trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054, Paper No. 58
`July 26, 2017
`
`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.
`________________________
`
`Appeal No. CBM2016-00054
`Patent No. 7,693,768 B1
`_________________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: June 23, 2017
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on June 23, 2017, commencing
`at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street,
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054, Paper No. 58
`July 26, 2017
`
`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.
`________________________
`
`Appeal No. CBM2016-00054
`Patent No. 7,693,768 B1
`_________________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: June 23, 2017
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on June 23, 2017, commencing
`at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street,
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` MICHAEL D. GANNON
` MCDONNELL, BOEHNEN, HULBERT & BERGHOFF, LLP
` 300 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606
` (312) 913-2139
`
` LEIF R. SIGMOND
` MCDONNELL, BOEHNEN, HULBERT & BERGHOFF, LLP
` 300 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606
` (312) 913-0001
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
` ROBERT SOKOHL
` STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, PLLC
` 1100 New York Avenue, NW
` Washington, District of Columbia 20005
` (202) 772-8677
`
` RICHARD M. BEMBEN
` STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, PLLC
` 1100 New York Avenue, NW
` Washington, District of Columbia 20005
` (202) 371-8549
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Please be seated. We're going to
`take a minute to log into our computers.
` We're here today for CMB2016-00054. I'm Judge
`Petravick. With me on the right is Judge Medley, and on my
`left is Judge Plenzler, in the flesh and blood this time
`around, joining us from Detroit.
` May I know who is here from the petitioner?
` MR. SOKOHL: Yes, Your Honor. Robert Sokohl and
`Richard Bemben from Sterne Kessler.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Hello. And for patent owner?
` MR. GANNON: Mike Gannon and my partner Leif
`Sigmond.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Hello, Mr. Gannon.
` All right, before we proceed, we got an e-mail
`regarding confidential information on Slide 26 of the patent
`owner's slide deck, so there -- we have two audience members
`here today.
` Yes?
` MR. GANNON: Your Honor, this is in-house counsel
`from Trading Technologies, Mr. Adam Faier --
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` MR. GANNON: -- and Monika Dudek.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Okay. So there's no other
`audience members, so it doesn't seem like we have a
`confidentiality issue with respect to people in the room.
` MR. GANNON: Well --
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Are we all agreed?
` MR. GANNON: -- actually, in-house counsel from
`Trading Technologies does not have access to that confidential
`information.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Okay, Mr. Gannon.
` So what I would suggest we do, and since I
`understand that audio-visual equipment is still broken -- is
`that correct? You've been told that?
` MR. GANNON: That's right.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: That -- so now we're not going to
`be showing that slide on the monitors, but we will have the
`slide in front of us. And I'm assuming you have a copy of the
`slide?
` MR. GANNON: Correct.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Is that correct? Is it possible
`for you just to refer to that information generally? You
`know, you can say, on the left side, on the right side?
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` Because the other problem is that if you say
`anything specific, it's going to show up in the transcript.
` MR. GANNON: Yeah. My plan with that particular
`slide was to compare and contrast the two screens, and I was
`also going to be referring to some testimony of the
`TradeStation witness that's confidential.
` One thought we had, Your Honor, is when we get to
`that slide, if in-house counsel could leave the courtroom and
`come right back?
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Well, what about the fact that it
`will also show up in the transcript? So --
` MR. GANNON: Well --
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: -- we've got, you know, issues
`there, and the fact that usually things that are sealed, after
`45 days get unsealed.
` Maybe you could say -- instead of telling us the
`testimony, you could say, testimony that's on page blah, blah
`of the exhibit? And we can just look at that testimony on our
`screen?
` MR. GANNON: I could try to do that, Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: That would be very helpful.
` MR. SOKOHL: Give it a try.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: I have seen it work before.
` MR. GANNON: Okay.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And the other thing I wanted to
`point out is that in the '161 case, on patent owner's
`demonstrative slides, Slide No. 32 of Exhibit 411 looks
`awfully similar to what's going on in Slide 26 here, and that
`is not sealed.
` MR. GANNON: It's similar, but it doesn't have as
`much information on it.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: So the confidential information
`is the added information?
` MR. GANNON: Correct.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: So that's probably more helpful,
`because then you -- whatever is confidential, you can just
`say, you know, the third box or the fourth box on the slide.
` MR. GANNON: Okay. I think I can do that with a
`slide from our deck in this case.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Yeah. Remember, we'll have it in
`front of us, too. So we'll be able to count over it, the
`number of boxes.
` MR. GANNON: Okay.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: We'll try. We'll see what
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`happens.
` MR. GANNON: All right. I'll do my best on that.
`And obviously, if -- Mr. Sokohl, if you hear something that
`appears to be confidential that you would not want to have on
`the record, I invite you to let me know.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: I'll tell you what. Why don't
`you try your best, and before we put the transcript in the
`record, we'll e-mail it to both parties to -- and you can have
`a minute to see whether it's confidential? Just as a failsafe
`here. Or -- and you can get up and object.
` MR. SOKOHL: That seems fair. My --
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Yeah.
` MR. SOKOHL: And I'm going to let them give the
`best try.
` I don't know what's confidential and what's not, so
`it's kind of difficult, because it's from the litigation. But
`if I hear something that I think is an issue, I'll certainly
`bring it to your attention.
` I think we'll find a way to make this work --
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Okay.
` MR. SOKOHL: -- is the bottom line here.
` MR. GANNON: Well, as we were preparing for the
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`hearing, and as I'm looking at the materials, I was actually
`wondering whether or not it actually even is -- rises to the
`level of being so confidential that in-house counsel at
`Trading Technologies, or anyone else for that matter, couldn't
`see the information.
` MR. SOKOHL: That may be. I just had to evaluate
`it.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And in-house counsel is free to
`get up whenever they want to, and they can leave if they feel
`uncomfortable in the situation.
` MR. GANNON: Okay. Well, hopefully --
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Okay?
` MR. GANNON: -- if I follow the guidelines, it
`won't be an issue.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: We'll try.
` All right, so now that that is straightened out, we
`can proceed. So each party has 45 minutes, and I was under
`the understanding you'd like to argue the motion to exclude
`today?
` MR. GANNON: We're going to rest on the briefs on
`that issue, Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Okay.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` MR. GANNON: So we won't be reserving time.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Okay. Thank you.
` So 45 minutes each. Mr. Sokohl, would you like to
`reserve some time for rebuttal?
` MR. SOKOHL: Yes, Your Honor, 10 minutes.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: You may proceed when you're
`ready.
` MR. SOKOHL: Thank you, Your Honor.
` Good afternoon, and welcome, Judge Plenzler, to DC.
` We have multiple issues to discuss today, including
`101, claim construction, and 103. I'd like to dive right into
`103.
` Petitioners have established that TSE, which we use
`in combination with Belden and Cooper, was disseminated and
`otherwise available to the interested public in August 1998.
`The board should come to the same conclusion here that it did
`in CBM2015-00181.
` Now, I know you have the slides available. Slide
`11 -- and I don't think the slides are horribly critical, but
`I'll refer to them just so that you have them in front of you.
` Mr. Kawashima, the person that crafted TSE,
`identified -- testified that 200 participants in the Tokyo
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Stock Exchange, including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley,
`Merrill Lynch, and Nomura Securities, received a copy of TSE
`in 1998. This fact is unrebutted. TT had two opportunities
`to cross-examine Mr. Kawashima on this very point, but the
`dispositive facts remain the same.
` Now, the Federal Circuit explained in Blue Calypso
`that to qualify as a printed publication, a reference, quote,
`must have been sufficiently accessible to the public
`interested in the art. The 200 participants identified by Mr.
`Kawashima fall into this category. These companies are the
`interested public.
` There is no requirement, as TT proposes, that the
`interested public be limited to a POSITA. A POSITA is
`actually a fictional character, so it just makes no sense that
`that's how you would read Blue Calypso.
` Now, further, the express purpose of TSE was to
`alert participants to changes in how the trading terminals at
`the Tokyo Stock Exchange operated, explaining in extensive
`detail how to electronically connect to the exchange,
`including, for example, providing terminal system
`configuration instructions, troubleshooting problems, the
`terminal equipment, communication circuits, central system
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`recovery, et cetera.
` And importantly, there is no requirement that a
`particular member of the public receive the documents,
`including POSITAs, and we know this from Constant v. AMD. But
`regardless, the participants would have employed people having
`the skills of a POSITA to implement the TSE. You can see, for
`instance, chapters 2 and 15 of the operating manual as
`examples.
` Now, Mr. Kawashima is a disinterested party. TT
`tries to argue that Kawashima is biased. This falls flat.
`He's an employee of the Tokyo Stock Exchange. The fact that
`TSE allegedly provided documents to the Japanese Patent Office
`for a different TT patent does not suggest that Mr. Kawashima
`is biased.
` Mr. Kawashima himself had no interest regarding the
`outcome at the Japanese Patent Office. There is zero evidence
`in this record, other than TT's conjecture, that Mr. Kawashima
`is biased.
` TT is also incorrect that Mr. Kawashima's testimony
`must be corroborated. Again, corroboration might matter if he
`was interested, but he's not.
` But the cases that TT cites do not stand for the
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`proposition that they put forth. Rather, they stand for the
`proposition that a witness whose testimony alone is asserted
`to invalidate a patent must be corroborated. That is not the
`rule for showing a document was publicly available.
` And to the extent you require corroboration, the
`document itself has an August 1998 date on it, marking that
`corroborates Mr. Kawashima's testimony.
` And we can also see on Slide 12, during redirect in
`his second deposition, Mr. Kawashima commented on a number of
`documents that did corroborate his testimony. For example,
`Exhibit 2163 that specifically references two TSE documents
`being distributed. We thus submit that TSE is prior art.
` Unless there's any questions, I'd like to move on
`to Trading Technologies's arguments in regard to the
`TSE/Belden combination.
` Now, TSE and Belden teach each and every element of
`independent Claims 1 and 23. TT makes three flawed arguments
`in regard to this combination.
` Number one, the combination fails to teach the
`order entry region and, quote, setting a plurality of
`parameters limitations. Two, combination fails to teach the
`updating of the display limitation. And three, petition lacks
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`motivation to combine. All three arguments are flawed.
` Now first, the panel's already rejected the first
`and third arguments -- very similar arguments -- in
`CBM2015-00181, so let's deal with those first.
` TT attacks the TSE/Belden combination by attacking
`the references individually, but this, as the board knows, is
`incorrect. TT concedes that TSE teaches selecting an area
`along the price axis to open an order entry window, and TT
`does not appear to dispute that Belden teaches single order --
`excuse me, single-action order entry.
` But TT then argues that neither reference alone
`teaches selection of a location of an order entry region along
`a price axis using single-action. But petitioners argued it
`was the combination of TSE and Belden.
` We simply suggested the substitution of the single
`action of Belden when you select an area along the price axis
`of TSE. It couldn't be more straightforward.
` And this combination is not based on hindsight, and
`you don't have to take our word for that. Mr. Thomas, Trading
`Technologies's expert, told us that GUIs such as Figure 2,
`that are described in the patent, which, according to
`Mr. Thomas, was the most common GUI available prior to the
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`'768 patent being filed, used single action. And that's
`Exhibit 1063, page 72, lines 18 through 20.
` So it was known to use single-action order entry
`with GUIs for trading commodities.
` Now, TT's other related argument, no motivation to
`combine, fails since the petition provides well-supported
`reasons to combine Belden's single action with TSE.
`Petitioners provide at least two compelling reasons that
`POSITA would have combined TSE and Belden: Speed and reducing
`input error.
` Now, TT does not dispute the second, which is
`corroborated by Schneider. Belden's statements about speed
`are not limited to open outcry, but are generic. Trading is
`always about speed. This is simply one of the most basic
`tenants of trading.
` And if we look at Slide 14 of our slides, you can
`see that Mr. Ryan testified that speed was critical. He said,
`it's all a race. First one to buy. It's all a race.
` Now, reference is also made to paragraphs 89 and 90
`of Roman's declaration where he said, in the user
`interface for an electronic trading system, speed may be of
`the essence.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` And Mr. Thomas, Trading Technologies's expert,
`said, in paragraph 45 of his declaration, that, quote, speed
`and accuracy are often critical factors for success, because
`opportunities may only exist for fleeting moments.
` He went on to say, quote, this was true before the
`time of the invention, at the time of the invention -- at the
`time -- and continues to today. The combination thus solves
`the problem with predictable results.
` Finally, Mr. Thomas testified that there were only
`two types of order entry techniques prior to the filing of the
`'768 patent: Order entry tickets and Figure 2-style GUIs.
` Trading Technologies admits that order tickets were
`accurate but slow, and Figure 2-style GUIs were fast but
`not accurate. And POSITA would have been aware of both of these
`techniques as well as their pros and cons prior to the filing
`of the '768 patent.
` Now, Trading Technologies's final argument in
`regard to the combination is based on the opinion of their
`translator, Mr. Abilock; namely, that TSE only
`updates the board information in memory when in scroll mode.
` The board should give Mr. Abilock's testimony no
`weight. He is not an expert, and -- in this field, nor did he
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`testify from the perspective of a POSITA. These are fatal.
` Now, as for the merits, Mr. Abilock's opinion could
`not be farther from the truth, and if we turn to Slide 13, TSE
`unambiguously discloses that the display is updated in scroll
`mode. If we look at Slide 13, it reads in the second
`sentence -- or third sentence, the principle feature relating
`to the display of board and quotation information are as
`below.
` And then in the third bullet it says, the board
`information on each Board screen is automatically updated even
`if it has been scrolled vertically. TSE is unambiguous that
`the screen is updated.
` Finally, TT argues that TSE doesn't allow trading
`from scroll mode. Okay, first, the entire rationale for that
`argument is based on Mr. Abilock's opinion that the display is
`not updated. As I said, that's false based on TSE.
` Second, there's absolutely no suggestion in TSE
`that trading is disabled in the scroll mode. And finally, the
`text of TSE that discusses trading is not limited to the basic
`board screen, but also applies to the scroll mode.
` If there's no questions about Claims 1 and 23, I'll
`move on to the dependent claims.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` Claim 6, which is shown on Slide 26, for your
`reference. Now, TT improperly construes Claim 6 to require
`the entered order indicator must indicate the user's order at
`a particular price level along the price axis. Claim 6 does
`not say user. Rather, it says, unambiguously, an order.
` This can be any order. It does not have to be the
`user's order. That's what Claim 6 requires.
` TT's arguments are thus not commensurate with the
`claims. TSE -- and TSE clearly teaches entered orders,
`including the user's orders, are displayed along the price
`axis. Claim 6 is taught by TSE.
` Now, Slide 27, which shows Claim 7, TSE teaches a
`POSITA several things: One, displaying the static price axis;
`two, displaying entered orders along the static price axis;
`three, sending messages to an electronic exchange by
`activating locations along the static price axis; and four,
`cancelling orders.
` Belden also teaches a POSITA several things:
`Displaying entered orders indicating -- excuse me, displaying
`entered order indicators -- indications associated with price
`and single-action cancelling by selecting the entered order
`indicators.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` Now, considering these teachings, we submit that a
`POSITA would have found it obvious to combine the
`single-action cancellations taught by Belden with the GUI of
`TSE. TSE -- TT improperly attacks the references
`individually, but the rejection is based on the combination of
`teachings, and this is exactly the same we found in final --
`the same argument that the board rejected in the final
`decision in CBM2015-00181 in regard to Claims 9 and 10, and we
`would ask that you find the same way today.
` Slide 28, which is claim 11. TT improperly
`construes Claim 11 to require that the centering command be
`sent to a user -- excuse me, sent by a user.
` There is nothing in Claim 11 that requires the
`instruction to be from a user, a word that does not appear in
`the claim. And Trading Technologies doesn't explain black
`letter law of why a preferred embodiment should be read into
`the claim.
` We would suggest the claim is broader than a user
`sending the command, and TSE unambiguously teaches that
`pressing the Home, H, button when in the scrolling mode
`recenters the data.
` Now, TT doesn't dispute this fact. They're
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`argument is it switches the modes, but that's not the proper
`inquiry. TSE states selecting the Home button -- which is a
`single user entered command, by the way -- causes, quote, the
`board display center price to be at the center. And this is
`Exhibit 1007, pages 115 and 116.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Counsel, I have a question about
`Claim 11 and how it relates to Claim 1.
` So Claim 1, you know, unlike some of the other
`patents, we don't have a recitation of static price axis.
`Instead, we have these recitations of fixed locations
`corresponding to a first price level.
` And, you know, when you update it, the indicators
`move relative to the price axis, but it says the first
`location -- or it's a fixed location corresponding to the
`first price level.
` And when I get to Claim 11, I now have a
`recentering limitation. Does that mean that if my location is
`fixed corresponding to the first price level and when I
`recenter, what does that now require? Does that mean that the
`location that corresponds to that price level is no longer
`fixed and it's moving too to be recentered? Or how does that
`work?
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` MR. SOKOHL: That's a very interesting question,
`Your Honor. So Claim 1 does not require a static price axis,
`which means that the price axis itself is capable of moving.
` Claim 1 also requires a fixed location, which is
`associated with a price. When new data comes in, the data
`that was in the fixed location is going to move -- be moved to
`another location, whereas the fixed location will remain
`connected with the price axis -- the price along the axis.
` Now, when -- this is what I believe; I haven't
`actually thought about this question until now -- but when you
`recenter using a command, the fixed location is a location on
`the GUI. It's still going to be associated with that price,
`but the data will be -- will all be recentered.
` So in regard --
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: So you mean the price axis has to
`move down; right? That's that point of the recentering?
` MR. SOKOHL: That is true. So you're centering --
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: So the location will be up here,
`and maybe the price that it corresponds to will be down here
`anymore, because maybe you -- you take a snapshot, and your
`price level's up there, and it has the corresponding fixed
`location up there and it's about to move off the screen, so
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`you're going to recenter.
` But now that fixed location logically would have to
`move -- if it still wants to correspond to that price level,
`it would have to move, and now it's no longer fixed. Or I
`have a price level that's moved and the fixed location stays
`at the top?
` MR. SOKOHL: So in Claim 1, as I understand it --
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Do you see my confusion?
` MR. SOKOHL: Yeah. In Claim 1, as I understand it,
`it's the indicators that are being recentered.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: So the indicators are going to
`recenter --
` MR. SOKOHL: In Claim 11.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: -- to a level that no longer
`corresponds to their price? If I hit the recentering command?
` MR. SOKOHL: Say that once again?
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: So there's location -- fixed
`location that correspond to a price axis, and the indicators
`move between the locations; right? The locations are fixed;
`the price is moving. Right?
` And so I want to -- all of this is about to move
`off the screen. I'm pushing it down, and now my indicator is
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`recentered?
` Or am I recentering just the indicators, but no
`longer in relation to their price levels, because the price
`level has to correspond to the fixed location?
` MR. SOKOHL: That is true. So the -- you're going
`to move the -- when you press the recentering command, the
`indicators are going to move back to the center, for example,
`and of course, it's going to be associated with price. So
`that price axis would also move in relationship to the
`indicators.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And the fixed location needs to
`-- that corresponds to that price level needs to move, too?
` Because the patent talks about the static price
`axis, which it just says it generally doesn't -- it's fixed,
`unless you get a recentering command.
` So we don't seem to have that idea of it being,
`unless the recentering command happens when we rewrite this
`whole thing into the terms of fixed locations.
` MR. SOKOHL: As I understand the claim, the fixed
`location is associated with a price along the axis.
` And the fixed axis -- the fixed locations are just
`that, they're fixed. I don't necessarily believe that --
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: They don't always have to be
`associated with the same price level?
` MR. SOKOHL: It doesn't -- the claim doesn't say
`what happens to the fixed locations when there's a recentering
`command. I mean, I think that's probably the best answer.
`Claim 11 doesn't articulate what happens to the fixed
`locations.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you.
` MR. SOKOHL: I'd like to move on to secondary
`considerations.
` Now, Trading Technologies attempts to overwhelm
`petitioners and the board by dumping volumes of documents in
`the proceeding that allegedly support secondary
`considerations. TT's attempt fails.
` Now, petitioners should prevail for four distinct
`reasons: First, we have a very strong prima facie case of
`obviousness; second, Trading Technologies has failed to
`establish nexus; third, the vast majority is Trading
`Technologies's evidence is hearsay and should be excluded; and
`fourth, TT's evidence doesn't support secondary
`considerations.
` Now, a strong prima facie of obviousness showing
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`may stand even in the face of considerable evidence of
`secondary considerations. We know this from Line Rothman v.
`Target Corp.
` In short, given the strong obviousness arguments
`presented in the petition, and the facts that the '768 patent
`are in the predictable arts, petitioner submits that TT's
`secondary consideration argument should fail.
` Now, we're not suggesting that you ignore secondary
`considerations. You must consider them. We just believe that
`the strength of the obviousness combination should win the day
`here.
` Now, let's take a step back. Secondary
`considerations provide a guard against hindsight, but
`hindsight is not a concern here. TSE and Belden teach each
`and every element of the independent claims. This is
`supported by expert testimony, including Trading
`Technologies's expert, and well-known GUI treatises.
` The evidence of record clearly shows that using a
`single-action in the trading environment was known. We do not
`have to guess as to whether or not a POSITA would implement
`single-action for electronic trading.
` Mr. Thomas admits that that's been done with regard
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`to Figure 2-style GUIs, the prevalent GUI in the industry.
`Thus, no hindsight is being used here.
` In short, it is our position that secondary
`considerations, even if they had merit, do not overcome the
`strong prima facie case put forth by the petitioners.
` Now with regard to nexus, first, TT is not entitled
`to a presumption of nexus; and second, TT has not established
`that nexus between claims and secondary consideration evidence
`where the offered secondary considerations actually results
`from something other than what is both claimed and novel in
`the claim, and there is no nexus to the merits of the claim
`mentioned.
` Now, we can see from Slides 22 and 23 there's
`nothing novel about the arrangement of data, dynamic or
`otherwise, on a computer seen. We also know that Trading
`Technologies offered Exhibits 2223, which is a set of
`declarations from traders of friends of TT.
` Many of the exhibits from 2223 demonstrates that
`TT's secondary considerations results from unclaimed features.
`For example -- and we can see this on Slide 19 -- Mr. Ryan
`testified that MD Trader's ability to display multiple trade
`windows was one reason he used MD Trader. That's not a claim
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`Appeal CBM2016-00054
`Patent 7,693,768 B1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`feature.
` Mr. Rosafi (phonetic) identified one-click
`recentering as a key feature. Not claimed.
` Slide 20 shows Mr. McElveen identified speed,
`precision, and one-click recentering and multi-screen
`visualization as important features. Again, not claimed.
` Further, all these features were known, and the
`other features touted by the traders were known. Thus, since
`TT's evidence relates to unclaimed and known features, there
`is no nexus.
` Further, Trading Technologies provides the exact
`same evidence here it provided in the '132, '411, and '304
`CBMs. These are -- allegedly, all these claims are different,
`yet the same evidence is being put forth. This should further
`assist the board in concluding that the secondary
`consideration evidence is not dispositive of ob
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
