throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 129
`Entered: February 28, 2017
`
`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., and IBFX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`_______________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`Opinion for the Board filed by PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`Opinion dissenting-in-part filed by PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent
`Judge.
`
`PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`IBG 1061
`IBG v. TT
`CBM2016-00054
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC, TradeStation Group, Inc.,
`TradeStation Securities, Inc., TradeStation Technologies, Inc., and IBFX,
`Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting covered business
`method patent review of claims 1–56 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,772,132 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’132 patent”). Paper 7 (“Pet.”).
`Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response. Paper 15 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On March 3, 2016, we
`instituted a covered business method patent review (Paper 19, “Institution
`Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”) based upon Petitioner’s assertion that claims 1–56
`are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and
`that those claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Inst. Dec. 39.
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
`(Paper 67, “PO Resp.”) and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 96, “Pet. Reply”)
`to Patent Owner’s Response.
`We held a joint hearing of this case and several other related cases on
`October 19, 2016. Paper 122 (“Tr.”).
`After oral hearing, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Trading
`Technologies International, Inc., v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616, 2017 WL
`192716 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 18, 2017), determining that the claimed subject
`matter of the ’132 patent is patent eligible under § 101. Petitioner and Patent
`Owner, with authorization (Paper 125), each filed supplemental briefing
`addressing the impact of that decision on this proceeding. Paper 128 (“Pet.
`Br.”); Paper 126 (“PO Br.”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–28, 30–38, 40–48, and 50–56
`of the ’132 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioner has
`failed to show claims 29, 39, and 49 are unpatentable under § 103 and that
`claims 1–56 are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 101.
`B. Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’132 patent is the subject of numerous
`related U.S. district court proceedings, as well as the Federal Circuit
`Decision noted above. Pet. 2; Paper 10, 2–6; Paper 124, 1.
`The ’132 patent was the subject of petitions for covered business
`method patent review in TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading
`Technologies International, Inc., CBM2014-00135 (PTAB) and CQG, Inc.
`v. Trading Technologies International, Inc., CBM2015-00058 (PTAB).
`Trial was instituted, but later terminated, for CBM2014-00135. Institution
`was denied for CBM2015-00058.
`Numerous patents are related to the ’132 patent and the related patents
`are or were the subject of numerous petitions for covered business method
`patent review and reexamination proceedings.
`C. Asserted Grounds
`Trial was instituted based on the following grounds.
`References
`Basis Claims Challenged
`N/A
`§ 101
`1–56
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`References
`TSE1 and Belden2
`
`TSE, Belden, and May3
`
`Basis Claims Challenged
`§ 103
`1–3, 7–10, 14–16, 20–28, 30–
`38, 40–48, and 50–56
`4, 11, and 17
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`TSE, Belden, and Gutterman4
`
`5, 6, 12, 13, 18, 19, 29, 39,
`and 49
`Petitioner provides testimony from David Rho (Ex. 1006; “the Rho
`Declaration) and Kendyl A. Román (Ex. 1007; “the Román Declaration”) to
`support its challenges. Patent Owner provides testimony from Christopher
`H. Thomas. Ex. 2169 (“the Thomas Declaration”).
`D. The ’132 Patent
`The ’132 patent is titled “Click Based Trading with Intuitive Grid
`Display of Market Depth.” Ex. 1001, [54]. The ’132 patent describes a
`display, named the “Mercury” display, and method of using the display to
`trade a commodity. Id. at Abstract, 3:5–10. The ’132 patent explains that
`the Mercury display is a graphic user interface (“GUI”) that dynamically
`displays the market depth of a commodity traded in a market and allows a
`trader to place an order efficiently. Id. at 3:11–24. The Mercury display is
`depicted in Figure 3, which is reproduced below.
`
`
`1 Tokyo Stock Exchange Operation System Division, Futures/Option
`Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation Guide (1998) (Ex. 1016).
`Citations to this reference refer to its English translation (Ex. 1017).
`2 PCT Pub. No. WO 90/11571, pub. Oct. 4, 1990 (Ex. 1012, “Belden”).
`3 CA 2 305 736 A1, pub. Apr. 22, 1999 (Ex. 1013, “May”).
`4 U.S. Pat. No. 5,297,031, iss. Mar. 22, 1994 (Ex. 1011, “Gutterman”).
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of the ’132 patent illustrates an example of the Mercury display
`with example values for trading a commodity including prices, bid and ask
`quantities relative to price, and trade quantities.
`The Mercury display includes a plurality of columns. Column 1005 is
`a static price axis, which includes a plurality of price values for the
`commodity. See id. at 7:36–48. The ’132 patent explains that “[t]he column
`does not list the whole prices (e.g. 95.89), but rather, just the last two digits
`(e.g. 89).” Id. at 7:38–40. Columns 1003 and 1004 are aligned with the
`static price axis and dynamically display bid and ask quantities, respectively,
`for the corresponding price values of the static price axis. See id. at 7:35–51.
`The ’132 patent explains that “[t]he exchange sends the price, order and fill
`information to each trader on the exchange” and that “[t]he physical
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`mapping of such information to a screen grid can be done by any technique
`known to those skilled in the art.” Id. at 4:61–5:1.
`Column 1002 contains various parameters and information used to
`execute trades, such as the default quantity displayed in cell 1016. See id. at
`8:3–37. A trader executes trades using the Mercury display by first setting
`the desired commodity and default parameters, such as default quantity. See
`id. at 9:3–17; Fig. 6, step 1302. Then, a trader can send a buy order or sell
`order to the market with a single action, such as clicking on the appropriate
`cell in column 1003 or 1004. See id. at 9:7–10:3; Fig. 6, steps 1306–1315.
`E. Illustrative Claim
`As noted above, Petitioner challenges claims 1–56. Claims 1, 8, and
`14 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and
`is reproduced below:
`1. A method of placing a trade order for a commodity on an
`electronic exchange having an inside market with a highest bid
`price and a lowest ask price, using a graphical user interface and
`a user input device, said method comprising:
`setting a preset parameter for the trade order
`displaying market depth of the commodity, through a dynamic
`display of a plurality of bids and a plurality of asks in the
`market for the commodity, including at least a portion of the
`bid and ask quantities of the commodity, the dynamic display
`being aligned with a static display of prices corresponding
`thereto, wherein the static display of prices does not move in
`response to a change in the inside market;
`displaying an order entry region aligned with the static display
`prices comprising a plurality of areas for receiving
`commands from the user input devices to send trade orders,
`each area corresponding to a price of the static display of
`prices; and
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`
`selecting a particular area in the order entry region through single
`action of the user input device with a pointer of the user input
`device positioned over the particular area to set a plurality of
`additional parameters for the trade order and send the trade
`order to the electronic exchange.
`Ex. 1001, 12:2–27.
`
`
`ANALYSIS
`A. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Notwithstanding the parties’ submissions of the level of ordinary skill
`in the art,5 we find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the
`prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
`Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re
`Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`B. Claim Construction
`In a covered business method patent review, claim terms are given
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification in which
`they appear and the understanding of others skilled in the relevant art. See
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.
`2131, 2144 (2016) (concluding the broadest reasonable construction
`“regulation represents a reasonable exercise of the rulemaking authority that
`Congress delegated to the Patent Office”).
`Applying that standard, we interpret the claim terms of the ’132 patent
`according to their ordinary and customary meaning in the context of the
`
`
`5 The parties’ submissions focus primarily on the degrees, occupations, and
`experience, as opposed to what the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have known at the time of the invention. As such, and as the
`triers of fact, we do not find such information particularly helpful.
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`patent’s written description. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set
`forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen,
`30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner and Patent Owner propose
`constructions for several claim limitations. Pet. 13–14; PO Resp. 27–30;
`Pet. Reply 9. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that only the
`“single action” limitations require an express construction in order to
`conduct properly our analysis discussed below.
`Petitioner contends that
`The ’132 patent specification defines this term: “Any action by a
`user 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.” (’132 patent, 4:15-20; Román Decl. ¶ 78.)
`Pet. 14. Patent Owner does not dispute this construction, which we adopted
`in our Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 8. We are apprised of no reason to
`change that construction.
`
`Each of the independent claims recites the “single action.” The
`relation of the “single action” to the subsequent language in the claims
`merits discussion. Claim 1 recites “selecting a particular area in the order
`entry region through single action of the user input device . . . to set a
`plurality of additional parameters for the trade order and send the trade order
`to the electronic exchange.” Claim 8 similarly recites
`a fourth program code for receiving a command as a result of a
`selection of a particular area in the order entry region by a single
`action of the user input device . . . , to set a plurality of additional
`parameters for the trade order and send the trade order to the
`electronic exchange.
`Claim 14 recites
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`
`a trade order sending component for receiving a command as a
`result of a selection of the area in the order entry region by a
`single action of the user input device . . . , to set a plurality of
`additional parameters for the trade order and send the trade order
`to the electronic exchange.
`In our Institution Decision, we made a preliminary determination that
`the “single action” recited in claims 1, 8, and 14 does not require setting the
`additional parameters or sending the trade order. Inst. Dec. 10. Rather, we
`determined that the claims require that the selection of the area in the order
`entry is accomplished by the “single action,” and that the “single action”
`allows for additional parameters to be set and the trade order to be sent. Id.
`Petitioner agrees with that construction. Pet. Reply 9. Patent Owner
`disagrees. PO Resp. 27–28.
`
`Patent Owner responds that
`A trader order is an electronic message that includes the
`parameters of a desired order. The plain language is understood
`to mean that the “single action of the user input device” refers to
`both “set[ting] a plurality of additional parameters” and
`“send[ing] the trade order to the electronic exchange” (claim 1,
`similarly claims 8 and 14). Ex.2169, ¶30. The BRI requires that
`the single user action both set the additional parameters for the
`trade order and also send the trade order to an electronic
`exchange by selecting a particular area of the order entry region.
`Id.
`Id. at 28. Patent Owner additionally points out that the claims require that
`the order entry region is “for receiving commands . . . to send trade orders.”
`PO Resp. 68. Upon further consideration, we agree with Patent Owner and
`determine that our initial construction was overly broad.
`Because the “order entry region” is “for receiving commands . . . to
`send trade orders,” it follows that the selection of the area in the order entry
`via the “single action” does not simply provide an opportunity for a user to
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`set the additional parameters and send the trade order, such as via a
`subsequent pop-up window. Rather, as plainly recited in the claims, the
`“order entry region,” itself, receives the commands to send trade orders.
`This is consistent with the only embodiment discussed in the specification of
`the ’132 patent, which includes setting trade parameters and sending a trade
`order based on a single action. See Ex. 1001, 9:61–11:11. Petitioner fails to
`apprise us of any contrary understanding, consistent with the Specification,
`where the “order entry region” would “receiv[e] commands . . . to send trade
`orders.”
`Accordingly, we determine that the “order entry region” recited in
`claims 1, 8, and 14 receives commands to send trade orders, including
`commands to “set a plurality of additional parameters for the trade order and
`send the trade order” as the result of a “single action of the user input device
`with a pointer of the user input device positioned over the particular area.”
`C. Covered Business Method Patent
`Section 18 of the AIA6 provides for the creation of a transitional
`program for reviewing covered business method patents. 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.”
`AIA § 18(d)(1); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). A patent need have only one
`claim directed to a covered business method to be eligible for review. See
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents—Definitions of
`
`
`6 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48,734, 48,736 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“CBM Rules”) (Response to Comment 8).
`In this Petition, Petitioner contends that “while a patent need only one
`claim directed to a CBM to be eligible for CBM review . . . all the claims
`qualify,” and particularly cites claims 1, 4–8, and 14. Pet. 4.
`1. Data Processing or Other Operations used in a Financial
`Product or Service
`Petitioner asserts that claim 1 is directed to a covered business method
`because it recites a method of placing a trade order for a commodity on an
`electronic exchange including the steps of displaying market information
`and sending a trade order, which are financial in nature. Id. Based on this
`record, we agree with Petitioner that at least the subject matter recited by
`claim 1 is directed to activities that are financial in nature, namely
`“displaying . . . a plurality of bids and a plurality of asks in the market for
`the commodity” and “selecting a particular area in the order entry region . . .
`to . . . send the trade order to the electronic exchange,” which are recited in
`the claim.
`Patent Owner does not dispute that the claims are directed to a
`financial product or service and, instead, contends that the claims are not
`directed to “data processing or other operations” of the financial product or
`service. Patent Owner’s contentions are unpersuasive. See PO Resp. 22–24.
`Claim 1 encompasses processing financial data associated with a
`commodity for display and processing financial data for sending a trade
`order for a commodity to an exchange. See Ex. 1001, 4:62–66 (“[t]he
`present invention processes this information and maps it . . . to a screen.”);
`11:12–14 (“[t]he process for placing trade orders using the Mercury
`display”), 12:2–27. This processing of financial data is used in the practice,
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`administration, or management of a commodity, which is a financial
`product, and in the practice, administration, or management of electronic
`trading with an exchange, which is a financial service or activity.
`Even if there is some disagreement as to whether claim 1 includes
`“data processing,” there appears to be no disagreement that the steps of
`claim 1 (displaying market information, setting trade order parameters, and
`sending a trade order to the electronic exchange) are operations used in the
`practice, administration, or management of a commodity or trading a
`commodity on an electronic exchange. See PO Resp. 23–24 (discussing
`only whether the ’132 patent claims “data processing”). The ’132 patent,
`thus, at least claims “other operations used in the practice, administration, or
`management of a financial product or financial service” (AIA § 18(d)(1)).
`For the reasons stated above, and based on the particular facts of this
`proceeding, we conclude that the ’132 patent “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” and meets that requirement of § 18(d)(1) of the AIA.
`2. Exclusion for Technological Inventions
`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).
`The following claim drafting techniques, for example, typically do not
`render a patent a “technological invention”:
`(a) Mere recitation of known technologies, such as computer
`hardware, communication or computer networks, software,
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`
`memory, computer-readable storage medium, scanners, display
`devices or databases, or specialized machines, such as an ATM
`or point of sale device.
`(b) Reciting the use of known prior art technology to accomplish
`a process or method, even if that process or method is novel and
`non-obvious.
`(c) Combining prior art structures to achieve the normal,
`expected, or predictable result of that combination.
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,763–64 (Aug.
`14, 2012).
`Both prongs must be satisfied in order for the patent to be excluded as
`a technological invention. See Versata, 793 F.3d at 1326–27; Apple Inc. v.
`Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (not addressing
`arguments regarding whether the first prong was met when it was
`determined that the second prong—that the claimed subject matter as a
`whole does not solve a technical problem using a technical solution—was
`met).
`
`Patent Owner focuses on whether the claims “solve[] a technical
`problem using a technical solution.” PO Resp. 24–27. When addressing
`“whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological
`feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art,” Patent Owner simply
`alleges that “Petitioners fail to address whether the claims recite a technical
`feature that is novel and unobvious.” PO Resp. 24. That is incorrect.
`Petitioner contends that rather than reciting a technical feature that is novel
`or unobvious over the prior art, the claims of the ’132 patent generally recite
`trading software that is implemented on a conventional computer. Pet. 5–7.
`That was specifically noted in our Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 15.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`
`We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that at least claim 1 of
`the ’132 patent does not recite a novel and non-obvious technological
`feature. The specification of the ’132 patent treats as well-known all
`potentially technological aspects of the claims. For example, the ’132 patent
`discloses that its system can be implemented “on any existing or future
`terminal or device” (Ex. 1001, 4:4–7), each of which is known to include a
`display, and discloses that the input device can be a mouse (id. at 4:9–11),
`which is a known input device. The ’132 patent further discloses that “[t]he
`scope of the present invention is not limited by the type of terminal or device
`used.” Id. at 4:7–9. The ’132 patent also describes the programming
`associated with the GUI as insignificant. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:62–5:1
`(explaining that “[t]he present invention processes [price, order, and fill]
`information and maps it through simple algorithms and mapping tables to
`positions in a theoretical grid program” and “[t]he physical mapping of such
`information to a screen grid can be done by any technique known to those
`skilled in the art”). That at least claim 1 of the ’132 patent does not recite a
`novel and non-obvious technological feature is further illustrated below in
`our discussion of that claim being unpatentable under § 103.
`Accordingly, we determine that at least claim 1 does not satisfy the
`first prong of 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b).
`3. Conclusion
`In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the ’132 patent is a covered
`business method patent under AIA § 18(d)(1) and is eligible for review
`using the transitional covered business method patent program.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`
`D. Section 101 Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–56 as directed to patent-ineligible
`subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Pet. 14–26; Pet. Reply 1–8. Patent
`Owner disagrees. PO Resp. 5–22. Our reviewing court also disagrees.
`Trading Techs., 2017 WL 192716 at *4.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we must first identify whether an invention
`fits within one of the four statutorily provided categories of patent-
`eligibility: “processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of
`matter.” Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 713–14 (Fed. Cir.
`2014).
`Initially, we note that Petitioner asserts that claims 8–13, 30–39, and
`51 are “broad enough to encompass a transitory, propagating signal that is
`encoded, which is not eligible for patenting.” Pet. 18 (citing In re Nuijten,
`550 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); Pet. Reply 8. Claims 8–13, 30–39,
`and 51 recite a “computer readable medium having program code recorded
`thereon.” Petitioner contends that “[u]nder the broadest reasonable
`interpretation (‘BRI’), the scope of this term is broad enough to encompass a
`transitory, propagating signal that is encoded.” Pet. 18. Petitioner explains
`that the specification neither defines this term nor provides examples. In our
`Institution Decision, we made an initial determination that the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of “computer readable medium having program
`code recorded thereon” is “any medium that participates in providing
`instruction to a processor for execution and having program code recorded
`thereon.” Inst. Dec. 11. Patent Owner responds that there is no evidence to
`support Petitioner’s contention that one skilled in the art would have
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`understood “computer readable medium having program code recorded
`thereon” to encompass a signal at the time of the invention. PO Resp. 22.
`Petitioner responds to Patent Owner’s contentions by simply asserting
`that “TT’s narrow construction of computer readable medium isn’t based on
`the specification since that term is not used therein,” and concluding that
`“the Board should apply the same BRI of computer readable medium that it
`has applied in thousands of matters.” Pet. Reply 8 (citing MPEP § 2106).
`
`Petitioner’s response is unhelpful. For example, in its Reply,
`Petitioner cites no evidence to rebut Patent Owner’s contentions regarding
`how one skilled in the art would have understood “computer readable
`medium having program code recorded thereon,” at the time of the
`invention. In fact, Petitioner does not even acknowledge those contentions.
`Accordingly, on this record, which is absent any further evidence or
`meaningful argument from Petitioner, we are not persuaded that at the time
`of the invention one skilled in the art would have understood “computer
`readable medium having program code recorded thereon” as encompassing
`transitory, propagating signals.
`There is no dispute that the remaining claims fit within one of the four
`statutorily provided categories of patent-eligibility.
`Section 101 “contains an important implicit exception: Laws of
`nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice
`Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank. Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (citing
`Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107,
`2116 (2013) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). In Alice, the
`Supreme Court reiterated the framework set forth previously in Mayo
`Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`(2012) “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural
`phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
`applications of those concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in
`the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one
`of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id.
`There is no definitive rule to determine what constitutes an “abstract
`idea.” Rather, the Federal Circuit has explained that “both [it] and the
`Supreme Court have found it sufficient to compare claims at issue to those
`claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous cases.”
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see
`also Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that, in determining whether claims are patent-
`eligible under § 101, “the decisional mechanism courts now apply is to
`examine earlier cases in which a similar or parallel descriptive nature can be
`seen—what prior cases were about, and which way they were decided”).
`The Federal Circuit has already decided that the claims at issue before
`us are not directed to an abstract idea. Trading Techs., 2017 WL 192716 at
`*4. Petitioner provides no persuasive reason for us to ignore that guidance,
`particularly with respect to whether the claims are directed to an abstract
`idea. See, e.g., Pet. Br. 3–5. For example, Petitioner offers no persuasive
`explanation as to why its characterization of the alleged abstract idea would
`affect the Federal Circuit’s determination that the claims are not directed to
`an abstract idea. See id. at 5. We also are not apprised of a persuasive
`reason to arrive at a different outcome with respect to whether the claims are
`directed to an abstract idea based on the differences between the record
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`before us and that before the Federal Circuit alleged by Petitioner. See id. at
`3–5.
`
`Accordingly, we follow the Federal Circuit’s guidance and, in
`accordance with that guidance, determine the claims before us to be patent
`eligible.
`E. TSE Challenges
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–3, 7–10, 14–16, 20–28, 30–38, 40–48,
`and 50–56 as having been obvious over TSE and Belden, claims 4, 11, and
`17 as having been obvious over TSE, Belden, and May, and claims 5, 6, 12,
`13, 18, 19, 29, 39, and 49 as having been obvious over TSE, Belden, and
`Gutterman (“the TSE challenges”).
`1. TSE Printed Publication Status
` Petitioner argues that TSE is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`Pet. 11. In support of its showing that TSE qualifies as prior art, Petitioner
`relies on the November 21, 2005 deposition testimony of Atsushi
`Kawashima taken during litigation between Patent Owner and a third party,
`eSpeed, Inc. Id.; Ex. 1019.
`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. In
`re Enhanced Sec. Research, LLC, 739 F.3d 1347, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`(citing In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). The Federal Circuit
`“has interpreted § 102 broadly, explaining that even relatively obscure
`documents qualify as prior art so long as the public has a means of accessing
`them.” Id. (citing Hall, 781 F.2d at 899).
`Our leading case on public accessibility is In re Hall, 781 F.2d
`897 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In Hall we concluded that “a single
`cataloged thesis in one university library” constitutes “sufficient
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`
`accessibility to those interested in the art exercising reasonable
`diligence.” Id. at 900. Thereafter, in Constant v. Advanced
`Micro–Devices, Inc., we explained that “[a]ccessibility goes to
`the issue of whether interested members of the relevant public
`could obtain the information if they wanted to.” 848 F.2d 1560,
`1569 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Therefore, “[i]f accessibility is proved,
`there is no requirement to show that particular members of the
`public actually received the information.” Id.
`Enhanced Sec. Research, LLC, 739 F.3d at 1354. The determination of
`whether a document is a “printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding
`its disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345,
`1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`TSE is entitled “Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal
`Operation Guide” of the “Tokyo Stock Exchange Operation System
`Division.” Ex. 1017, 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
`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. 11
`(citing Ex. 1019, 12–33).
`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 he was employed by the Tokyo
`Stock Exchange and was so at the time of the TSE manual, August 1998.
`
`
`7 References are to pages located at center bottom of the English translation
`of TSE (Ex. 1017).
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,77

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