`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 24
`
`
`
` Entered: January 14, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORP., TD AMERITRADE, INC., and TD
`AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`CBM 2014-00131
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Request for Rehearing (Paper 21, “Req. Reh’g”) of the Decision on
`Institution (Paper 19, “Dec.”), which instituted a covered business method
`
`0001
`
`IBG 1006
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 B2
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`patent review of claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’056 patent”). Patent Owner argues that the Board overlooked and
`misapprehended facts that establish that the ’056 patent does not qualify as a
`covered business method patent. Patent Owner additionally argues that the
`Board misapprehended and misapplied the technological invention
`exception. Req. 1. The Request for Rehearing is denied.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`When rehearing a decision on petition, the Board will review the
`
`decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of
`discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous
`interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial
`evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing
`relevant factors. Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed.
`Cir. 2004). For the reasons that follow, Patent Owner has not shown that the
`Board abused its discretion.
`Patent Owner argues that the Board abused its discretion when it
`failed to consider “statements by Congress confirming that a patent claiming
`a novel GUI would be safe from Section 18 review.” Req. Reh’g 4. We did
`not overlook Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the legislative history.
`Dec. 6 (“Patent Owner argues that the claims are directed to structural and
`functional features embodied in a graphical user interface (“GUI”) tool, and
`not in any business method or practice, directing attention to legislative
`history in support of Patent Owner’s arguments.”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`0002
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`
`In the Decision, we explained that Patent Owner’s arguments
`regarding structural and functional features that are embodied in a GUI tool
`are misplaced, because such structure and features are not claimed.
`Accordingly, Patent Owner failed to persuade us that claim 11 is to a novel
`GUI tool, and, therefore, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding statements
`made by Congress were found not to be persuasive because such statements
`were not shown to be commensurate with what is claimed. As stated in the
`Decision, claim 1 is directed to a method for displaying transactional
`information and facilitating trading in a system using a computer. As further
`explained, claim 1 does not recite specific hardware or software for
`performing the steps of the method of claim 1, or a GUI tool. Id. No
`structure or tools are claimed.
`Patent Owner argues that the Board misapplied the technological
`invention test. Req. Reh’g 7. In particular, Patent Owner argues that we
`overlooked the novel and unobvious technological features claimed, and that
`the claims require “a price axis and displaying bid and ask indicators relative
`to the axis on different portions of a computer screen and enabling a user to
`provide inputs based on a selection of locations along the axis.” Id. at 9–10.
` Claim 1 does not recite displaying “bid and ask indicators relative to the
`axis on different portions of a computer screen.” No computer screen is
`claimed. No location of bid or ask indicators is specified. Claim 1 does not
`
`
`1 As explained in the Decision, a patent only need have one claim directed to
`a covered business method to be eligible for a covered business method
`patent review. In the Decision, we focused on claim 1. We focus on claim 1
`for purposes of the rehearing decision.
`3
`
`
`
`0003
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`recite a user providing inputs based on a user selecting locations along the
`axis. Patent Owner’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the
`breadth of claim 1. Similarly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`arguments that claim 1 requires a trader to (1) immediately see rapidly
`changing activity, such as demand for a commodity, (2) quickly assemble
`the information, and (3) react quickly and effectively. Id. at 10. Claim 1
`does not recite rapidly changing activity. No change in activity of what is
`displayed is claimed. Claim 1 does not recite permitting a trader to quickly
`assemble information so as to facilitate taking action quickly and effectively.
` For these reasons, Patent Owner has not shown that the Board abused its
`discretion in determining that claim 1 does not recite a technological feature
`that is novel and unobvious over the prior art.
`Patent Owner also argues that the Decision improperly failed to
`address whether claim 1 solves a technical problem using a technical
`solution. Id. at 11. In particular, Patent Owner disagrees with the Decision
`that claim 1 of informing a trader of certain stock market trends or events is
`not a technical problem, but rather a financial problem. Id. at 12. Patent
`Owner’s arguments, in that regard, reference the arguments already
`addressed above regarding alleged features that are not claimed. For the
`reasons provided above, we do not find the arguments persuasive.
`
`Lastly, Patent Owner argues that while using software to create GUIs
`was known, the specific combination of GUI features claimed in the
`involved patent was not known. Id. at 13. In support of the argument Patent
`Owner refers to a “novel graphical tool”, but Patent Owner has not
`
`
`
`4
`
`0004
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`Patent 7,533,056 B2
`
`demonstrated that claim 1 recites any novel graphical tool, and, therefore,
`the argument is not persuasive.
`
`For all of the above reasons, Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is
`denied.
`PETITIONER:
`
`Lori Gordon
`Jonathan Strang
`Robert E. Sokohl
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`jstrang-PTAB@skgf.com
`rsokohl-ptab@skgf.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Erika H. Arner
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`
`Steven F. Borsand
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Steve.Borsand@tradingtechnologies.com
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`0005