`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 86
`Entered: March 31, 2017
`
`
`
`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,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-001721
`Patent No. 7,783,556 B1
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
` PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case CBM2016-00040 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`TradeStation Group, Inc. and TradeStation Securities, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) on August 12,
`2015, that requests review under the transitional program for covered
`business method patents of the AIA2 of U.S. Patent No. 7,783,556 B1 (Ex.
`1001, “the ’556 patent”). Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–
`22 (“the challenged claims”) of the ’556 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. On
`February 12, 2016, we instituted a covered business method patent review
`(Paper 18, “Institution Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”) based upon Petitioner’s
`assertion that claims 1–22 are directed to patent ineligible subject matter
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`Subsequent to institution, IBG LLC and Interactive Brokers LLC filed
`a Petition and Motion for Joinder with the instant proceeding. IBG LLC and
`Interactive Brokers LLC v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.,
`CBM2016-00040, Papers 3, 4. On April 4, 2016, we instituted a covered
`business method patent review and granted the Motion, joining IBG LLC
`and Interactive Brokers LLC as a petitioner in this covered business method
`patent review. Paper 23.
`Thereafter, Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“Patent Owner”)
`filed a Patent Owner’s Response on June 26, 2016 (Paper 43, “PO. Resp.”)
`and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 61, “Pet. Reply”) to Patent Owner’s
`Response.
`
`
`2 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 65, “Motion” or
`“Mot.”) and Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 67) to Patent Owner’s
`Motion. Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper 68) in support of its Motion.
`We held a joint hearing of this case and several other related cases on
`October 19, 2016. Paper 83 (“Tr.”).
`After oral hearing, the Federal Circuit issued a decision, Trading
`Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616, 2017 WL 192716 (Fed. Cir.
`Jan. 18, 2017), determining that claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,766,304 (“the
`’304 patent”) and 6,772,132 (“the ’132 patent”) are patent eligible under §
`101. The ’304 patent and the ’132 patent are directed to similar subject
`matter as the ’556 patent. Petitioner and Patent Owner, with authorization
`(Paper 79), each filed supplemental briefing addressing the impact of that
`decision on this proceeding. Paper 82; Paper 80 (“PO Br.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–22 of the ’556 patent are patent
`ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’556 patent is the subject of numerous related U.S. district court
`
`proceedings. Pet. 2–3; Paper 5, 2–6; Paper 26, 1.
`
`
`C. The ’556 Patent
`The ’556 patent is titled “System and Method for Displaying Order
`
`Information in Relation to a Derivative of Price” and issued from an
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`application filed on March 12, 2004. Ex. 1001, [54], [22]. The ’556 patent
`discloses that electronic exchanges provide data feeds to connected traders.
`See id. at 1:13–44. The data feeds are displayed to traders using “a variety
`of different formats, any of which would be known to one of ordinary skill
`in the art.” Id. at 1:45–47. The ’556 patent depicts two examples of typical
`displays or graphical user interfaces (“GUI”) in Figures 1 and 2. Id. at 1:47–
`2:17. Figures 1 and 2 are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`
`
`Figures 1 and 2 depict example prior art trading screens that convey
`
`market information received from an electronic exchange to a trader. Id. at
`2:48–54. In Figure 1, trading screen 100 has a mark grid section 104 that
`displays tradable object information, such as bid quantities 110, bid prices
`112, sell prices 114, and sell quantities 116. Id. at 1:56–64. Trading screen
`200 in Figure 2 displays the same type of information except that the bids
`202 and offers 204 are displayed in association with price values along an
`axis. Id. at 2:8–14. To place an order, a trader simply clicks on certain areas
`of trading screen 200, such as one of bids 202. See id. at 2:14–17.
`
`The ’556 patent discloses that traders are often interested in
`information not normally provided in an exchange’s data feed or displayed
`on a trading screen and discloses that the traders must make “quick mental
`calculations, use charting software, or look to other sources” for this
`information. Id. at 2:18–33. The ’556 patent, thus, discloses “a system and
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`method for displaying, on a trading screen, order information in relation to a
`derivative of price.” Id. at 2:34–38. A derivative of price is “anything that
`has some dependence on or relationship to price.” Id. at 3:33–34. Figure 8
`of the ’556 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 8 depicts an embodiment of a trading screen similar to trading
`
`screen 200 depicted in Figure 2, except that the value axis depicted in Figure
`8 includes price derivative information. The example price derivative
`information shown in Figure 8 is net change. Id. at 9:51–10:6. Net change
`is the value at a current point minus value at a reference point. Id. at 9:63–
`64. For the example depicted in Figure 8, the reference point is set at
`yesterday’s settlement price in unit of ticks (i.e., the minimum change in a
`price value that is set by the exchange for each tradable object), which was
`“125.” Id. at 9:53–57. The last traded price, indicated by the “5” in the last
`traded quantity indicator column, is “230” and, thus, the net change is 230–
`125 or +105 at the last traded price. Id. at 9:57–62. As can be seen from
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`Figure 8 above, a “+105” indicator is displayed next to the last traded price
`of “230.”
`
`The ’556 patent discloses another embodiment that has profit and loss
`as the price derivative information. Id. at 13:50–51.
`If a trader bought one lot of a particular tradeable object at “230”
`then . . . the value axis might include at “0” associated with the
`price of “230,” and then “+1” associated with “231,” “+2”
`associated with “232,” and so on, and “-1” associated with “229,”
`“-2” associated with “228,” and so on.
`Id. at 13:50–58.
`
`Traders open long positions in a tradeable object by agreeing to buy a
`quantity of units of the tradeable object or open short positions by agreeing
`to sell a quantity of units of the tradeable object. Pet. 7. A trader closes
`either position by buying or selling the same quantity of units as they
`currently own for the long position or are obligated to sell for a short
`position; thus, traders either make a profit, suffer a loss, or break even. Id.
`
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–22. Claims 1 and 12 are independent.
`Claim 1 recites a method, and claim 12 recites a computer readable medium
`having program code recorded thereon. Claims 2–11 depend, directly or
`indirectly, from claim 1, and claims 13–22 depend, directly or indirectly,
`from claim 12. Claim 1 of the ’556 patent is illustrative of the challenged
`claims and is reproduced below:
`1. A method for displaying market information on a graphical
`user interface, the method comprising:
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`
`receiving by a computing device a current highest bid price and
`a current lowest ask price for a tradeable object from an
`electronic exchange;
`identifying by the computer device a long or short position taken
`by a user with respect to the tradeable object, wherein the long
`position is associated with a quantity of the tradeable object that
`has been bought by the user at a price, and wherein the short
`position is associated with a quantity of the tradeable object that
`has been sold by the user at a price;
`computing by the computer device a plurality of values based on
`the long or short position, wherein each of the plurality of values
`represents a profit or loss if the long or short position is closed at
`a price level among a range of price levels for the tradeable
`object;
`displaying via the computing device the plurality of values along
`a value axis;
`displaying via the computing device a first indicator at a first
`location corresponding to a first value along the value axis,
`wherein the first indicator represents a particular price based on
`any of the following prices: current best bid, current best ask, and
`a last traded price, and wherein the first value represents a profit
`or loss incurred by the user if the long or short position is closed
`at a particular price; and
`moving the first indicator relative to the value axis to a second
`location corresponding to a second value along the value axis
`responsive to receipt of an update to the particular price, wherein
`the second value represents a profit or loss incurred by the user
`if the position is closed at the update to the particular price.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Requirements for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`
`Section 18 of the AIA 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
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`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.
`In compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a), Petitioner certifies that it
`has been sued for infringement of the ’556 patent. Pet. 14–15; Paper 5, 2.
`
`
`1. “Method or Corresponding Apparatus for Performing Data
`Processing or Other Operations Used in the Practice, Administration or
`Management of a Financial Product or Service”
`The statute defines a “covered business method patent” as
`[a] patent that 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); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). A covered business method
`patent can be broadly interpreted to encompass patents claiming activities
`that are financial in nature. Transitional Program for Covered Business
`Method Patents—Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and
`Technological Invention, 77 Fed. Reg. 48734, 48735 (Aug. 14, 2012); Blue
`Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1338–41 (Fed. Cir. 1331)
`(determining that a patent was a covered business method patent because it
`claimed activities that are financial in nature); Unwired Planet, LLC v.
`Google, Inc., 841 F.3d 1376, 1380 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that “we
`endorsed the ‘financial in nature’ portion of the standard as consistent with
`the statutory definition of ‘covered business method patent’ in Blue
`Calypso”); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1324–
`25 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the statute on its face covers a wide range of finance-
`related activities”).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`
`A patent need have only one claim directed to a covered business
`method to be eligible for review. 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,736 (Response to
`Comment 8). We take claim 1 as representative.
`
`Petitioner contends that the ’556 patent is a covered business method
`patent because it 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. Pet. 15–19; Pet. Reply 21–23.
`Petitioner argues that claim 1 is directed to a financial activity because it
`recites a method that facilitates financial trades in an electronic market, as
`indicated by certain financial claim elements. Pet. 17. Those claim
`elements include: bid prices, ask prices, last trade prices, and calculating
`monetary profits or losses. Id. Further, Petitioner contends that the claims
`of the ’566 patent are directed to performing “data processing or other
`operations,” as required by the statute. Pet. Reply 21–23.
`
`Patent Owner disagrees. Patent Owner does not dispute that the
`claims of the ’556 patent “include financial terms,” but disputes that the
`claims perform data processing or other operations, as required by the
`statute. PO Resp. 32–36. First, Patent Owner argues that “data processing”
`should be interpreted according to the definition of “data processing” found
`in the glossary for class 705 of the United States Patent Classification
`System, which is “[a] systematic operation on data in accordance with a set
`of rules which results in a significant change in the data.” Id. at 32–33
`(quoting Ex. 2121, 4 (emphasis original)). Patent Owner argues that the
`claims of the ’556 patent are not directed to data processing under this
`definition because the claims are concerned with displaying information in a
`specific manner and not concerned with processing the information that is
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`displayed. PO Resp. 33. With regards to “other operations,” Patent Owner
`asserts that the claimed invention is not directed to a business method. Id. at
`33–34. According to Patent Owner, the legislative history “makes clear that
`improvements to software tools or GUIs, even if used for trading or other
`financial activities, were intended to be outside the scope of CBM review.”
`Id. at 34 (quoting Ex. 1008, 7, 12, 157, Cong. Rec. S5428 (daily ed. Sept. 8,
`2011) (statements of Sens. Schumer and Durbin)).
`
`As an initial matter, Patent Owner’s arguments concerning the
`legislative history are not persuasive. Although the legislative history
`includes certain statements that certain novel software tools and graphical
`user interfaces that are used by the electronic trading industry worker are not
`the target of § 18 of the AIA (see PO Resp. 34–36 (reproducing statements
`by Senator Durbin and Schumer)), the language of the AIA, as passed, does
`not include an exemption for user interfaces for commodities from covered
`business method patent review. Indeed, “the legislative debate concerning
`the scope of a CBM review includes statements from more than a single
`senator. It includes inconsistent views . . . .” Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at
`1381. For example, in contrast to the statements quoted by Patent Owner,
`the legislative history also indicates that “selling and trading financial
`instruments and other securities” is intended to be in the scope of covered
`business method patent review. Ex. 1008, 31 (157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily
`ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statements of Sen. Schumer). “[T]he legislative history
`cannot supplant the statutory definition actually adopted . . . . The
`authoritative statement of the Board’s authority to conduct a CBM review is
`the text of the statute.” Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1381. Each claimed
`invention has to be evaluated individually to determine if it is eligible for a
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`covered business method patent review. A determination of whether a
`patent is eligible for a covered business method patent review under the
`statute is made on a case-by-case basis. 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b).
`Turning to the ’556 patent, we are persuaded by Petitioner that the
`’556 patent is a covered business method patent. According to the
`specification of the ’556 patent, “the invention relates to electronic trading”
`(id. at 1:7) and, in particular, to displaying information for a trader to
`analyze when making a trade (id. at 2:18–33). The information relates to
`tradable objects, which are financial products, such as stocks, options,
`bonds, futures, currency, etc. Id. at 4:32–38. The ’556 patent discloses that
`the invention involves processing the information for display—“[t]he traders
`receive the data feed, in one form or another, and their computers process
`the information.” Ex. 1001, 1:20–22; see also id. at 2:59–62 (“FIG. 4
`illustrates a flow diagram of an example process for generating a derivative
`of price axis and displaying . . . .”).
`The disclosed invention is reflected in claim 1 of the ’556 patent,
`which is directed to “[a] method for displaying market information on a
`graphical user interface.” Ex. 1001, 15:21–22. The claimed method recites
`steps of: receiving financial data from an electronic exchange; identifying a
`long or short position taken by a user with respect to a tradeable object;
`computing a plurality of values based on the long or short position, wherein
`the values represent a profit or loss if the long or short position closed at
`different price levels; and displaying the plurality of values along a value
`axis. Id. at 15:23–40. The claimed method also recites steps of displaying a
`first indicator at a first location corresponding to a first value and moving the
`first indicator to a second location corresponding to a second value in
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`response to receiving an update. Id. at 15:41–54. The first indicator
`represents a particular price based upon the price of the current best bid,
`current best ask, or a last traded price. Id. at 15:43–45.
`Electronic trading is a financial service or activity. Tradable objects
`are financial products. A method of computing and displaying financial
`information for a tradable object on a graphical user interface for use in
`electronic trading is a method for performing data processing or other
`operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial
`product or service. We, thus, are persuaded by Petitioner that the ’556
`patent is a covered business method patent. See Pet. 15–19; Pet. Reply 21–
`23.
`Patent Owner argues that the statute requires that the “data
`
`processing” cause a significant change in the data, and that data processing
`that merely displays the data, like the data processing disclosed in the ’556
`patent, is not significant. PO Resp. 32–33. Patent Owner’s argument is
`based upon the assumption that “data processing” in the statute is interpreted
`according to the definition of “data processing” found in the glossary for
`class 705 of the United States Patent Classification System. See Pet. 33.
`Patent Owner, however, does not sufficiently explain why this definition is
`controlling, as opposed to the plain meaning of “data processing.” Pfizer,
`Inc. v. Lee, 811 F.3d 466, 471 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Pet. Reply 22–23
`(providing other definitions of “data processing”). We, thus, are not
`persuaded that “data processing” as recited by the statute precludes data
`processing for the purpose of displaying the data. As pointed out above, the
`’556 patent, itself, discloses that a data feed of market information received
`from an electronic exchange is processed to compute and display an axis of
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`derivative price information. Ex. 1001, 1:20–22, 2:59–62. We, thus, are not
`persuaded that the ’556 patent does not claim “performing data processing . .
`. used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product
`or service.”
`In any event, the statute does not limit covered business method
`patents to only those that claim methods for performing data processing used
`in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or
`service. It includes methods for performing “other operations” used in the
`practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.
`Claim 1’s method of displaying market information on a graphical user
`interface is an operation used in the practice, administration, or management
`of a financial product or service. It is a method reciting an operation used in
`the practice, administration, or management of the financial service of
`trading a financial product.
` We determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that the ’556 patent is a covered business method patent.
`
`
`2. Technological Invention Exception
`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). 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 [1] recites a
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and [2]
`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. See Versata, 793 F.3d at 1326–27.
`The following claim drafting techniques, for example, typically do not
`render a patent a “technological invention”:
`(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.
`(c) Combining prior art structures to achieve the normal,
`expected, or predictable result of that combination.
`77 Fed. Reg. at 48,763–64.
`Petitioner contends that the claims of the ’556 patent do not recite a
`technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art and do
`not solve a technical problem using a technical solution. Pet. 19–23.
`Petitioner argues that the claims of the ’556 patent “make scant mention of
`any technology at all, much less novel and unobvious technology.” Id. at 20.
`Petitioner also argues that the ’556 patent solves the problem of traders
`needing to “‘make quick mental calculations, using charting software, or
`look to other sources to provide additional insight beyond what is normally
`provided by an exchange or a typical trading screen,’” which is not a
`technical problem. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:28–30). Petitioner asserts that
`“simply adding another well-known item of information . . . to a prior art
`trading screen” is not a technical solution. Id.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner disputes that the claims of the ’556 patent do not recite
`a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art and do
`not solve a technical problem using a technical solution. PO Resp. 36–42.
`According to Patent Owner, the ’556 patent claims a technological feature
`that is novel and unobvious over the prior art because it claims a
`“combination of computing of a plurality of values based on position and
`representing a profit or loss if the position is closed at the price level,
`displaying the plurality of values along a value axis, and displaying and
`moving indicators at locations along the value axis,” that is different from
`prior art GUIs. Id. at 37. In addition, Patent Owner argues that the ’556
`patent solves a technical problem using a technical solution because the
`problem of not providing certain market information, such as a price
`derivative, on a display is a technical problem with a GUI and not a business
`problem. Id. at 38–41.
`Claim 1 of the ’556 patent recites “a method for displaying market
`information on a graphical user interface.” Ex. 1001, 15:23. The first step
`of the method is to receive information via a computer for a tradeable object
`from an electronic exchange. Id. at 15:24–26. The ’556 patent discloses
`that known electronic exchanges provide data feeds to connected traders’
`computers. See id. at 1:13–30, 4:16–21. The data feeds typically include
`information such as best bid quantity and price; best ask quantity and price;
`last traded quantity; the previous day’s settlement price; the open price; and
`the closed price. Id. at 1:30–43. The ’556 patent discloses that trading
`screens or GUIs that display the information from the data feed are known.
`Id. at 1:45–2:17; Figs. 1–2. In particular, the ’556 patent discloses that one
`known trading screen or GUI displays market information along a value axis
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`having a range of price levels. Id. at 2:5–17; Fig. 2. Claim 1 requires a step
`of identifying via a computer a long or short position taken by a user with
`respect to the tradeable object and further defines the long or short position.
`Id. at 15:27–33. The ’556 patent discloses that a user chooses a particular
`price derivative to display by inputting information through a GUI or
`command-line entry. See id. at 8:37–9:6; Fig. 5; see also Pet. 22 (citing Ex.
`1005, 6:56–57, Fig. 19). The ’556 patent discloses that inputting devices
`such as a keyboard or mouse are conventional. Ex. 1001, 6:26–31. In
`addition, the ’556 patent states:
`It is further understood that the programs, processes, method and
`apparatus described herein are not related or limited to any
`particular type of computer or network apparatus (hardware or
`software) unless indicated otherwise. Various types of general
`purpose or specialized computer apparatus or computing device
`may be used with or perform operations in accordance with the
`teachings described here.
`Ex. 1001, 14:63–15:2. The ’556 patent, itself, indicates that the
`technological features recited by claim 1 are known technologies.
`We determine that at least claim 1 of the ’556 patent does not recite a
`technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art, as
`required by the first prong of the test to determine whether a patent is for a
`technological invention. Notwithstanding that both prongs must be satisfied
`in order for a patent to be excluded as a technological invention, we analyze
`whether the ’556 patent satisfies the second prong—whether it solves a
`technical problem using a technical solution.
`
`The ’556 patent discloses that:
`[i]n addition to viewing traditional-style trading screens, traders
`are often interested in analyzing other pieces of highly relevant
`information that are not normally provided in an electronic
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`
`exchange’s data feed nor displayed by a trading screen. For
`instance, they might make quick mental calculations, use
`charting software, or look to other sources to provide additional
`insight beyond what is normally provided by an exchange or a
`typical trading screen. Some even trade directly off this
`information. Regardless of what source or sources a trader might
`use, it may be too difficult for the trader to quickly assimilate this
`highly relevant information from diverse and often unrelated
`sources or even effectively process all of the information to make
`informed trades.
`Ex. 1001, 2:18– 30. The ’556 patent discloses that such information can be
`profit and loss information. Id. at 13:50–14:3.
`
`As can be seen from the above, the problem disclosed in the ’556
`patent is that traders need additional information on a trading screen to
`effectively analyze the market. As Petitioner points out, this is not a
`technical problem but a business problem. See Pet. 19, 22–23.
`Patent Owner disputes that the problem is a business problem and
`argues that the problem is a technical one. PO Resp. 38–40. Patent Owner
`argues that the problem solved by the ’556 patent is that “highly relevant
`information is not accessible or understandable in an efficient manner” and
`asserts that the ’556 patent solves this problem by providing a GUI that
`“more effectively provid[es] highly relevant information to a user in a way
`that allows them to understand and effectively process it.” Id. at 40. Patent
`Owner asserts that “[t]here can be no dispute that GUIs are technological in
`nature.” Id. at 37.
`Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive. The inaccessibility or
`understandability of information to a trader is not a technical problem. A
`GUI that displays market information is not a technical solution to a
`technical problem. GUIs that display market information in similar
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`arrangements were known. See Ex. 1001, 2:5–17; Fig. 2 (reproduced
`above). Mere recitation of known technologies and recitations of the use of
`known prior art technology to accomplish a process or method, even if that
`process or method is novel and non-obvious, do not render a patent a
`technological invention. 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,763–64. Additionally, we note
`that although independent claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 1, claim
`12 does not recite a GUI.
`Patent Owner proffers the testimony of Eric Gould-Bear and Dan
`Olsen to show that GUIs are technology and the claimed invention is a
`technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., PO Resp. 37 (citing Ex.
`2168 ¶¶ 25–28, Ex. 2174 ¶¶ 6–27, testimony of Eric Gould-Bear and Dan
`Olsen, respectively). The testimony of Mr. Gould-Bear and Dr. Olsen is
`unpersuasive because, although their testimony addresses related patents, it
`does not specifically address the claimed invention of the ’556 patent. For
`example, Mr. Gould-Bear’s testimony is directed to U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,766,304, 7,767,411, and 6,772,132. See Ex. 2168 ¶ 25 (addressing the
`inventiveness of “TT Patents”), ¶ 1 (defining “TT Patents” as U.S. Patent
`Nos. 6,766,304; 7,767,411; 6,772,132). Likewise, Dr. Olsen’s testimony is
`related to U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304 and not the claimed invention of the
`’556 patent. See Ex. 2174 ¶ 6. The claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,766,304,
`7,767,411, and 6,772,132 recite features not recited by the claims of the ’556
`patent. See, e.g., Ex. 3006, 12:2–27 (claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`reciting, for example, static display of prices).
`We determine that at least claim 1 of the ’556 patent does not recite a
`technical solution to a technical problem, as required by the second prong of
`the test to determine whether a patent is for a technological invention. As
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00172
`Patent 7,783,556 B1
`
`the ’556 patent is a covered business method patent and is not precluded for
`being a technological invention, the ’556 patent is eligible for covered
`business method patent review.
`
`
`B. Claim Construction
`In a covered business method patent review, the Board interprets
`claim terms in an unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.
`2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard). Under that standard, and absent any special
`definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 148