throbber
5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
` TRADESTATION GROUP, INC. and
` TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
` Petitioners
`
` v.
`
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
` Patent Owner
`
` CBM2016-00087 (Patent No. 7,412,416)
`
` Deposition of CHRISTOPHER H. THOMAS, taken at
` McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP,
` before Donna M. Kazaitis, IL-CSR, RPR, CLR,
` and CRR, commencing at the hour of 1:03 p.m.
` on Monday, May 8, 2017.
`
`____________________________________________________
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`IBG 1058
`IBG v. TT
`CBM2016-00087
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
` STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN FOX
` BY: ROBERT SOKOHL, ESQ.
` RICHARD M. BEMBEN, ESQ.
` 1100 New York Avenue, NW
` Washington, DC 20005
` 202.371.2600
` rsokohl@skgf.com
` rbemben@skgf.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
` MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
` BY: MICHAEL D. GANNON, ESQ.
` 300 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606-6709
` 312.913.3311
` gannon@@mbhb.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` Steve Borsand, Esq.
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 3
`
` INDEX
` PAGE
`CHRISTOPHER H. THOMAS
` Examination by Mr. Sokohl 4, 131
` Examination by Mr. Gannon 118
`
` EXHIBITS
`TRADING TECH PAGE
`Exhibit 2169 Declaration of Christopher 7
` H. Thomas
` (CBM2016-00087)
`IBG
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 7, 412,416 125
` (CBM2016-00087)
`THOMAS
`Exhibit 1 VIII Claim Construction 119
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`(Witness sworn.)
` CHRISTOPHER H. THOMAS,
`having been first duly sworn, was examined and
`testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Thomas. How are
`you?
` A. Good.
` Q. You've gone through this a few times.
`I know you know the ground rules. But are you on
`any medications today that would not allow you to
`give truthful testimony?
` A. No.
` Q. Any other reason why you wouldn't be
`able to give truthful testimony?
` A. No.
` Q. If you don't understand the question,
`just ask me to clarify it.
` A. Okay.
` Q. If you answer it, I'm going to assume
`you understood it.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Correct.
` Q. If you want to take a break, just ask.
`I'd just ask that you finish the question that's
`pending.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Let me just give you the documents.
`I'm going to hand you what has been marked Exhibit
`2169 in CBM2016-00087 which is the declaration of
`Christopher H. Thomas for U.S. Patent Number
`7,412,416. (Document tendered to the witness.)
` Do you recognize this document?
` A. Yes, I do.
` When I was reviewing this document,
`there's a section in here, Claim Construction,
`that is wrong.
` Q. Okay.
` A. And I made a correction to it. So I'd
`like to mark that, if I can.
` Q. Sure. We'll get to that. We can do
`it now.
` A. Okay. Just let me briefly explain it.
` Q. Sure, go ahead.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. In my claim construction --
` Q. What page are we talking?
` A. It's Paragraph 64.
` Q. Paragraph 64?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay.
` A. I mistakenly, it's a computer readable
`medium construction and I mistakenly had that in
`from I believe the '999 Patent because there was
`such a lot of carryover. I made a mistake when I
`was drafting it because I refer to Claim 23, it's
`not Claim 23, it's Claim 14. And the explanation
`is not technically correct. So I just wanted to
`make it correct for completeness.
` Q. So I was going to ask you, did you
`review this declaration before you signed it?
` A. Yeah, I did.
` Q. And did you not notice this error when
`you signed it?
` A. No, I did not.
` Q. Okay. I mean your opinions are what
`they are.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Right.
` Q. Is that your signature on Page 57?
` A. Yes, I believe, yes, it is, yes.
` Q. Did you find any other errors when you
`were reviewing your declaration?
` A. No, no.
` Q. Let me just give you the patent so you
`have it. I'm going to hand you what's been marked
`as IBG 1001, which is U.S. Patent Number
`7,412,416. And if it's okay with you, I'll refer
`to this as the '416 Patent.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you recognize that?
` A. I do.
` Q. Have you reviewed this patent before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you've reviewed the claims of this
`patent?
` A. I have read the claims, yes.
` Q. In regard to your declaration, which
`is Exhibit 2169, I'm just going to refer to that
`as the Thomas declaration.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Sure.
` Q. What is your expertise that you're
`opining on in regard to the Thomas declaration?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: You asked me what I'm
`opining on in here?
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. What is your area of expertise?
` A. It is the design of, design and
`implement and program graphical user interfaces
`for trading, electronic trading.
` Q. Are you opining as an expert in any
`other field in regard to this declaration?
` A. Actually, I think I say that my
`expertise is in that. So I believe that -- I
`don't believe so, no.
` Q. Are you an expert in graphical user
`interfaces for products other than financial
`products?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: I'd have to look at the
`definition of an expert for that field to see if I
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`fall into that. I don't know. I could be.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Are you here to testify as an expert
`in graphical user interfaces for products other
`than financial products?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: I am here to testify as
`an expert for graphical user interfaces for
`electronic trading.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. If we look at Claim 1 of the '416
`Patent, I believe in the first element it talks
`about a vertical axis of price values.
` Do you see that?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Are you familiar with what a static
`price axis is?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: A static price axis?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 10
` THE WITNESS: Are you referring to a
`static price axis as used in other patents in
`these proceedings?
` MR. SOKOHL: Yes.
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Specifically the '132 Patent.
` A. I am familiar with that.
` Q. Is the vertical axis of price values
`recited in Claim 1 a static price axis?
` A. Claim 1 doesn't say anything about a
`static price axis.
` Q. Did you review the prosecution history
`of the '416 Patent?
` A. I don't believe I did, but I just want
`to make sure. No, I don't believe I did.
` Q. Just to follow up on one of my last
`questions. In regard to independent Claim 14 --
` A. Okay.
` Q. -- I'd like to ask you the same
`question. Is the vertical axis of prices a static
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`price axis?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: Claim 14 does not
`require a static price axis.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. In the Thomas declaration, you have a
`discussion about your understanding of a POSITA
`versus Mr. Roman's understanding of a POSITA. Do
`you recall that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Does the difference between the two
`impact any opinion you have put forth in your
`declaration?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form?
` THE WITNESS: I think it does because
`it -- I believe that Mr. Roman's definition does
`not place enough emphasis on experience based on
`the knowledge of somebody familiar with the needs
`of an electronic trader. And I believe that that
`would have an impact on determining the
`unconventional nature of the claims of the '416
`Patent and also whether they are technical in
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`nature.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Let's look at Claim 1 again.
` A. Okay.
` Q. It says in the first step "displaying
`a chart on a graphical user interface."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. "Comprising a vertical axis of price
`values and a horizontal axis of time."
` A. Yes.
` Q. First of all, do those axes need to be
`visible?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: You know, that's not
`part of my declaration. I haven't opined on that.
`I don't have an opinion on that. I'd have to
`review that. I don't have an opinion on that at
`the moment.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Do you understand Claim 1?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. I think you earlier said that the
`unconventional nature of Claim 1, Mr. Roman's
`definition of POSITA, wouldn't allow him to
`understand the unconventional nature of Claim 1.
`I think that's what you said.
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't think I actually
`said that.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Okay. What did you say?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: I said that -- I think
`you asked me if there was a difference between the
`two, and I think I said that having experience
`from someone with input of the knowledge of an
`electronic trader over the time period would allow
`the POSITA to better determine whether something,
`a GUI tool was conventional or not.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And in order to determine whether a
`GUI tool is conventional, would you need to
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`understand the scope of Claim 1?
` A. Right. But you asked me whether the
`axes needed to be displayed.
` Q. Correct.
` A. Well, Claim 1, Claim 1 says, that
`element says "displaying a chart on a graphical
`user interface comprising a vertical axis of price
`values and a horizontal axis of time." It doesn't
`say whether you need to display the axis. Either
`way it doesn't say.
` Q. In the next step it says "displaying
`indicators representing historical trading data
`for the good at locations along the vertical axis
`of price values and the horizontal axis of time."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How many indicators need to be
`displayed?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` MR. SOKOHL: So I can correct that
`question, what was wrong with the form of that
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`question, "How many indicators need to be
`displayed?"
` MR. GANNON: I just objected to scope.
`I think it's outside the scope.
` MR. SOKOHL: Okay. You objected to
`form and scope. So I wanted to correct the
`question.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. How many indicators need to be
`displayed in Claim 1?
` MR. GANNON: Objection, scope.
` THE WITNESS: It is just merely saying
`displaying indicators which represent the
`historical trading data for the good at the
`location along the vertical axis and the
`horizontal axis of time. So it doesn't state how
`many.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. What would be the minimum number that
`would have to be displayed?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 16
` THE WITNESS: The word "indicators"
`itself suggests plural. So at a minimum that's
`two.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Okay. And does the claim specify what
`type of historical trading data needs to be
`displayed?
` A. The claim does not. But the
`specification does speak about the different types
`of trading data that can be used. So one of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`the historical data could represent different
`facets of the underlying instrument being traded,
`and that's explained in the specification.
` Q. So historical trading data can be a
`plethora of type of data?
` MR. GANNON: Objection, scope.
` THE WITNESS: Well, the specification
`does explain that it could be several different
`metrics, whatever the trader wants to view.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Does Claim 1 specify what the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`indicators look like?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: No. But, again, in the
`specification, and you can look at the figures,
`the specification speaks about it and the figures
`illustrate the indicators too, the trading data.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And those are examples shown in the
`specification; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Other than the plural indicators, does
`Claim 1 require anything else be displayed on the
`GUI?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`foundation, and scope.
` THE WITNESS: It has to provide a
`plurality of locations on the graphical user
`interface to place an order icon with a pointer of
`a mouse.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Do those have to be displayed, those
`locations?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: According to the claim,
`they have to be provided.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Provided.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Which is different than displayed;
`correct?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: Could be.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. In fact, they could be an invisible
`location on the screen; correct?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: Could be.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Claim 1 doesn't require any real-time
`market data to be displayed; correct?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: Although those words may
`not be in Claim 1, by reading -- the specification
`discloses is a live market. There is no
`disclosure in the specification of anything but a
`real-time market which would necessitate live
`market data.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. But the claims don't have any real
`market data displayed; correct?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope, asked and answered.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. I'm going to ask that question again.
`It was a bad question.
` A. Okay.
` Q. But Claim 1 does not require any
`real-time market data be displayed; correct?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form, asked
`and answered, scope.
` THE WITNESS: Like I said, those words
`are not in Claim 1. But in the light of the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`specification, it's the only thing disclosed.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. You refer to the alleged invention in
`independent Claims 1 and 14 as GUI tools. Is that
`your phrase?
` A. Yes.
` Q. If I refer to the GUI tool of Claim 1
`and 14, using your language, that would be
`appropriate?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I just don't want the record to
`reflect that somehow I'm acquiescing to that.
` The GUI tool of Claim 1 -- using
`the GUI tool of Claim 1, could you trade on the
`inside market?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: You could trade at any
`price along the price axis.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. If we turn to Paragraph 22 of your
`declaration.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Okay.
` Q. You state in the first sentence "to
`understand the claimed invention and its
`unconventional nature." What's unconventional
`about Claim 1?
` A. Because it was -- when Claim 1 is read
`as a whole, it's very unconventional in terms of
`how electronic trading was undertaken at the time.
` Q. Could you be specific other than "the
`claim as a whole"?
` A. Sure. Well, I mean you have to
`consider the claim as a whole. So when you read
`the claim as a whole, the invention, all the
`claims, the invention is all of the claims, it is
`very unconventional in terms of what was available
`at the time.
` What was available at the time were
`your typical what we've been referring to as a
`Figure 2 type, always centered GUIs, and where the
`market was always centered at the inside market.
`And then the other type of order entry tool that
`was available at the time, order tickets.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 22
` So it was a radical departure from
`there.
` Q. When you say "always centered" in
`regard to Figure 2, earlier we talked about the
`fact that Claim 1 did not have a static price
`axis; correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Why would the inside market not always
`be centered in a GUI tool as recited in Claim 1
`for example?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: Because there's no --
`when you read the specification and you look at
`the figures, there is no way that you can -- for
`example, if we look at Figure 3-A, when you have
`the historical market data and then you have what
`is annotated as number 304 and -- 300 are the
`bids, 304 are the asks. You cannot have the bids
`and asks like that when everything is always
`centered. It just doesn't work that way. It just
`doesn't work that way.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Okay. So I'd like to reference Claim
`1.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Does Claim 1 require inside market
`data be displayed?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: No. Claim 1 does not
`require that.
` But going back to your previous
`question, it's unreasonable to say that it would
`be an always centered display because when you
`look at everything that's disclosed in the
`specification, including the figures, that's just
`not the case. I mean one of ordinary skill in the
`art at the time would know that.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. But Claim 1 doesn't even recite the
`inside market.
` A. If it was always centered, you cannot
`perform the required step of Claim 1 which states
`generating an order to buy or sell the particular
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 24
`quantity of the good at a particular price value
`responsive to placing the order icon at the
`specific location.
` You can't do that. If it's always
`centered, you can't drag something on a specific
`price because it's always changing. So you
`wouldn't be able to do it.
` Q. Okay. Of course you could move --
`well, you're telling me that you can't move an
`icon to a place on the price axis even if it's
`moving?
` A. No, but --
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. I guess I don't understand your
`question. It's not static, right, Claim 1.
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form, asked
`and answered.
` THE WITNESS: But that's not what --
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Let me ask a different question.
` A. Hold on one second.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Sure, go ahead.
` A. That is not -- like I said before, it
`is completely unreasonable to say that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would conclude that
`reading the specification and looking at all the
`figures. That's just not what is disclosed in the
`specification.
` Q. Do you know whether it's appropriate
`to read limitations from the specification into
`the claims?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: I'm not a lawyer and I
`don't believe I'm reading limitations into a
`claim. I am reading the claim in the light of the
`specification. And in the light of the
`specification concluding that that could be an
`always centered axis makes no sense.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Is it possible for Claim 1 to be
`broader than shown in Figure 3?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: But it's not just Figure
`3. It's all the figures in the specification.
`It's the whole specification as a whole.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Is it possible for Claim 1 to be
`broader than all the figures in the specification?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: That's not in my
`declaration. I haven't considered that. I would
`have to think about that.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. So I'd like to focus on Claim 1.
` A. Okay.
` Q. I didn't ask you questions about
`Figure 3-A.
` A. Okay.
` Q. First of all, does Claim 1 require
`price levels to be displayed along the price axis?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 27
` THE WITNESS: Actually displaying the
`price levels?
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Correct.
` MR. GANNON: Same objections. Also,
`lack of foundation.
` THE WITNESS: It says to display a
`chart on a graphical user interface. Again, when
`you read the specification and you look at all the
`figures, it's the only reasonable thing to
`conclude is. It doesn't specifically say that you
`display price values, but all the disclosures in
`the specification display price values.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. How do you know -- how do you
`determine whether or not you're reading a
`limitation into the claim versus reading the
`claims in light of the specification?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: I'm not a lawyer. So I
`believe that when you're looking at the broadest
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 28
`reasonable interpretation, which is what I believe
`is supposed to be done in these proceedings, one
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time would --
`that would be the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of what one of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time would believe something means
`in light of the specification. And that's I
`believe what I'm doing.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. But do you agree that there is a claim
`construction principle that says you don't read
`limitations from the specification into the
`claims?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope, calls for a legal conclusion.
` THE WITNESS: Again, I'm not a lawyer,
`I mean I haven't done any, apart from one piece of
`claim construction section in my declaration.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Have you been instructed as to whether
`or not there is a claim construction principle as
`to whether or not you read limitations into the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`claims?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: No. I have been
`instructed on broadest reasonable interpretation,
`and I believe that's what I'm doing.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. How do you determine whether or not
`you're construing a claim under broadest
`reasonable interpretation or reading a limitation
`into the claim improperly?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: I have been informed of
`what the broadest reasonable interpretation is,
`and I believe that that's what I'm doing.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Is there any indication in Claim 1
`that -- strike that.
` Is Claim 1 limited to financial
`goods?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: That's not in my
`declaration. I haven't considered that. I would
`need to consider that.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Well, in Claim 1 it says "a method for
`facilitating trading and displaying information
`regarding the buying and selling of a good."
` Do you see that?
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. What type of good is being bought and
`sold in Claim 1?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: Well, the specification
`talks about financial trading, it includes that.
`Is it limited to it? I'm not sure. I'd have to
`look at that.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. When considering the unconventional
`nature of Claim 1, did you consider whether this
`claim related to goods beyond financial goods?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 31
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`foundation, scope.
` MR. SOKOHL: Just for clarity of the
`regard, why is that beyond the scope? I'm trying
`to understand his understanding of the claim and
`he opined on this claim.
` MR. GANNON: Well, first of all, your
`question assumed a fact that's not in evidence.
` MR. SOKOHL: That's why I'm asking the
`questions.
` MR. GANNON: Well, no. My problem
`with the question was it assumed a fact that
`hasn't been established.
` MR. SOKOHL: Which is what?
` MR. GANNON: That the claims are
`related to goods beyond trading I think you said.
` THE WITNESS: Could you ask it again?
` MR. GANNON: And, for the record, my
`scope objection is it's beyond any opinion in his
`declaration.
` MR. SOKOHL: If he opined on the scope
`of this claim in any way, then it's not beyond the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 32
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`scope. Thank you for clarifying.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Let me ask my question again. When
`you opined on the unconventional nature of Claim
`1, did you consider whether the claim related to
`goods beyond financial products?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: I was asked to opine on
`the unconventional nature of the claims from the
`'416 Patent with regards to conventional GUIs that
`were available for electronic trading at the time.
`So electronic trading.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And how do you define "electronic
`trading"?
` A. Electronic trading, trading on an
`electronic exchange.
` Q. And what types of goods are you
`referring to being traded on an electronic
`exchange?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: I believe that anything
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`

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