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 CBM2015-001721
`Patent No. 7,783,556
`
`___________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case CBM2016-00040 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 CBM2015-001721
`Patent No. 7,783,556
`
`___________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case CBM2016-00040 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`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 ....................................................................................................................... 4
`a.
`The Board’s articulation of the abstract idea is proper and correct .............. 4
`b.
`TT’s claims do not improve the functioning of the computer ...................... 5
`c.
`TT’s claims are abstract ................................................................................ 9
`d.
`TT’s claims are directed to a fundamental economic or longstanding
`commercial practice .............................................................................................. 12
`e.
`TT’s preemption arguments are flawed ...................................................... 13
`IV. TT’s CLAIMS FAIL ALICE STEP 2 ............................................................ 14
`a.
`TT claims do not include an “inventive concept” ....................................... 14
`b.
`TT’s claims are not “more technological than the claims in DDR” ........... 18
`c.
`TT’s claims do not pass the machine-or-transformation test ...................... 20
`V. CBM JURISDICTION ................................................................................... 21
`VI. THE CLAIMS COVER SIGNALS ............................................................... 23
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,783,556 to Scott F. Singer, et al. (“’556
`patent”)
`Prosecution History of the ’556 patent
`Lodewijk Petram, “The World’s First Stock Exchange”
`Ellen Terrell, “History of the American and NASDAQ Stock
`Exchanges”, September, 2006 (Updated October, 2012)
`U.S. Patent 6,317,728 (Kane)
`Case No. 10-cv-0715 (N.D. Ill.) (Complaint for Patent
`Infringement)
`CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc. v. Frontline Technologies,
`Inc., CBM2012-00005, Paper No. 17 (Jan. 23, 2013)
`157 Cong. Rec. S5402 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011)
`SAP v. Versata, CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 36 (Jan. 9, 2013)
`The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
`4th Ed.
`The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3d
`Ed.
`MPEP 2106
`Patent Trial Practice Guide
`Volusion, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., CBM2013- 00018,
`Institution Decision, Paper No. 8
`Declaration in support of Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Adam Kessel
`Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4th ed.), definition
`of “data processing”
`Deposition transcript of Eric Gould-Bear
`Excerpts from deposition transcript of Dan R. Olsen, Jr., IBG
`LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. (P.T.A.B. July 28, 2016)
`Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.), definition
`of “data processing”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Throughout its Response (“POR”), Patent Owner (“TT”) casts its invention
`
`as the “features and functionality of a GUI tool.” POR, 6. But that’s not what is
`
`claimed. Rather, the claims recite method steps that use a GUI to receive market
`
`information, compute values based on that information, and then display the
`
`computed values at locations on a screen – i.e., to perform basic computer
`
`functions. The claims make no mention of a “tool,” nor do they include structure,
`
`other than a generic “computing device,” for performing the recited functions.
`
`And the specification states that those functions can be accomplished using
`
`conventional components and programming techniques. See, e.g., ‘556 patent, Fig.
`
`3; 3:59-4:11, 5:1-9, 5:49-6:14, 6:46-58. There is nothing new about the
`
`information being displayed, and TT admits that it is not processed or used to
`
`generate new data. See POR, 32-33 (asserting that its GUI does not “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.
`
`Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., No. 2015-1778, 2016 WL 4073318, at *1 (Fed.
`1
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`
`Cir. Aug. 1, 2016). Here, TT’s claims recite the display of information in a
`
`particular field, namely financial markets, and do so without limiting them to any
`
`unconventional technological means. Indeed, the patent expressly discloses that
`
`“the present invention [is] appropriate for use in any electronic trading screen, and
`
`work[s] particularly well with a trading screen similar to that shown in [prior art]
`
`FIG. 2.” ‘556 patent, 3:8-11. Consequently, TT’s claims fall squarely within the
`
`definition of patent-ineligible subject matter.
`
`TT’s other arguments are similarly flawed as discussed below. Accordingly,
`
`the Board should find TT’s claims patent-ineligible.
`
`II. TT’S CLAIMED METHOD OF DISPLAYING MARKET
`INFORMATION IS NOT A TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE
`The first six pages of the POR disingenuously recasts its claimed method as
`
`a “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 steps for receiving market information,
`
`computing profit & loss (“P&L”) values based on that information, and then
`
`displaying the P&L values at locations on a screen – all basic computer functions.
`
`The claims do not recite a “tool,” nor do they include structure for performing the
`
`recited functions, other than a generic “computing device.”
`
`Despite these facts, TT argues that its claims are eligible because “no claim
`
`… is merely directed to calculating a P&L value or simply displaying financial
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`
`information received from exchange data feeds to facilitate trading on a generic
`
`display.” POR, 2. But TT fails to identify a single claim element to support this
`
`position, nor could it as that is exactly what its claims are “merely directed to.”
`
`Rather, TT waves its hand asserting “[t]he claims require a specialized GUI that
`
`does not exist on generic computers or display.” Id. But this assertion contradicts
`
`the ‘556 patent, which throughout discloses that “[t]he system and method of the
`
`preferred embodiments are appropriate for use in any electronic trading
`
`environment,” which the patent then goes on to depict in Fig. 3, and describe as
`
`“comprising various elements … all of which will be apparent to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.” ‘556 patent 3:59-4:11. See also 5:1-9 (“Gateways … may include
`
`any computing device such as a main-frame, super minicomputer, minicomputer,
`
`workstation, or personal computer.”); 5:49-6:14 (describing that generic displays,
`
`processors, and memory may be used); 6:46-58 (describing that the system
`
`software may be “any other suitable programming language.”).
`
`TT further argues that its claims include “inventive features” that confer
`
`eligibility because “[i]n the Notice of Allowance, the PTO found novelty and
`
`nonobviousness in the claimed GUI over the prior art of record.” POR, 5. But this
`
`assertion merely states a truism: every patent was deemed allowable over the prior
`
`art during original prosecution. As such, that the ‘556 patent was allowed is
`
`irrelevant. Moreover, even if TT’s claims included a novel or non-routine element,
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`
`which they do not,2 that alone is insufficient to impart eligibility. Ultramercial,
`
`Inc. v. Hulu LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he addition of merely
`
`novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea [does not] necessarily turn[]
`
`an abstraction into something concrete.”). See also, Ass’n for Molecular
`
`Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2117 (2013)
`
`(“Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy
`
`the § 101 inquiry.”)
`
`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 “providing a trader with financial information to
`
`facilitate market trades.” ID, 22. Contrary to TT’s assertions (POR, 8-10), in
`
`formulating that abstract idea neither the Board nor Petitioner improperly
`
`“overgeneralized” the claim or “ignore[d] almost of the claim terms.” POR, 8.
`
`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.” Alstom, 2016 WL 4073318, at *3.
`
`
`2 See, e.g., Petition at 30-31.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`Moreover, the CAFC has regularly articulated a claim’s abstract idea in
`
`
`
`succinct terms, even for verbose claims, without giving effect to each limitation.
`
`See, e.g., LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., No. 2014-1435, 2016 WL 3974203, at
`
`*4 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2016) (reducing an 11-step claim to a two-word abstract
`
`idea: “coordinating loans”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 714 (reducing an 11-step
`
`claim to “[using an] advertisement as an exchange or currency”); Mortgage
`
`Grader, Inc. v. First 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
`
`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, 10-13), 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 a step for receiving market
`
`information from another computer (the exchange), steps to “identify” and
`
`“comput[e]” certain values, and then three steps for displaying information based
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`
`on the identification and computation steps.3 But receiving, identifying, computing
`
`and displaying information are what computers have been doing for decades;
`
`indeed, that is what they were designed to do. The recited steps in no way make
`
`the computer run faster, more efficiently, use less energy, etc. Even TT’s expert
`
`admitted that no such improvements to the computer occur as a result of
`
`performing similar steps. (Ex. 1018; Olsen Dep., 57:18-58:13.) To the contrary,
`
`the computer itself remains essentially the same before, during and after
`
`performing the method steps. Indeed, the ‘556 patent acknowledges that the prior
`
`art computers performed essentially the same functions as claimed. See, e.g., ‘556
`
`patent, 1:52-2:4 (describing the prior art trading screen shown in Fig. 1, which
`
`includes “pre-set fields, properties, and buttons that can help someone trade
`
`quickly and efficiently.”) and 2:5-17 (describing the prior art trading screen shown
`
`in Fig. 2, which “displays, among other things, bids 202 and offers 204 in
`
`association with price values along axis 206. Thus, a trader may view the market as
`
`it moves relative to price values on axis 206.”). What is displayed may differ, but
`
`the basic computer functions are the same whether the trader is using the prior art
`
`
`3 Although independent claims 1 and 12 use the term “displaying” only twice, the
`
`“moving” step is effectively a displaying step because it causes the GUI display to
`
`change such that a “first indicator” visually moves from “a first location” to “a
`
`second location” on the screen.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`
`Fig. 1 and 2 GUIs or the allegedly inventive Fig. 8 GUI. In short, nothing about
`
`receiving, identifying, computing, or displaying information 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 previously
`
`caused by the computer.”4 POR, 11. 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, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to “a specific type of data structure
`
`designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory.”).
`
`Rather, the problem according to the ‘556 patent was that traders needed 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.” ‘556 Patent, 2:28-30. As the Board correctly found “[t]his
`
`is not a technical problem but a business problem.” ID, 15. And the solution –
`
`
`4 The Board should give no weight to TT's Experts Olsen and Gould-Bear because
`
`they did not analyze or the '556 patent. Ex. 1018 at p.20; Ex. 1017 at p.40-41.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`
`simply using “known computer technology, such as display devices or software” to
`
`display another item of well-known market information – is not a technical
`
`solution. Id.
`
`TT also asserts that computer functioning is improved by “a new, particular
`
`value axis and display and movement of indicators along the value axis to provide
`
`access to highly relevant information that was not previously accessible or
`
`understandable in an efficient manner.” Id. In other words, TT asserts that simply
`
`adding a “value axis” to the prior art interface of Fig. 2, as shown below, improves
`
`the functioning of the computer. Id.
`
`
`
`But the supposedly inventive “value axis” does not improve or otherwise
`
`change the basic functionality of the computer. Rather, adding the value axis does
`
`nothing more than make use of the existing functionality of a computer to perform
`8
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`
`simple arithmetic, which could be and traditionally was performed mentally,5 or
`
`using a pen and paper, and display the result on the screen. Using a computer “for
`
`no more than its most basic function—making calculations or computations—fails
`
`to circumvent the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas and mental
`
`processes.” Bancorp Serv., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266,
`
`1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). And simply displaying an additional column of well-known
`
`information – P&L – also is insufficient to confer eligibility. Alstom, 2016 WL
`
`4073318, at *5 (“[T]he claim requirement of ‘displaying concurrent visualization’
`
`of two or more types of information” does not impart patentability).
`
`With regard to usability, TT’s GUI does not provide any new functionality
`
`or make it any simpler to interact with the GUI – the user still reads market
`
`information from a grid displayed on the GUI. The data displayed is no more
`
`accurate than in the prior art, and TT’s GUI does not respond any faster to
`
`changing market data. TT’s assertion that usability of the GUI is improved simply
`
`has no basis in reality.
`
`c. TT’s claims are abstract
`In asserting that its claims are “undoubtedly not abstract,” TT analogizes its
`
`“GUI tool” to physical entities “such as a chip architecture, an LED display and the
`
`
`5 Indeed, the ’556 patent recognizes that such “quick mental calculations” were
`
`traditionally performed by traders. ’556 patent, 2:22-25.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`
`like.” POR, 13. 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 misguided.
`
`First, TT’s claims do not recite a “GUI tool” much less a “physical entity,”
`
`but rather a “method for displaying market information.” ‘556 patent, claim 1; 1:8-
`
`9 (“[T]he present invention relates to displaying market information on a screen.”).
`
`As noted above, the mere rearrangement and display of information is not patent-
`
`eligible. Alstom, 2016 WL 4073318, at *5 (“[T]he claim requirement of
`
`‘displaying concurrent visualization’ of two or more types of information” does not
`
`impart patentability); CyberSource, 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“The
`
`mere manipulation or reorganization of data” does not impart patent eligibility.).
`
`Second, TT never attempts to explain how an arrangement of data on a
`
`trading screen is “physical.” Unlike in Enfish, where the claim in question was
`
`directed at something physical – “a data storage and retrieval system” – TT’s
`
`claims are directed at method steps – simply receiving market data, performing
`
`identification and computation operations on that data, and then displaying the
`
`results. As the court noted, the claims in Enfish actually changed something about
`
`how the computer operated—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 screen. The basic structure and functionality of the computer
`
`is unaffected. In no sense does changing the format of data on a screen change the
`
`fundamental operation of the computer– it still performs calculations and displays
`10
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`
`information using conventional hardware and software both before and after TT’s
`
`alleged invention.
`
`TT further argues that its claims survive Alice Step 1 because “GUIs are
`
`clearly technology.” POR, 14. TT is misguided for the following 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 “providing a trader with financial information to facilitate
`
`market trades,” as the Board correctly found in the ID.
`
`Further, even if a GUI is considered “technology,” the mere fact that an
`
`otherwise abstract claim also includes bits of conventional technology – e.g., a
`
`generic reference to a “graphical user interface” – is irrelevant. Many claims have
`
`been found fatally abstract even though they included conventional elements 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 computing device, and an electronic exchange – all are
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`
`conventional components being used in their customary manner to achieve
`
`predictable results, and thus are insufficient to impart patent eligibility.
`
`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,
`
`16. But TT ignores the fact that, according to the patent, “[t]he present invention
`
`relates to electronic trading.” ‘556 patent, 1:7. And the claims refer to “tradeable
`
`object[s],” which the specification defines as including “stocks, options, bonds,
`
`futures, currency, and warrants, as well as funds, derivatives … and all types of
`
`commodities, such as grains, energy, and metals.” Id., 4:35-38. Trading on such
`
`things is “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of
`
`commerce,” and is an abstract idea similar to those courts have repeatedly held
`
`abstract and ineligible. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356.
`
`TT further argues that “[t]he claimed GUI is unlike the generic GUIs
`
`mentioned in … Mortgage Grader or Capital One.” POR, 18. But those
`
`interfaces were no more “generic” than TT’s. In Capital One the claim recited “an
`
`interactive interface” configured to display certain information (navigation data) to
`
`a user, just as the ‘556 patent claims a method for “displaying” certain information
`
`(P&L) 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
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`
`“interactive interface” was divided into separate display portions that displayed
`
`different information, just as the ‘556 patent claims displaying information in
`
`different “locations.” 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
`
`region (e.g., “borrower grading module,” display of “total cost” of each loan).
`
`Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1381. In other words, the interfaces in Capital One
`
`and Mortgage Grader were recited with specificity similar to TT’s claims, and they
`
`were held patent-ineligible. TT’s claims are abstract and thus ineligible for the
`
`same reason.
`
`e. TT’s preemption arguments are flawed
`TT asserts that its claims are patent-eligible because they do not preempt the
`
`abstract idea of “providing a trader with financial information to facilitate market
`
`trades.” POR, 19. But a preemption analysis is unnecessary because “questions on
`
`preemption are inherent in and resolved by the §101 analysis.” Ariosa Diagnostics,
`
`Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). And not only is a
`
`separate analysis of preemption unnecessary, TT’s attempt at such an analysis is
`
`flawed.
`
`First, to the extent preemption is considered in a patent-eligibility analysis, it
`
`is used to determine whether the claims include an inventive concept, not whether
`
`they are directed to an abstract idea as TT suggests. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358.
`13
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`Second, “the mere existence of a non-preempted use of an abstract idea does
`
`
`
`not prove that a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter.” Vehicle
`
`Intelligence and Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 635 F. App’x 914, 918
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1379 (“the absence of complete
`
`preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility”); OIP, 788 F.3d at 1362-63
`
`(“that the claims do not preempt all price optimization . . . do not make them any
`
`less abstract”). Accordingly, that there may be other methods for providing a
`
`trader with financial information to facilitate market trades does not establish that
`
`TT’s claims here are not directed to an abstract idea.
`
`IV. TT’s CLAIMS FAIL ALICE STEP 2
`a. TT claims do not include an “inventive concept”
`TT argues that its claims pass Alice Step 2 because they recite the inventive
`
`concept of “displaying via the computing device the plurality of values along a
`
`value axis.” POR, 26. In other words, TT asserts that simply adding a “value
`
`axis” displaying well-known financial information (P&L) to the prior art interface
`
`of Fig. 2 represents an inventive concept. Notably, TT cites no authority for the
`
`proposition that using a computer to display information can confer patent
`
`eligibility, nor could it because every CAFC decision that has considered that issue
`
`has held to the contrary.
`
`For example, in Alstom, the court held “claims [that] do not go beyond
`
`requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`
`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.” Alstom, 2016 WL 4073318, at
`
`*1. More particularly, the Alstom court considered the claim element “displaying
`
`concurrent visualization of measurements from the data streams and the dynamic
`
`stability metrics” and found that, even if it was understood to require a specific
`
`functionality (i.e., “time-synchronized display”), it did not qualify as an inventive
`
`concept because “the patent contains [no] suggestion that the displays needed for
`
`that purpose are anything but readily available.” Id. at *5. Here too, the ‘556
`
`patent claims lack an inventive concept because they merely display well-known
`
`information in a particular arrangement and do so using the conventional computer
`
`technology shown in Fig. 3 and described at 3:59-4:11, 5:1-9, 5:49-6:14, and 6:46-
`
`58. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d at 1370 (holding that neither the “dynamic
`
`presentation of data” nor an “interactive interface” qualified as an inventive
`
`concept); Mortgage Grader, 811F.3d at 1381 (claims reciting “a first interface”
`
`and “a second interface” lacked an inventive concept).
`
`TT further argues that the claims “recite significantly more” than an abstract
`
`idea for three reasons. POR, 21-22. TT is wrong on all three counts.
`
`First, TT wrongly asserts that “the claimed combination specifies the GUI
`
`features and functionality with a high level of detail rather than at a high level of
`
`generality.” Id. As explained above, the claims simply recite receiving market
`15
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`
`data, processing it (“identifying” and “computing”), and then displaying the
`
`results. The claims lack an inventive concept because they comprise steps
`
`identifying what information is to be displayed, but they fail to specify any
`
`technological details about how those steps are to be carried out by a computer. As
`
`the CAFC explained, even lengthy 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,” are not patent-eligible. Alstom, 2016 WL
`
`4073318, at *1. And the specification discloses that the claimed method is
`
`performed on conventional computer equipment using conventional software. See,
`
`e.g.,’556 patent, Fig. 3, 3:59-4:11, 5:1-9, 5:49-6:14, 6:46-58. 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, receiving market data, processing it, and then displaying the
`
`results, 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
`16
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`
`pre-solution or post-solution activity.” POR, 21-22 (emphasis theirs). 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 receive,
`
`process, and display market information, without otherwise reciting anything more
`
`than conventional elements, lack an “inventive concept.” See Alstom, 2016 WL
`
`4073318, at *3 (“[m]erely selecting information by content or source, for
`
`collection, analysis, and display” is not patent eligible.).
`
`Third, TT argues that the claims recite “significantly more” because “there is
`
`no evidence that the claimed combination of GUI functionality was routine and
`
`conventional.” POR, 22. But, as explained above, the patent admits that prior art
`
`trading GUIs such as in Fig. 2 received, processed, and displayed market
`
`information in trading screens having an axis. Fig. 2, 2:5-17. And even if the
`
`specific arrangement of information displayed was deemed to be novel, that alone
`
`is insufficient to impart patent eligibility. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 (“[T]he
`
`addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea [does not]
`
`necessarily turn[] an abstraction into something concrete.”).
`
`Further, TT repeats its argument – this time in the context of Alice Step 2 –
`
`that the claims are eligible because “the PTO found that the particular claimed GUI
`
`features are novel and nonobvious in view of the same art cited in the Petition.”
`
`POR, 25 (emphasis theirs). But, as discussed above, TT is simply stating a truism
`
`that has no relevance to this trial, namely, that all patents were previously allowed.
`17
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`
`Moreover, (i) the presumption of validity accorded to an issued patent, which TT is
`
`effectively asserting, does not apply in PTO proceedings, and (ii) the ‘556 patent
`
`was not examined under the current Mayo/Alice standard, which compels a
`
`different result than the §101 standard in effect when the patent was examined.
`
`Nevertheless, TT continues, asserting that both Petitioner and the Board
`
`failed to address the “reasons for allowance,” which state that the claims were
`
`allowable “[e]ven though[] the prior art of record teaches a method for displaying
`
`market information on a [GUI].” Id. This generic statement, TT argues, somehow
`
`establishes that “[t]he Examiner found novel and nonobvious features of the claims
`
`(i.e., features that present even more than an ‘inventive concept’) beyond the
`
`alleged abstract idea.” POR, 25-26. TT is confused. Where, as here, a “novel and
`
`nonobvious feature” (i.e., the “value axis, according to TT) is itself abstract, it
`
`cannot qualify as an inventive concept for eligibility
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
