, 2013)
`(Exhibit 2130)
`
`Thomas Ex. N -
`Brumfield Sketch -
`eSpeed_PTX0321
`(Exhibit 2213)
`
`
`
`Dated: August 30, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0013CP1
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that Patent
`Owner relies on the exhibit to show that the alleged
`invention is directed to a GUI and therefore not
`directed to data processing or a business method, the
`exhibit is not relevant. Even if the claims are directed
`to a GUI, such a finding does not mean the claims are
`exempt from CBM Review as a GUI may still relate to
`a data processing or business method. In fact, most
`tools used to execute data and business processes
`contain a GUI.
`FRE 901 (Authentication): Patent Owner has failed
`to produce evidence sufficient to show that this is an
`authentic copy of Brumfield’s sketch.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`/John C. Phillips/
`John C. Phillips, Reg. No. 35,322
`Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case CBM2016-00051
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0013CP1
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.6(e)(4)(iii), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on August 30, 2016, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s
`
`Objections to Evidence was provided via email to the Patent Owner by serving the
`
`correspondence email addresses of record as follows:
`
`Email:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Erika H. Arner, Joshua L. Goldberg, Kevin D. Rodkey
`Rachel L. Emsley and Cory C. Bell
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garret & Dunner, LLP
`
`Michael D. Gannon, Leif R. Sigmond, Jr. and Jennifer M. Kurcz
`McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
`
`Steven F. Borsand
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com
`rachel.emsley@finnegan.com
`cory.bell@finnegan.com
`gannon@mbhb.com
`sigmond@mbhb.com
`kurcz@mbhb.com
`tt-patent-cbm@tradingtechnologies.com
`Trading-Tech-CBM@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Diana Bradley/
`
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`