UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`
`TRADESTATION GROUP INC.,
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC., IBG LLC, and INTERACTIVE
`BROKERS LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`
`Case CBM2015-001611
`Patent No. 6,766,304
`
`___________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case CBM2016-00035 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`
`TRADESTATION GROUP INC.,
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC., IBG LLC, and INTERACTIVE
`BROKERS LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`
`Case CBM2015-001611
`Patent No. 6,766,304
`
`___________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case CBM2016-00035 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`
`I.
`
`II. TT’S CLAIMED METHOD OF DISPLAYING MARKET
`INFORMATION IS NOT A TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE ......................... 2
`
`III. TT’s Claims Encompass an Abstract Idea under Alice Step 1 ..................... 8
`
`IV. TT’s Claims Fail Alice Step 2 ......................................................................... 17
`
`V. TT’s VOLUMINOUS ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE
`“CONVENTIONALITY” OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION ARE
`IRRELEVANT ....................................................................................................... 23
`
`VI. CBM JURISDICTION ................................................................................... 24
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`File History, U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Tech. Int’l, Inc., Case
`CBM2014-00136, Decision Denying Institution (Paper No.
`19), at pp. 7–12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2014)
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. #735, Trading Tech. Int
`'l, Inc. v. CQGT, LLC, et al., 05-cv-4811, U.S. District Court
`for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Tech. Int 'l, Inc.,
`Case CBM2014-00136, Petition (Paper No. 4) (P.T.A.B. May
`20, 2014)
`TD Ameritrade, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper
`No. 18), at pp. 6-7 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 3, 2014)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Tech. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00131, Decision to Institute (Paper No. 19), at p. 15
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2014)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Tech. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00133, Decision to Institute (Paper No. 19), at p. 14
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2014)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Tech. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00137, Decision to Institute (Paper No. 19), at p. 14
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2014)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Tech. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00135, Decision to Institute (Paper No. 19), at p. 14
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2014)
`Kemp II, et al. US 6,772,132
`Statement of Reasons for Allowance in the ‘304 patent
`Declaration of Dr. John Phillips Mellor (“Mellor decl.”)
`Excerpts of Appendices for Mellor Declaration
`Lodewijk Petram, “The World’s First Stock Exchange”
`“Futures/ Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal
`Operation Guide”, Tokyo Stock Exchange Operation System
`Division
`Translation of “Futures/ Option Purchasing System Trading
`Terminal Operation Guide”, Tokyo Stock Exchange Operation
`System Division
`
`ii
`
`TS 1001
`TS 1002
`TS 1003
`
`TS 1004
`
`TS 1005
`
`TS 1006
`
`TS 1007
`
`TS 1008
`
`TS 1009
`
`TS 1010
`
`TS 1011
`TS 1012
`TS 1013
`TS 1014
`TS 1015
`TS 1016
`
`TS 1017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TS 1018
`
`TS 1019
`TS 1020
`
`TS 1021
`
`TS 1022
`
`TS 1023
`
`TS 1024
`
`TS 1025
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`Certificate of Translation of “Futures/ Option Purchasing
`System Trading Terminal Operation Guide”, Tokyo Stock
`Exchange Operation System Division
`Gutterman, et al. US Patent No. 5,297,031
`Ellen Terrell, “History of the American and NASDAQ Stock
`Exchanges”, September, 2006 (Updated October, 2012)
`Declaration in support of Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Adam Kessel
`Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.), definition of
`“data processing”
`Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4th ed.), definition
`of “data processing”
`Excerpts from trial transcript, Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v.
`eSpeed, Inc. (N.D. Il. Sept. 10, 2007)
`Excerpts from deposition transcript of Dan R. Olsen, Jr., IBG
`LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. (P.T.A.B. July 28, 2016)
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`Throughout its Response (“Response” or “POR”), Patent Owner (“TT”)
`
`casts its invention as “the structure, make-up, and functionality of an innovative
`
`graphical user interface tool.” POR, 1. But that’s not what is claimed. Rather, the
`
`independent claims simply recite a method of using a GUI that includes four steps
`
`for displaying market information in a particular manner, and another step for
`
`“setting parameters” and “sending [a] trade order” in response to user input. The
`
`claims make no mention of a “tool,” nor do they include structure for performing
`
`the functions of “displaying,” “setting,” and “sending” information. And the
`
`specification expressly states that the recited functions can be accomplished using
`
`conventional components and programming techniques. See, e.g., ‘304 patent,
`
`4:66-5:3 and 4:8-11. There is nothing new about the information being displayed,
`
`and TT admits that it is not analyzed or used to generate new data. See POR, 66-
`
`67 (asserting that its GUI does not “process” or “change” data). Consequently,
`
`recent appellate guidance removes any doubt that TT’s claims fail Section 101.
`
`Specifically, in Electric Power, LLC, v. Alstom S.A., the court held ineligible
`
`“claims [that] do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display of
`
`available information in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms,
`
`without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are
`
`arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology.” Elec.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., No. 2015-1778, 2016 WL 4073318, at *1 (Fed.
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`Cir. Aug. 1, 2016). Here, TT’s claims merely recite the display of information in a
`
`particular field, namely financial markets, and do so without limiting them to any
`
`unconventional technical means. Indeed, the patent expressly discloses that “the
`
`present invention can be implemented on any existing or future terminal or device
`
`with the processing capability to perform the functions described herein.” ‘304
`
`patent, 4:8-11. Consequently, TT’s claims fall squarely within the court’s
`
`definition of patent-ineligible subject matter.
`
`TT’s other primary argument – that the patent claims “improve[] the
`
`functioning of the computer” – lacks factual support: controlling the manner in
`
`which market information is displayed on a screen arguably may improve the
`
`functioning of the human user in trading, but the computer itself remains
`
`fundamentally unchanged in function and operation—it merely displays
`
`conventional market information based on “simple algorithms,” and using
`
`conventional computer components. See, e.g., ‘304 patent, 4:66-5:3 and 4:8-11.
`
`TT’s remaining arguments are similarly flawed as discussed below, and thus
`
`TT’s claims are invalid as patent ineligible.
`
`II. TT’S CLAIMED METHOD OF DISPLAYING MARKET
`INFORMATION IS NOT A TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`TT spends the first 13 pages of its brief trying to recast its claimed method
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`
`
`as a technological “GUI tool,” based on an inapt analogy to a physical device. In
`
`doing so, TT attempts to mask the fact that its purported invention is nothing more
`
`than a method of using a GUI that includes four method steps for displaying
`
`market information in a particular manner, and another step for “setting
`
`parameters” and “sending [a] trade order” in response to user input. The claims do
`
`not recite a “tool,” nor do they include structure for performing the functions of
`
`“displaying,” “setting,” and “sending” information.
`
`Moreover, TT’s contrasting descriptions of the allegedly inventive trading
`
`screen of Fig. 3 with the prior art trading screen of Fig. 2 reveals that its claims are
`
`simply a trivial variation of the admitted prior art technique of displaying market
`
`information in a grid. Specifically, instead of holding one type of market indicator
`
`(inside market) stationary while allowing another type (prices) to move up and
`
`down within the grid, TT’s purported invention does the opposite, namely, it holds
`
`prices stationary (“static”) while allowing the inside market to move up and down
`
`within the grid.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`
`More specifically, TT first describes the prior art trading screen shown in
`
`Fig. 2 of the patent (annotated above) in which quantities and prices are displayed
`
`in a grid such that the inside market position remains static in the display (Row 1)
`
`while the corresponding bid/ask prices move up or down. POR, 5-8. (Compare
`
`the “Time 1” and “Time 2” figures in TT’s Response at page 7 showing, in
`
`response to changing market data, the inside market remaining static in the top
`
`row, while the bid prices 111170-111150 move downwards in the BidPrc column
`
`and the ask prices 111195-111180 move upwards in the AskPrc column.)
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`
`TT contrasts this behavior with the allegedly inventive trading screen shown
`
`in the before-and-after depictions of Figs. 3-4 (annotated above), in which the
`
`prices are displayed statically and the inside market moves up or down. POR, 10-
`
`13. Although not identical, these two displays implement the same basic idea: in
`
`both cases the inside market and the prices move relative to each other – the only
`
`relevant difference between them is which remains static and which moves. This
`
`difference is hardly the solution to a technological problem but rather merely
`
`reflects preferences of different traders – some preferred the inside market to
`
`remain static and have the prices move, whereas others such as Mr. Brumfield
`
`apparently preferred the opposite.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Indeed, TT’s Response reveals that conception of the so-called invention had
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`
`
`nothing to do with applying technological knowledge but rather consisted simply
`
`of Mr. Brumfield’s sketching out the crude drawing below indicating how he
`
`would like market data displayed (POR, 9):
`
`
`That no technological knowledge was applied in conceiving the alleged invention
`
`is further supported by TT’s admission that Mr. Brumfield did not even reduce the
`
`drawing into an actual GUI but rather had computer programmers do it for him.
`
`POR, 9. All Mr. Brumfield did was sketch how he would like to view information
`
`from financial markets – nothing technological about that. Indeed, Mr. Brumfield
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`had no scientific or engineering background or training, and thus was effectively
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`incapable of developing a technological solution. Ex. 1024 at 100:13-16 (“[M]r.
`
`Brumfield is a trader. He is not someone who is skilled in creating software and
`
`software code. That is not his thing….”) and 695:24-696:4 (“Q. Why didn't you
`
`build the software yourself, Mr. Brumfield? A. My banking and finance degree
`
`wasn't going to help me much on that. Q. You are not a software engineer? A. No,
`
`sir.”). Accordingly, Mr. Brumfield’s so-called invention was the mere
`
`rearrangement and display of information, which is categorically patent ineligible.
`
`Alstom, 2016 WL 4073318, at *4 (“[m]erely selecting information by content or
`
`source, for collection, analysis, and display” is patent-ineligible.); CyberSource
`
`Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[t]he mere
`
`collection and organization of data” held patent-ineligible).
`
`Further, Mr. Brumfield’s display of market data does not represent a solution
`
`to a technological problem because both the patent and TT’s Response emphasize
`
`that the aim of the alleged invention was to solve a human or business problem
`
`arising in financial markets, namely, to help prevent a trader from “miss[ing] the
`
`price because the market prices moved before he could enter an order.” ’304
`
`patent, 2:61-67. See also POR, 9 (asserting the “incredible advantages of [the]
`
`invention” including addressing “the problem of missing a desired price.”) As the
`
`CAFC has explained, where, as here, the patent specification “emphasiz[es] that
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`the aim of the invention is speeding up [a human activity],” it underscores the point
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`that the claims do not solve a technological problem. LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow,
`
`Inc., No. 2014-1435, 2016 WL 3974203, at *5 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2016).
`
`III. TT’s Claims Encompass an Abstract Idea under Alice Step 1
`
`a. The Board’s articulation of the abstract idea is proper and correct
`As the Board correctly found in the Institution Decision (“ID”), TT’s claims
`
`are directed to the abstract idea of “placing an order based on displayed market
`
`information, as well as updating market information.” ID at 23. Contrary to TT’s
`
`assertions (POR, 15-17), in formulating that abstract idea neither the Board nor
`
`Petitioner improperly “overgeneralized” the claim or “omitted nearly every
`
`claimed concept.” The CAFC explained that the Alice Step 1 analysis looks “at the
`
`‘focus’ of the claims, their ‘character as a whole,’” rather than performing a word-
`
`for-word comparison of the claim language to the idea to which the claims are
`
`directed. Alstom, 2016 WL 4073318, at *3. Only at step two should the court look
`
`“more precisely at what the claim elements add.” Id.
`
`Moreover, the CAFC has regularly articulated a claim’s abstract idea in
`
`succinct terms, even for verbose claims, without giving effect to each and every
`
`limitation. See, e.g., LendingTree, 2016 WL 3974203, at * 4 (reducing a method
`
`claim of 11 steps to a two-word abstract idea: “coordinating loans”); Ultramercial,
`
`Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714 (reducing an 11-step claim to “[using an]
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`advertisement as an exchange or currency”); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“anonymous loan
`
`shopping”); Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2015-
`
`1763, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016) (“filtering content”); OIP
`
`Techs. V. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“offer-
`
`based price optimization”). In each of these cases, plus several others, the court
`
`reduced a lengthy claim to a few words that encapsulated its focus. Accordingly,
`
`in formulating the abstract idea here, the Board properly followed the court’s
`
`guidance.
`
`b. TT’s claims do not improve the functioning of the computer
`Contrary to TT’s assertions (POR, 17-19), the method steps recited by the
`
`claims, when performed by a computer, do not “improve the functioning of the
`
`computer.” Rather, the computer merely performs the four recited “displaying”
`
`steps to display market data in a certain format and arrangement, and then “set[s]
`
`parameters” and “send[s] [a] trade order to the electronic exchange” in response to
`
`user input. But displaying information, setting values of parameters, and
`
`transmitting information (the trade order) to other computer systems (the
`
`exchange) is what computers have been doing for decades; indeed, that is exactly
`
`what they were designed to do. The steps of “displaying” market information,
`
`“setting parameters,” and “sending the trade order” in no way make the computer
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`run faster, more efficiently, use less energy, etc. Even TT’s expert admits that no
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`such improvements to the computer occur as a result of performing the claim steps.
`
`(Ex. 1025; Olsen Dep. Tr., 57:18-58:13.) To the contrary, the computer itself
`
`remains essentially the same before, during and after performing the claimed
`
`method steps. Indeed, the ’304 patent acknowledges that the prior art computers
`
`performed essentially the same functions as claimed. See, e.g., ’304 patent, 1:63-
`
`66 (“[Exchange participants] use software that creates specialized interactive
`
`trading screens on the traders’ desktops. The trading screens enable traders to
`
`enter and execute orders, obtain market quotes, and monitor positions.”). The
`
`computer operates the same whether the trader is using the Fig. 2 GUI or the Fig. 3
`
`GUI. In short, nothing about displaying data, receiving user input, or sending an
`
`order is an improvement to the computer’s functioning.
`
`Ignoring that reality, TT argues that “[t]he claimed invention improves the
`
`functioning of the computer because it solves problems that were caused by the
`
`computer.” POR, 18. But the claimed method is not like the DDR or Enfish
`
`inventions where claims were directed at solving problems in the inner workings of
`
`the computer or network. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d
`
`1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he claimed solution is necessarily rooted in
`
`computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the
`
`realm of computer networks.”); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327,
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to “a specific type of data structure designed
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory”). Rather, the
`
`only purported problem in the case of the ’304 patent was that, within a trading
`
`screen, one market indicator (inside market) remained static while another market
`
`indicator (prices) moved up or down, thereby supposedly causing traders to
`
`sometimes “miss their price.” But that problem was merely a consequence of how
`
`different traders chose to view market data on the screen; the computer did what it
`
`was told to do by software written by programmers who were instructed (by
`
`traders) to display financial data in a certain way, just as Mr. Brumfield “retained a
`
`programmer” to display financial data in the manner depicted in his hand-drawn
`
`figure.
`
`TT also incorrectly asserts that “[t]he claimed invention improves the
`
`functioning of the computer because it sets forth a construction of a GUI tool that
`
`improves the speed, accuracy and visualization [or usability] of a GUI.” POR, 14,
`
`19. TT’s GUI does not respond any faster to the changing market data, nor to user
`
`input. The data displayed is no more accurate than in the prior art, nor is the
`
`inputting of user input improved – both GUIs read user input (e.g., a mouse-click)
`
`with equal accuracy and speed. In terms of usability, TT’s GUI does not provide
`
`any new functionality or make it any simpler to interact with the GUI – the user
`
`still reads financial information from a grid displayed on the GUI and provides
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`input at desired locations. As explained above, the difference between the prior art
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`GUI of Fig. 2 and that of Fig. 3 is merely which of two elements (prices or inside
`
`market) remains static and which moves. But simply rearranging market data
`
`indicators on a display does not improve the functioning of the computer
`
`displaying that data.
`
`c. TT’s claims are abstract
`In asserting that its claims are “undoubtedly not abstract,” TT attempts to
`
`analogize its “GUI tool” to physical entities “such as a chip architecture, an LED
`
`display and the like.” POR, 19. In that regard, TT asserts that “a GUI is as much a
`
`physical and integral part of a computer as a processor or memory.” Id. TT is
`
`wrong.
`
`First, TT’s claims do not recite a “GUI tool” much less a “physical entity,”
`
`but rather a “method of displaying market information.” ‘304 patent, claim 1. The
`
`mere rearrangement and display of information is not patent eligible. Alstom, 2016
`
`WL 4073318, at *3; CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375.
`
`Second, TT never attempts to explain how an arrangement of market data on
`
`a trading screen is “physical.” Unlike in Enfish, where the claim in question was
`
`directed at something physical, namely “a data storage and retrieval system,” TT’s
`
`claims are directed at method steps – simply displaying market information in a
`
`particular format, and then setting parameters and sending a trade order in response
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`to user input. As the court noted, the claims in Enfish actually changed something
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`about how the computer operated, specifically, how the computer stored and
`
`received data in memory. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339. In contrast, TT’s claims recite
`
`steps about what is shown on the trading screen. The basic structure of the
`
`computer is unaffected. In no sense does changing the format of market data on a
`
`trading screen change the fundamental operation of the computer– it still displays
`
`information and receives user input using conventional hardware and software both
`
`before and after TT’s alleged invention.
`
`Nor in any sense are TT’s claims “directed to a specific implementation of a
`
`solution to a problem in the software arts.” POR, 23 (emphasis added). TT did
`
`not invent a new programming language, a program for developing software, or
`
`even fix a bug in existing software. Indeed, because the purported inventor of the
`
`GUI – Mr. Brumfield – had no training in the software arts, he had to hire a
`
`programmer to reduce his so-called invention to practice. POR, 9. Making a
`
`crude, hand-drawn sketch and handing it over to a programmer to implement is not
`
`solving a problem in the software arts. Rather, TT’s claims ameliorate, if anything,
`
`a human problem encountered by traders while making trades in financial markets
`
`(i.e., “miss[ing] the price because the market prices moved before [the trader]
`
`could enter the order,” ‘304 patent, 2:63-64) – clearly a business-centric issue that
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`has been around for as long as financial markets have existed. See, e.g., Ex. 1015;
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`“The World’s First Stock Exchange” at 155 n.27.
`
`TT further argues that its claims survive Alice Step 1 because “GUIs are
`
`technology.” POR, 20. TT is misguided for several reasons.
`
`First, the Step 1 inquiry does not hinge on whether the claimed subject
`
`matter is “technology.” Rather, the inquiry is whether the claims are directed to an
`
`abstract concept, such as “placing an order based on displayed market information,
`
`as well as updating market information,” as the Board correctly found in the ID.
`
`Second, even if a GUI is considered “technology,” the mere fact that an
`
`otherwise abstract claim also includes bits of conventional technology, such as a
`
`generic reference to a “graphical user interface,” is irrelevant. Many claims have
`
`been found fatally abstract even though they included conventional components
`
`such as user interfaces, computers, databases, and the like. See, e.g., Internet
`
`Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(patent ineligible claim reciting “[a] method of providing an intelligent user
`
`interface”); Mortgage Grader, Inc., 811 F.3d at 1324-1325 (patent ineligible claim
`
`including components such as “a computer system,” “a database,” and first and
`
`second “interface[s]”). TT’s claims are no more “technological” than the
`
`foregoing examples because the elements that arguably may be deemed
`
`“technology” – a graphical user interface, a user input device, and an electronic
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`exchange – all are conventional components being used in their customary manner
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`to achieve predictable results, and thus are insufficient to impart patent eligibility.
`
`Third, even assuming GUIs in general qualify as “technology,” TT’s claims
`
`do not rise to the level of a technological advancement. Rather, advances in GUI
`
`design involve the development of concepts that have broad applicability across all
`
`disciplines – e.g., novel interface elements such as windows, icons, menus, and
`
`pointers (“WIMP”). But TT did not invent any new interface element or
`
`functionality; rather, TT’s claims simply recite using existing interface elements,
`
`and functionality (e.g., displaying numbers in a grid, point-and-click input, etc.) to
`
`display market information in a predictable manner, namely, such that one type of
`
`market indicator (inside market) moves relative to another type of market indicator
`
`(prices) – a behavior that TT admits was present in the prior art GUI of Fig. 2. See
`
`POR, 6-7.
`
`d. TT’s claims are directed to a fundamental economic or longstanding
`commercial practice
`TT further argues that its claims are not abstract because they are “not
`
`directed to a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice.” POR,
`
`23. But TT conveniently ignores the fact that, according to the ‘’304 patent, “[t]he
`
`present invention is directed to the electronic trading of commodities.” ‘304 patent
`
`1:17-18. Commodities trading is “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`in our system of commerce,” and is an abstract idea similar to those courts have
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`repeatedly held abstract and ineligible. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356.
`
`Further, TT asserts that “the claimed invention is not directed to ‘placing a
`
`trade order in an exchange.’” Id. But both independent claims recite, as their final
`
`step, “sending the trade order to the exchange.” Indeed, the patent makes clear that
`
`its raison d’être is to facilitate “placing a trade order in an exchange.” Under
`
`“FIELD OF THE INVENTION,” the patent states that “[the invention] facilitates
`
`the display of and the rapid placement of trade orders.” ’304 patent, 1:19-21.
`
`TT further argues that “[t]he claimed GUI is unlike the generic GUIs
`
`mentioned in … Mortgage Grader or Capital One.” POR, 24. But, contrary to
`
`TT’s assertion, those interfaces were no more “generic” than TT’s GUI. In Capital
`
`One the claim recited “an interactive interface” configured to dynamically display
`
`certain information (navigation data) to a user, just as the ’304 patent claims a
`
`method for “dynamically displaying” certain information (bids/asks) to the user.
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015). Also, the Capital One claim recited that the “interactive interface” was
`
`divided into separate display portions, displaying different information, just as the
`
`’304 patent claims displaying information in different “regions.” Id. at 1369.
`
`Similarly, in Mortgage Grader the claim recited “a first interface” and “a
`
`second interface,” the latter of which included separate components and a display
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`region (e.g., “borrower grading module,” display of “total cost” of each loan).
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1381. In other words, the interfaces in Capital One
`
`and Mortgage Grader were recited with similar specificity to TT’s claims, and they
`
`were nevertheless patent-ineligible. TT’s claims are abstract and thus ineligible for
`
`the same reason.
`
`Testimony from TT’s expert, Dr. Olsen, is not to the contrary. Indeed, Dr.
`
`Olsen admitted that not only did he not apply the two-step Alice analysis, in fact he
`
`had not even heard of Alice. (Ex. 1025; Dep. Tr. 38:7-39:14.) Dr. Olsen further
`
`admitted that the patent claims do not recite specialized hardware (Id. at 96:19-22,
`
`97:6-8), that “[i]t was the speed with what the user could find a particular price that
`
`was improved” (Id. at 123:16-18), and that the claims did not make the computer
`
`run faster, use less energy, or operate more efficiently. (Id. at 57:18-58:13.)
`
`IV. TT’s Claims Fail Alice Step 2
`
`e. TT fails to identify any specific “inventive concept”
`
`TT argues that its claims pass Alice Step 2 because “they recite an inventive
`
`concept.” POR, 25. But TT fails to articulate – either taking the claim limitations
`
`individually or as an ordered combination – exactly what that inventive concept is.
`
`Rather, the Response speaks in generalities without pointing to specific claim
`
`language. The closest TT comes to articulating an inventive concept is to assert
`
`that “TT’s claims recite structural details of a specific GUI that functions
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`differently from prior art GUIs to solve GUI-centric problems.” POR, 28. But that
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`is a broad statement of general functionality and not a specific, particular concept,
`
`as required by Alice Step 2. See, e.g., Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *7 (“The
`
`inventive concept described and claimed … is the installation of a filtering tool as
`
`a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features
`
`specific to each end user.”). Consequently, because TT has not even alleged what
`
`the inventive concept is, it necessarily cannot satisfy Alice Step 2.
`
`Beyond that, TT argues that the claims “recite significantly more” than an
`
`abstract idea for three reasons. POR, 27. TT is wrong on all three counts.
`
`First, TT wrongly asserts that “the claimed combination specifies the GUI
`
`features and functionality with great detail rather than at a high level of
`
`generality.” Id. As explained above, the claims simply recite four displaying steps
`
`that arrange market information into a grid – a well-known practice – and then
`
`another step for setting parameters and sending an order in response to user input.
`
`The claims lack an inventive concept because they do not provide any
`
`technological details about how the various regions are to be displayed, or how the
`
`“setting” and “sending” are accomplished. Put simply, TT’s claims comprise steps
`
`identifying what information is to be displayed and functionality is to be included,
`
`but they fail to specify how those steps are to be carried out by a computer. As the
`
`CAFC recently explained, even lengthy claims that “do not go beyond requiring
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field,
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means
`
`for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional
`
`computer and network technology,” are not patent-eligible. Alstom, 2016 WL
`
`4073318, at *1. And the specification states that “the present invention can be
`
`implemented on any existing or future terminal or device” “by any technique
`
`known to those skilled in the art.” ’304 patent, 4:8-9, 5:4-5. Such conventional
`
`components and techniques add nothing to the abstract claims because they are
`
`generic and represent “basic functions.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354, 2359.
`
`Moreover, displaying order entry regions and allowing a trader to click a
`
`mouse to set parameters and send an order, regardless of how much detail is
`
`recited, is simply a matter of applying the abstract idea. Id. at 2350 (“Neither
`
`stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it’, nor limiting the use of an
`
`abstract idea ‘to a particular technological environment is enough for patent
`
`eligibility.’”) (internal citations omitted).
`
`Second, TT argues that the claims recite “significantly more” because “the
`
`claimed combination of GUI features and functionality is the solution rather than
`
`pre-solution or post-solution activity.” POR, 27 (emphasis in original). What the
`
`emphasized language is supposed to mean, or how it is relevant to the Step 2
`
`analysis, is not explained. Regardless, claims such as here that merely organize
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`market information into a grid, without otherwise reciting anything more than
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`conventional elements, lack an “inventive concept.” See
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
