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.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`Mail Stoge PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US. Patent & Trademark Office
`
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 223 13- 1450
`
`

`

`US. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.042CBMO
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`Mandatory Notices (37 CPR. § 42.8(a)(1)) .................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`Real party-in-interest ............................................................................ l
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 2
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Lead and back-up counsel .................................................................... 2
`
`Service Information .............................................................................. 3
`
`II.
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 CPR. § 42.304(a)) ............................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`TD Ameritrade has standing ................................................................. 3
`
`TD Ameritrade is not estopped or barred ............................................. 3
`
`The ’411 Patent is a Covered Business Method ................................... 4
`
`l.
`
`The ’411 patent claims a covered business method................... 4
`
`D.
`
`The ’411 patent it not for a “technological invention” ........................ 5
`
`III.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)) ...................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory grounds for the challenge ...................................................... 7
`
`Citation of Prior Art.............................................................................. 7
`
`IV.
`
`The ’411 patent ............................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................ 9
`
`Claim construction .............................................................................. 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“single action” .......................................................................... lO
`
`“dynamically displaying” ......................................................... 10
`
`V.
`
`Grounds of Unpatentability .......................................................................... 11
`
`-i—
`
`

`

`GROUND 1: Claims 1-28 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.. 11
`
`GROUND 2: Silverman in view of Gutterman and Togher render
`claims 1-10 and l2-28 obvious. ......................................................... 15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`Overview of Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher .................... 16
`
`Prosecution history relative to Silverman, Gutterman, and
`Togher ...................................................................................... 22
`
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been
`motivated to combine Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher ...... 24
`
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman and Togher renders
`independent claims 1 and 26 obvious. ..................................... 29
`
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher renders
`claim 2 obvious. ....................................................................... 44
`
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher renders
`claim 3 obvious. ....................................................................... 46
`
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher renders
`claim 4 obvious. ....................................................................... 46
`
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher render
`claim 5 obvious. ....................................................................... 47
`
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher render
`claim 6 obvious. ....................................................................... 48
`
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher render
`claims 7 and 8 obvious. ............................................................ 48
`
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher render
`claim 9 obvious. ....................................................................... 49
`
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher render
`claim 10 obvious. ..................................................................... 51
`
`The combination of Silvennan, Gutterman, and Togher render
`claim 12 obvious. ..................................................................... 51
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher render
`claim 13 obvious. ..................................................................... 52
`
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher render
`claim 14 obvious. ..................................................................... 52
`
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher render
`claim 15 obvious. ..................................................................... 52
`
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher render
`claim 16 obvious. ..................................................................... 53
`
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher render
`claim 17 obvious. ..................................................................... 54
`
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher render
`claims 18, 20, 22, 24, and 27 obvious ...................................... 54
`
`20.
`
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher render
`claims 19, 21, 23, 25, and 28 obvious ...................................... 55
`
`Ground 3: The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, Togher and
`Paal renders claim 11 obvious ............................................................ 55
`
`Ground 4: TSE in view of Togher render claims l-28 obvious ......... 57
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Overview of TSE ...................................................................... 57
`
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been
`motivated to combine TSE and Togher. .................................. 60
`
`The combination of TSE and Togher render independent claims
`1 and 26 obvious. ..................................................................... 62
`
`The combination of TSE and Togher render claim 2 obvious. 70
`
`The combination of TSE and Togher render claim 3 obvious. 71
`
`The combination of TSE and Togher render claim 4 obvious. 71
`
`The combination of TSE and Togher render claim 5 obvious. 72
`
`—iii-
`
`

`

`8.
`
`9.
`
`The combination of TSE and Togher render claim 6 obvious. 72
`
`The combination of TSE and Togher renders claim 7 and 8
`obvious. .................................................................................... 73
`
`10.
`
`The combination of TSE and Togher render claim 9 obvious. 73
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`The combination of TSE and Togher render claim 10 obvious.
`.................................................................................................. 74
`
`The combination of TSE and Togher render claim 1 1 obvious.
`.................................................................................................. 75
`
`The combination of TSE and Togher render claim 12 obvious.
`.................................................................................................. 75
`
`The combination of TSE and Togher render claim 13 obvious.
`.................................................................................................. 75
`
`The combination of TSE and Togher render claim 14 obvious.
`.................................................................................................. 76
`
`The combination of TSE and Togher render claim 15 obvious.
`.................................................................................................. 76
`
`The combination of TSE and Togher render claim 16 obvious.
`.................................................................................................. 77
`
`The combination of TSE and Togher render claim 17 obvious.
`.................................................................................................. 78
`
`19. T e combination of TSE and Togher render claims 18, 20, 24,
`and 27 obvious. ........................................................................ 78
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`The combination of TSE and Togher render claims 19, 21, 25,
`and 28 obvious. ........................................................................ 78
`
`The combination of TSE and Togher render claims 22 and 23
`obvious. .............................................. . ..................................... 79
`
`VI.
`
`Conclusion .................................................................................................... 79
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit List
`
`
`Exh. No.
`Description
`
`1001
`US. Patent No. 7,676,411 to Kemp, II et al. (“’411 patent”)
`
`
`1002
`
`File History of Application Ser. No. 11/585,907, which became the
`’411 patent, as filed and obtained from PAIR (“’411 Patent File
`
`History”)
`
`1003
`US. Patent No. 5,077,665 to Silverman et a]. (“Silverman”)
`
`
`1004
`US. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al. (“Gutterman”)
`
`
`1005
`US. Patent No. 5,375,055 to Togher et al. (“Togher”)
`
`
`“Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation
`1006
`Guide,” Tokyo Stock Exchange (“TSE JP”)
`
`
`Certified Translation of “Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading
`1007
`Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE”)
`
`
`1008
`
`Certificate of Translation for “Futures/Option Purchasing System
`Trading Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE Certificate”)
`
`
`1009
`
`Memorandum from James M. Hilmert to eSpeed file regarding
`direct examination of TSE’s 30(b)(6) witness, dated December 5,
`2005 (“Depo. Letter”)
`
`
`1010
`
`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”)
`
`Petition to Make Special Under 37 CPR. § 1.102(d) for Ser. No.
`1011
`09/590,692, filed August 21, 2000 (“Petition to Make Special”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`Request for Reexamination of US. Patent No. 6,772,132, Control
`No. 90/011,250, filed September 22, 2010 (“Reexam Request”)
`
`
`Order Denying Request for Reexamination of US. Patent No.
`6,772,132, Control No. 90/011,250, mailed December 14, 2010
`(“Order Denying Reexam”)
`
`1014
`
`Alan Cooper, “About Face: The Essentials of User Interface
`Design,” First Edition, 1995. (“Cooper”)
`
`
`
`1015 Ben Shneiderman, “Designing the User Interface: Strategies for
`
`—vi-
`
`

`

`
`
`Effective Human—Computer Interaction,” Third Edition, 1998
`(“Shneiderman”)
`
`
`1017
`Robert Deel, “The Strategic Electronic Day Trader,” 2000 (“Deel”)
`
`
`1013
`US. Patent No. 5,263,134 to Paal et al. (“Paal”)
`
`1019
`Declaration of Kendyl A. Roman (“Roman Decl.”)
`
`
`1020
`Curriculum Vitae of Kendyl A. Roman (“Roman CV”)
`
`
`1021
`
`List of Materials Considered by Kendyl A. Roman (“Roman List of
`Materials”)
`
`
`1022
`US. Patent No. 6,408,282 to Buist (“Buist”)
`
`
`1023
`Declaration of David Rho (“Rho Decl.”)
`
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 2002, page 150
`1016
`(“Microsoft Computer Dictionary”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1024
`
`Curriculum Vitae of David Rho (“Rho CV”)
`
`List of Materials Considered by David Rho (“Rho List of
`1025
`Materials”)
`
`-vii-
`
`

`

`US Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`Pet’r Dkt. No. 1835.042CBMO
`
`Petitioners, TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, TD Ameritrade, Inc., and
`
`TD Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp. (“Petitioners” or “TD Ameritrade”) request
`
`Covered Business Method Review of all claims of US. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`(“’411 patent”; Exhibit 1001), owned by Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`(“TTI”).
`
`TD Ameritrade will demonstrate that it is more likely than not that all 28
`
`claims of the ’411 patent are unpatentable. The claims of the ’411 patent are
`
`directed to the integration of well-known software graphical user interface
`
`concepts into a commodities trading system. Petitioners’ expert, Kendyl Roman,
`
`who has over 30 years of experience working with software graphical user
`
`interfaces, explains the purported novelty of the ’411 patent — moving indicators
`
`relative to an axis and single action order entry — were well known and in use
`
`before the earliest possible prioréty date of the ’411 patent.
`
`I.
`
`Mandatory Notices (37 iC‘.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1))
`
`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., lle—cv-00883 (ND. Ill.)) no longer exists and was
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`merged into its parent, TD Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The ’411 patent is involved in the following proceedings that may affect, or
`
`be affected by, a decision in this proceeding: Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v.
`
`TradeHelm, Inc, 1:10—cv-0093l (ND. 111.); Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v.
`
`Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC, 1:10—cv-00929 (ND. 111.); Trading Technologies
`
`Int'l, Inc. v. Open E Cry, LLC, et al., 1:10—CV-00885 (ND. 111.); Trading
`
`Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. thinkorswim Group, Inc, et al, 1:10-cv-00885 (ND. 111.);
`
`Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. Tradestation Securities, Inc., et al 1:10-cv—
`
`00884 (ND. 111.); Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. Stellar Trading Systems, Ltd,
`
`et al, 1:10—CV-00882 (ND. 111.); Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. Cunningham
`
`Trading Systems, LLC, et al, 1:10-cv—OO726 (ND. 111.); Trading Technologies
`
`Int'l, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc, 1:10-CV—00715 (ND. 111.); Trading Technologies
`
`Int'l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., et al, 1:10-CV-00718 OVD. 111.); Trading Technologies Int'l,
`
`Inc. v. Sungard Data Systems, Inc., et al, 1:10-cv-00716 01D. 111.); Trading
`
`Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, et al, lle-CV-00721 (ND. 111.); Trading
`
`Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. FuturePath Trading, LLC, 1:10—cv—00720 (ND. 111.).
`
`C.
`
`Lead and back-up counsel
`
`Pursuant to 37 CPR. § 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a), Petitioner appoints Lori A.
`
`Gordon (Reg. No. 50,633) as its lead counsel and Robert E. Sokohl (Reg. No.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`36,013) as its back-up: counsel, both at the address: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN
`
`& FOX, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC, 20005, phone number
`
`(202)772—8997 and facsimile (202)371—2540.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at the email addresses:
`
`lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com and rsokohl-FETAB@skgf.com.
`
`II.
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a))
`
`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
`
`’411 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
`
`were sued for infringement of the ’411 patent. TTI v. thinkorswim Group, Inc.,
`
`1:10—cv—00883 (ND. 111.)
`
`B.
`
`TD Ameritrade is not estopped or barred
`
`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 ’411 patent, and has not filed a civil action challenging any
`
`claims of the ’411 patent
`
`

`

`C.
`
`The ’411 Patent is a Covered Business Method
`
`The ’411 patent, titled “Click based trading with intuitive grid display of
`
`market depth” is a covered business method patent because is not for a
`
`technological invention, but claims a method for trading financial instruments.
`
`1. The ’411 patent claims a covered business method.
`
`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. § 42.30l(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).
`
`The ’411 patent meets this definition. It expressly claims displaying market
`
`information relating to and facilitating trading of a commodity including
`
`displaying bids and asks in the market and selecting an area on a display to set a
`
`price for the trade order and send the trade order to the electronic exchange. (’411
`
`patent, independent claims 1 and 26. ) Likewise, the patent describes a graphical
`
`user interface for trading such as that shown in FIGs. 3-5.
`
`

`

`D.
`
`The ’411 patent it rgot for a “technological invention”
`
`The ’411 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 CPR. § 42.301(b).
`
`As described in detail herein, the claims of the ’411 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 displaying market information
`
`graphically to a trader, who enters buy and sell orders, and sending the trader’s
`
`orders to the exchange to be executed.
`
`Further, the claims appear to have been crafted to recite software and only
`
`general computer components, such as a “dynamic display,” a “display device” and
`
`an “input device.” These components are not technologically novel or non-
`
`obvious. They are generic and are known technology. Even the specification of the
`
`’411 patent acknowledges that
`
`the alleged invention requires only a generic
`
`“computer or [an] electronic terminal
`
`able to communicate directly or indirectly
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`with the exchange.” (’411 patent, 412—4.) Congress did not intend a patent with
`
`such basic, well—known technology disclosures to be inoculated from a CBM
`
`review:
`
`“[The technological inventions exception] is not meant
`
`to exclude patents
`
`that use known technology to
`
`accomplish a business process or method of conducting
`
`business — whether or not that process or method appears
`
`to be novel. The technological invention exception is
`
`also not intended to exclude a patent simply because it
`
`recites
`
`technology. For example,
`
`the recitation of
`
`computer hardware,
`
`communication
`
`or
`
`computer
`
`networks, software, memory, computer-readable storage
`
`medium,
`
`scanners,
`
`display
`
`devices
`
`or
`
`databases,
`
`specialized machines, such as an ATM or point of sale
`
`device, or other known technologies, does not make a
`
`patent a technological invention.
`
`In other words, a
`
`patent
`
`is not a technological
`
`invention because it
`
`combines known technology in a new way to perform
`
`data processing operations.” 157 Cong. Rec. 81364
`
`(daily ed. March 8, 2011) (Sen. Schumer).
`
`The analysis could stop here, as the “technological invention” exception
`
`does not apply when even one prong of 37 C.F.R. §42.301(b)
`
`is not met.
`
`Regardless, the ’411 patent also fails to satisfy the second prong of 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.301(b) because the claims do not solve a technical problem using a technical
`
`-6—
`
`

`

`solution.
`
`There is no technical problem here. Instead, the claims of the ’411 patent are
`
`directed to placing a trade order for a commodity on an electronic exchange. Even
`
`the ’41 1 patent admits that at the time of filing least 60 exchanges throughout the
`
`world utilized electronic trading systems to trade stocks, bonds, futures and
`
`options, and allowed traders to participate in the market. (’411 patent, 11:31-33.)
`
`Placing an order on the exchange is not a novel technical problem.
`
`Accordingly, the ’411 patent is a CBM patent eligible for review under 37 Or .R. §
`
`42.30l(b).
`
`Hi.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b))
`
`A.
`
`Statutory grounds for the challenge.
`
`TD Ameritrade requests review of claims 1-28 on 4 grounds: GROUND 1:
`
`Claims 1-28 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. GROUND 2: Claims 1-10
`
`and 12-28 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Silverman in
`
`view of Gutterman and Togher. GROUND 3: Claim 11 is unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, Togher, and Paal. GROUND
`
`4: Claims 1-28 are unpatentable over TSE in View of Togher.
`
`B.
`
`Citation of Prior Art
`
`In support of the grounds of unpatentability cited above, TD Ameritrade
`
`cites the following prior art references:
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 5,677,665 to Silverman et al. (“Silverman”) issued on
`
`December 31, 1991. Silverman qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`because it issued more than one year prior to the earliest possible priority date
`
`claimed by the ’411 patent. Silverman is provided as Exhibit 1003.
`
`US. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al. (“Gutterman”) issued on
`
`March 22, 1994. Gutterman qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because
`
`it issued more than one year prior to the earliest possible priority date claimed by
`
`the ’411 patent. Gutterman is provided as Exhibit 1004.
`
`US. Patent No. 5,375,055 to Togher et a]. (“Togher”) issued on December
`
`20, 1994. Togher qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it issued
`
`more than one year prior to the earliest possible priority date claimed by the ’411
`
`patent. Togher is provided as Exhibit 1005.
`
`Futures/ Gption Purchasing System Trading Terminal Speration Guide
`
`(“TSE”) “Futures/ Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation Guide,”
`
`a Tokyo Stock Exchange publication, is préor art under § 102(a) because it was
`
`published in August of 1998 by giving two copies to each of the about 200
`
`participants in the Tokyo Stock Exchange. (See Depo. Letter, p. 2; Depo.
`
`

`

`Transcript, pp. 0012-33.)1 The participants were free to do whatever they wanted
`
`with their copies of this publication. (Depo. Letter, p. 2; Depo. Transcript, p.
`
`0015.) Because this reference was published in Japanese, Petitioners also submit
`
`TSE, which is a certified translation of this Tokyo Stock Exchange publication.
`
`(TSE Translatior: and TSE Certification) (Exhibit 1007 and 1008.) For the Board’s
`
`convenience, all citations are to the English-language TSE (Exhibit 1007) but the
`
`corresponding pages in the original-language document may be easily found by
`
`turning to the same page/Bates number in Exhibit 1006.
`
`U.S. Patent N0. 5,263,134 to Paal et al. (“Paal”) issued on November 16,
`
`1993. Paal qualifies as préor art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it issued more
`
`than one year prior to the earliest possible priority date claimed by the ’304 patent.
`
`Faal is provided as Exhibit 1018.
`
`IV.
`
`The ’411 patent
`
`A.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, 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
`
`1 Deposition Letter is provided as Exhibit 1009. Deposition Transcript is
`
`provided as Exhibit 1010.
`
`

`

`or indirect experéence with trading or related systems. (Roman Dec.2, fl 56.)
`
`B.
`
`Claim construction
`
`Except as set forth herein, the claim terms of the ’411 patent carry their
`
`ordinary and customary meanings under the broadest reasonable interpretation as
`
`would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`1.
`
`“single action”
`
`The specification provides a definition for this term: “[a]ny action by a user
`
`within a short peréod of time, whether comprising one or more clicks of a mouse
`
`button or other input device, is considered a single action of the user for the
`
`purposes of the present invention.” (’411 patent, 4:18-22.)(emphasis added)
`
`2.
`
`“dynamically displaying”
`
`Each of claims 1 and 26 recites the term “dynamically displaying”:
`
`“dynamically displaying, via the computing device, a first indicator representing
`
`quantity associated with at least one trade order to buy .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.” The specification
`
`does not explicitly define this term. However, the specification does explain that a
`
`trader can “add or subtract a preset quantity for the quantities outstanding in the
`
`market.” (Id. at 10:17-18.) In this case, quantities in the Bid or Ask columns
`
`would be updated, but not move. (See id. at 10:46-54.) The specification also
`
`2 The Declaration of Kendyl Roman is provided as Exhibit 1019.
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`explains that “[t]he values in the Bid and Ask columns
`
`are dynamic; that is,
`
`they move up and down
`
`to reflect the market depth for the given commodity.”
`
`(Id. at 7:66—8:16.) Thus, dynamically displaying a field is changing a clearacteristic
`
`(e.g., updating) and/or location (moving) of a displayed field. (Roman Dec., 11 71.)
`
`V.
`
`Grounds of Unpatentabilify
`
`A.
`
`GROUND 1: Claims 1-28 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`In Mayo v. Prometheus, the Supreme Court explained that abstract ideas are
`
`not patentable, and that adding “steps consist[ing] of well-understood, routine,
`
`conventional activity .
`
`.
`
`. [that] add nothing significant” to the abstract idea does
`
`not render it patentable. Mayo Collaborative v. Prometheus Labs, 132 S. Ct. 1289,
`
`1293 (2012). Likewise, simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer or
`
`limiting it to a field of use is not a “patentable application” of that abstract idea. Id.
`
`at 1301; see also Bankcorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. ofa Can, 687
`
`F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Once an abstract idea has been identified, the
`
`key inquiry for patent eligibility is whether the abstract idea is preempted. In order
`
`to determine whether the abstract idea is preempted, the balance of the claim is
`
`evaluated to determine whether “additional substantive limitations .
`
`.
`
`. narrow,
`
`confine, or otherwise tie down the claim so that, in practical terms, it does not
`
`cover the full abstract idea itself.” CLS Bank, 717 F.3d at 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2013)(en
`
`banc) cert. granted (citing Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1300; Bilski, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 3231
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`(2010); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 US. at 187, 101, S.Ct. 1048 (1981)).
`
`Importantly, claims 1-28 of the ‘411 patent were rejected during prosecution
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (See File History3, Office Action, dated October 6, 2008,
`
`p. 2.) In response, the Patent Owner amended the independent claim to include “a
`
`computer device.” However, Mayo made clear that such a recitation is insufficient.
`
`Mayo at 1301 (“simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical
`
`machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle”).
`
`The claims of the ’411 patent recite just such abstract idea, namely placing
`
`an order based on observed market information. The abstract idea is recited in the
`
`independent claims along with well-known and insignificant extra—solution
`
`activity. The claims do nothing more than state the abstract idea and “apply it” to a
`
`convention computer system. Importantly, the claimed abstract idea is central to
`
`the trading of commodities all over the world. Patentee cannot be allowed to
`
`preempt this fundamental economic tool. Moreover, abstract ideas “cannot be
`
`circumvented by attempting to limit the use
`
`to a particular technological
`
`environment.” Bilskz', S.Ct 3218, 3230 (2010) (quoting Diehr, 450 U. S., at 191—
`
`192). Thus, limiting the claims to the field of trading commodities is insufficient to
`
`make tléem patentable.
`
`3 The file history of the ’411 patent is provided as Exhibit 1002.
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`The claimed graphical user interface (GUI) is just the mechanism for
`
`implementing the abstract idea. The Patentee admits in the background section that
`
`“[a]t least 60 exchanges throughout the world utilize electronic trading in varying
`
`degrees for stocks, bonds, futures, options and other products.” In other words,
`
`merely allowing someone to trade electronically based on data that was available
`
`in the market place previously does not rise to the level of patentable subject
`
`matter.
`
`Evaluating “the balance of the claim[s],” the claims recite the display of data
`
`formatted in a well-known manner using a graphical user interface. The GUI is
`
`then used to send a trade to an electronic exchange. In particular, the step of
`
`receiving market information for a commodity is merely data gathering, which is
`
`insufficient to transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable
`
`process. Parker v. Flook, 437 US. 584, 590 (1978). The next recited steps of
`
`displaying a bid display region, displaying an ask display region, and dynamically
`
`displaying a first indicator and a second indicator associated with a bid price and
`
`ask price is a necessary component to implement the abstract idea. This is also
`
`true of the step of displaying an order entry region. Here, the application of
`
`making a trade requires that data be presented to the trader regarding prices for
`
`bids and asks and an area be provided for input the trade. That’s all that is being
`
`done in these displaying steps of claim 1. Claim 1 also has two steps of moving
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`the first and second indicator based on received data. Again, these steps are
`
`merely data gathering steps, which is insufficient to render a claim
`
`statutory. Finally, the claim recites selecting a particular area with an input device
`
`to select a trade, which is a fundamental abstract idea that cannot be preempted
`
`without monopolizing the entire field of electronic trading. In short, this claim
`
`recites nothing more than placing a trade order in response to observing market
`
`data. Thus, the claimed processes (apart from the abstract idea itself) involve
`
`“well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by” the
`
`trading community. Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294. Thus, claim is not eligible under §
`
`1 01 .
`
`Independent claim 26 merely recites a computer program that mirrors the
`
`method of claim 1. The question is whether claim 26 offers meaningful limitations
`
`“beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological
`
`environment.’” CLS Bank, 717 F.3d at 1291 (quoting Bilski, 130 S.Ct. at
`
`3230). The elements of this claim are Virtually identical to claim 1. In short, claim
`
`26 is simply the method steps implemented on a computer readable and therefore is
`
`also not eligible under § 101. See CLS Bank, 717 at 1288 (“discrete claims
`
`reciting subject matter only nominally from different statutory classes may warrant
`
`similar substantive treatment under § 101 when, in practical effect, they cover the
`
`same invention”)
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`The dependent claims likewise add nothing significant. Claim 2 merely
`
`define the bid and ask order entry regions. Claim 3 merely defines the trade as a
`
`buy or sell order. Claim 4 merely describes the format of the screen. Claim 5
`
`merely explains how a trade can be performed using the GUI. Claim 6 merely
`
`explains whether the order is a buy or sell based on the location of the cursor.
`
`Claims 7 and 8 merely define data to be used for the trade. Claim 9 again merely
`
`describes the presentation of data to allow a trade to occur. Claim 10 allows the
`
`canceling of an order. Claim 11—15 merely relate to the presentation of the data to
`
`be used to place an order. Claims 18-25, 27 and 28 merely define the well-known
`
`operation of a mouse. Claim 16 merely relates to gathering default data for trading
`
`commodities. Claim 17 merely defines an order as including a buy and a sell order
`
`for a commodity. As explained in the following sections, each of these are well-
`
`understood, routine, conventional extra-solution activity.
`
`B.
`
`GROUND 2: Silverman in view of Gutterman and Togher render
`
`claims 1-16 and 12-28 obvious.
`
`Silverman explicitly discloses each and every limitation of independent
`
`claims 1 and 26 except “displaying, via the computing device, an order entry
`
`region comprising a plurality of graphical areas for receiving single action
`
`commands to set trade order prices and send trade orders, each graphical area
`
`corresponding to a different price level along the price axis” a