UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE, INC., and
`TD AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP.,
`Petitioners
`v.
`TRADE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 7,533,056
`____________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Overview .......................................................................................................... 1 
`
`I. 
`
`II.  Mandatory Notices .......................................................................................... 2 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Real party-in-interest ............................................................................. 2 
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2 
`
`Lead and back-up counsel with service information ............................ 3 
`
`III.  Grounds for Standing ....................................................................................... 3 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`TD Ameritrade has standing ................................................................. 3 
`
`TD Ameritrade is not estopped or barred .............................................. 4 
`
`The ’056 patent is a Covered Business Method patent ......................... 4 
`
`IV.  Overview of the ’056 patent ............................................................................ 6 
`
`A.  Graphing bids and offers as described in the ’056 patent ..................... 6 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`The claimed graphing and user order entry ........................................... 6 
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 7 
`
`V. 
`
`Level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention ............................... 9 
`
`VI.  Claim construction ......................................................................................... 10 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`price axis .............................................................................................. 10 
`
`offer and bid indicators “representing quantity” ................................. 11 
`
`default .................................................................................................. 12 
`
`indicators, icons and tokens ................................................................ 13 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`receiving a user input indicating a desired price for an order . . . by
`selection of one of a plurality of locations . . . along the price axis .... 16 
`
`E. 
`
`VII.  Grounds for challenging claims 1-15 of the ’056 patent ............................... 17 
`
`A.  All applied references are prior art to the ’056 patent, which claims an
`earliest priority date of April 9, 1999 .................................................. 17 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`Claims 1-15 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the
`abstract idea of presenting graphed data and accepting user inputs ... 18 
`
`Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-15 lack written description for the
`receiving a default quantity step recited in claim 1 ............................ 20 
`
`Claim 7 is indefinite because “default quantity working at the
`electronic exchange” is ambiguous ..................................................... 25 
`
`TSE and Togher render obvious Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14................... 27 
`
`TSE, Togher, and Schott render obvious claims 1-15 ........................ 43 
`
`Silverman, Togher, and Hogan render obvious claims 1-15............... 54 
`
`VIII.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 76 
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`Petitioner’s Exhibit List
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`Exh. No. Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 to Friesen et al. (“’056 patent”)
`1002
`File History of Application Ser. No. 11/417,544, which became the
`’056 patent, as filed and obtained from PAIR (“’056 Patent File
`History”)
`“Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation
`Guide,” Tokyo Stock Exchange (“TSE JP”)
`Certified Translation of “Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading
`Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE”)
`Certificate of Translation for “Futures/Option Purchasing System
`Trading Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE Certificate”)
`Memorandum from James M. Hilmert to eSpeed file regarding
`direct examination of TSE’s 30(b)(6) witness, dated December 5,
`2005 (“Depo. Letter”)
`Deposition Transcript of Atsushi Kawashima, Trading Technologies
`International, Inc., v. eSPEED, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312, United
`States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
`dated November 21, 2005 (“Depo. Transcript”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,375,055 to Togher et al. (“Togher”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,619,631 to Schott (“Schott”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,136,501 to Silverman et al. (“Silverman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,809 to Hogan et al. (“Hogan”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al. (“Gutterman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,454,104 to Steidlmayer et al. (“Steidlmayer”)
`Reuters Globex User Guide, June 1995 (“Globex”)
`Alan Cooper, “About Face: The Essentials of User Interface
`Design,” First Edition, 1995. (“Cooper”)
`Edward R. Tufte, “The Visual Display of Quantitative Information,”
`1983 (“Tufte VDQI”)
`Edward R. Tufte, “Envisioning Information,” Third Edition,
`December 1992 (“Tufte EI”)
`- iii -
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`
`1007
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`Ben Shneiderman, “Designing the User Interface: Strategies for
`Effective Human-Computer Interaction,” Third Edition, 1998
`(“Shneiderman”)
`Sunny J. Harris, “Trading 101 – How to Trade Like a Pro,” 1996
`(“Harris”)
`Robert Deel, “The Strategic Electronic Day Trader,” 2000 (“Deel”)
`Sun Microsystems, Inc., “Open Look™ Graphical User Interface
`Functional Specification,” November 1989 (“Open Look”)
`Valerie Quercia et al., “X Window System User’s Guide,”
`OSF/Motif 1.2 Edition, The Definitive Guides to the X Window
`System, Vol. 3, August 1993 (“Quercia”)
`Richard W. Arms Jr., “Profits in Volume - Equivolume Charting,”
`1975 (“Arms”)
`Definition of “default,” The Computer Glossary, Fifth Edition, 1991
`page 175. (“Computer Glossary”)
`Definition of “default,” The Illustrated Dictionary of
`Microcomputers, Third Edition, 1990, page 90. (“Illustrated
`Dictionary”)
`Definition of “default,” Webster’s New World College Dictionary,
`Fourth Edition, 2007, page 378. (“Webster’s”)
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 2002, pages 102,
`150, 174, 176, and 348 (“Microsoft Computer Dictionary”)
`Defendants’ Memorandum of Law In Support of Joint Motion for
`Summary Judgment That the ’056 Patent is Invalid Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112 ¶ 1 for Lack of Written Description, Trading Technologies
`International, Inc. v. BCG Partners, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-00715,
`United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
`Eastern Division, filed August 15, 2011 (“SJ Motion”)
`Trading Technologies International Inc.’s (1) Opposition to
`Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment That the ’056
`Patent is Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 for Lack of Written
`Description and (2) Cross Motion for Summary Judgment That the
`’056 Patent Meets the Written Description Requirement Set Forth in
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1, Trading Technologies International, Inc. v.
`BCG Partners, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-00715, United States District
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, filed
`September 14, 2011 (“SJ Opposition”)
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Trading Technologies
`International, Inc. v. BCG Partners, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-00715,
`United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
`Eastern Division, filed February 9, 2012 (“SJ Opinion”)
`Vernon L. Smith, “An Experimental Study of Competitive Market
`Behavior,” The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. LXX, No. 2,
`April 1962 (“Smith”)
`Declaration of Kendyl A. Román (“Román Decl.”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Kendyl A. Román (“Román CV”)
`List of Materials Considered by Kendyl A. Román (“Román List of
`Materials”)
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`1033
`1034
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`Petitioners and real party-in-interest, TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., TD
`
`Ameritrade, Inc., and TD Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp., (“TD Ameritrade”)
`
`petitions for Covered Business Method Review of all claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,533,056 (“the ’056 patent”) (Exh. 1001), owned by Trading Technologies
`
`International, Inc. (“TTI”).
`
`I.
`
`Overview
`
`The ’056 patent claims are more likely than not unpatentable. They recite
`
`nothing more than presenting graphed data to a trader and accepting his orders
`
`using well-known graphical user interface design practices. During original
`
`prosecution, the applicant overcame a § 101 rejection by adding the words “by a
`
`computer,” and rejections over prior art by arguing that paper graphs do not
`
`anticipate the same graphs displayed on a computer and that the art did not teach
`
`using a default order size.
`
`The original examiner, however, did not correctly apply § 101 law and did
`
`not have all of the prior art and evidence presented herein. The ’056 patent
`
`impermissibly claims the abstract idea of presenting graphed data to a trader and
`
`accepting her orders. Even if the claims recite patentable subject matter, the claims
`
`lack written description support because the added “default quantity” limitation
`
`was not described in the application as filed. Furthermore, the claims are
`
`unpatentable over the prior art because they encompass the application of well-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`worn user interface design choices that were in common use well before the
`
`patent’s filing date.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, TD Ameritrade provides the following:
`
`A. Real party-in-interest
`The real parties-in-interest are TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., TD
`
`Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp., and TD Ameritrade, Inc. TD Ameritrade
`
`Holding Corp. is the parent of TD Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp. and TD
`
`Ameritrade, Inc. The corporate entity thinkorswim Group, Inc. (a defendant in TTI
`
`v. thinkorswim Group, Inc., 1:10-cv-00883 (N.D. Ill.)) no longer exists and was
`
`merged into its parent, TD Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’056 patent is involved in the following proceedings that may affect, or
`
`be affected by, a decision in this proceeding: TTI v. TradeHelm, Inc., 1:10-cv-
`
`00931 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC, 1:10-cv-00929 (N.D. Ill.);
`
`TTI v. Open E Cry, LLC, 1:10-cv-00885 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. thinkorswim Group, Inc,
`
`1:10-cv-00883 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. Tradestation Sec., Inc., 1:10-cv-00884 (N.D. Ill.);
`
`TTI v. Stellar Trading Sys., Ltd., 1:10-cv-00882 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. Cunningham
`
`Trading Sys., LLC, 1:10-cv-00726 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. BGC Partners, Inc., 1:10-cv-
`
`00715 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. CQG, Inc., et al., 1:10-cv-00718 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`Sungard Data Sys., Inc., 1:10-cv-00716 (N.D. Ill.); TTI v. IBG LLC, 1:10-cv-00721
`
`(N.D. Ill.); TTI v. FuturePath Trading, LLC, 1:10-cv-00720 (N.D. Ill.).
`
`C. Lead and back-up counsel with service information
`Petitioners consent to email service at the below email addresses.
`
`Lead Counsel
`Lori Gordon (Reg. # 50,633)
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Jonathan M. Strang (Reg. # 61,724)
`
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
`
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`
`Washington, DC 20005-3932
`
`Washington, DC 20005-3932
`
`(tel) 202.772.8862, (fax) 202.371.2540
`
`(tel) 202.772.8893, (fax) 202.371.2540
`
`lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`
`jstrang-ptab@skgf.com
`
`
`
`III. Grounds for Standing
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a), TD Ameritrade and the undersigned
`
`certify that TD Ameritrade has standing, is not estopped or barred, and that the
`
`’056 patent is available for post-grant review.
`
`A. TD Ameritrade has standing
`TD Ameritrade certifies that it meets the eligibility requirements of 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.302 because TD Ameritrade, Inc. and TD Ameritrade Holding Corp
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`were sued for infringement of the ’056 patent. TTI v. thinkorswim Group, Inc.,
`
`1:10-cv-00883 (N.D. Ill.)
`
`TD Ameritrade is not estopped or barred
`
`B.
`TD Ameritrade certifies that it is not estopped or barred from filing this
`
`petition. TD Ameritrade has not been a party, or a privy to a party, in any post-
`
`grant proceeding of the ’056 patent, and has not filed a civil action challenging any
`
`claims of the ’056 patent.
`
`C. The ’056 patent is a Covered Business Method patent
`The ’056 patent, titled “User Interface for an Electronic Trading System” is
`
`a covered business method patent because is not for a technological invention, but
`
`claims a method for trading financial instruments.
`
`The ’056 patent claims a covered business method
`
`1.
`A patent that claims a method for performing data processing in the practice,
`
`administration or management of a financial product or service is a covered
`
`business method patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). In promulgating the final rules for
`
`CBM Review, the Office explained that that “financial product or service” should
`
`be “interpreted broadly,” encompassing patents “claiming activities that are
`
`financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a
`
`financial activity.” Transitional Program for CBM Patents—Definitions, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48734, 48735 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`The ’056 patent meets this definition. It expressly claims receiving existing
`
`buy and sell orders (i.e., bid and offer information) from an exchange, displaying
`
`them to a trader, receiving the trader’s inputs for a desired order (i.e., price and
`
`quantity to buy or sell), and sending the trader’s order to the exchange to be
`
`executed. (’056 patent, claim 1.) Likewise, the patent describes a graphical user
`
`interface for trading such as that shown in FIGs. 3A-E, 4 and 9.
`
`The ’056 patent it not for a “technological invention”
`
`2.
`The ’056 patent is not for a technological invention because it does not solve
`
`a technical problem with a technical solution, but instead recites the ordinary
`
`application of old and well-understood data display and graphical user interface
`
`techniques. A technological invention is determined by considering whether the
`
`claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technical 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).
`
`As described in detail herein, the claims of the ’056 patent do not recite a
`
`technical feature that is novel or unobvious over the prior art, and do not solve a
`
`technical problem with a technical solution. Rather, they recite only well-
`
`understood, routine, and conventional steps of receiving market information,
`
`displaying it graphically to a trader, who enters buy and sell orders, and sending
`
`the trader’s orders to the exchange to be executed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`
`IV. Overview of the ’056 patent
`A. Graphing bids and offers as described in the ’056 patent
`Bids are orders to buy a financial instrument, such as a stock, at a specific
`
`price. (Román Decl. ¶ 66 (Exh. 1032).) For example, a trader might place a bid for
`
`100 shares of XYZ stock at $50. Offers, sometimes called asks, are orders to sell at
`
`a specific price. (Id. at 67.) For example, another trader might place an offer to sell
`
`her 100 shares of XYZ stock at $55.
`
`FIG. 3B of the ’056 patent graphically shows bids and offers. Each bid and
`
`offer is graphed as a polygon where the side closest to the middle conveys the price
`
`as shown along the y axis, and the length of the polygon conveys the size of the
`
`order. (’056 patent, FIG. 3b.) The location on the X axis does not convey any other
`
`information such as time. (Id. at 68.) Rather, the polygons happen to be arranged in
`
`order by price. Likewise, the width of the polygon also conveys no information to
`
`the user.
`
`The claimed graphing and user order entry
`
`B.
`The ’056 patent claims a graphical user interface for trading that displays
`
`information and accepts user inputs. The only independent claim, claim 1, recites
`
`receiving and displaying bid and offer information from an electronic exchange,
`
`displaying it, receiving an order from a user, and sending the order back to the
`
`electronic exchange. Claim 1 does not narrowly claim the display shown in FIG.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`3B because it does not require that the polygon’s size reflects the size of the order.
`
`Instead, claim 1 merely requires displaying bid and offer indicators “representing
`
`the quantity associated with . . . orders.” (’056 patent, 14:1-2.) Varying the size of
`
`the polygons to reflect the underlying quantity is reserved for dependent claim 8.
`
`Claim 1 also recites receiving user input for a desired price and a default
`
`quantity. The significance of the default quantity is discussed in the prosecution
`
`history, claim construction, and lack of written description sections. The claim
`
`does not limit how the user may enter the default quantity. In contrast, the desired
`
`price is “specified by selection of one of a plurality of locations corresponding to
`
`price levels along the price axis.” (Id. at 14:16-18.)
`
`Prosecution History
`
`C.
`In responding to the first and only Office Action on the merits, the
`
`applicants overcame the § 101 rejection by arguing that the claims are performed
`
`on a computer. The applicants also overcame the prior art rejections by arguing (i)
`
`that the then-applied references merely showed displaying the information on a
`
`diagram, not a computer’s graphical user interface, (ii) the references did not teach
`
`the unrecited limitation of displaying prices along the price axis, and (iii) the
`
`references did not teach receiving user-input values for price and a default
`
`quantity. Specifically, the examiner rejected under §§ 101, 102, and 103 the only
`
`pending claim that broadly recited just two steps:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`displaying at least one bid icon, corresponding to a bid for a
`
`
`
`quantity of items, at a location along a first axis of values
`
`corresponding to the value of the bid; and
`
`
`
`displaying at least one offer icon, corresponding to an offer type
`
`order for a quantity of items, at a location along the first axis of values
`
`corresponding to the value of the offer
`
`(’056 Patent File History, p. 0122 (Exh. 1002).) In response, the applicants rewrote
`
`claim 1 into substantially its present form and added all of the issued dependent
`
`claims. (Id. at 0117-9; see also id. at 0255 (examiner’s amendment changing only
`
`“axis of prices” to “price axis”).)
`
`To overcome the § 101 rejection, the applicants argued that the claimed
`
`invention could not be performed with pencil and paper because the amended
`
`claim 1 expressly recited that the graphical user interface must be performed “by a
`
`computer.” (Id. at 0174.)
`
`The examiner also rejected claim 1 as being anticipated by Silverman,
`
`apparently referring to the Silverman patent used as prior art in this petition. To
`
`overcome that rejection, the applicants argued that Silverman does not teach
`
`displaying bid and offer information on a graphical user interfaces, but instead only
`
`shows such information in diagrams. (Id. at 0177-8.) The applicants also argued
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`that Silverman does not show a price axis or displaying the bids and offers along
`
`the price axis. “Rather, Silverman’s logical models only display prices for which
`
`there are orders in the market.” (Id. at 0178.) The applicants further argued that
`
`Silverman does not show the newly added steps of receiving a user-entered price
`
`and default quantity. Id. With respect to the examiner’s rejection under § 103 in
`
`view of EP 0 388 162 to Belden and U.S. Patent No. 5,966,139 to Anupam, the
`
`applicants elaborated on its Silverman price axis argument, explaining that
`
`“[i]ndeed, both Silverman . . . and Beldon display prices for which orders exist in
`
`the market. In other words, neither reference discloses an axis of prices in which
`
`price levels are displayed that have no corresponding bids or offers.” (Id. at 0179.)
`
`The applied art and evidence herein rectifies any deficiencies in the
`
`previously applied art.
`
`V. Level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention
`The ’056 patent states that it “relates generally to the field of graphical user
`
`interfaces and more particularly to the field of graphical user interfaces for
`
`electronic trading systems.” (’056 patent, 1:15-17.) One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the alleged invention, i.e., in the April 9, 1999 timeframe, would
`
`have had the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree or higher in computer science and
`
`at least 2 years working experience designing graphical user interfaces, and direct
`
`or indirect experience with trading or related systems. (Román Decl. ¶ 54.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`Experience could take the place of some formal training, as domain knowledge and
`
`user interface design skills may be learned on the job. Id.
`
`VI. Claim construction
`The Board construes claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`giving the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning not inconsistent with the
`
`specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255,
`
`1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Although it is improper to import claim limitations from the
`
`specification, an inventor may be his own lexicographer or intentionally and
`
`clearly disavow claim scope. Voda v. Cordis Corp., 536 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008) (quotations omitted).
`
`price axis
`
`A.
`Claim 1 recites plotting bids and offers along a “price axis.” The broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the term price axis is a reference line for plotting
`
`prices, including labeled, unlabeled, visible and invisible reference lines.
`
`The term “price axis” does not appear in the specification, and the applicants
`
`did not clearly and intentionally disavow unlabeled price axes. (Román Decl. ¶ 70.)
`
`The specification states that “in one embodiment, a graph is formed with a value
`
`axis,” (’056 patent, 2:27-28) and that “bid and offer icons are displayed
`
`corresponding to an axis of values.” (Id. at 2:47-48.) In discussing FIG. 3A the
`
`patent similarly describes an embodiment where “orders 300, 304 are displayed at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`a location corresponding to their value with respect to the value axis 332.” (Id. at
`
`6:8-10.) Although the figures show embodiments with labeled price axes such as
`
`value axis 332 in FIG. 3A, this is not a clear disavowal of unlabeled axes. Thorner
`
`v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365-67 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012). Further, it was well-known in the art to graph items along an unlabeled axis.
`
`For example, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information discusses
`
`maximizing the “data-ink” ratio, showing graphs with labeled and unlabeled axes,
`
`and graphs with an invisible axis. (Tufte VDQI at 123-137;1 Román Decl. ¶ 70.)
`
`Tufte’s design principles translate directly to computer based graphics and were
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of filing.
`
`Id.
`
`offer and bid indicators “representing quantity”
`
`B.
`Claim 1 broadly recites “displaying a plurality of [bid/offer] indicators
`
`representing quantity associated with the plurality of [bid/offer] orders.” This step
`
`does not limit how each indicator represents the quantity associated with the
`
`associated bid or offer orders. Accordingly, it reads on displaying a bid/offer
`
`indicator that includes an alphanumeric indication of bid/offer order’s quantity.
`
`
`1 Exh. 1016. Citations are to the book’s actual page numbers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`Likewise, dependent claim 9 requires indicators to “display[] quantity
`
`associated with a price level,” which would also read on an alphanumeric
`
`indication of quantity. (Id. at 74.) But claim 1 also includes graphical
`
`representations of quantify: dependent claim 8 recites “the method of claim 1,
`
`wherein a size of each [bid/offer] indicator of the plurality of [bid/offer] indicators
`
`is determined based on the quantity associated with that [bid/offer] indicator.”
`
`default
`
`C.
`Claim 1 recites “receiving a user input indicating a default quantity.”
`
`Because the term “default” does not appear anywhere in the as-filed application, its
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification is its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning: a standard or preset value to be used if the user does not specify
`
`another value. (See Webster’s, p. 0003 (Exh. 1026); Illustrated Dictionary, p. 0003
`
`(Exh. 1025); Computer Glossary, p. 0003 (Exh.1024); Microsoft Computer
`
`Dictionary, p. 0007 (Exh. 1027); Román Decl. ¶ 75.) A default value survives after
`
`the user exits the program and returns. Otherwise, it will not be available for the
`
`program to use if the user does not specify another value. (Id.; Microsoft Computer
`
`Dictionary, p. 0007 (“Defaults are built into a program when a value or option
`
`must be assumed for the program to function.”).)
`
`As discussed in more detail in the section discussing the lack of written
`
`description support for the claimed default quantity, another party conceded during
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`summary judgment that a default quantity can mean retaining user’s last-entered
`
`value. Despite that concession, the term default does not encompass a user’s last-
`
`entered value. Such an unreasonably broad definition would impermissibly render
`
`the term default surplusage in claim 1, which recites “receiving a user input
`
`indicating a default quantity to be used to determine a quantity for each of a
`
`plurality of orders to be placed by the user at one or more price levels.” (’056
`
`patent, 14:11-14 (strikethrough added); Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., 525 F.3d
`
`1327, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the
`
`terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”).) Further, a user-
`
`modifiable default value and the user’s last-used value are both well-known, but
`
`distinct, concepts to a POSA. For example, the user interface design treatise About
`
`Face explains that “[m]ost mainstream programs allow their users to set defaults,
`
`but this doesn’t fit the bill like a memory [of the user’s last-entered value] would.”
`
`(Cooper at 189.)2
`
`indicators, icons and tokens
`
`D.
`When referring to symbols or graphical elements representing bids and
`
`offers, the ’056 patent uses the three terms: icon, indicator, and token. For
`
`example, claim 1 recites “displaying a plurality of bid indicators,” claim 5 recites
`
`
`2 Exh. 1015. Citations are to the book’s actual page numbers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`“displaying an order icon,” and claim 15 recites an “order token.” These three
`
`different terms may have slightly different plain meanings (Román Decl. ¶ 80), but
`
`the ’056 patent becomes unintelligible unless they are construed to be
`
`interchangeable, each broadly encompassing alphanumeric symbols and graphic
`
`representations of items.
`
`The ’056 patent specification usually uses the term icon to refer to symbols
`
`or representations of bids and offers that are graphed along the price axis,
`
`regardless whether the order was placed by the user or other market participants.
`
`(See, e.g., ’056 patent, 2:47-48 (“bid and offer icons are displayed corresponding to
`
`an axis of values”); 6:13-16; 8:23-35.) Also, before the applicants rewrote the
`
`claims in response to the first and only Office Action on the merits, pending claim
`
`1 recited displaying “at least one bid icon” and “at least one offer icon.” (’056
`
`Patent File History, p. 0169.)
`
`In contrast, issued claim 1 uses the terms bid and offer indicators. The
`
`specification does not use the term indicator in the same context as in claim 1,
`
`discussing only the order indicators 913 shown in FIG. 9. (’056 patent, FIG. 9;
`
`12:64.) Issued claim 5, however, retained the icon term. It recites an “order icon
`
`indicating the user’s order at the electronic exchange.”
`
`Issued claim 15 uses the third term, token, apparently in the context of an
`
`order before it is placed. Claim 15 recites “adjusting a size of an order token to
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`indicate the default quantity.” But the specification also states that “icons . . . are
`
`markers or tokens.” (Id. at 3:5-6; see also 12:22-24 (“a new offer or a modified bid
`
`token is displayed responsive to the quantities that the original offer and bid icons
`
`represented.”).)
`
`Also, the specification does not rule out using alphanumeric symbols as
`
`indicators, icons, or tokens. One of skill in the art would understand that graphical
`
`displays sometimes use alphanumeric symbols as indicators to maximize the
`
`amount of information presented in the available space. (Román Decl. ¶ 83.) For
`
`example, in his treatise titled the Visual Display of Quantitative Information,
`
`Edward Tufte reproduced a graphic generated in 1919 showing both the total
`
`number and which U.S. Army divisions were in France during each month of
`
`World War I. Similarly, trading systems sometimes plot an alphanumeric character
`
`representing a quantity along a price axis:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`UU.S. Patent
`No. 7,5333,056
`
`Pet’r DDkt. No. 1
`
`835.046CBBM0
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Tufte VVDQI at 1441; Steidlmmayer, FIGG. 4 (Exh. 11013).)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AAccordinglyy, the claimms use the terms indiicator, iconn and tokenn
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`interchaangeably too mean a syymbol such as an alpphanumericc characterrs or a grapphic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`represenntation of aan item. (RRomán Deccl. ¶¶ 80-833.)
`
`
`
`
`
`EE.
`
`. .
`
`
`
`
`
`
`receiiving a useer input inndicating aa desired pprice for aan order .
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by seelection of f one of a pplurality oof locationns . . . alongg the pricee
`axis
`
`
`
`TThe broadest reasonabble interpreetation of tthis claim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`step is not
`
` the
`limited to
`
`reation of
`initial c
`
`
`an order, bbut also en
`
`
`
`compassess adjustingg an order’ss quantity.
`
`
`
`
`
`The
`
`
`
`plain lannguage of this step mmerely requuires receivving a desiired price bby selectinng a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`locationn along a price axis. IIt does not recite “creeating an oorder by se
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`lecting a
`
`
`
`locationn . . . .” Furrthermore, this constrruction is nnot inconsiistent withh the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ch describ
`specificcation, whi
`
`
`es adjustinng the size
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`of a bid orr offer. (Roomán Decll.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.046CBM0
`¶ 84; ’056 patent, 8:31; 10:39-40.) Accordingly, this claim step it is broad enough
`
`to encompass adjusting an order after it has been created.
`
`VII. Grounds for challenging claims 1-15 of the ’056 patent
`TD Ameritrade seeks review under Section 18 of the AIA and 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 321 of claims 1-15 of the ’056 patent on the following grounds:
`
` Claims 1-15 are unpatentable under § 101
`
` Claims 1-15 lack sufficient writte