`571.272.7822
`
` Paper No. 19
`Entered: December 2, 2014
`
`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.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent No. 7,685,055 B2
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`1
`
`TS 1009
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., TD Ameritrade, Inc., and
`
`TD Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a
`
`Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) on May 19, 2014, that requests review under the
`
`transitional program for covered business method patents of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,685,055 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’055 patent”). Trading Technologies
`
`International, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response on
`
`September 3, 2014. Paper 17 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324, which provides that a post-grant review may not be
`
`instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . would
`
`demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”
`
`
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–19 (“the challenged
`
`claims”) of the ’055 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 103. We determine that
`
`the Petition demonstrates that it is more likely than not that the challenged
`
`claims 1–19 are unpatentable, and we institute a covered business method
`
`patent review of claims 1–19 of the ’055 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify numerous related U.S. District
`
`Court cases. Pet. 2–3; Paper 7, 2–5.
`
`Patent Owner also states that related U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 is the
`
`subject of TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Technologies
`
`Internatioanl, Inc., Case CBM2014-00133 (PTAB); that related U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,772,132 is the subject of TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`Technologies International, Inc., Case CBM2014-00135 (PTAB); and that
`
`related U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304 is the subject of TD Ameritrade Holding
`
`Corp. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc., Case CBM2014-00136
`
`(PTAB). Paper 7, 5. Patent Owner further states that related U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,766,304 was the subject of Reexamination, Control No. 90/008,577;
`
`and related U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 was the subject of Reexamination,
`
`Control No. 90/008,576 and Reexamination, Control No. 90/011,250. Id.
`
`Related U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 is the subject of CBM2014-00131
`
`(PTAB).
`
`
`
`C. The ’055 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`The ’055 patent is titled “System and Method for Automatic
`
`Repositioning of Market Information in a Graphical User Interface,” and
`
`issued March 23, 2010, from Application No. 11/417,547 filed May 3, 2006.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1. The ’055 patent discloses a graphical user interface (“GUI”)
`
`displaying information related to a commodity and a method of
`
`automatically repositioning the information. Id. at Abstract. The ’055
`
`patent’s Figure 16A is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`Fig. 16A depicts the GUI of the ’055 patent
`
`
`
`The GUI includes a plurality of columns, including a static price axis,
`
`which includes a plurality of price values for the commodity, such as
`
`“102.60.” Id. at Fig. 16A; col. 7, l. 67–col. 8, l. 18.
`
`Columns 1608 and 1610 are aligned with the static price axis and
`
`dynamically display buy (i.e., bid) quantities and sell (i.e., ask) quantities,
`
`respectively, for the corresponding price values of the static price axis. Id. at
`
`Fig. 16A; col. 26, ll. 10–11. Column 1602 displays the last traded price
`
`(“LTP”), and the inside market (i.e., the highest buy price and lowest sell
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`price at which there is quantity currently in the market) is marked with
`
`inside market indicator 1606, which is a solid line spanning columns 1608
`
`and 1610. Id. at Fig. 16A; col. 26, ll. 3–14.
`
`The GUI can re-position a designated item of interest, such as the LTP
`
`or inside market indicator, in the display. Id. at col. 26, ll. 4–45. For
`
`example, if the LTP or inside market moves a designated number of cells
`
`away from the top or bottom of the display screen, the display, including the
`
`static price axis, is repositioned so that LTP or inside market is centered on
`
`the display. See id. Manual re-positioning can also be used in conjunction
`
`with automatic re-positioning. Id. at col. 26, ll. 33–37.
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’055 patent is illustrative of the challenged claims and
`
`is reproduced below:
`
`1. A method for repositioning a static price axis on a graphical
`user interface for displaying market information of a
`commodity being traded at an electronic exchange, the method
`comprising:
`
`receiving market information relating to a commodity from an
`electronic exchange via a computing device, the market
`information comprising an inside market with a current highest
`bid price and a current lowest ask price for the commodity;
`
`displaying a first plurality of price levels along a static price
`axis on a graphical user interface of a display device associated
`with the computing device, where the first plurality of price
`levels range from a lowest value to a highest value along the
`static price axis;
`
`in response to an input command received via an input device
`associated with the computing device, adjusting the first
`plurality price levels among a range of price levels to an
`adjusted plurality of price levels including the first plurality of
`price levels;
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`displaying a bid and ask display region on the graphical user
`interface, the bid and ask display region comprising a plurality
`of locations corresponding to the first plurality of price levels
`displayed along the static price axis, wherein each location
`corresponds to one of the first plurality of price levels, and
`wherein a number of the plurality of locations changes
`according to adjusting the first plurality of price levels;
`
`displaying a first indicator representing a quantity associated
`with the current highest bid price at a first location in the
`plurality of locations of the bid and ask display region, wherein
`the first indicator ascends or descends the static price axis as
`changes in the current highest bid price occur as a result of each
`of the plurality of price levels along the static price axis not
`changing positions on the graphical user interface unless a
`reposition command is received;
`
`displaying a second indicator representing a quantity associated
`with the current lowest ask price at a second location in the
`plurality of locations of the bid and ask display region, wherein
`the second indicator ascends or descends the static price axis as
`changes in the current lowest ask price occur as a result of each
`of the plurality of price levels along the static price axis not
`changing positions on the graphical user interface unless the
`reposition command is received;
`
`receiving the reposition command to reposition the static price
`axis when a designated price is within a designated number of
`price levels from the lowest value or the highest value along the
`static price axis; and
`
`responsive to receiving the reposition command, automatically
`repositioning the static price axis on the graphical user interface
`such that a current inside market price is displayed at a new
`desired location.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`D. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`
`
`Petitioner sets forth grounds of unpatentability of the challenged
`
`claims as follows:
`
`Ground Prior Art
`
`§ 101
`
`n/a
`
`§ 103
`
`TSE1
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`1–19
`
`1, 3, 4, and 6–19
`
`§ 103
`
`TSE and Gutterman2
`
`2 and 5
`
`§ 103
`
`Silverman,3 Gutterman, and TSE
`
`1–19
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Requirements for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`
`Section 18 of the AIA4 provides for the creation of a transitional
`
`program for reviewing covered business method patents. Section 18 limits
`
`review to persons or their privies who have been sued or charged with
`
`infringement of a “covered business method patent,” which does not include
`
`patents for “technological inventions.” AIA §§ 18(a)(1)(B), 18(d)(1); see
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302. Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the Petitioner
`
`was sued for infringement of the ’055 patent. Pet. 3; Paper 7, 2. For reasons
`
`discussed below, we find that the ’055 patent is eligible for covered business
`
`
`1 TOKYO STOCK EXCHANGE OPERATION SYSTEM DIVISION, FUTURES/OPTION
`PURCHASING SYSTEM TRADING TERMINAL OPERATION GUIDE (1998) (Ex.
`1008).
`2 Gutterman et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 (issued Mar. 22, 1994) (Ex.
`1006).
`3 Silverman et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,077,665 (issued Dec. 31, 1991) (Ex.
`1005).
`4 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`method patent review because at least one claim “claims a method or
`
`corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations
`
`used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or
`
`service” (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a)), and because the claimed subject matter
`
`as a whole either does not 1) recite a technological feature that is novel and
`
`unobvious over the prior art or 2) solve a technical problem using a
`
`technological solution (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b)).
`
`i. Covered Business Method Patent Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a)
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1 and 17 claim a method for performing
`
`data processing in the practice, administration, or management of a financial
`
`product or service. Pet. 5 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a)). Petitioner argues
`
`that claims 1 and 17 claim such a method because they require only routine
`
`and conventional steps of displaying data on a display. Id.
`
`Patent Owner argues that, although used in the field of trading, the
`
`’055 patent is not directed to a method of performing data processing in the
`
`practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service
`
`because the inventive aspects of the claims arise from structural and
`
`functional features embodied in a GUI tool, “and not in any business method
`
`or practice.” Prelim. Resp. 17.
`
`A covered business method patent “claims a method or corresponding
`
`apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the
`
`practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.”
`
`AIA § 18(d)(1). The “legislative history explains that the definition of
`
`covered business method patent was drafted to encompass patents ‘claiming
`
`activities that are financial in nature’” 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,735 (Aug.
`
`14, 2012) (quoting 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011)
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`(statement of Sen. Schumer)). The legislative history indicates that
`
`“financial product or service” should be interpreted broadly. Id. A patent
`
`need have only one claim directed to a covered business method to be
`
`eligible for review. Id. at 48,736 (Response to Comment 8).
`
`
`
`Upon review of the record, and taking into account Patent Owner’s
`
`argument, we determine that the ’055 patent is directed to a method for
`
`performing data processing or other operations used in the practice,
`
`administration, or management of a financial product or servic. Claim 1
`
`recites “[a] method for repositioning a static price axis on a graphical user
`
`interface for displaying market information of a commodity being traded at
`
`an electronic exchange.” It recites steps of displaying market information,
`
`such as a static price axis and indicators representing ask and bid
`
`information in the market. Dependent claim 16 recites steps of setting trade
`
`order parameters and sending trade orders to an electronic exchange.
`
`Displaying market information and sending trade orders to an electronic
`
`exchange are activities that are financial in nature. Given this, we determine
`
`that at least claims 1 and 16 of the ’055 patent recite a method for
`
`performing operations used in the practice, administration, or management
`
`of a financial product or service (i.e., trading on an electronic exchange).
`
`ii. Not a Technological Invention Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b)
`
`As indicated above, even if a patent includes claims that would
`
`otherwise be eligible for treatment as a covered business method, review of
`
`the patent is precluded if the claims cover only “technological invention[s],”
`
`as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b). Petitioner, further, argues that the ’055
`
`patent is a covered business method patent because it is not for a
`
`technological invention because the claims do not recite a technical feature
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`that is novel and unobvious over the prior art and do not solve a technical
`
`problem with a technical solution. Pet. 5–7. First, the Petitioner argues that
`
`the claims do not recite a technical feature because they only recite software
`
`and general computer components, such as a display and input devices. Pet.
`
`5–7. Second, the Petitioner argues that the claims do not solve a technical
`
`problem using a technical solution because the claims are directed to the
`
`known problem of placing a trade order for a commodity on an electronic
`
`exchange. Pet. 7.
`
`Conversely, Patent Owner argues that the ’055 patent is for a
`
`technological invention and, therefore, is not a covered business method
`
`patent. Prelim. Resp. 28–37. First, Patent Owner argues that the claims
`
`recite a technical feature because they combine structural and functional
`
`features of the claimed GUI tool in a novel and non-obvious way. Id. at 35–
`
`37. Second, Patent Owner argues that the claims solve the technical
`
`problem of submitting order to the exchange with speed and accuracy with
`
`the technical solution of the combined structural and functional features of
`
`the claimed GUI tool. Id. at 28–35.
`
`
`
`The definition of “covered business method patent” in § 18(d)(1) of
`
`the AIA does not include patents for “technological inventions.” To
`
`determine whether a patent is for a technological invention, we consider
`
`“whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological
`
`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). Both prongs
`
`must be satisfied in order for the patent to be excluded as a technological
`
`invention. The following claim drafting techniques, for example, typically
`
`do not render a patent a “technological invention”:
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`(a) Mere recitation of known technologies, such as computer
`hardware, communication or computer networks, software,
`memory, computer–readable storage medium, scanners, display
`devices or databases, or specialized machines, such as an ATM
`or point of sale device.
`
`(b) Reciting the use of known prior art technology to
`accomplish a process or method, even if that process or method
`is novel and non–obvious.
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,763–64 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`On this record, and taking into account Patent Owner’s argument, we
`
`are persuaded by Petitioner that the ’055 patent is not for a technological
`
`invention. At least independent claim 1 does not recite a technological
`
`feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art. Claim 1 recites a
`
`method that requires the display of certain information in a certain
`
`arrangement on a GUI and allows for the repositioning of the information on
`
`the display. Claim 1 requires a display, an input device, and a GUI (i.e.,
`
`software).
`
`The ’055 patent discloses that its system can be implemented “on any
`
`existing or future terminal or device” (Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 2–7), which were
`
`known to include displays, and discloses that the input device can be a
`
`mouse (Id. at col. 5, ll. 24–27), which was a known input device. The ’055
`
`patent describes “commercially available trading application[s]” that provide
`
`electronic trading interfaces that display bid and ask quantities in
`
`associations with a static price scale, but states that “[t]he preferred
`
`embodiments . . . are not limited to any particular product that performs the
`
`translation, storage and/or display functions.” Id. at col. 5, l. 66–col. 6, l. 7.
`
`Further, the ’055 patent discloses that the physical mapping of information
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`sent by the exchange to a screen grid (i.e., the GUI) “can be done by any
`
`technique known to those skilled in the art.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 31–35.
`
`Given the above, we determine that claim 1 does not recite a
`
`technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art. Because
`
`both prongs must be satisfied for a patent to be excluded from covered
`
`business method patent review for being a technological invention, we find
`
`that the ’055 patent is eligible for a covered business method patent review
`
`for at least the reason that claim 1 fails to recite a technological feature that
`
`is novel and unobvious.
`
`Notwithstanding our determination above, on this record, we are also
`
`persuaded by Petitioner the ’055 patent does not solve a technical problem
`
`with a technical solution. The ’055 patent solves the problem of trader
`
`having to read a display of prices for a commodity and enter a trade order
`
`before the price for the commodity changes. See Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 35–67.
`
`The ’055 patent solves this problem by displaying market information in a
`
`certain arrangement on a GUI and allowing for the repositioning of the
`
`information on the display. As discussed above, claim 1’s use of a display,
`
`an input device, and a GUI (i.e., software) were all known technology.
`
`Given this, we determine that at least claim 1 does not solve a technical
`
`problem using a technical solution and at least claim 1 does not satisfy the
`
`second prong. Accordingly, we find that the ’055 patent is eligible for
`
`covered business method patent review.
`
`
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the AIA, we
`
`interpret claims using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b).
`
`“static price axis”
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute in its
`
`Preliminary Response, that “static price axis” is “a price column where
`
`prices ‘do not normally change positions unless a re-centering command is
`
`received.”’ Pet. 10 (quoting Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 17–18); See Prelim. Resp.
`
`40–43. On this record, we do not find Petitioner’s interpretation of “static
`
`price axis” unreasonable, and adopt Petitioner’s proposed interpretation.
`
`“single action”
`
`Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute in its
`
`Preliminary Response, that “single action” means “‘any action by a user,
`
`whether comprising one or more clicks of a mouse button or other input
`
`device . . . may be considered a single action of the user.’” Pet.10 (emphasis
`
`omitted) (quoting Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 27–30); See Prelim. Resp. 40–43. On
`
`this record, we do not find Petitioner’s interpretation of “single action”
`
`unreasonable and adopt Petitioner’s proposed interpretation.
`
`
`
`C. Ground Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Patent-eligible subject matter is defined in § 101 of the Patent Act,
`
`which recites:
`
`Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful
`
`process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or
`any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent
`therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
`
`
`
`There are, however, three judicially created exceptions to the broad
`
`categories of patent-eligible subject matter in § 101: laws of nature, natural
`
`phenomena, and abstract ideas. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
`
`Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). Although an abstract idea, itself, is
`
`patent-ineligible, an application of the abstract idea may be patent-eligible.
`
`Alice, 132 S. Ct. at 2355. Thus, we must consider “the elements of each
`
`claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine
`
`whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a
`
`patent-eligible application.” Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297-98). The
`
`claim must contain elements or a combination of elements that are
`
`“sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more
`
`than a patent upon the [abstract idea] itself.” Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at
`
`1294).
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–19 are patent ineligible because they
`
`recite just the abstract idea of “repositioning market information on a
`
`graphical user interface” along with well-known and insignificant extra-
`
`solution activity. Pet. 11–13. Patent Owner argues, generally, that
`
`Petitioner’s argument is unsupported and, therefore, cannot be instituted
`
`upon. Prelim. Resp. 38–40.
`
`Independent claim 1 recites a method which falls, nominally, into the
`
`process category of patent-eligible subject matter recited in § 101. Claim 1
`
`recites a method that requires the display of certain information in a certain
`
`arrangement on a GUI and allows for the repositioning of the information on
`
`the display. On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner that claim 1 is
`
`directed to the abstract idea of repositioning market information on a
`
`graphical user interface.
`
`The method of claim 1 requires a display, an input device, and a GUI
`
`(i.e., software) for performing the recited steps of receiving market
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`information; displaying the information as indicators in a bid or ask region
`
`along a static price axis; adjusting the price levels of the static price axis;
`
`and repositioning the static price axis in response to a command that is
`
`received when a designated price is a designated number of levels away
`
`from the lowest or highest value of the static price axis. Each of these steps
`
`individually or in combination, require nothing more than a conventional
`
`generic computer.
`
`The ’055 patent discloses that its system can be implemented “on any
`
`existing or future terminal or device” (Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 2–7), which are
`
`known to include displays, and discloses that the input device can be a
`
`mouse (Id. at col. 5, ll. 24–27), which is a known input device. The ’055
`
`patent describes “commercially available trading application[s]” that provide
`
`electronic trading interfaces that display bid and ask quantities in
`
`associations with a static price scale, but states that “[t]he preferred
`
`embodiments . . . are not limited to any particular product that performs the
`
`translation, storage and/or display functions.” Id. at col. 5, l. 66–col. 6, l. 7.
`
`See also id. at col. 25, ll. 13–15 (“[t]he trading application preferably is
`
`X_TRADER®, using an MD_TRADERTM – style display”). Further, the
`
`’055 patent discloses that the physical mapping of information sent by the
`
`exchange to a screen grid (i.e., the GUI) “can be done by any technique
`
`known to those skilled in the art.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 31–35.
`
`Claim 1 does no more than simply instruct the practitioner to
`
`implement the abstract idea on a GUI. To be patent-eligible, a claim cannot
`
`simply state the abstract idea and add the words “apply it.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct.
`
`at 1294. On this record, we agree with Petitioner that claim 1 does not recite
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`additional elements or combinations of elements that add significantly more
`
`to the abstract idea so as to claim patent-eligible subject matter.
`
`
`
`Independent claim 17 recites a computer readable medium having
`
`computer-readable instruction that, when executed, causes the computer to
`
`perform the method of claim 1. Dependent claims 2–6 recite limitations
`
`further defining the designated price. Dependent claims 7–14 and 18–19
`
`recite limitations further defining when the repositioning occurs. Dependent
`
`claim 15 recites a limitation further defining the new desired location.
`
`Dependent claim 16 recites steps of setting the parameters of a trade order
`
`and sending the trade order to the electronic exchange. For similar reasons
`
`as discussed above, we find on the present record that claims 2–19 do not
`
`recite additional elements or combinations of elements that add significantly
`
`more to the abstract idea so as to claim patent-eligible subject matter.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, on this record, we determine that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated that claims 1–19 are more likely than not patent ineligible
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`
`
`D. Grounds Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
`a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
`matter pertains.”
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`
`including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and (3) the level of skill
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966); see KSR, 550
`
`U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
`
`any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
`
`controls.”).
`
`
`
`i. Obviousness of Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6–19 over TSE
`
`a. Independent Claims 1 and 17
`
`Petitioner argues that independent claims 1 and 17 are obvious over
`
`TSE. Pet. 18–27. In particular, Petitioner argues that the claimed adjusting
`
`step is met by TSE’s disclosure of moving the Board/Quotation Screen from
`
`a compressed mode to a non-compressed mode (id. at 20–22), and that the
`
`claimed repositioning step is met by TSE’s disclosure of the
`
`Board/Quotation Screen centering on a designated central price when in a
`
`basic board screen mode (id. at 25–27). Petitioner argues that although TSE
`
`“does not explicitly describe that a ‘repositioning command’ is issued by the
`
`software to initiate the repositioning function,” it would have been obvious
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such a command to cause the
`
`repositioning when a pre-defined event occurs. Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1004
`
`¶ 88, “Rho Decl.”).
`
`TSE is a guide for operating a trading terminal of the Tokyo Stock
`
`Exchange. Ex. 1008, 1.5 The trading terminal displays a GUI for depicting
`
`market information on a Board/Quotation Screen (see id. at 107). The
`
`Figure on page 107 of TSE is reproduced below.
`
`
`5 We refer to the English translation of TSE (Ex. 1008) and to the pagination
`inserted into Ex. 1008 and not the original pagination.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`Figure depicting the Board/Quotation Screen
`
`
`
`
`
`The Board/Quotation Screen includes a central order price at column
`
`11. Id. at 111. To the left and right of order price column 11, are ask and
`
`bid orders in respective columns 12, 13, and 14. Id.
`
`The Board/Quotation Screen has a compressed mode and an
`
`uncompressed mode. Reproduced below is a Figure that depicts the
`
`Board/Quotation Screen in compressed and non-compressed modes.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`Fig. depicting the Board/Quotation Screen in compressed
`and non-compressed modes
`
`
`
`In non-compressed mode, all prices (i.e., the claimed adjusted price levels)
`
`are displayed on the Board/Quotation Screen, and, in compressed mode,
`
`only prices that satisfy certain conditions (i.e., the claimed first plurality of
`
`price levels), such as having an order, are displayed. Id. at 68. The
`
`Board/Quotation Screen can be moved between the compressed mode and
`
`uncompressed mode by selecting a radio button using a mouse. Id. at 69.
`
`
`
`The Board/Quotation Screen also has a basic board screen mode and a
`
`scrolling mode. Id. at 115. In basic board screen mode, the information is
`
`updated so that a “Board Display Central Price” is always displayed in the
`
`center. Id. TSE discloses that the centering occurs upon the occurrence of
`
`different events, such as if the central price falls within the range of the top
`
`or bottom three prices. Id. In scrolling mode, the central price’s position
`
`does not change automatically (id); however, TSE does discloses a “Home
`
`Button” for returning the Board/Quotation Screen to the basic board screen
`
`centered on the central price (id. at 110, 116).
`
`Given the above, we are persuaded by Petitioner that TSE discloses
`
`the limitations of claims 1 and 17. We are, further, persuaded by Petitioner
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a
`
`repositioning command to cause the repositioning when the pre-defined
`
`event occurs.
`
`Patent Owner argues that “the petition does not explain its proposed
`
`combinations of two different embodiments in TSE, instead simply referring
`
`to the two embodiments as if they were one embodiment.” Prelim. Resp. 45.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument implies that TSE’s compressed mode and non-
`
`compressed mode are alternative embodiments. Id. Patent Owner’s
`
`argument, however, mischaracterizes TSE’s disclosure because TSE’s
`
`compressed and non-compressed modes are not alternate embodiments, but
`
`different display modes of the same Board/Quotation Screen. Ex. 1008, 69.
`
`Upon this record, and taking into account Patent Owner’s argument,
`
`we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that claims 1 and 17 are more
`
`likely than not unpatentable as obvious over TSE.
`
`
`
`b. Dependent Claims 3, 4, 6–15, 18, and 19
`
`Petitioner argues, and Patent Owner does not dispute in its
`
`Preliminary Response, that dependent claims 3, 4, 6–15, 18, and 19 are
`
`obvious over TSE. Pet. 27–32 (citing Rho Decl. ¶¶ 41, 42, 47–50, 91, 92).
`
`Upon review of Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, we are persuaded by
`
`Petitioner that claims 3, 4, 6–15, 18, and 19 are more likely than not obvious
`
`over TSE.
`
`
`
`c. Dependent Claim 16
`
`Dependent claim 16 recites:
`
`displaying an order entry region comprising a plurality of
`locations for receiving commands to send trade orders, each
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055 B2
`
`
`location corresponding to a price level along the static price
`axis; and
`
`in response to a selection of a particular location of the order
`entry region by a single action of a user input device, setting a
`plurality of parameters for a trade order relating to the
`commodity and sending the trade order to the electronic
`exchange.
`
`Petitioner argues that this “single action” limitation is met by TSE’s
`
`description of placing an order by, first, double-clicking a specific area on
`
`the Board/Quotation Screen to open a new order entry window, and then
`
`selecting a send button on the new order entry window. See Pet. 32–34.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the above relied-upon description of TSE does not
`
`meet the limitation because double-clicking the area of the Board/Quotation
`
`Screen and clicking a send button on the new order entry window is not a
`
`selection of a particular location of the order entry region by a single action
`
`but a selection of two different locations by two actions. Prelim. Resp. 47–
`
`50.
`
`A figure that appears on page 137 of TSE is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137